The Absolute

[analog57]

[1.] Everything *within* reality, is self referential and also relational. Things relate to other things, e.g. [A or not-A], as well as being self referring, e.g. [A=A].


[2.] The totality of all that exists can only refer to itself [A=A] because there is no outside reference.

[3.] Because the totality is self referential, its identity becomes a form of self similarity and as such, every self similar "fractal-like" aspect of reality has its own identity, hence the law of excluded middle [A or not-A] becomes the relational law between aspects of reality.

[4.] Because the non-local coherence of the whole[totality] holds for the localized *parts* OF the whole, the coherent unity of the whole, becomes replicated as a fractal, thus the coherent unity of a human mind is a fractal aspect of the coherent unity of the whole. Coherence of the human mind is a fractal aspect of the coherence of the totality. The coherent totality has greater complexity than a single[coherent] human mind.

[5.] Everything is mind.

[6.] The mind of the totality is a monic[due to its self reference].

[7.] The mind of the totality is God-like due to its universiality.

[David Quinn]

Nothing has changed with this new formulation. The same basic problem remains. You are simply assuming that the cohesiveness of Reality requires sentience or mind. There is no evidence for this. It could just as easily be caused by something else.

You're basically stating that cohesion and order requires sentience by default. That's not an argument. That's an article of faith.

-

[analog57]

Nothing has changed with this new formulation. The same basic problem remains. You are simply assuming that the cohesiveness of Reality requires sentience or mind. There is no evidence for this. It could just as easily be caused by something else.

You're basically stating that cohesion and order requires sentience by default. That's not an argument. That's an article of faith.

-

No, I am saying that sentience cannot arise without some sort of instantiating property which gives rise TO self awareness, which is a coherent unity. The potential for a thing to exist is either an accident or it is caused. Since the totality has no outside cause, it caused itself. Self causality is self determination ...a MIND.

[Kevin Solway]

The potential for a thing to exist is either an accident or it is caused.

Since all accidents are caused, there is no difference.

[analog57]

The potential for a thing to exist is either an accident or it is caused.

Since all accidents are caused, there is no difference.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... y/accident

Logic: A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.

Spontaneous events have no specifiable cause.

[Sapius]

David wrote:

DQ: The truth of 1+1=2, for example, doesn't somehow become false when no one is around to conceive of it.

S: In effect it means that that is not a mental construction but rather exists in Reality. Is that right?

No, it's definitely a mental construct which disappears when no one conceives of it. But when it does disappear its existence as a concept merely ends, not its inherent truthfulness. This is why, whenever anyone thinks of it again, it is always automatically true.

That means it exists irrelevant of any one conceiving it. So a falling tree would make a sound irrelevant of someone being or not being there to conceive of it.

A truth can only be overturned when it is demonstrated to be false. Simply ceasing to be thought about is not enough.

Can anyone demonstrate that given all other necessary criteria’s a falling tree does not make a sound if there is no one to hear it? Hence its truth cannot be overturned.

We've probably hashed it out enough. Unless you have something startlingy new to introduce, we might as well leave it there.

Nope, nothing new, in fact according to the above philosophy, nothing can actually be "new" since we conceive that which already exists, and strangely enough, that which conceives of it does not really exist. In any case, we may not be the first ones to conceive it. Just clear the above points for now please.

[Dave Toast]

Can anyone demonstrate that given all other necessary criteria’s a falling tree does not make a sound if there is no one to hear it?

Yes.

What is a sound?

[Leyla Shen]

"Cocaine" has a top sound. (Sooooo, over the tree question.)

Fuck the tree.

[dances out of the forum]

[Sapius]

Can anyone demonstrate that given all other necessary criteria’s a falling tree does not make a sound if there is no one to hear it?

Yes.

What is a sound?

Dave, I think you misunderstand me because of a missing question mark?

"Can anyone demonstrate that given all other necessary criteria’s a falling tree does not make a sound if there is no one to hear it? Hence its truth cannot be overturned?

If this..... "A truth can only be overturned when it is demonstrated to be false. Simply ceasing to be thought about is not enough"….. is true, which itself is a thought, then ceasing of any thought would not mean the disappearance of things once experienced. How can "truth" remain when there is no one to think it, and how come ceasing of other thoughts make things non-existent? Is it 'logic' that confirms the "truth"? but what is logic but a mental construct? It boils down to personal values. And do any personal values exist if there is no one to value it?

[Sapius]

"Cocaine" has a top sound. (Sooooo, over the tree question.)

Yes, it is a question, but not that much over the tree, for I think it is called a rhetorical question.