The amazing self-undermining argument

[Kevin Solway]

As soon as a person has memory they become able to distinguish good arguments from bad ones.

.... simply means that one is able to distinguish good arguments form bad ones as soon as he has memory, not that he is simply able to distinguish because of it.

A person cannot distinguish anything at all without memory. For example, if you are observing, say, a tree, you have to able to remember what is not the tree in order to be able to contrast the tree with something and so give the tree existence.

I was simply pointing out that memory does not equal rationality, which your previous statement suggests.

When you analyse it, you find that all cases of irrationality come down to a lack of memory - which is sometimes a willful lack of memory. For example, the Monty Python sketch where they are having an argument:

. . .

A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.

If the whole world were full of adults who were fully enlightened Buddhas, I don't think the world would be a boring place.

So, do you see a possible world full of adults? We shall talk about all of them being enlightened later.

People can't currently be fully enlightened when they are born, which is why chlidren have to grow-up before they become enlightened. One would expect there to be disagreements between the enlightened adults and the younger children since the children would sometimes lack the mental ability to follow the arguments.

It would be teeming with knowledge and invention.

Inventing what? What could a fully enlightened Buddha possibly invent that a non-Buddha team of dedicated inventors could not?

Since the mind of a Buddha is less concerned with selfish matters, like ambition, pride, paying off expensive houses, seeking the approval of others, pleasing the opposite sex, etc, their minds are much freer to seek the truth. I think they would be really good at developing new forms of space travel, or new forms of communication, for example, so they can spread their wisdom to those less fortunate around the Universe.

I'm not very well read, so could you please mention who all you consider are fully enlightened Buddha’s, and what all have they invented? Does any one hold a Patent?

I don't know if there have ever been any perfectly enlightened people. But some of the most enlghtened would include people like the Buddha, Hakuin, Nagarjuna, perhaps Jesus. Their most notable invention is wisdom itself, and since there is so little wisdom in the world they have had to concentrate on that, rather than turn their hand to scientific pursuits.

In any case it's impossible for enlightened people to become bored.

And why is that? Are they not human any more? Do they physically or mentally stop experiencing? Does a bad weather or hungry mosquito not bother them?

Boredom is a feeling of emotional dissatisfaction with reality as it is, and is a feeling based on a deluded view of the world. Since the perfectly enlightened person doesn't have any such deluded views, they do not feel dissatisfied with reality as it is. They do not feel an emotional feeling of lacking or void. They don't feel that a part of them is missing, and never feel depressed.

Do they stop experiencing moods? I would say that being in a single continuous state of mind is like being unconscious. Does being enlightened mean unconsciousness?!

They stop experiencing moods that are based on emotions and false ideas about reality. They don't expect from reality what it cannot provide. The enlightened person experiences a single continuous state of mind only in the sense he is like a perfectly clear mirror. But reflected in that mirror is an infinitude of clear things. By contrast, the ordinary person is like a dirty or broken mirror, which reflects dullness, distortion, and confusion.

What about ethical arguments?

Like voluntary euthenasia?

Some ethical arguments may be borderline, in which case different enlightened people might lean in different directions depending on their past experience and intuitive precognition of consequences.

[Dave Toast]

Andrew: How do you know if your perceptions are "clear"

How do you know if your knowledge is perfect?

There's only one answer to these types of questions.

(in fact, what does it actually mean for a perception to be clear??)

For it to be not unclear.

And is this not still the only way we have access to truth - the degree to which our perception of truth seems to us to be "clear"?

Nope, we have access to the truth about things by knowing what truth is, precisely how it works and applying it to things precisely. If this is the case, there is no 'seems' involved, as far as the clarity of the perception of truth involved in the application goes. If this is not the case, then it will always be 'seeming'.

In my view, the really devastating blow to absolute certainty comes when we not only question our memory,

Questioning memory is no challenge to certainty. This is impossible. In fact there is no sound challenge to certainty whatsoever, as any attempt will inevitably lead to either uncertainty or contradiction.

but also question the effectiveness of our own ability to combine propositions logically in the instant of thought-perception.

And in questioning that effectiveness properly, what are we doing?

If we're doing it properly, we fall into contradiction and, thereby, certainty. If we're not doing it properly, our conclusions will only ever be uncertain and, thereby, completely unable to challenge certainty.

For example, we can always question whether or not our perception of A is really A rather than not-A.

There is no sound formulation of the question you purport to ask here. You are conflating two definitions of reality.

Our perception of A can only ever really be exactly what it is, i.e. our perception of A. That's the operative definition of reality. Asking whether this reality is really something else necessitates another definition of reality.

[David Quinn]

Adding to Dave Toast's fine post .....

-

Andrew Wiseman wrote:

DQ: Feelings of certainty are clearly not enough. What one really needs is the clarity of mind that can reason with great skill and penetrate to the very depths of an issue. True certainty isn't really a feeling at all. It is clear-sighted perception.

AW: How do you know if your perceptions are "clear" (in fact, what does it actually mean for a perception to be clear??)
And is this not still the only way we have access to truth - the degree to which our perception of truth seems to us to be "clear"?

Well, you can know your perception of an issue is "clear" when you have analyzed it from top to bottom and have determined for certain that no more hidden factors can possibly arise.

For example, the clear perception that Reality is not nothing whatsoever arises from the understanding that any attempt to disprove this perception will only serve to confirm it instead. It is thus utterly impossible to disprove. No other factor can arise and upset the apple-cart. Complete clarity of mind with regards to this issue has been attained.

Well I agree that the uncertain degree of the effectiveness of our memory does not undermine the actual logical derivation of the truth that “Reality is not nothing” when we think about it just now from our armchairs; it would simply be illogical to claim that it does. However, this does not get round the fact that if someone does have a faulty memory, regardless of the fact that he or she may be capable of being (correctly) aware in a flash of insight of the truth that “Reality is not nothing”, this insight will not necessarily be accurately translated into a remembered fact – meaning no other logical derivations can rely on the truth of the matter that “Reality is not nothing” without acknowledging the fact that truth of this claim is based on the set of assumptions such as “I have an intact memory, I am not insane, etc etc”.

E.g. If someone has a faulty memory, yet perfectly sound logical reasoning, he may all of a sudden experience the truth of the proposition that “experience is happening”, but in the next second may feel very proud of himself in having derived beyond doubt that “experience is *not* happening”.

That's a seperate issue. The important point is that apprehending a truth, together with knowing for certain that one has apprehended a truth, is perfectly possible regardless of whether one's memory is faulty or not. The possibility that one might forget this truth in the future doesn't change this fact.

It would be like scientist arguing that a proposed scientific theory could well be wrong purely on the grounds that we will one day all be senile or dead!

I’d Imagine that you would point out that having to remember the truth that “Reality is not nothing” is never actually necessary because its truth can be perceived at any given moment and can be combined in an instant with any other set of propositions – never requiring memory. Well I would agree that this is perhaps possible, but it would undermine the entire point of “learning”. Although, you might also point out that even though what we have learned can be seen with suspicion at all times, it is nevertheless useful as a guide which will keep knocking us back onto the continual experience of instantaneously derived truth. So even if our memory is not accurate, its only if it becomes completely inaccurate that our hopes of experiencing truth will become impossible.

Yes, if we become completely unconscious, we would no longer have the capacity to know truth. All we need is a functioning memory of some sort. It doesn't have to record events perfectly. All it has to do is provide the conceptual materials by which we can engage in abstract reasoning and work our way towards ultimate truth.

In my view, the really devastating blow to absolute certainty comes when we not only question our memory, but also question the effectiveness of our own ability to combine propositions logically in the instant of thought-perception. For example, we can always question whether or not our perception of A is really A rather than not-A.

Well, we can and we can't. When you perceive a tree in a particular moment, there is no question that, in that very moment, you are experencing the perception of a tree. This is irrefutable. It is a brute fact of existence. Whatever it is that you experience in a given moment is most definitely the experience you are having in that moment. This cannot be challenged in any way.

Yes, it's true that you can question, in subsequent moments, whether the tree you experienced was real and not an hallucination of some kind. But that's another issue entirely. The fact that you did experience a tree in that moment, real or otherwise, remains undeniable. And it is within in this little window of certainty, which exists in every moment of our lives, that the grasping of a logical truth takes place. For, as in the perception of the tree, A=A is being perceived in the moment, directly.

I’ll point out again that in my view, when people argue about “logic”, they are really arguing about “abstract logic” (as a system that we use to make sense of our perceived thoughts in the same way that science is a system that we use to make sense of the perceived world). Because of this, even though everything about the actual perception of our own thoughts may beyond any doubt, it is a mistake to believe that truths that we experience can be transcribed unquestionably into the system that is abstract logic that we remember and talk about.

The example I gave about Reality not being nothing whatsoever refutes this.

-

[Dave Toast]

To be clear, the formulation of the original question is complete gobbledygook. The reasoning is valid but the premises are unsound. It's garbage in - garbage out.

First there's the abundance of words with the same meaning. So:

The possibility of faulty memories may make it impossible to distinguish good arguments from bad ones

Should read:
The possibility of unreliable memories may make it impossible to know good arguments from bad ones


Added to this is the sloppy nature of the statement of the key premise.

1) We cannot know that our memories are reliable, since checking our memory involves acts that require (...) memory (circular justification).

Should read:
1) We cannot know that our memories are reliable, since knowing our memories are reliable involves acts that require reliable memory (circular justification).

When stripped of all the confusing elements, what this ends up saying is that:
Knowing our memories are reliable involves acts of reliable memory.

Unreliable acts of memory are possible.

Therefore,
We cannot know that our memories are reliable.

When stated clearly, it becomes immediately apparent that the conclusion inherent in the premise is completely false, on account of the possibility of reliable memory. It's just a statement about possibility, and yet there is a concrete conclusion.

This is why the word 'cannot' could just as easily be 'can' in every premise of the argument - possibilities.



Then there is the fact that memory and knowledge are, if not one-in-the-same, completely interdependent - if there is knowledge there must be memory, if there is memory there must be knowledge.

The basic simplified question asked here is again only one of possibility, that of the possiblility of reliable knowledge. It would be stated:
Knowing our knowledge is reliable involves acts of reliable knowledge.

Acts of reliable knowledge are possible.

Therefore,
We can know that knowledge can possibly be reliable.

And it's just as true the other way round.


In the end, the original hypothesis and 1st premise boil down to this and only this:
There is the possibility of un/reliable knowledge/memory.

Therefore,
Knowledge/memory are possibly un/reliable.


The rest of the argument is completely valid and sound, but it doesn't matter because it's all gone out of the window by now.



And don't forget. If one knew that one's knowledge/memory were unreliable, this could not possibly invalidate the reliability of one's knowledge/memory because, whilst it takes acts of reliable knowledge/memory to validate the reliability of one's knowledge/memory, it also takes acts of reliable knowledge/memory to validate the unreliability of one's knowledge/memory, thereby falling into contradiction if claiming this as proof of unreliability of all knowledge/memory.


So we've wasted a whole lot of time with this question and are therein no closer to proving whether we can know whether our knowledge/memory are reliable and we are left with a choice. On the one hand, we have unreliability, uncertainty, and the impossibility of posing a challenge to certainty. On the other hand we have reliability, certainty and the knowledge that any challenge to them will necessarily be uncertain or fall into contradiction.

Hang your hat where you please.

[Philosophaster]

Dave :

When stripped of all the confusing elements, what this ends up saying is that:
Knowing our memories are reliable involves acts of reliable memory.

The problem lies in the fact that one cannot know which memories are reliable and which unreliable. If one could always pick out all of the unreliable memories, of course there wouldn't be a problem. But the main thrust of the argument comes from the fact that one can't always do this.

[Dave Toast]

You're reading far too much into what the statement says. What you've postulated is:

1)Knowing our memories are reliable involves acts of reliable memory.

2)There is the possibility of unreliable memory.


This is a statement of possibility.

Possibility 1
Memory is unreliable.

Therefore,
We cannot know our memories are reliable when memory is thus.

Possibility 2
Memory is not unreliable (reliable)

Therefore,
We can know our memories are reliable when memory is thus.



You are then asking:
Ok, but how do we know that we know?

As you can see above, we don't need to know that we know. In fact the premises tell us nothing about whether we can know whether we know, just the possibilities of whether we can know.

[Kevin Solway]

The problem lies in the fact that one cannot know which memories are reliable and which unreliable.

The only kind of memory that really matters is the memory associated with identifying things (ie, A=A). If a person remembers some event that never happened (since the memory may have been projected into his brain in some way), then it doesn't really matter.

So long as one is able to identify things, which can be creations of the mind, that is as reliable as you can get.

[Jamesh]

The only kind of memory that really matters is the memory associated with identifying things (ie, A=A).

A=A is just basic spatial memory (stage 1) working in combination with basic language memory (stage 2).

The penultimate kind of memory is concept learning memory (stage 3) which comes about from experiencing a wide range of different experiences. These memories are knowledge based memories.

Stage 4 memories are more of a process than memories, they are pattern reorganisation memories consisted of delayed reflection and subconscious reorganisation (as what occurs when we think or dream). This process revises existing memories of all types, including the memories which determine the manner in which one’s mind actually processes experiences (ie they revise themselves by interacting with stage 3 memories).

For a semi-enlightened person to react to the world in a wise way, then his memories must be structured in such a pattern as to provide a consistent approach to new experiences. His A=A comes with Stage 3 knowledge memories structured to avoid emotion (knowledge such as “Nothing has an intrinsic existence”), whereas the Stage 3 memories of a non-enlightened person are memory patterns based more on feelings (ie positive(good)/negative bad). Buddha’s stage 3 memories are likely to have been delegated down into stage 2 language memories - they have revised the language meanings of things to enable them to immediately and continuously react in an enlightened manner.

The combination of these 4 stages is The Ego.

[Sapius]

.. that the deductive process requires time, and hence cannot be equated to just the "primary act of perception".


Leyla: So, you consider thought itself as perception?

How did you gather that from what I said. Thought requires time to formulate, so does perception require time to register, however instantaneous a perception might seem.

What determines the speed of thought?
How about Time? Speed of anything for that matter.

And further more, I don't think we are even built to perceive the 'here and now' since events keep fleeting by at the speed of light.


Leyla: I think you have it backwards, somewhat. Time itself is determined entirely by perception.

If I have it somewhat backwards, which part do you find straight forward then?
So, perception determines Time, not that we perceive it and other "things" as they relatively are. Is that right?

Leyla: Are thought and logic perceptions, Sapius? Awareness? Consciousness?

This is going off topic here. Look for appropriate threads or open a new one please.

[Leyla Shen]

You are certainly in your element here, Dave Toast. So clearly executed. Quite a pleasure to behold, really.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius wrote:

How did you gather that from what I said. Thought requires time to formulate, so does perception require time to register, however instantaneous a perception might seem.

David said: the actual deductive process differs (from memories) in that it is a primary act of perception in the here and now and does not rely on the validity of memory.

You said: the deductive process requires time and hence cannot be equated to just the primary act of perception.

I say: whilst the deductive process has a component of time it can be equated (for want of a better word) with a primary act of perception in that it requires such an act of perception to set it off. Unless, of course, one considers thought itself to be perception -- in which case, no human faculty could be equated with a primary act of perception. Hence, there would be no primary acts of perception. What of time then? Where would perception and the logical process/reasoning begin and end?

So, I ask you: do you consider thought itself as perception?

What determines the speed of thought? How about Time? Speed of anything for that matter.

How about perception?

If I have it somewhat backwards, which part do you find straight forward then?

None. I only see circles, in the end.

So, perception determines Time, not that we perceive it and other "things" as they relatively are. Is that right?

With what faculty, or primary act of perception, do you perceive time (it) and other things, exactly?

This is going off topic here.

Not really, I just think faster than you do.

Look for appropriate threads or open a new one please.

Why? What’s wrong with this one? How are these questions inappropriate? You don’t think -- within this vast ocean of interconnectedness -- that questions of logic, thought, consciousness and awareness as perception are relevant to the subjects of memory and time, knowledge and change -- primary acts of perception?

I'm afraid I am blissfully unaware of your rules. You must, therefore, surely wish to forgive me.

[sevens]

I believe, that the speed of 'thought' is equivalent to the speed of Reality - human 'Reality'. The transfer of information (energy perception) would have to be instantaneous, for humans to successfully manuever.

Consciousness is energy - a void, with light - 'communicating instantaneously' ('T'hought, however, most likely travels at the speed of light (as I clean my nails).

Brain activity forms wave patterns - using particles. The paths of lightning bolts, etches neuro-connections. Lightning is electricity: electricity is energy.

Is all energy bound to a speed limit...

[Leyla Shen]

Now, sevens, I am interested in what you have to say. However, I have a request. Would you mind rewriting the above with less inverted commas and more definition?

For example:

I believe, that the speed of 'thought' is equivalent to the speed of Reality - human 'Reality'.

Is thought a delusion? Is this why you place the word in inverted commas?

And Reality -- are you saying that the speed of Reality is human "Reality" ?

[sevens]

After a summer of Genius Forum, I gotta say, school was (is gonna be) cake - on many levels.

Genius Forum in the classroom! :)

What is the meaning of inverted commas? A substitute for italics?

[revision coming up]

[Beingof1]

DavidQuinn000

Well, you can know your perception of an issue is "clear" when you have analyzed it from top to bottom and have determined for certain that no more hidden factors can possibly arise.

Well said - when you have tested your reality with abandonment to brutal honesty, you have found truth.
This same attitude and reflection must be held in a constant state of humility. We can be 'stuck' in our past truth if we are not open to the everpresent unfolding of the true nature of reality.
Our state of existence is expansion in the present, not the past.
This means the enlightened are the most aware of learning and growing, that is the true nature of the constant.

ksolway

When you analyse it, you find that all cases of irrationality come down to a lack of memory - which is sometimes a willful lack of memory. For example, the Monty Python sketch where they are having an argument:

This is my experience, it is the reshaping of reality to conform to a priori belief system that holds the world in chains.
The denial of reality to support the throne of ego. To go so far as to exist in a fantasy to stay in control of a random appearing universe in my thinking, is the single cause of almost all suffering.

Rather we must choose the path of humility and honesty and abandon ourselves to the unfolding of reality as it is - not as preconceived.

[Leyla Shen]

sevens:

You can give whatever meaning you want to anything. I like to think that the purpose of communicating with others is to get an idea across space.

Italics are generally used for emphasis. Of course, overuse becomes destructive. For instance, using too many exclamation marks fixes the reader's attention on the punctuation marks rather than the content. It defeats the purpose.

I'm not particularly fussed, personally, whether you use single or double quotation marks (inverted commas). But, there are several different uses for them. If the context in which they appear does not clearly enable the reader to discern between them, your message can be completely lost. The reader will have to make up what you are saying. Hardly worth the effort of you saying anything then, really, eh?

Emphasis and irony
Another important use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words. Ironic quotes can also be called scare, sneer, or distance quotes. Ironic quotes are sometimes gestured in verbal speech using air quotes. // Defining irony Irony is a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used. ... Air quotes Air quotes refers to the action of using ones fingers to make quotation marks in the air during speech. ...

My jerk brother claimed he was too “busy” to help me.
Ironic quotes should be used with care. Without the intonational cues of speech, they could obscure the writer's intended meaning. They could also be confused easily with quotations.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... _and_irony

[Sapius]

Kevin wrote:

A person cannot distinguish anything at all without memory.

Of course!

For example, if you are observing, say, a tree, you have to able to remember what is not the tree in order to be able to contrast the tree with something and so give the tree existence.

Not necessarily. I don't think you have to remember what is not the tree in order to recognize a tree, since both the information’s are received simultaneously. However, both, a tree, and what is not a tree, needs memory that can be reflected upon for further investigations.

I was simply pointing out that memory does not equal rationality, which your previous statement suggests.

Kevin: When you analyse it, you find that all cases of irrationality come down to a lack of memory - which is sometimes a willful lack of memory. For example, the Monty Python sketch where they are having an argument:

How does lack of memory itself lead to irrationality? What has bits of information’s got to do with actually using them analytically? Lack of memory would mean unconsciousness. Unless you mean that some faulty memory still lingers, in which case, things will be not irrational but gibberish and make no sense at all.

May be you are using this willful lack of memory yourself here, hence no straight answers. The Monty Python sketch is a brilliant use of wits to make easy money. FYI, he willfully forgets nothing. One can always forgive, but never forget, unless he has amnesia. Just let one bad event happen again, and all those age old forgiven bad memories will be fresh as ever.

Kevin: If the whole world were full of adults who were fully enlightened Buddhas, I don't think the world would be a boring place.

Sapius: So, do you see a possible world full of adults? We shall talk about all of them being enlightened later.


Kevin: People can't currently be fully enlightened when they are born, which is why chlidren have to grow-up before they become enlightened. One would expect there to be disagreements between the enlightened adults and the younger children since the children would sometimes lack the mental ability to follow the arguments.

Hehehe.... Totally irrelevant answer to the question. I see complete Willfull lack of memory!!!

Kevin: It would be teeming with knowledge and invention.

Sapius: Inventing what? What could a fully enlightened Buddha possibly invent that a non-Buddha team of dedicated inventors could not?

Kevin: Since the mind of a Buddha is less concerned with selfish matters, like ambition, pride, paying off expensive houses, seeking the approval of others, pleasing the opposite sex, etc, their minds are much freer to seek the truth. I think they would be really good at developing new forms of space travel, or new forms of communication, for example, so they can spread their wisdom to those less fortunate around the Universe.

Again, willfull lack of memory. Any ways, I think, just like the Buddha, you are also hardly concerned with all those selfish matters. Why don't you get at it right away and come up with new form of space travel or communication. And since you are not concerned with all those selfish things, hand over all the rights to me.

Sapius: I'm not very well read, so could you please mention who all you consider are fully enlightened Buddha’s, and what all have they invented? Does any one hold a Patent?


Kevin: I don't know if there have ever been any perfectly enlightened people. But some of the most enlghtened would include people like the Buddha, Hakuin, Nagarjuna, perhaps Jesus. Their most notable invention is wisdom itself, and since there is so little wisdom in the world they have had to concentrate on that, rather than turn their hand to scientific pursuits.

Lets just say you first get fully enlightened, and give us the new form of space travel. OR are you saying that since there is not enough wisdom around, you did first like to part that wisdom unto NASA so that they may act wise and hand it over to you? I don't know? May be it's worth a try.

Boredom is a feeling of emotional dissatisfaction with reality as it is, and is a feeling based on a deluded view of the world. Since the perfectly enlightened person doesn't have any such deluded views, they do not feel dissatisfied with reality as it is. They do not feel an emotional feeling of lacking or void. They don't feel that a part of them is missing, and never feel depressed.

They stop experiencing moods that are based on emotions and false ideas about reality. They don't expect from reality what it cannot provide. The enlightened person experiences a single continuous state of mind only in the sense he is like a perfectly clear mirror. But reflected in that mirror is an infinitude of clear things. By contrast, the ordinary person is like a dirty or broken mirror, which reflects dullness, distortion, and confusion.

I think I better use that willfull lack of memory instead of asking any questions. In any case, I wouldn't know if the Buddha experiences moods that are based on non-emotional and Real ideas about Reality since I'm not enlightened.

[Sapius]

Leyla wrote:

I say: whilst the deductive process has a component of time it can be equated (for want of a better word) with a primary act of perception in that it requires such an act of perception to set it off. Unless, of course, one considers thought itself to be perception -- in which case, no human faculty could be equated with a primary act of perception. Hence, there would be no primary acts of perception. What of time then? Where would perception and the logical process/reasoning begin and end?

I see... I am thinking a bit beyond and much deeper than what seems to be a primary act of perception, which I'm not comparing to memory in this instance. I'm trying to see how this primary act of perception could be considered as actually here and now as far as our perception is concerned. Surely it seems to be so, but the thousands of micro seconds passed by during this one primary act of perception, makes it a past event. We might think that it is the here and now, but it is actually a quite delayed information as far as our perception is concerned. We cannot actually capture the here and Now. We are not able to capture a single fram out of the may be hundreds of "moving frames" per one primary act of perception since time is not still, even when perceiving a perfectly still picture since we are a part of this constantly on the move system.

What I mean to say is that you cannot perceive the set it off part in the here and now. Hence what we may consider, for practical purposes, as the here and now is actually already a past event. It might as well be like the star that we watch today but has already been dead for billions of years. Similarly, we perceive all things in a delayed manner, however milli-micro-second old they may be, and take that for the here and now, unless one comes from the school that things do not literally come into existence until one perceives it.

It may be a here and now for a 'self', but not for the thing in itself, so we might actually not know "when" it existed, hence hinting futher at the illusiory nature of existence. Keeping that in mind, who knows what event happened when? could be a second ago, or a billion years ago, and since we too are a perception to ourslves, it may be that only 'perceptions' exist. Hence time would be irrelevant in this complex form of perceptions, and so time would not exist for Totality, AKA, Reality.

I don't know how much sense this makes, but I try to think as best as I can, quite slowly though.

I just think faster than you do.

Sure you do. Not only am I a slow thinker, but a slow typist too. By the time I finish typing a post here, I find that I'm logged-out. How's that for slow. hehehe...

[Andrew]

Andrew: How do you know if your perceptions are "clear"

How do you know if your knowledge is perfect?

There's only one answer to these types of questions.

And what is that? I would say that the answer to both of these things questions is based on categorisation.

For the same reason that we can either class a colour as green or blue as it varies gradually between the two, with there being no truth of the matter beyond the fact that the colour *appears to be* one or the other, we can class perceptions as clear or unclear, with there again being no truth in the matter beyond the fact that they *seem* one way or the other. (note the synonymous usage of “appears to be” and “seems”) Similarly, we can class our knowledge as perfect if we class it as such. And the way we may come to decide to classify it this way is though our own exploration of our ideas, looking for inconsistencies. So our classification of whether or not our knowledge is perfect is similar to our classification of whether or not there seems to be any way out of a maze based on how long we have been searching for an exit.

(in fact, what does it actually mean for a perception to be clear??)

For it to be not unclear.

Well that’s not particularly helpful. You might as well have just said "A is A if it is not not-A".

And is this not still the only way we have access to truth - the degree to which our perception of truth seems to us to be "clear"?

Nope, we have access to the truth about things by knowing what truth is, precisely how it works and applying it to things precisely. If this is the case, there is no 'seems' involved, as far as the clarity of the perception of truth involved in the application goes. If this is not the case, then it will always be 'seeming'.

What does it mean to "know" something? I "know" that there is a computer in front of me, but only in the sense that there seems (clearly) to be one there. I also know that I am thinking, but only again because there seems (clearly) to be thoughts occurring in my own mind. In both cases, these impressions could be occurring for a range of even unimaginable causes (which do not consist of anything like a computer or thoughts “actually” existing). But if I didn’t categorise my perceived reality, there wouldn’t be anything to talk about. When you say you "know" what truth is, you sound like you are talking about something objective that is "out there". But maybe you are using the word "know" in the same sense that I do - in which case surely you should accept that everything is fundamentally based on what "seems", or what "appears".

In my view, the really devastating blow to absolute certainty comes when we not only question our memory,

Questioning memory is no challenge to certainty. This is impossible. In fact there is no sound challenge to certainty whatsoever, as any attempt will inevitably lead to either uncertainty or contradiction.

but also question the effectiveness of our own ability to combine propositions logically in the instant of thought-perception.

And in questioning that effectiveness properly, what are we doing?

If we're doing it properly, we fall into contradiction and, thereby, certainty. If we're not doing it properly, our conclusions will only ever be uncertain and, thereby, completely unable to challenge certainty.

Why is it unsound for me to claim: "The effectiveness of logic itself is fundamentally uncertain because there is no way that logic can be used to justify with certainty the perfect effectiveness of logic itself without first presupposing that logic is perfectly effective." Note, this argument undermines the certain accuracy of its own logic but it doesn’t logically contradict itself!

This is not an argument presenting the positive conclusion that logic is not always/ever effective, it only points out that there is no way to derive with certainty the conclusion that logic is always/ever effective. Because of this, if you *do* predetermine that logic is certain, then this argument will have no weight other than to point out that it is nothing other than a presupposition of yours that logic is perfectly effective.

For example, we can always question whether or not our perception of A is really A rather than not-A.

There is no sound formulation of the question you purport to ask here. You are conflating two definitions of reality.

Our perception of A can only ever really be exactly what it is, i.e. our perception of A. That's the operative definition of reality. Asking whether this reality is really something else necessitates another definition of reality.

Well it is my point that when we are talking about logic, we are doing nothing other than to conflate two definitions of reality. I have the impression that even though many people here are happy with the idea that there is no actuality in the existence of physical things, I think they (while perhaps not you) do tend to believe that there is actual reality in logic itself. To highlight this point, if there is no actual reality in logical concepts, then what is a delusion?

[Andrew]

Adding to Dave Toast's fine post .....

-

Andrew Wiseman wrote:

DQ: Feelings of certainty are clearly not enough. What one really needs is the clarity of mind that can reason with great skill and penetrate to the very depths of an issue. True certainty isn't really a feeling at all. It is clear-sighted perception.

AW: How do you know if your perceptions are "clear" (in fact, what does it actually mean for a perception to be clear??)
And is this not still the only way we have access to truth - the degree to which our perception of truth seems to us to be "clear"?

Well, you can know your perception of an issue is "clear" when you have analyzed it from top to bottom and have determined for certain that no more hidden factors can possibly arise.

For example, the clear perception that Reality is not nothing whatsoever arises from the understanding that any attempt to disprove this perception will only serve to confirm it instead. It is thus utterly impossible to disprove. No other factor can arise and upset the apple-cart. Complete clarity of mind with regards to this issue has been attained.

Yes, but surely you agree that whether or not "complete clarity" has been attained is dependant on at what point it seems to the person concerned that they have in fact explored all avenues of reasoning in a particular problem?

Do you not agree that "perfect clarity of thought" is just as much based on categorisation of our experiences as "perfect special awareness" is? - They both depend on our abilities to make sense of what we are perceiving.

E.g. If someone has a faulty memory, yet perfectly sound logical reasoning, he may all of a sudden experience the truth of the proposition that “experience is happening”, but in the next second may feel very proud of himself in having derived beyond doubt that “experience is *not* happening”.

That's a seperate issue. The important point is that apprehending a truth, together with knowing for certain that one has apprehended a truth, is perfectly possible regardless of whether one's memory is faulty or not. The possibility that one might forget this truth in the future doesn't change this fact.

It would be like scientist arguing that a proposed scientific theory could well be wrong purely on the grounds that we will one day all be senile or dead!

I agree with that, but if you notice, that isn't the point I am making. "It is a mistake to believe that truths that we experience can be transcribed unquestionably into the system that is abstract logic that we remember and talk about." <-- that’s what I am talking about, and this is certainly a separate topic.

We may experience certainties, and we may be aware that we are recording them in our memories. But we are also are aware of the uncertain accuracy of our memories so would actually do ourselves a service never to ascribe the label of certainty to anything that we remember. Also, when we speak, we are aware of our uncertain capabilities of saying exactly what we mean (if you don't find that, its only because you are basing your decision on your track record - you don’t know for sure at any point that you might become momentarily insane). Because of this, I don't think it is productive ever to claim that anything that goes past the pure perception stage is completely certain.

Yes, if we become completely unconscious, we would no longer have the capacity to know truth. All we need is a functioning memory of some sort. It doesn't have to record events perfectly. All it has to do is provide the conceptual materials by which we can engage in abstract reasoning and work our way towards ultimate truth.

To have the capabilities to perceive truths; but not to have the ability to do anything with it with while maintaining its absolute certainty.

In my view, the really devastating blow to absolute certainty comes when we not only question our memory, but also question the effectiveness of our own ability to combine propositions logically in the instant of thought-perception. For example, we can always question whether or not our perception of A is really A rather than not-A.

Well, we can and we can't. When you perceive a tree in a particular moment, there is no question that, in that very moment, you are experencing the perception of a tree. This is irrefutable. It is a brute fact of existence. Whatever it is that you experience in a given moment is most definitely the experience you are having in that moment. This cannot be challenged in any way.

Yes, it's true that you can question, in subsequent moments, whether the tree you experienced was real and not an hallucination of some kind. But that's another issue entirely. The fact that you did experience a tree in that moment, real or otherwise, remains undeniable. And it is within in this little window of certainty, which exists in every moment of our lives, that the grasping of a logical truth takes place. For, as in the perception of the tree, A=A is being perceived in the moment, directly.

I would say that A=A is a categorisation of perception that may be being constructed at that moment. You say that when we perceive a tree, then it is what it is and cannot be anything other than what it is (hence A=A). But that is just a simple choice of world-view (and a particular choice of words to go with it). There would never be any inconsistency in logic if everything was changed such that A=A. ie, when I perceive a tree, I could think of the tree as the set of everything that the tree is not.

I’ll point out again that in my view, when people argue about “logic”, they are really arguing about “abstract logic” (as a system that we use to make sense of our perceived thoughts in the same way that science is a system that we use to make sense of the perceived world). Because of this, even though everything about the actual perception of our own thoughts may beyond any doubt, it is a mistake to believe that truths that we experience can be transcribed unquestionably into the system that is abstract logic that we remember and talk about.

The example I gave about Reality not being nothing whatsoever refutes this.

-

It refutes the claim that its impossible to perceive a certainty, it doesn't refute my point that the truths we perceive cannot become part of our categorisation of reality and maintain their state of certainty.

[Andrew]

Gah, this forum doesnt like the not character, I'll correct one paragraph....

I would say that A=A is a categorisation of perception that may be being constructed at that moment. You say that when we perceive a tree, then it is what it is and cannot be anything other than what it is (hence A=A). But that is just a simple choice of world-view (and a particular choice of words to go with it). There would never be any inconsistency in logic if everything was changed such that A=*not*A. ie, when I perceive a tree, I could think of the tree as the set of everything that the tree is not.

[Leyla Shen]

Well it is my point that when we are talking about logic, we are doing nothing other than to conflate two definitions of reality. I have the impression that even though many people here are happy with the idea that there is no actuality in the existence of physical things, I think they (while perhaps not you) do tend to believe that there is actual reality in logic itself. To highlight this point, if there is no actual reality in logical concepts, then what is a delusion?

Exactly. I think you make the point very well, AWiseman.

There would never be any inconsistency in logic if everything was changed such that A=*not*A. ie, when I perceive a tree, I could think of the tree as the set of everything that the tree is not.

But you are still using A=A. You cannot escape it. To think of the tree (A) as the set of everything that the tree (A) is not is using A=A to arrive at A=not A. That is not a problem of logic; it is one of language.

Edit: and I reckon it's much more than just a world-view. It is the ONLY world-view.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm trying to see how this primary act of perception could be considered as actually here and now as far as our perception is concerned.

In the same way that I can say, "I am now heading off to work because of yesterday."

I have more to comment upon but, just around the corner, the bus waits to take my son on an excursion -- and my boss growls over my constant aggression...

Later.

[Leyla Shen]

I see... I am thinking a bit beyond and much deeper than what seems to be a primary act of perception, which I'm not comparing to memory in this instance. I'm trying to see how this primary act of perception could be considered as actually here and now as far as our perception is concerned.

I think Dave Toast's contributions below say quite a bit on the matter.

Dave Toast: This interpretation posits that quantum events propagate influences not only forwards in time but also backwards.

This means that determinism comes straight back into the picture - no more paradoxes and the attendant mysticism. Here's where it gets really interesting because this interpretation relies upon the literal physical reality of nonlocality, both in space and time (in both directions). Put another way, all events are instantaneously and intrinsically connected in space, and both forwards AND backwards in time.

I'm not really thinking of it as backwards causality, going off what I know about it. I'm thinking more of the iron blockish nature of a wholly determined system. Things could not be any other way than they are, things will not be any other way than they will be, and things could not have been any other way than they were. Communicating causality backwards in time is just an easy way of conceptualising the additional instantaneous interconnectedness this theory would have us understand as operating at all possible levels, everywhere and everywhen, simultaneously.

Surely it seems to be so, but the thousands of micro seconds passed by during this one primary act of perception, makes it a past event. We might think that it is the here and now, but it is actually a quite delayed information as far as our perception is concerned.

Sapius, where else can a primary act of perception be?

Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the assumption that all objects must objectively have their properties already before these properties are observed. Einstein liked to say that the Moon is "out there" even when no one is observing it.

I disagree with this assumption in the micro world, to which, I reckon, the manifestation of the moon is irrelevant. Of course objective objects (?!) have their properties before they are observed. So, what does this really mean?

We cannot actually capture the here and Now. We are not able to capture a single fram out of the may be hundreds of "moving frames" per one primary act of perception since time is not still, even when perceiving a perfectly still picture since we are a part of this constantly on the move system.

You see infinity as an endless series of moving frames? Such a lifeless calamity.

What I mean to say is that you cannot perceive the set it off part in the here and now.

Where else can you possibly perceive it?

It may be a here and now for a 'self', but not for the thing in itself, so we might actually not know "when" it existed, hence hinting futher at the illusiory nature of existence.

What has any when the tree may or may not possess to do with the setting off of the deductive process and its here and now?

Not only am I a slow thinker, but a slow typist too. By the time I finish typing a post here, I find that I'm logged-out. How's that for slow. hehehe...

That is rather funny. But, Sapius, surely you are not THAT unconscious, unless you mean to be in a timely manner...

[Sapius]

Leyla wrote:

What has any when the tree may or may not possess to do with the setting off of the deductive process and its here and now?

Nothing.

But, the primary act of perception in the here and now is for the self only, not for the actual information of an event that was perceived, which was in transit because of cause and effect, and motion, which involves time. Unless you believe that things come into existence only when perceived, and hence irrelevant.