Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by David Quinn »

brokenhead wrote:
DQ wrote:All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms.
I could almost agree with this. If the word unknowable were replaced by the word unknown, I would agree.
What is beyond consciousness is unknowable by definition. It cannot be known or experienced by anyone or anything.

Consciousness cannot step outside of itself and peek at what lies beyond consciousness.

-
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Kevin Solway »

Fujaro wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:The past exists for essentially the same reason that A=A does. It does so because of memory.
Oh, and memories can't be false? Is this the hotline-with-god-thing again?
Memories that are false are actually not memories at all, but something else.

Some degree of memory is required to affirm that 1 = 1. If a person doesn't have sufficient memory to perform this operation — and a great many people don't — then they won't be able to think logically.
Kevin Solway wrote:
Fujaro wrote:If so, how is it possible that there appears an appaerance of a logical "I"?
All things, such as the "I", arise because they are caused to.
The magical boogeyman must be working overtime causing all these magical events all over the place.
Things are always caused by that which is other than themselves. In the case of a thing such as an "I" - it is necessarily caused by that which is not itself. There's no need to imagine a magical boogeyman.
But in any case we're clear on the fact that "I" is an appearance. It appears to us and its real origin, cause or route from cause to perception can't be traced. Then why should this appearance of "I" be free from error?
An appearance is just an appearance. So long as we don't infer anything else from it, we can't be in error.

For example, in the desert I may perceive what appears to be water on the horizon. So long as I consider it to be only the appearance of water, I can't go wrong. If instead I think it is more than just an appearance, I may be disappointed when I discover that it is a mirage.

Further, let's say that, after a long treck through this desert I arrive at the shore of a lake and drink from the water. This too is only appearance, since I may be dreaming the whole thing.

And let's say that the whole scientific community tests the existence of this water, and finds it to be real. This too is only appearance.

Fujaro wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:I can imagine all unknown things being part of the one category.
That is a nifty bag of tricks to pop up the missing parts if needed. So here are all our future thoughts hiding to be risen from the nothing?
It's not "nothing", but rather a category of things, the details of which we are as yet unaware of, or may never be aware of. The unknown is not nothing.

Kevin Solway wrote:It doesn't matter that things are appearances within snapshots, since snapshots, by definition, exist within time, and the "I", outside of time altogether.
Like god outside the natural world?
I wouldn't say outside of the natural world, since, for me, the natural world includes logic, but outside of the empirical, or material world.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to ask the question of questions: whatever made you cause the big bang 13.7 billion years ago?
I didn't have any choice. It was my fate.
User avatar
tek0
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:31 pm

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by tek0 »

Yes so true much to this life....I have had plants....fucking alert me to be3ing chopped down in realy time from over 15 miles away.

Do not get me started on how it happened. I am prepared for our future and yet it has been stashed and hoarded.


DO not test me...


The effort it requires was like watching Virtual Reality of every god damned sequence of my life over the USA continent with not only situation specifics but straight up random eventuals occuring to the point that I began to wonder myself WTF.


They offered me retraction and yet I stayed because I liked it.


My trips to africa, the links to "MY" plants, the continental fucing extractions they offered me.


Funny part is I am still a kid just as I was when that shit occured and I will say that I see only one end and our species mirrors it only in one end.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

David and Kevin, please could you answer the following questions for me:

1) Are there other conscious minds than the "I"?
2) Can you perceive all aspects of your own conscious mind?
3) Which aspects of your own conscious mind can you perceive with absolute certainty?
4) Do animals have conscious minds?
5) What is your explanation for the existence of consistency in behaviour and interaction of 'things'?
6) Why is there a difference between dreaming about a form and awake perception?
7) Can you be wrong about your view that consciousness neccessitates all of existence?
8) What other necessary conditions for existence beside consciousness do you allow?
9) Why do some of the things I consciously think about, not form itself, while others I don't consciously think about appear in front of me?
10) Is unconscious thought possible?
11) Do opponents in debate have existence or are you arguing with yourself?
12) Why is there a difference in quality between dreaming and being awake?
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Kevin Solway »

Fujaro wrote: 1) Are there other conscious minds than the "I"?
There appear to be.
2) Can you perceive all aspects of your own conscious mind?
Can a fingertip touch itself?

The question has a wrong foundation.
3) Which aspects of your own conscious mind can you perceive with absolute certainty?
See above.
4) Do animals have conscious minds?

I am an animal, and I am conscious.

Whether other animals are conscious or not is a matter for empirical science to decide. Therefore it will be speculation.
5) What is your explanation for the existence of consistency in behaviour and interaction of 'things'?

Causation.

Take a fountain for example. It's shape is changing from moment to moment, and it is not exactly the same from one moment to the next, yet there is a consistency of form over time. The consistency of form is a result of its causes.
6) Why is there a difference between dreaming about a form and awake perception?
The more consistency we find in our experience the more likely we are to think we are awake. It is an arbitrary judgement.

Is a fundamentalist Christian awake or dreaming? I would say they are dreaming.
7) Can you be wrong about your view that consciousness neccessitates all of existence?
No, but our correctness is a result of the way we define those particular terms.
8) What other necessary conditions for existence beside consciousness do you allow?
The cause of consciousness. The category that contains all unknown causes.
9) Why do some of the things I consciously think about, not form itself, while others I don't consciously think about appear in front of me?
They are caused to.
10) Is unconscious thought possible?

No — not if we define "thought" to be a conscious activity.
11) Do opponents in debate have existence or are you arguing with yourself?

Opponents in debate appear to exist.
12) Why is there a difference in quality between dreaming and being awake?
There is a difference in the degree of consistency we experience.

However, many people are unable to distinguish when they are awake and when they are dreaming (eg, the religious, irrational people, etc).
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Jason »

Jason wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Instead of positing consciousness as a necessity in this, why not just simply assert that appearances alone exist? Adding consciousness to the mix could be seen as an unnecessary extra step.

If I was talking to someone who has already broken down the illusion of materialism/objectivism, you would have a point. But Fujaro is still locked into the view that the world objectively exists.

In the same way that I utlize the word "God" when talking to Christians and the like, I like to utlize the objectivist conceptions when talking to objectivists. There is no way around this, short of allowing oneself to disappear over people's heads. You have to use conceptions that people are familiar with.
Ok, I thought you might say that. That's fair enough. One reason I asked is that I can't remember you ever delving into these issues without including consciousness in the equation before. Since you eventually eliminate even the idea that all is appearance, I should have guessed that eliminating consciousness from the scene would make sense to you too.
Jason wrote:
I've always found this argument of yours kind of odd, you refer to it as the "hidden void" in Wisdom of the Infinite. Is it really necessary that there must be something beyond consciousness, something beyond appearances?

There is if it appears to us.

From the objectivist point of view, the past history of the world appears to be objectively real, which thus generates the problem of what existed in the world before consciousness arose. The "hidden void" is the only possible answer.

If one sees through the objectivist outlook, and thus sees through the "problems" which are generated by it, then fine. We don't need conceptions like the hidden void. But not many people have reached that level of insight.
I didn't know this about your philosophy before. Given how late in Wisdom of the Infinite the hidden void appears, and that from memory you don't provide a negation of the hidden void later on in Wisdom, I'd always assumed it was a fundamental piece of your philosophy that was never dropped with further philosophical progress.
Jason wrote:
Suppose the All were split into only two parts, two "things". Let's call those two things "A" and "B". Where "A" ends, "B" begins; and where "B" ends, "A" begins. They mutually support each other. Co-dependence is enough, I see no reason why there must be anything existing beyond those two things in such a scenario. Basically what I'm saying is that a finite number of finite things could mutually support each other's existence, and that all of those things could exist as appearances. So no need for a hidden void.
What about when "A" refers to the entire realm of consciousness (or if you don't like the word "consciousness", the entire realm of experience)? What is its corresponding "B"?
If A refers to the entire realm of consciousness then B is subsumed by A; at least if we start with the premise that consciousness is necessarily everything by default.

But maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say originally, above. I was suggesting that appearances might constitute the entirety of the Totality. If that were the case, the Totality could be experienced in its entirety, as a collection of finite things/appearances. All these things/appearances could exist in a web of mutually dependent existence. A supports B, and B supports A. Because they are mutually supporting, mutually contrasting, there is no need for a C( something outside and contrasting against A and B.)

So the appearances support each other's existence in a mutually dependent way, and thus there is no need for anything beyond appearances to be the cause of appearances. They are self-sufficient, in a sense.

Maybe this agrees with your conception of consciousness/appearances and the Totality, I'm not sure. You always seemed to want to posit something external to appearances, as the cause of appearances. I suppose that was what the hidden void was about, and you've now said that it is not necessary, but I'm still not sure I completely understand your ideas in this area.

Also, according to your views, is the Totality necessarily a unity, lacking divisions, or is the collection of all finite things the Totality too?
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Jason »

[deleted]
Last edited by Jason on Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

DQ wrote:What is beyond consciousness is unknowable by definition. It cannot be known or experienced by anyone or anything.

Consciousness cannot step outside of itself and peek at what lies beyond consciousness.
This is a huge fallacy. I implore you to think about it.

What lies beyond consciousness is unknown by definition. Knowabilty is not salient in any way.

If you have read my other posts in this thread, you will see what my reasoning is. In short, you have not defined "consciousness" sufficiently to make claims about what its definition necessarily implies. If your definition is "that which is unknowable," then your statement above must be logically true. But again, it is not necessarily a statement about anything. If a thing is unknowable, then it must be unknown. To say it is unknown can mean any number of things. Unknown by whom? You have not demonstrated that there is any thing that is unknown by every possible consciousness. Therefore, you cannot make the claim that any thing is unknowable.

And if you did demonstrate that there exists a thing that is unknown by every possible consciousness, it would still not prove that there is such a thing as an unknowable thing, for unknowable implies unknown, but unknown does not imply unknowable. In other words, being unknown is a necessary but not sufficient condition for unknowability.

So even if you postulate that there exists at least one thing that is unknown by every possible consciouness, it is quite beyond the realm of your experience to conclude that it is unknowable. For every thing that you indeed do know was at one time unknown to you. That is, your experience strongly suggests that what is unknown can become known, that what is unknown, what is beyond your consciousness, is in principle knowable.

Consciousness has no need for taking a step outside itself and peeking at anything, as you put it. What is does is expand to take in what is outside of itself so a thing is no longer outside it. It learns.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Nick Treklis wrote:
brokenhead wrote:That definition is "that which lacks form."
That's not exactly it's definition, but more along the lines of an attribute. We could say the definition of Existence is The All (nothing is absent from it). So based on this definition we can logically conclude that it lacks form.
So you are saying that Existence = the All = the Totality = Reality = ...

If there is not any thing, any possible concept or perconceptual thing, any form, any idea, or anything at all, that is not a part of Existence, assigning it an attribute is dubious at best.
brokenhead: If it lacks form, it is meaningless in every possible circumstance. It can carry no conceptual significance whatsover, as it includes every possible concept and therefore cannot be contrasted with any other concept to give it form.

Nick: We can recognize it and draw logical conclusions from it which are world shattering if it is in one's karma to do so.
If it lacks form, how do you recognize it?
brokenhead: If I'm not directly addressing the logic of your statement, it is because you seem to be making statements that imply nothing one can address.

Nick: Let go of whatever is holding you back and look again.
All right. Make the statement again and I'll try again.
brokenhead: But we weren't talking about Existence. We were talking about consciousness, weren't we? No need to spell it out in any other manner. Are you equating Consciousness with Existence?

Nick: No, but I wanted to point at that when you said Existence's form is unknown, it is based on the false assumption that there is in fact some ultimate form Existence possesses, and that we just do not yet know it yet because of some perceived limitation. So I then went on to show you how it is logically impossible for Existence to posses a form
.

I'm not sure I said Existence's form is unknown, because my contentions are based on the fact that it has no form.

Rather, your claim was that what lies outside consciousness is unknowable. Somehow, you switched the conversation to be about Existence. Since you have just said they are not the same thing, then let us concentrate on what I was talking about.

What lies outside consciousness is unknown, not unknowable. My reasoning is in my recent response to David above. Remember, I am not speaking of Existence, the All, or whatever you want to call it, but that which lies outside consciousness. I hope it is part of your "karma" to see the distinction.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Trevor wrote:Well, I was rephrasing the position that you were attacking, so, let's see... reality in its unformed state. How do you, personally, propose to know what unformed reality is like, without giving it some form? The process of learning gives form, so it will have to be some other method.
Okay. You are saying this is what you mean by "what lies outside consciousness."

You are assuming, for one thing, that what lies outside one consciousness lies outside every possible consciousness. You have not shown it to be the case that any thing lies outside every possible consciousness.

And that's just a start. If a thing did lie outside of every possible consciousness, it would be unknown. Again, unknowability implies unknown, not the other way around. So at any point of time, it is true that what lies outside of all possible consciousnesses is, in fact, unknown. There is nothing to say it cannot become known and form thereby given to it. Therefore, while it was at one time unknown, it was never, at any point of time, unknowable, not even in principle.
But the answer you gave is "learning"! Come on now, if that were the answer, do you think I'd be so confused that I'd overlook it? Talk about smug. You behave as though I'm an idiot.
But you have not shown learning not to be a completely satisfactory response. Are you sure I'm the one behaving as though you were an idiot? (Just kidding, Trev, just kidding.)
English is a logically imperfect language: we have already gone over a grammatical convention that directly interferes with interpretation of a logical sentence. (Fujaro, who referenced a philosopher of language who dealt with this very problem -- namely, Wittgenstein -- surprisingly was unable to recognize such a limitation of language when it was right in front of his face.) If this topic bores you, why discuss it?
The topic doesn't bore me, that's why I am discussing it.

You know, I have noticed that David and Kevin have a certain disdain for academic philosophers. This disdain, I believe, is shared by other posters here at GF. Like the guy who said this:
Academic philosophy in a nutshell.
It is merely my view that what makes academic philosophy so frustrating at times can be seen to be true about all philosophy, again, at certain times. If it is possible to lose sight of the forest by concentrating on the trees, minutely examining the bark on one tree isn't going to help restore perspective.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote: Your stance is not a logical conclusion derived from rigorous deductive reasoning about existence at all, but a metaphysical claim. I feel we're entering the territory of belief here rather than that of logic or hard evidence about existence. So far you haven't provided conclusive evidence for your absolute claim. Your stance imo results from a deadlock in your thinking. By asserting that to you only YOUR conscious thought is absolute, you derive the stance that conscious thought is a necessary condition for ALL existence.

I'm not saying that "my" conscious thought is a necessary condition for all existence, nor even conscious thought generally. Conscious thought is only one aspect of conscious experience.

When I experience a physical mountain, for example, my conscious thought only plays a minor contributing role. My senses, my position in time and space, my size, the way my brain is wired, my subconscious memories, my unresolved emotional issues, etc - these are all contributing factors in my experience of the mountain as well.
So you make a distinction between conscious thought and conscious experience. That does not change much.
What does change much is that you somehow inferred other sources of conscious experience to uphold reality.
Is there a logical deductive step I've missed?
David Quinn wrote:
In fact your claim is that there is some miraculous and deeply elusive way in which we think up all things we become aware of from its exterior appearance to the very minute detail at the subatomic level over and over again.
That would be a ridiculous claim indeed. But I'm not making such a claim.

Nature is ultimately the creator of everything that we experience, and our conscious thought-processes only play a minor role.
Now you introduce nature. Is this some other substance or is it consciousness from an unknown source?
And does conciousness require a source, a someone or something who experiences consciousness?
David Quinn wrote:
Furthermore your metaphysics provides no explanation whatsoever for observed consistency in behaviour and interaction of these forms.

The consistency comes from Nature itself - i.e. from cause and effect. Things and events are consistent when the causal conditions dictate them to be so.

Stirpping away the illusion of objective reality doesn't suddenly turn the world into a random and arbitrary place.
Again, I see no logical steps from (1) A=A to (2) consciousness exist to (3) other conciousness exist to (4) Nature takes care of cause and effect. It seems there is a lot of assertion and fabulation going on here.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:In other words, the truth of A=A is belief-neutral.

The truth about A=A is not neutral for metaphysics. By positing that, you are merely and quite dishonestly denying the objectivist stance as a possible stance and just restating yours. In the objectivist's metaphysics you definitely need an operational criterion to link logical existence with independent existential existence.

I have no idea what "independent existence" means. The existence of a thing is always dependent on other things - e.g. its own constituent parts, time and space, things not coming along and obliterating it, etc. So even in the objectivist world-view, independent existence is impossible.
Be fair with me David. I am speaking of existential dependencies. When you write this (underlining by me) :
David Quinn wrote: I can't really describe my stance as either idealistic or objectivist. Although I recognize that consciousness and forms necessarily arise together, that there can't be the one without the other, it doesn't stop from me also recognizing the utility of the standard objectivist view when it comes to practical matters.

You show that you exactly know what I mean with independent existence.

Your stance is like: conciousness --(1)--> forms (where 1 is a necessary and sufficient existential dependency)

The objectivist stance is like this: forms/objects --(2)--> conciousness (where 2 is necessary but not sufficient existential dependency)
David Quinn wrote:But regardless, A=A is unaffected either way. If you want to argue that a thing can independently exist, then you are affirming that such an independently-existing thing is what it is and not something else (i.e. a dependently-existing thing).
I am indeed putting it forward as a basic assumption I have no definite proof of. And I have been very open about its axiomatic status and its tentativeness. I am merely stating what I earlier described as a metaphysical claim myself. I am open to the possibility that I have to abondon this metaphysical belief, when sufficient evidence is presented. But it has been very purposefull indeed so far. You on the other hand claim absoluteness of your deductions while it is just another metaphysical claim. One that has shown no potential in explaining behaviour of 'forms' so far, leaves no way for improvement and has no explanation for its basic substance (consciousness) also.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:I don't deny that within your metaphysical asumptions A=A is all logical and therefore logically absolute. I will even agree with you that objectivism has no absolute basis. But instead of seeing this as a weakness, it is a strong feature in the quest for truth, for only by allowing it to be non-absolute the possibility of incremental growth of knowledge is possible, while a rigid seemingly absolutistic framework as yours leads you nowhere.

This is your "absolute philosophic knowledge is incompatible with open-ended scientific progress" belief shining through again. It is an absolutistic belief which confuses the roles of philosophy and science.
Well as I have said before, I am willing to reconsider even this statement (we can be wrong when we are courageous enough) if can be shown that the alternative brings better results. So please show me the subsequent steps following A=A that result in better predictive power of events in reality.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:In an absolutistic framework, there can be no next step.
Without the absoluteness of things like A=A, there can also be no next step.
So the predictive power of the naturalistic approach constitutes no next step? Please explain why you think this is so.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

Kevin, thanks for all your answers, but I'm afraid we're not done yet.
Kevin Solway wrote:
Fujaro wrote: 1) Are there other conscious minds than the "I"?
There appear to be.
You seem to identify yourself that asserting (1) is not a logical conclusion then?
Kevin Solway wrote:
2) Can you perceive all aspects of your own conscious mind?
Can a fingertip touch itself?

The question has a wrong foundation.
I'd say a fingertip pretty much touches itself.
Why is it the wrong question. Please identify erroneous assumptions being made.
Kevin Solway wrote:
3) Which aspects of your own conscious mind can you perceive with absolute certainty?
See above.
See above.
Kevin Solway wrote:
4) Do animals have conscious minds?

I am an animal, and I am conscious.
You're certainly an animal ;)
Kevin Solway wrote:Whether other animals are conscious or not is a matter for empirical science to decide. Therefore it will be speculation.
Why is it right to speculate for the animal we call human?
Kevin Solway wrote:
5) What is your explanation for the existence of consistency in behaviour and interaction of 'things'?

Causation.
That is a word with magical potency. But what does it entail and how can this logically be deduced from static snapshot views?
Kevin Solway wrote:Take a fountain for example. It's shape is changing from moment to moment, and it is not exactly the same from one moment to the next, yet there is a consistency of form over time. The consistency of form is a result of its causes.
The change of the fountain is all an illusion according to snapshot logic. Do you abondon it now and indulge in inductive reasoning? Why in this instance and not for the electron?
Kevin Solway wrote:
6) Why is there a difference between dreaming about a form and awake perception?
The more consistency we find in our experience the more likely we are to think we are awake. It is an arbitrary judgement.

Is a fundamentalist Christian awake or dreaming? I would say they are dreaming.
If they were dreaming while crossing roads, there wouldn't be any left. You do acknowledge that there is a difference between this kind of dreaming and awake dreaming, don't you?
Kevin Solway wrote:
7) Can you be wrong about your view that consciousness neccessitates all of existence?
No, but our correctness is a result of the way we define those particular terms.
I want to know more about that. Please define the terms for me.
Kevin Solway wrote:
8) What other necessary conditions for existence beside consciousness do you allow?
The cause of consciousness. The category that contains all unknown causes.
Can it be that the cause of consciouness arises from a substance you haven't identified yet?
Kevin Solway wrote:
9) Why do some of the things I consciously think about, not form itself, while others I don't consciously think about appear in front of me?
They are caused to.
How do you know?
Kevin Solway wrote:
10) Is unconscious thought possible?

No not if we define "thought" to be a conscious activity.
David made a distinction between conscious thought and conscious experience. When you subscribe to that I may have stated my question in a wrong way. Can we be unaware of our own conscious experience?
Kevin Solway wrote:
11) Do opponents in debate have existence or are you arguing with yourself?

Opponents in debate appear to exist.
Thank you, you are so kindly fabulating me into existence. I will remember that.
Kevin Solway wrote:
12) Why is there a difference in quality between dreaming and being awake?
There is a difference in the degree of consistency we experience.

However, many people are unable to distinguish when they are awake and when they are dreaming (eg, the religious, irrational people, etc).
Can you distinguish between believing in your metaphysical stance and being awake?
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms.

I could almost agree with this. If the word unknowable were replaced by the word unknown, I would agree.

What is beyond consciousness is unknowable by definition. It cannot be known or experienced by anyone or anything.

Consciousness cannot step outside of itself and peek at what lies beyond consciousness.
-----------
wow.

heres the real truth. You can be sure you are reasoning correctly when you are an accomplished student of formal
conversational logic.

There is nothing outside of consciousness, the universe is composed of consciousness which thickens up to form information, and then energy, which co entangles to form mass. All things are knowable if you can appreciate the scalar
fractal holography upon which the universe is based and of which you and the observable universe are merely manifested
examples of.

Consciousness can step outside of itself and peek at what lies beyond consciousness; thats how the universe was born.

understanding hyperdimensional topology, the real problem is that consciousness becomes entangled and compressed into three dimensional spaces due to having bodies. Yet, assorted psi phenomenon demonstrate that consciousness still operates in higher dimensional planes, outside of space time. The concepts of "inside" and "outside" only having meaning
relative to space time in its four primary dimensions. Yet the omniverse is composed of infinite dimensions, most of which
have no current manifest spectrality; which means that they exist in potential mostly, with no space or time to fluff them out.

All you have to do to escape a black hole is transform completely into quantum information. such event horizons are useful analogies for every other kind of serious boundary. For instance, the brain/mind. Sixth chakra might be thought of
as a singularity which is closed. Escaping from it requires self transformation from biochemical mind to quantum mind.
IE; you are it already, but you continue self operation as if you were limited by space time and thus you are.

Consciousness inflates nothingness when it moves there and makes it into somethingness.
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

Can you distinguish between believing in your metaphysical stance and being awake?
-------------
yes. All mere belief is sleeping. Being awake is belief -less.
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

Stirpping away the illusion of objective reality doesn't suddenly turn the world into a random and arbitrary place.
------------
you have it backwards. stripping away the illusion of subjective reality demonstrates that the world is in parts
random, arbitrary, causal, reflective, fractal, scalar, holographic, ordered, entropic, and many other things.

stripping away the illusion of objective reality is exactly the mass propaganda groupthink experiment. By saying that there
is no such thing as objective reality, evil jerks can then move on to say that reality is whatever they say it is.
Or, whatever they happen to observe.
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

You know, I have noticed that David and Kevin have a certain disdain for academic philosophers. This disdain, I believe, is shared by other posters here at GF. Like the guy who said this:
Quote:
Academic philosophy in a nutshell.

It is merely my view that what makes academic philosophy so frustrating at times can be seen to be true about all philosophy, again, at certain times. If it is possible to lose sight of the forest by concentrating on the trees, minutely examining the bark on one tree isn't going to help restore perspective.
--------------

The real question is what drives a paradigm. If a paradigm is driven by groupthink forces, its value rapidly approaches
negative. The problem with most academic philosophy is that it is constructed for the purposes of furthering ones position
and thus is imbued with the property of intellectual conformity.

99 percent of what is called philosophy is nothing more than intellectual masturbation. Much like religion, reading philosophy is about swimming through piles and piles of groupthink crap in order to find useful pearls and other assorted gems, long since trampled over by the swine.

Status quo-idian thinking is and always will be intentionally dumbed down thinking, and it will always produce ideas which
are obstructions to lucidity, because the entire point of such is to cage minds and stupefy the public in order to make them manipulable and gullible for purposes of taxation, labor, and politics.

The tragicomedy of the modern human condition is that we have assembled all of the answers definitively. And they are buried under mountains of propaganda, groupthink, and pack psychology.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:There is nothing to say it cannot become known and form thereby given to it.
Well, I'll break it down to three questions. Does consciousness produce form? Can there be consciousness of anything without form? And lastly, is there form outside of consciousness?

The answers that I would give are yes, no, and no: specifically, consciousness is what produces form, consciousness can only be of form, and form is a unique feature of consciousness.
But you have not shown learning not to be a completely satisfactory response.
I have said that learning is an act of giving form. I would add that it could also be an act of re-arranging existing forms. Learning is not a satisfactory answer, because once something has been given form, it is no longer formless. At no point is formlessness left as-is.
This disdain, I believe, is shared by other posters here at GF.
Someone who thinks for money, about topics he would not concern himself with unless paid, is no more a philosopher than a Greek solipsist or medieval Academian. I mock academic philosophy, but this mockery is not meant for everyone who works in a university: there is the rare professor who does not consider philosophy a job that needs a salary, benefits, coworkers, and a boss. When such a person has finished doing their job of teaching classes, writing papers, grading papers, and have left the building -- he's still a philosopher.
It is merely my view that what makes academic philosophy so frustrating at times can be seen to be true about all philosophy, again, at certain times. If it is possible to lose sight of the forest by concentrating on the trees, minutely examining the bark on one tree isn't going to help restore perspective.
You have a different reason than I for looking down on academic philosophy. A perceptive person can learn the whole forest from a single tree, just as a single good counter-example can demolish a universal claim. Many times when a philosopher looks like he's trapped on some minute detail, it's for this very reason. You have to know what he's arguing against before making a judgement.
A mindful man needs few words.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

prometheuspan wrote: The real question is what drives a paradigm. If a paradigm is driven by groupthink forces, its value rapidly approaches
negative. The problem with most academic philosophy is that it is constructed for the purposes of furthering ones position
and thus is imbued with the property of intellectual conformity.
I hardly can think up a word more emptied from meaning than paradigm.

1: "Hey dude, where have you been lately, you look like shit"
2: "Well, I feel like shit, I have been shifting my paradigm on LSD, but all I get is these strange messages from my unconscious ultraself saying I don't exist"
1: "Hey man, that's heavy, you really have been shifting it, like that dude Kuhn did. Where there any messages for me?"
2: "Yeah, now you ask. There was a message concerning you"
1: "Well.... what was it?"
2: "Well man, and this is from the a priori part of the ultraself, we need some shifting of the paradigm shifting thing, and sober up"
1: "Sober up, huh.....real heavy dude....."
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

sorry you feel that way.

nonetheless, it is a word, and, nonetheless, all you have is thus a fairly clever ad hominem.
-------------

Paradigm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Nick »

brokenhead wrote:If there is not any thing, any possible concept or perconceptual thing, any form, any idea, or anything at all, that is not a part of Existence, assigning it an attribute is dubious at best.
I'm not assigning attributes, I have logically concluded what they are. Claiming that understanding some thing's attributes is dubious is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
brokenhead wrote:
Nick: We can recognize it and draw logical conclusions from it which are world shattering if it is in one's karma to do so.
If it lacks form, how do you recognize it?
Logically.
brokenhead wrote:All right. Make the statement again and I'll try again.
No need for that, just keep looking over everything myself and others keep telling you.
brokenhead wrote:What lies outside consciousness is unknown, not unknowable. My reasoning is in my recent response to David above. Remember, I am not speaking of Existence, the All, or whatever you want to call it, but that which lies outside consciousness. I hope it is part of your "karma" to see the distinction.
David said that was is outside consciousness "is reality in its unknowable form and state". So when you responded to exactly what David said by saying you would agree with this if only he replaced the word unknowable with unknown, you were necessarily talking about Existence because that's what David was talking about.

If you want to make your own statement about what is beyond conscoiusness go ahead and make it, but you didn't do that in your repsonse to David. Either way, if you were talking about something else being beyond consciousness you are operating based on false assumptions, namely that a thing can exist independently of consciousness.
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

Either way, if you were talking about something else being beyond consciousness you are operating based on false assumptions, namely that a thing can exist independently of consciousness.
yep.
:)
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Nick wrote:Either way, if you were talking about something else being beyond consciousness you are operating based on false assumptions, namely that a thing can exist independently of consciousness.
Quite the opposite, Nick. As I am sure you can see, my position has always been that nothing can exist independently of Consciousness.
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

even the ain sauph aur is >reflected< emptyness. Nothingness can only be relevant to somethingness.

consciousness, or, perhaps more exactly, observation, is required even to have nothingness.

nothingness is THE EXPERIENCE of not ness.

whos the experiencer?

(Answer; Kyther)
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Jamesh »

David: All we can say is that what exists beyond consciousness is reality in its unformed and unknowable state, while what we experience within our consciousness is reality manifested as forms.
Wrong. While it is unknowable it is not unformed. Essentially unformed could only mean “completely non-existent”, which is not a logical physical possibility.
Your mistake is here:
Kevin and I agree that consciousness is a necessary condition for existence. This is because an existing thing can only exist by virtue of having a form of some kind and, in turn, a form can only exist by virtue of presenting an appearance to an observer.
The truth is that “a PARTICULAR or SPECIFIC form can only exist by virtue of presenting an appearance to an observer” - but this does not mean reality is unformed without consciousness.
Kevin: An appearance is just an appearance. So long as we don't infer anything else from it, we can't be in error.
You’d never produce a-priori truths, such as “everything is caused” if we did not make inference from appearances. All our a-priori truths clearly indicate that reality has form, not least of all because reality is a process (it is entirely casual), and all processes require form that sets the process conditions.

Fugaro: Can it be that the cause of consciouness arises from a substance you haven't identified yet?
No or irrelevant, even if there is a specific part of the brain where consciousness manaifests. Consciousness is not a physical thing in itself, but is a simply a configuration, a set.

Consciousness is like this abstract example -
There are two main identities - the sun and the earth. Taken individually they are just that, a star and a planet. Taken together, then a third thing manifests - an interrelationship between the two. Consciousness is the same, it is not the brain or the rest of the cosmos - but the interrelationship between the two.
prometheuspan
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:32 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by prometheuspan »

consciousness is an emergent property of sets interacting via quantum information at various scales in the cosmic scalar fractal holomorph.

consciousness is the primal property of the cosmic scalar fractal holomorph,

the cosmic scalar fractal holomorph inflated at first in order to aquire SELF OBSERVATION.
Locked