GENIUS FORUMS

ksolway wrote:But when you know you feel hungry, then you know that with certainty.

What about when you feel like you have a self? That's a certainty too isn't it? Experiencing a self is as certain as experiencing hunger.

Jason wrote:How do you identify what is empirical and what is abstract?

The empirical is that which has errors of measurement built into it. It involves interpretations and suppositions.

That which is abstract is immediately true, and is purely mental.

ksolway wrote:But when you know you feel hungry, then you know that with certainty.

What about when you feel like you have a self? That's a certainty too isn't it? Experiencing a self is as certain as experiencing hunger.

Yes. A person might feel that they are, say, a rabbit.

In that case they can be certain that they feel they are a rabbit.

But if a person made the further assumption that they really do have the long ears of a rabbit, and not just feel like they do, then they would be venturing into the empirical realm, and uncertainty.

We people experience having arms and legs, for example, but there's no way we can know with certainty that we really have arms and legs. We could be dreaming for all we know.

We people experience having arms and legs, for example, but there's no way we can know with certainty that we really have arms and legs.

So, you are saying that the abstraction that just is -- such as hunger -- is certain (abstract/mental), yet the assumption that it is caused by one's empty stomach is empirical (uncertain).

We could be dreaming for all we know.

And this is an empirical conclusion, since it is also uncertain. Why is it uncertain?

Leyla Shen wrote:So, you are saying that the abstraction that just is -- such as hunger -- is certain (abstract/mental), yet the assumption that it is caused by one's empty stomach is empirical (uncertain).

Yes.

The feeling of hunger might be caused by a chemical imbalance or crossed-wiring in the brain, and have nothing to do with having an empty stomach.

I believe that is one of the causes of obesity.

We could be dreaming for all we know.

And this is an empirical conclusion, since it is also uncertain. Why is it uncertain?

The only way we could know if we are dreaming is if we wake up. And we don't know if and when that might happen.

The only way we could know if we are dreaming is if we wake up. And we don't know if and when that might happen.

Well, that’s one hell of a predicament. To be certain of things within a thing we can’t be certain of.

But let me say it this way (as I didn’t quite mean the question that way).

Anything which appears immediately, is purely mental, is certain. But the minute one attempts to verify this certainty (and why would you do this anyway?), one steps into the realm of uncertainty.

Defns:

Certainty: that which appears immediately to the mind and is purely mental
Uncertainty: the interpretation of a certainty

This seems to imply that animals are closer to Ultimate Truth than humans.

Leyla Shen wrote: Anything which appears immediately, is purely mental, is certain. But the minute one attempts to verify this certainty (and why would you do this anyway?), one steps into the realm of uncertainty.

Yes.

People do however foolishly try to verify their own thoughts - usually in an attempt to erase them.

For example, a person might correctly reason that the Christian God cannot possibly exist, and rather than have faith in his own thoughts, he might then go to a priest in an attempt to to have these offending thoughts erased.

Likewise, a woman who knows for sure that she is too fat might ask her friends if they think she is fat, to try and erase the offending knowledge. That's why she gets so upset when her friends reply, "Yes, you are huge."

Defns:

Certainty: that which appears immediately to the mind and is purely mental
Uncertainty: the interpretation of a certainty

I would qualify the first definition to say ". . . which consciously appears . . . ".

This is because "certainty" requires consciousness - to be contrasted with "uncertainty", for a start.

This seems to imply that animals are closer to Ultimate Truth than humans.

Yes, if we didn't qualify it by saying that conscious knowing was required, then an earthworm would be more aware than humans, and women would be closer to enlightenment than men.

Yes, if we didn't qualify it by saying that conscious knowing was required, then an earthworm would be more aware than humans, and women would be closer to enlightenment than men.

And I take this to mean consciousness of one’s own abstractions and the elements of uncertainty within. In this way can you draw the conclusion that men are closer to enlightenment on the basis of philosophical works since there are more cases in evidence of men having produced works that demonstrate conscious knowing of themselves than those of women, who tend to be aware of themselves only in relation to others. Would you say that that encapsulates your ideas of masculinity (individuality) and femininity (community)?

(Interesting to consider where this leaves politics, but I'll get to that in more detail soon.)

Leyla Shen wrote:And I take this to mean consciousness of one’s own abstractions and the elements of uncertainty within.

Consciousness of all things, yes.

In this way can you draw the conclusion that men are closer to enlightenment on the basis of philosophical works since there are more cases in evidence of men having produced works that demonstrate conscious knowing of themselves than those of women, who tend to be aware of themselves only in relation to others. Would you say that that encapsulates your ideas of masculinity (individuality) and femininity (community)?

Yes, roughly.

Dave Sim calls female life "The Merged Void" because it is not sharp and clear and defined. Instead, one idea is mixed with another one, and each is concerned about what other people might think. And none of these ideas are seen in perspective - because the person is themselves mixed-in with them.

OK. Well, I’m really getting the idea that this feminine existence -- this feminine mind -- is like a big house of mirrors full of people and things and their reflections. At the turn of a head, the person can get an entirely different set of reflections and relationships. Memories are the reflections of those people and things. Any thought which appears, appears as audio playback bouncing off a myriad of such reflections.

The masculine existence -- masculine mind -- has broken all the mirrors to reveal the world itself. This person hears the birds, smells the flowers, feels the frost and sees the sky. It might be a dream, but there is sunshine.

Whilst he also may walk through many a house of mirrors, this person does not buy into their reflections. To the residents, he simply gets lost amongst the many images and distortions -- but not without smashing a few of those mirrors here and there, surely?

Leyla Shen wrote:OK. Well, I’m really getting the idea that this feminine existence -- this feminine mind -- is like a big house of mirrors full of people and things and their reflections. At the turn of a head, the person can get an entirely different set of reflections and relationships.

Interestingly, multiple personality syndrome is a lot more common in women than in men.

You could think of all these "mirrors" as being like phantoms, or ghosts that infuse one's very life.

Memory is the thing that is lacking. It is the memory that is necessary for constancy of character, and for the consciousness of A=A.

Memories are the reflections of those people and things. Any thought which appears, appears as audio playback bouncing off a myriad of such reflections.

In the feminine mind, these "memories" are not clear, well-defined memories, which one would be in control of. The "memories" of which you speak are really just forces acting upon one.

The masculine existence -- masculine mind -- has broken all the mirrors to reveal the world itself. This person hears the birds, smells the flowers, feels the frost and sees the sky. It might be a dream, but there is sunshine.

Somehow the masculine mind has more of a talent to know a mirror as a mirror, and a reflection as a reflection, and a memory as a memory. All these things are seen as from afar, and they don't cross each other's boundaries, or cross the boundary to the self.

Imagine a person in a maze. How to get around? The man either takes a look from far above, or simply removes any walls that are in his path.

To the residents, he simply gets lost amongst the many images and distortions -- but not without smashing a few of those mirrors here and there, surely?

Perhaps. But if he smashes them it might just be that they are in the way.

Speaking of memory, character and all things alike Weininger brilliant:

Kevin wrote:

Interestingly, multiple personality syndrome is a lot more common in women than in men.

Yes, but you are -- as is not only with the psychiatrists so assessing but society as a whole -- using the classic definition of “women”: Weininger’s “primordial types.”

I could just as easily logically conclude (refer Sex & Character) that this syndrome is only apparent in women: the psychological type. In doing so, I might -- rather than seek abuse as the syndrome’s cause and treatment toward “solution” -- discover something more fundamental than that. No?

I might decide to also look at the constitution of the abusers in much more detail than is presently done.

[Edit: in other words, I don't really find "it" that interesting. And might I also suggest that perhaps you may since you have been and are possibly (by virtue of your own constitution and in line, again, with Weininger) attracted to that type of woman?]

Perhaps. But if he smashes them it might just be that they are in the way.

I’m a little lost to your meaning here. Once he smashes them, how can they be in the way?

Kevin wrote,

The empirical is that which has errors of measurement built into it. It involves interpretations and suppositions.

That which is abstract is immediately true, and is purely mental.

So what is the difference between feeling hungry, which is no more than a sensation interpreted via electro-chemical signals to the brain, and simply viewing the arms and legs, also a visual sensation interpreted via electro-chemical signals to the brain? How are my arms and legs less certain? Are you saying that only “feelings” are certain? Are the animals more certain about their arms and legs just because they don’t seem to think?

We people experience having arms and legs, for example, but there's no way we can know with certainty that we really have arms and legs.

That applies to the brain too I take it. Right? Certainty begins with KNOWING, and that requires thinking, without reasoning, certainty holds no meaning.

We could be dreaming for all we know.

Sure, may be, but I would wait and see until someone wakes up from this supposed dream and then discuss it, that is, if I am there too. Until then, this is all that we have, so I would rather not waste time over suppositions.

BTW, when will we stop drawing boundaries and understand once and for all that there is no basic distinction or two different worlds as such? one that of a physical and one that of a mental, simply because we have the capability of defining and thinking verbally.

Leyla: This seems to imply that animals are closer to Ultimate Truth than humans.
Kevin: Yes, if we didn't qualify it by saying that conscious knowing was required, then an earthworm would be more aware than humans, and women would be closer to enlightenment than men.

And how in the world is conscious knowing not required? I though it was more a matter of certainty than animal awareness, which has nothing to do with certainty; so what does Ultimate Truth mean to an animal? Will you be, Kevin, more closer to Ultimate Truth when removed of all reasoning? I simply cannot understand why do we keep going back in reverse when nature has brought us thus far? What great achievement is there is going back to animal awareness when we have this amazing faculty of actually knowing what we are aware of? Including the truth of existence itself. Beats me…

Sapius wrote:Kevin wrote,

The empirical is that which has errors of measurement built into it. It involves interpretations and suppositions.

That which is abstract is immediately true, and is purely mental.

So what is the difference between feeling hungry, which is no more than a sensation interpreted via electro-chemical signals to the brain, and simply viewing the arms and legs, also a visual sensation interpreted via electro-chemical signals to the brain? How are my arms and legs less certain?

Both cases are the same.

You can be certain of feeling hungry, without you body being in need of food. And you can be certain of experiencing arms and legs, even though you might not have any.

The certainty is in the direct experience, not in the suppositions that might be drawn from the experience.

Are you saying that only “feelings” are certain? Are the animals more certain about their arms and legs just because they don’t seem to think?

Beings are only capable of certainty to the degree that they are conscious.

We could be dreaming for all we know.

Sure, may be, but I would wait and see until someone wakes up from this supposed dream and then discuss it, that is, if I am there too. Until then, this is all that we have, so I would rather not waste time over suppositions.

That's right, we don't really need to suppose that we are awake (or dreaming), since we can't know one way or the other.

BTW, when will we stop drawing boundaries and understand once and for all that there is no basic distinction or two different worlds as such? one that of a physical and one that of a mental, simply because we have the capability of defining and thinking verbally.

It is the nature of consciousness to draw boundaries. There's nothing wrong with boundaries so long was we don't imagine them to be more than they really are.

There is an important boundary between empirical truths, which are uncertain, and purely logical truths, which are certain. Without consciousness we wouldn't be aware of that difference.

Leyla: This seems to imply that animals are closer to Ultimate Truth than humans.
Kevin: Yes, if we didn't qualify it by saying that conscious knowing was required, then an earthworm would be more aware than humans, and women would be closer to enlightenment than men.

And how in the world is conscious knowing not required?

I'm not sure what you are saying. Conscious knowing is indeed required for there to be knowledge of any kind.

Earthworms, etc, can't have knowledge or certainty because they don't have sufficient consciousness. That's what I was saying in that quote.

I though it was more a matter of certainty than animal awareness, which has nothing to do with certainty;

That's right.

I simply cannot understand why do we keep going back in reverse when nature has brought us thus far?

We need to go forwards. More discrimination, not less.

ksolway wrote:You can be certain of feeling hungry, without you body being in need of food. And you can be certain of experiencing arms and legs, even though you might not have any.

Kevin, as I understood it, you take "is" to mean "presents an appearance" - I mean, from you point of view, isn't experiencing arms and legs (they present an appearance to you) exactly the same as having arms and legs?

Kevin wrote:

You can be certain of feeling hungry, without you body being in need of food. And you can be certain of experiencing arms and legs, even though you might not have any.

The certainty is in the direct experience, not in the suppositions that might be drawn from the experience.

So, the idea having appeared that I do have arms and legs even though I may not have arms and legs is certain. So what? So I might try and run and fall over! And if I do, it doesn’t matter, because it appeared to me that I had arms and legs and that comprises clarity and certainty.

Like the man who thinks he can be a sage because he has a penis.

Leyla Shen wrote:So, the idea having appeared that I do have arms and legs even though I may not have arms and legs is certain. So what?

So that kind of knowledge is the basis of all philosophy, and is applied in every philosophical thought.

Kevin wrote,

You can be certain of feeling hungry, without you body being in need of food. And you can be certain of experiencing arms and legs, even though you might not have any.

So the body wanting food or not has nothing to do with the certainty of feeling hungry, I can see that, and hence similarly, I could be certain of experiencing arms and legs, irrelevant of any visual perception. Is that right?

I can see things, but they might not be there for certain, but I’m certain that I see. So drawing conclusions for certain is not possible from what I see for they might not be there for certain. Is that right?

All that you are saying is that one can only be absolutely certain that I experience, immediately, nothing can be said beyond that with certainty, and if that is absolutely certain, then why should I even think any further?

Further up Leyla said: Anything which appears immediately, is purely mental, is certain. But the minute one attempts to verify this certainty (and why would you do this anyway?), one steps into the realm of uncertainty.

To which you replied: Yes.

So where does that leave logic and reasoning? Or cause and effect for that matter? How did you arrive at cause and effect? Is the whole process an immediate appearance, purely mental, or did you need some perceptual help, and reasoning? Do you have any doubts about cause and effect? Do animals have any idea of cause and effect?

Beings are only capable of certainty to the degree that they are conscious.

Through that which appears immediately, right? So in your own pet words, I can safely ignore all that you say since you are not certain of what you speak, since you have stepped in the world of uncertainties, hence I can certainly hear, but should not make anything of what you say. If one has concluded that being conscious is the only certainty one can ever have, he should stop reasoning any further into the realms of uncertainties.

There is an important boundary between empirical truths, which are uncertain, and purely logical truths, which are certain. Without consciousness we wouldn't be aware of that difference.

But knowing the difference is not an immediate appearance, it requires some thought, and what are logical truths based on if not perceptual empirical experiences?

Sapius: And how in the world is conscious knowing not required?
Kevin: I'm not sure what you are saying.

Well, let me try again.

Leyla:
Certainty: that which appears immediately to the mind and is purely mental
Uncertainty: the interpretation of a certainty

This seems to imply that animals are closer to Ultimate Truth than humans.

Kevin:
Yes, if we didn't qualify it by saying that conscious knowing was required, then an earthworm would be more aware than humans, and women would be closer to enlightenment than men.

Your ‘yes’ seems to imply that animals are indeed closer to Ultimate Truth, which in the above case means enjoying certainty, since they do not interpret, now what has this, “if we didn't qualify it by saying that conscious knowing was required”, got to do with certainty? How does non-qualification to conscious knowing bring an animal any closer to Ultimate Truth? Certainty?

Sapius wrote:So the body wanting food or not has nothing to do with the certainty of feeling hungry, I can see that, and hence similarly, I could be certain of experiencing arms and legs, irrelevant of any visual perception. Is that right?

If you visually saw arms and legs, you would be having a visual experience of arms and legs. But there might not be any arms and legs there.

I can see things, but they might not be there for certain, but I’m certain that I see. So drawing conclusions for certain is not possible from what I see for they might not be there for certain. Is that right?

Some conclusions you can safely draw, and others you can't.

So where does that leave logic and reasoning? Or cause and effect for that matter? How did you arrive at cause and effect? Is the whole process an immediate appearance, purely mental, or did you need some perceptual help, and reasoning?

It is purely mental, purely analytical, certain reasoning. All it requires are the things that occur to the mind.

Do you have any doubts about cause and effect?

No.

Do animals have any idea of cause and effect?

They would do to the degree they are conscious.

Even human beings have precious little idea of cause and effect, it would seem.

Beings are only capable of certainty to the degree that they are conscious.

Through that which appears immediately, right?

Yes.

So in your own pet words, I can safely ignore all that you say since you are not certain of what you speak, since you have stepped in the world of uncertainties

Where exactly have I stepped into the world of uncertainties?

I have only said that beings are capable of certainty to the degree they are conscious. This is a purely logical and necessary truth, independent of any empirical uncertainties. Certainty (and discrimination) is the nature of consciousness.

There is an important boundary between empirical truths, which are uncertain, and purely logical truths, which are certain. Without consciousness we wouldn't be aware of that difference.

But knowing the difference is not an immediate appearance, it requires some thought, and what are logical truths based on if not perceptual empirical experiences?

Anything which occurs to the mind is an immediate experience or appearance. This includes any chain of reasoning, or any object with appars to the mind. Purely logical reasoning uses only mental entities, and doesn't rest on any empirical uncertainties.

Your ‘yes’ seems to imply that animals are indeed closer to Ultimate Truth,

I meant that they would be closer, if enlightenment didn't require consciousness. But enlightenment does require consciousness, since without consciousness there is nothing.

Kevin wrote:

Anything which occurs to the mind is an immediate experience or appearance. This includes any chain of reasoning, or any object with appars to the mind. Purely logical reasoning uses only mental entities, and doesn't rest on any empirical uncertainties.

Now, Christianity is an experience of the appearance of the Christian God to the mind of a fundy Christian. Thus, according to these premises, it is absolutely certain that this God exists since it is an appearance that has occurred to the mind. In fact, a Christian is so certain about the uncertainty of empirical data -- so certain that the mortal body is uncertain even though there may be times that he feels he has one (just like feeling hungry) -- that he knows no matter what he does he will be going to heaven. You, on the other hand, are certain that the Christian God cannot exist. This also is a thing that has occurred to the mind. These are opposing things which have, by virtue of nature, immediately appeared: occurred to the mind. “Popped” out of nature. Certain.

Earlier, you wrote:

[Edit: It wouldn't be an empirical matter that I thought it, but it would be an empirical matter to see whether there is a causal link between my hunger and a lack of food.]

In this instance, it is implied that to verify, and thereby satisfy, an immediate occurrence to the mind is to enter into uncertainty and supposition. It becomes “supposed” (uncertain) that eating is connected to the appearance of feeling hungry. Yet, we do it all the time once we have established that we have not in fact eaten for quite some time. In another thread, David said:

If a person is starving, he needs food before he can strive for enlightenment. Otherwise, he won't have the capacity or strength to go very far.

Is he certain about this because the thought appeared to him in knowing consciousness without recourse to supposition -- that is, without recourse to the fact that one must first suppose they have a body (arms, legs, stomach) even if they don’t? Or, is it something he is uncertain of for that reason -- because he is seeking for a causal link between starvation and the capacity to attain enlightenment? Is this an example of purely logical reasoning?

Leyla Shen wrote:Now, Christianity is an experience of the appearance of the Christian God to the mind of a fundy Christian. Thus, according to these premises, it is absolutely certain that this God exists

No, it is an absolute certainty that they are experiencing a God, but the specific causes of their experience are uncertain. Their experience of God might be caused by the fact that they are dreaming, or mad, etc.

You, on the other hand, are certain that the Christian God cannot exist. This also is a thing that has occurred to the mind. These are opposing things which have, by virtue of nature, immediately appeared: occurred to the mind. “Popped” out of nature. Certain.

The experiences of wise people are more in accordance with reality. That's what makes them wise.

DQ wrote:If a person is starving, he needs food before he can strive for enlightenment. Otherwise, he won't have the capacity or strength to go very far.

Is he certain about this because the thought appeared to him in knowing consciousness without recourse to supposition -- that is, without recourse to the fact that one must first suppose they have a body (arms, legs, stomach) even if they don’t?

David is only saying that if a person is starving, then they need food. This is a truth by definition, since "starving" means "in need of food".

There's a big difference between a person feeling like they're starving, like a massively overweight American, and a person who is actually starving, like someone in Ethiopia who might lack the energy to even feel hungry.

Or, is it something he is uncertain of for that reason -- because he is seeking for a causal link between starvation and the capacity to attain enlightenment? Is this an example of purely logical reasoning?

"If a person is starving, then their body is in need of food.", is an example of purely logical reasoning.

ksolway wrote:No, it is an absolute certainty that they are experiencing a God, but the specific causes of their experience are uncertain. Their experience of God might be caused by the fact that they are dreaming, or mad, etc.

The experiences of wise people are more in accordance with reality. That's what makes them wise.

Kevin, you seem to be saying that there is an objective reality that is outside experience - a noumena, if you will.

Is that what you mean?

Dave,

If this “objective reality” was outside our experience, how would we know anything about it?

Sue

Leyla Shen wrote:

So, the idea having appeared that I do have arms and legs even though I may not have arms and legs is certain. So what?

Kevin Solway wrote:

So that kind of knowledge is the basis of all philosophy, and is applied in every philosophical thought.

So that would explain why most people avoid acknowledging that certainty is even possible: being certain about anything would then mean they would have to use that certainty and consistently apply it to everything. And that would be a bummer, because uncertainty allows for inconsistency, which in most people’s minds equals happiness.

Sue

DHodges wrote:

The experiences of wise people are more in accordance with reality. That's what makes them wise.

Kevin, you seem to be saying that there is an objective reality that is outside experience - a noumena, if you will.

Is that what you mean?

A noumenon outside of experience (the mind) would seem to be a contradiction in terms.

When I mentioned "in accordance with reality" I was thinking more along the lines of being in accordance with logic. A fool says that "A" is "not-A", while a wise person says that it is what it is.

The fundamentalist's belief in God is more a violation of logic than anything else, before we even begin to look at things such as empirical evidence.

Kevin,

S: So the body wanting food or not has nothing to do with the certainty of feeling hungry, I can see that, and hence similarly, I could be certain of experiencing arms and legs, irrelevant of any visual perception. Is that right?

K: If you visually saw arms and legs, you would be having a visual experience of arms and legs. But there might not be any arms and legs there.

So this particular immediate appearance in not certain? Where as immediate appearance of hunger is certain?

S: I can see things, but they might not be there for certain, but I’m certain that I see. So drawing conclusions for certain is not possible from what I see for they might not be there for certain. Is that right?

K: Some conclusions you can safely draw, and others you can't.

So in some cases I can take empirical evidence as certain and others not?

S: So where does that leave logic and reasoning? Or cause and effect for that matter? How did you arrive at cause and effect? Is the whole process an immediate appearance, purely mental, or did you need some perceptual help, and reasoning?

K: It is purely mental, purely analytical, certain reasoning. All it requires are the things that occur to the mind.

To analyze, to reason, one has to necessarily rely on definitions, concepts, and those are based on what? Sensual perceptions… which are all immediate appearances before analyzing, and by the way, uncertain.

S: Do you have any doubts about cause and effect?

K: No.

How come? What is your certainty based on?

S: Do animals have any idea of cause and effect?

K: They would do to the degree they are conscious.

You mean philosophers to a certain degree?

K: Even human beings have precious little idea of cause and effect, it would seem.

That’s another story. They may not understand or accept the core implications as you do, but any educated person will have a pretty good idea.

K: Where exactly have I stepped into the world of uncertainties?

Here…

K: Beings are only capable of certainty to the degree that they are conscious.

Conscious of what? …that which immediately appears. And how or why does anything appear? Magic? Or perceptual information? You could not even reply if these words did not appear, eventually to your mind but not before you saw them. Written words are empirical, their meanings are mental. If you say that these words may or may not exist just like the arms and legs, then you are wasting your time reading them.

S: But knowing the difference is not an immediate appearance, it requires some thought, and what are logical truths based on if not perceptual empirical experiences?

K: Anything which occurs to the mind is an immediate experience or appearance. This includes any chain of reasoning, or any object with appars to the mind. Purely logical reasoning uses only mental entities, and doesn't rest on any empirical uncertainties.

Let me know how you are certain about cause and effect, we shall take it on from there.

S: Your ‘yes’ seems to imply that animals are indeed closer to Ultimate Truth,

K: I meant that they would be closer, if enlightenment didn't require consciousness. But enlightenment does require consciousness, since without consciousness there is nothing.

Oh! I see. So you actually mean ‘no’. Animals are not closer to Ultimate Truth. So why do you have this habit of generally confusing the issue by adding irrelevant extensions? A simple ‘no’ in this case would suffice.

BTW

Kevin to Leyla: "If a person is starving, then their body is in need of food.", is an example of purely logical reasoning.

I think you may need to drop the ‘person’ and ‘body’ part above, because you are certain about the hunger, but not the person, or body, for he may or may not be at all. Hell, you are not even certain of your own arms and legs… never mind.

All that there is, is because of me. Or, I am because All that there is. Is the question.