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: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.

To the degree that we posit an objective reality outside consciousness which forms our experiences, to that same degree we are positing an unknowable realm that cannot coalesce into a form. It is unknowable because it is inherently impossible to know - by anyone or anything. It is unknowable because it lacks any form to know.

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.
Yes, it can learn about forms within consciousness, but it can't learn anything about what is forever beyond consciousness, apart from a few basic deductions.

James wrote:
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.

Being unformed means that it is beyond the categories of "existence" and "non-existence". It lacks form so much that it even lacks the form of a non-existent thing. Only forms can exist or not exist.

At root, we can't really talk about it in any meaningful way because all our descriptions and categories only have meaning and applicability within the realm of forms - that is, to the things we experience in consciousness. It is wholly beyond our imagination in every possible way.

James wrote: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.
In the absence of presenting as a particular or specific form, in what way could reality beyond consciousness appear as a form?

-
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 »

prometheuspan wrote: The real question is what drives a paradigm. If a paradigm is driven by groupthink forces, its value rapidly approaches
negative.

The very concept "paradigm" finds its home in group-think. And just to add to the comedy, prometheuspan immediately dives into the bible of group-think, the dictionary, to support his use of the word in his crusade against group-think.

-
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 »

he very concept "paradigm" finds its home in group-think.
is that your point or mine?
And just to add to the comedy, prometheuspan immediately dives into the bible of group-think, the dictionary, to support his use of the word in his crusade against group-think.
truly, my report to friend x is going to be that this place is a waste of time.

heres a great idea for ya, diabolize the language so that you can't use the words to think with.
wow.
thats smart.
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 »

Jason wrote:
David Quinn wrote: 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.

I assumed it was obvious from the logical steps articulated in that work, but perhaps I need to make it clearer.

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.

What do you say about the early days of the earth before consciousness evolved?

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.

The key thing is not to get attached to any appearance - not even to the appearance of what you describe above. Things appear to exist beyond consciousness when they appear to. And when they don't appear to exist beyond consciousness, then that appears to be the reality for that moment.

As far as this profoundly important matter is concerned, we have no choice but to accept everything at face-value.

-
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 »

prometheuspan wrote:
And just to add to the comedy, prometheuspan immediately dives into the bible of group-think, the dictionary, to support his use of the word in his crusade against group-think.
truly, my report to friend x is going to be that this place is a waste of time.

heres a great idea for ya, diabolize the language so that you can't use the words to think with.
wow.
thats smart.
Okay, so you accept this form of group-think as being necessary. Are there any other forms that you accept?

I'm just wondering where you draw the line in your rage against group-think.

-
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 »

prometheus,
truly, my report to friend x is going to be that this place is a waste of time.
You're a humanitarian that calls people "sheeple", a bringer of light who can only handle the pleasing facts about his own psychology. Those that are detrimental, such as... say, Asperger's syndrome... are actually just as good as having a high IQ and being a polymath. I don't think you'll find many sheeple here that will care if you leave.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

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

Post by Carl G »

I'm into ad hominem. And long scientific discourse sure bores me. But I'm honest about it.
Good Citizen Carl
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:
In the absence of presenting as a particular or specific form, in what way could reality beyond consciousness appear as a form?
Well anything “beyond consciousness” would make no direct specific appearance, but appearance is not existence, appearance is the conceptualisation of the underlying existence. Don’t you actually do this with the concept of The Totality – you think of the totality as more than “all appearances”?

The underlying form can appear by deduction (contraction/expansion forces). True, with such deduction we can never be certain, but even uncertainty can provide a degree of usefulness. For instance we might use it to point away from the belief that a God causes everything.

In an unidentified spot 300 or 400 trillion light years away, there is some sort of form we can’t see or know to be real, but what we do know by a-priori reasoning, is that the cause and effect process will be occurring. Personally I see this cause/effect process as related to form, because I view relativity as form, and anywhere there is anything, then there is relativity that is not “A”, its actual form is irrelevant, as A has made no appearance to my consciousness, but there will by necessity be X and Y, and this is all form is.

To be honest I’m not sure I’ve answered this question, or if I have, the manner in which the question was phrased forces me to answer in agreement with what you previously said. Perhaps I need to come back to this, but for the moment it’s lunch time at the pub.
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 »

Carl G wrote:I'm into ad hominem. And long scientific discourse sure bores me. But I'm honest about it.
Surface observations, Carl. They go without saying. But if that was it, I would have just ignored him.

There are a few kinds of people in the world who use the word "sheeple". This guy is one of those who don't do it ironically. Hubris is an impediment to wisdom, so catching it in the act and mocking it is worthwhile.
A mindful man needs few words.
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 »

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: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?

The core source of conscious experience is Nature - or more specifically, what is not that conscious experience. The deductive step involves realizing that consciousness can only come from non-consciousness.

Fujaro wrote:
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?

Nature is the All, which includes both consciousness (as expressed in ourselves) and non-consciousness.

Fujaro wrote:
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.

Recognizing that objective reality is an illusion is a form of recognizing A=A. It involves correctly identifying what the term refers to and logically identifying that it cannot possibly occur, for the reasons given in my previous post.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:
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) :

"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.

I know what people believe by it, but I also see that it is an illusion. It is like our experience of the sun moving across the sky. It is real enough for practical purposes, but still an illusion nonetheless.

The only way to escape our subjectivity is by uncovering absolute truth. An example of an absolute truth is that objective reality is an illusion.

Fujaro wrote:
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.

It is no more a metaphysical claim than that of recognizing square circles are logically impossible. Independent existence is equally impossible.

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.

The basic explanation of all events is cause and effect, a truth that has massive implications for those who are perceptive enough.

Fujaro wrote:
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.

Again, you're confusing philosophy with science. You're misidentifying what philosophy is. Predictive power of events isn't its concern.

Fujaro wrote:
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.
I'm saying that the so-called "naturalistic approach" (let's just call it science, shall we?) would have no predictive power at all without A=A being absolute.

-
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 »

What do you say about the early days of the earth before consciousness evolved?
---------
there wasn't any time before the big bang.

oh, you mean, before BIOCHEMICAL consciousness evolved.

whats to say about it? it was inevitable, its an emergent property of the scalar fractal holomorph.


with that, its probably past due that i quit tossing pearls to swine.

ciao
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 »

I'm saying that the so-called "naturalistic approach" (let's just call it science, shall we?) would have no predictive power at all without A=A being absolute.
----------

this A=A thing, ?
you guys do know its become a joke in other forums, don't you?

people spy on you people because you say crackpotted things like that.

and then they cut and paste, and carry it off to elsewhere, and laugh their asses off.

there are no absolutes in nature; all apparent laws are subject to break down at certain scales.

for instance, matter and energy get destroyed and created all the time at the quantum scale. The net effect is to weak for it to have any effect on the macro scale under ordinary circumstances.

and A=A is just a friggin self referential loop. It has only the meaning you assign to it.
What you all seem to mean by it isn't even true. Everything in the universe changes, constantly, nothing is static.

Just like your over simplified sexism, all you have on this board is a pretension of genius, with google bots reporting back
to other forums where people giggle themselves into fits, because all of it is dumbed down and make believe.
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 »

I used to be on another forum filled with people who constantly made fun of this one. It's not shocking in the slightest.

Earlier you were interested in the top 50 problems of humanity. This threat of Internet mockery shows what you actually think is important, and where your priorities truly lie. All little prometheus really wants is acceptance.

It's also revealed by your piss-poor answers to the easy, beginner problems in this thread. You aren't interested in philosophy at all, are you?
A mindful man needs few words.
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 »

and A=A is just a friggin self referential loop. It has only the meaning you assign to it.
so true. Still I like it because conceptually it indicates that when considering something, don't take the liberty of redefining what you are referring to to fit in with what your emotions are wanting you to redefine it as, while still calling it the same thing. Different perceptions or concepts are different things - notwithstanding that all things are interrelated. A whole apple is a different thing to the redness or sweetness or size of that same apple.
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:
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?
(1) is indeed a logical conclusion, provided it is understood to mean that there appear to be conscious minds other than the "I". Whether there are other conscious minds apart from the appearance of them, is unknown.
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.
A fingertip can't touch itself. The idea is self-referential. Likewise consciousness cannot perceive itself.
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?
Why is it right to speculate whether other humans are conscious?

It is right if it is in accordance with our goals. For example, in our justice system, the more conscious a person is when they commit a crime, the greater will be the punishment.
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?
"Now" is a snapshot view. It must be caused by something, and that's what we call "the past". This is something that is purely logically reasoned. We speak of the past as being the cause of the present. Hence "causation".
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.
Change is not an illusion, rather, it is an appearance. Things are not illusions when you know they are only an appearance. Like the mirage of water, it's only an illusion when you mistake it for what it's not.

There's no way that we can determine that the fountain of one moment is closely related to the fountain of the next moment. All we can do is speculate.

However, over a sequence of moments we do notice a pattern, and something is causing that pattern (since all things must necessarily have a cause).
Do you abondon it now and indulge in inductive reasoning? Why in this instance and not for the electron?
It is the same with the electron, as with the fountain.
Kevin Solway wrote: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.
In a sense, a Christian is very much like a person about to be run over by a truck.

. . . But I know what you mean.
You do acknowledge that there is a difference between this kind of dreaming and awake dreaming, don't you?
Yes, but the difference is a matter of degree only. The average "awake" person is so far removed from level of consciousness of a wise person that the average person appears to be dreaming all the time.
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.
I define "exists" to mean "makes an appearance in consciousness" (which includes the category of all unknown things), therefore consciousness is necessary to existence.

I argue that this definition of "exists" is the best one.
Kevin Solway wrote:Can it be that the cause of consciousness arises from a substance you haven't identified yet?
That would be "the cause of the cause of consciousness", and is thus defined.
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?
Because all things are caused. Can you think of the purely logical reasons why this must be the case?
Can we be unaware of our own conscious experience?

When one is conscious, then one is necessarily conscious that one is conscious.
Can you distinguish between believing in your metaphysical stance and being awake?
To have my philosophical view you must be fully conscious, and hence, 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 »

prometheuspan wrote:Everything in the universe changes, constantly, nothing is static.
You contradict yourself within the one sentence.

You are illustrating the opposite of A=A.
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:
David Quinn wrote: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?
The core source of conscious experience is Nature - or more specifically, what is not that conscious experience. The deductive step involves realizing that consciousness can only come from non-consciousness.
You throw in one after another metaphysical assertion. The deductive step that it is a metaphysical ssumption involves realizing you haven't been giving any deductive evidence ever since you accepted A=A as your basic principle. The only form of 'evidence' you keep presenting is this empty and falsely suggestive sentence of the form: "the deductive step for <it> involves realizing <it>". You don't have any clue what deduction is about or you are simply evading the questions.
David Quinn wrote:Nature is the All, which includes both consciousness (as expressed in ourselves) and non-consciousness.
Again this illogic of the form <this is so> because <this is so>. This is self-referential baloney.
David Quinn wrote: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.
Self-referential again. You say nothing new. Please provide arguments or otherwise this amounts to contempt of reason.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote: 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.

Recognizing that objective reality is an illusion is a form of recognizing A=A. It involves correctly identifying what the term refers to and logically identifying that it cannot possibly occur, for the reasons given in my previous post.
Just denying the stance on the basis of accepting your own. There is no communication here. Maybe this works for children, but not for me.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Be fair with me David. I am speaking of existential dependencies. When you write this (underlining by me) :

"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.

I know what people believe by it, but I also see that it is an illusion. It is like our experience of the sun moving across the sky. It is real enough for practical purposes, but still an illusion nonetheless.

The only way to escape our subjectivity is by uncovering absolute truth. An example of an absolute truth is that objective reality is an illusion.
You are contradicting yourself and misinterpreting me. You assert that you have found abolute truth about reality. I only assert that we have only indirect impressions of reality. You take a logical conclusion as a fact about reality itself where I merely state that even logical claims are produced by a mechanism we can't investigate ourselves on a absolute basis.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote: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.

It is no more a metaphysical claim than that of recognizing square circles are logically impossible. Independent existence is equally impossible.
That really is a load of crap. How many MRI scanners can be build by accepting that square circles exist? Your stance is empty, your defense hollow and self-referential, the fruits from your thinking are impotent metaphysical claims. What have you accomplished with A=A?

David Quinn wrote:The basic explanation of all events is cause and effect, a truth that has massive implications for those who are perceptive enough.
<is> because <is>, isn't very impressive deductive reasoning. Furthermore it is not compatible with snapshot logic that Kevin derived from A=A. In snapshot logic, the concept of change and therefore cause is illegal. In snapshot logic there is only frozen 'now'.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote: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.

Again, you're confusing philosophy with science. You're misidentifying what philosophy is. Predictive power of events isn't its concern.
You are only redefining philosophy for yourself as a protective measure. You deny that there is a philosophy of science and that naturalism is a certain metaphysical stance that is closely related but not the same. Science itself takes no stance in metaphysics. There are christian, buddhist and hindoe scientists. And please don't use this as a red herring to distract from the fact that you deny others their metaphysical claims by rigidly asserting that only you are right. This is child talk.
David Quinn wrote:I'm saying that the so-called "naturalistic approach" (let's just call it science, shall we?) would have no predictive power at all without A=A being absolute.
Naturalism definitely is not the same as science. Science is a methodological approach, naturalism is a philosophical stance. You should know better or read something about is.
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 »

This will be my last post on GF.

For the most part of it I enjoyed the discussion very much and I thank all who have participated in it.
I hold no grudges against anyone, not even the addicts of ad hominem that are quite numerous here on GF.

But to be honest since we’ve been hitting the realm of metaphysical claim, my appetite for debate has been rapidly diminishing. Every post new metaphysical claims emerge. At first A=A is posited as the one principle to deduct all from, than everything existentially depends on consciousness, than the unknown source of consciousness is called Nature and after that the conscious needs a cause in the unconscious. This can go anywhere, but the connection to A=A is made nowhere in any conclusive way. Therefore for me, it's time to move on.

I particularly enjoyed the discussions with Kevin. Kevin has been showing the willingness to follow his claims to the limit resulting in several posts on what I have been calling snapshot logic. There were new elements here I haven’t encountered elsewhere. This shows Kevin has the courage to pursue his stances without shielding it off from critique with an overdose of ‘is because is’.

David however imo suspends himself more in rhetoric limbo and flatout denies his opponent the right to his own metaphysical beliefs even when that opponent states it as such in all openess. This is a much more closed approach such as I have encountered on many occasions on the net in discussions with christians, muslims, scientologists, pantheists, new age followers, crackpotists, believers of the paranormal and many others. By which I certainly don’t mean to say that identifying oneself with a certain ‘denomination’is a guarantee for closed-mindedness. Real courage shows itself in accepting other views as possible viable alternatives, the tendency to protect ingrained certainties on all cost, imho will not lead to fruitfull debate. I do thank David for sharing his views and for his patience with my intensive questioning of his.

Well, now that’s all of my chest, I wish you all the best. Have fruitfull discussions and above all the courage to question your own stances.

If you wish you may mail me on the email adress that’s here on GF and I will reply all fair emails.
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 »

prometheuspan wrote:I'm saying that the so-called "naturalistic approach" (let's just call it science, shall we?) would have no predictive power at all without A=A being absolute.
----------

this A=A thing, ?
you guys do know its become a joke in other forums, don't you?

people spy on you people because you say crackpotted things like that.

and then they cut and paste, and carry it off to elsewhere, and laugh their asses off.

there are no absolutes in nature; all apparent laws are subject to break down at certain scales.

for instance, matter and energy get destroyed and created all the time at the quantum scale. The net effect is to weak for it to have any effect on the macro scale under ordinary circumstances.

and A=A is just a friggin self referential loop. It has only the meaning you assign to it.
What you all seem to mean by it isn't even true. Everything in the universe changes, constantly, nothing is static.

Just like your over simplified sexism, all you have on this board is a pretension of genius, with google bots reporting back
to other forums where people giggle themselves into fits, because all of it is dumbed down and make believe.
Your appeal, again, to the authority of group-think is noted.

-
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 »

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The core source of conscious experience is Nature - or more specifically, what is not that conscious experience. The deductive step involves realizing that consciousness can only come from non-consciousness.
You throw in one after another metaphysical assertion. The deductive step that it is a metaphysical ssumption involves realizing you haven't been giving any deductive evidence ever since you accepted A=A as your basic principle. The only form of 'evidence' you keep presenting is this empty and falsely suggestive sentence of the form: "the deductive step for <it> involves realizing <it>". You don't have any clue what deduction is about or you are simply evading the questions.

Where else can consciousness come from, other than non-consciousness?

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Nature is the All, which includes both consciousness (as expressed in ourselves) and non-consciousness.
Again this illogic of the form <this is so> because <this is so>. This is self-referential baloney.

It is a case of creating a definition of Nature and pursuing its logical consquences. If Nature is defined to be utterly everything, then it necessarily includes all things, including the phenomena of consciousness and unconsciousness.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: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.
Self-referential again. You say nothing new. Please provide arguments or otherwise this amounts to contempt of reason.

I suffer from the delusion that people will do their own thinking and actively put 2 and 2 together. I live in hope.

Uncaused events, not having the benefit of any regulatory forces acting upon them (by definition), cannot be consistent, except through the incredible odds of sheer chance.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The only way to escape our subjectivity is by uncovering absolute truth. An example of an absolute truth is that objective reality is an illusion.
You are contradicting yourself and misinterpreting me. You assert that you have found abolute truth about reality. I only assert that we have only indirect impressions of reality. You take a logical conclusion as a fact about reality itself where I merely state that even logical claims are produced by a mechanism we can't investigate ourselves on a absolute basis.
You are claiming as an absolute that we only have indirect impressions of reality. So you see, you are just as guilty as me of treating logical conclusions as facts about reality. The difference is that I do it properly and consciously. I don't pretend that I'm not doing it.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote: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.

It is no more a metaphysical claim than that of recognizing square circles are logically impossible. Independent existence is equally impossible.
That really is a load of crap. How many MRI scanners can be build by accepting that square circles exist?
You've lost me.

Your stance is empty, your defense hollow and self-referential, the fruits from your thinking are impotent metaphysical claims. What have you accomplished with A=A?

The wisdom that comes with understanding the nature of reality, and the psychological transformation which this engenders.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The basic explanation of all events is cause and effect, a truth that has massive implications for those who are perceptive enough.
<is> because <is>, isn't very impressive deductive reasoning. Furthermore it is not compatible with snapshot logic that Kevin derived from A=A. In snapshot logic, the concept of change and therefore cause is illegal. In snapshot logic there is only frozen 'now'.

A changing process can be captured in a snapshot - that is to say, it can be observed. Knowledge that a thing cannot exist without causes can also be contained wthin a snapshot.

Your snapshot of snapshots is unnecessarily narrow and only serves to support your own narrow, unphilosophical view of life.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Again, you're confusing philosophy with science. You're misidentifying what philosophy is. Predictive power of events isn't its concern.
You are only redefining philosophy for yourself as a protective measure. You deny that there is a philosophy of science and that naturalism is a certain metaphysical stance that is closely related but not the same. Science itself takes no stance in metaphysics. There are christian, buddhist and hindoe scientists. And please don't use this as a red herring to distract from the fact that you deny others their metaphysical claims by rigidly asserting that only you are right. This is child talk.

If you didn't consistently confuse metaphysics with science, I wouldn't have a problem. I'm not the one who is insisting that philosophic truths, like A=A, are useless because they don't make scientific predictions.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I'm saying that the so-called "naturalistic approach" (let's just call it science, shall we?) would have no predictive power at all without A=A being absolute.
Naturalism definitely is not the same as science. Science is a methodological approach, naturalism is a philosophical stance. You should know better or read something about is.

As I expected from that webpage, naturalism is just a name for those who want to elevate science to the be-all and end-all of the knowledge game, who accept as an article faith that there can be no meaningful knowledge beyond this, and who delude themsleves into believing that they are fully rational.

Just another religion, in other words. A religion for the unphilosophical.

-
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

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

Post by Shahrazad »

Fujaro,
This will be my last post on GF.
I'm very sorry to hear that. You were one of my favorite posters here.

I hope to see you in another life, in another place.

Until then, may the force be with you.

.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

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

Post by Iolaus »

David,

It seems I remember somewhere on this thread you stated that consciousness and matter (forms) arise together. That there cannot be formations without consciousness to perceive.

Yet you also stated that there wasn't consciousness until brains evolved on earth.

Would you clarify?
Truth is a pathless land.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

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

Post by Beingof1 »

The truth is so simple, it is hard to understand, because it is so simple.

Once you realize the truth of what and who you are, there is not question that a mortal can ask that cannot be answered and with logic ta boot.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

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

Post by Iolaus »

Being,

Well in this case, I am interested in how David puts his views together, but I certainly think it an interesting question in its own right, and welcome your answers, too.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

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

Post by Blair »

Iolaus wrote:Being,

Well in this case, I am interested in how David puts his views together
Why? Are you -still- unable to form your own view?
Locked