GENIUS FORUMS

NickOtani wrote: You really shouldn’t do to others what you wouldn’t want to have done to you. (...) Yes, we have moral freedom to pursue any goals we wish within the parameters of allowing others that same rights. We do not have freedom to deprive other people of their freedom, unless we are punishing those who deprive others of freedom.

This sounds like you confuse morality with philosophy. Anyway, in reality we all have the 'freedom' to cheat on others and ourselves. So when you say "We do not have freedom to deprive other people of their freedom", you probably mean: "I believe the ideal would be not to deprive...". Your 'free will' works just as well in crime and there's no indication that it never rewards in terms of evolution or development.

Two people observing the same accident on the corner will differ about what the see, to some extent, but they at least agree they saw vehicles collide, not two elephants kissing.

The similarity in observation is obviously caused by their similarity as type of observer, as member of the same group. You shouldn't confuse consensus with true objectivity.

NickOtani wrote: Empiricism is not the most pure way of knowing things. Our senses fool us in a variety of ways. Descartes demonstrated how he could determine his own existence without any sense perception, and Kant held that we could use empiricism and rationalism to get a high degree of certainty about reality. The empirical information would be like raw data which could be processed by the machinery or reason.

There is a problem with talking this way:

When you say, for example, "Kant held..." it's not clear whether you agree with him. If you want to give attribution for an idea you agree with, it might be better to say something like "I think (like Kant) that..." or "I agree with Kant that..."

You would then be actually presenting (and taking responsibility for) your own thought, rather than merely reciting the thoughts of others, which is not very interesting. Merely quoting others be also be perceived as being cowardly, because it may be seen as an attempt to allow you to back out later on, saying "That was Kant's idea, not mine."

Descartes demonstrated how he could determine his own existence without any sense perception,

This has been the topic of some discussion here. My understanding is that the usual interpretation of Descartes goes too far. Saying "I think, therefore I am," is begging the question. You can legitimately conclude "the process of thinking exists," but throwing in the "I" is not logically justified and is misleading.

By saying "Descartes demonstrated..." you imply that you agree that his conclusion "I am" is valid. Descartes can no longer validly make this conclusion, being dead; but the conclusion "the process of thinking exists" is still valid, and it will be valid any time it is thought.

NickO wrote:

Excuse me. You introduced the issue of contending with options presented. I was merely exploring those options. My post was relevant. And, if there are, in fact, options, even to choose or not to choose, there is, in fact, free choice.

Incorrect.
You stated that even not choosing is a choice, which indicates that action is mandatory. You are then bound to act within the parameters that have been casually determined. This is in complete opposition of Freedom.

You then proceeded to present your classification of choice, yet you haven’t even been able to show that choice exists, all the while disregarding my points, using your logic, that clearly demonstrates that Free Will is a misnomer.
You are simply building a straw man and then appealing to its authority.

BTW, unicorns do exist as a concept. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to refer to them.

This is incorrect as well and is simply argumentative.
It’s apparent that you have no interest in discussing anything relative to truth, your egocentric arguments serve no other purpose then self aggrandizement.
That’s fine. If you want to be an exhibitionist, have at it. But I will not assist you in you public display of deluded, linguistic masturbation.
Thank you for your time, Nick.

To ksolway:

Why do you ask David, "How do you actually know these things exist in the absence of an observer?", when David has already said that nothing can exist independently of an observer?

David was talking about a logical argument. One doesn’t empirically observe a logical argument, unless it is written out in front of one. Even then, one is merely observing a representation of something which is reasoned, like the existence of the dark side of the moon can be reasoned to exist, not empirically observed.

Anyway, I was turning one of David’s arguments against me back onto him, hanging him on his own petard. Sapius admits to not being a heavyweight on this board, but Sapius sees this. You don’t.

Your thinking seems so academic to me, I can't make any sense of it at all.

Yes, we can see that.

In my experience, when academic philosophers refer to ideas of Western philosophers of the past, they usually have no understanding whatsoever of those past philosophers, so their references are useless. It only ends up piling more empty words on top of their own.

Let me recommend a board called “Talk Philosophy.” They don’t really talk philosophy there. You would be safe.

To Diebert van Rhijn:

This sounds like you confuse morality with philosophy. Anyway, in reality we all have the 'freedom' to cheat on others and ourselves. So when you say "We do not have freedom to deprive other people of their freedom", you probably mean: "I believe the ideal would be not to deprive...". Your 'free will' works just as well in crime and there's no indication that it never rewards in terms of evolution or development.

No, ethics is a branch of philosophy. In metaphysics, we may have freedom to cheat on others, but whether or not we should is a matter for ethics or morality. And, whether or not crime actually rewards is something we can discuss with rational egoism. The rational egoist would rather earn his rewards honestly and live in a community of like minded individuals. That would be more in his self-interest than being immoral in an immoral community.

The similarity in observation is obviously caused by their similarity as type of observer, as member of the same group. You shouldn't confuse consensus with true objectivity.

No, I don’t think consensus is a great standard for truth. There is probably a consensus on this board that I am some kind of obnoxious, mean person picking on these poor geniuses here, but majority rule on this board does not determine truth. If there is an observer, there must also be that which is observed. The observer may project onto that which is observed, but that which is observed is still there, separate from the observer. Objective reality is that which is “out there,” separate from the observer and not subject to his or her wishes and whims.

To DHodges:

When you say, for example, "Kant held..." it's not clear whether you agree with him. If you want to give attribution for an idea you agree with, it might be better to say something like "I think (like Kant) that..." or "I agree with Kant that..."

You would then be actually presenting (and taking responsibility for) your own thought, rather than merely reciting the thoughts of others, which is not very interesting. Merely quoting others be also be perceived as being cowardly, because it may be seen as an attempt to allow you to back out later on, saying "That was Kant's idea, not mine."

I may not agree with a certain philosopher or what he or she said, but I may think what he or she said is worth mentioning when I’m discussing a certain point. When we review the literature, we don’t interject our own opinions about it yet. It is just there as a point to ponder. Later, in a paragraph or two at the end of the review, we can include our commentary on it.

In my first post in this thread, I talked about pure objectivism and existentialism. Then I talked about my philosophy, which is a combination of both but also different than either. People who have average comprehension skills should be able to tell the difference.

This has been the topic of some discussion here. My understanding is that the usual interpretation of Descartes goes too far. Saying "I think, therefore I am," is begging the question. You can legitimately conclude "the process of thinking exists," but throwing in the "I" is not logically justified and is misleading.

By saying "Descartes demonstrated..." you imply that you agree that his conclusion "I am" is valid. Descartes can no longer validly make this conclusion, being dead; but the conclusion "the process of thinking exists" is still valid, and it will be valid any time it is thought.

I agree that there are problems with Descartes’ Cogito. It does beg the question. It is circular, no better than assertion. However, it is an elegant way of saying something. It is worth including in a discussion of the difference between rationalism and empiricism. It demonstrates the rationalist approach to trying to find truth without empiricism.

And, I don’t think “the process of thinking exists” is a way of salvaging something from the Cogito. It is not an argument, just an assertion, and if thinking exists, it implies the existence of a thinker, just as the existence of walking implies something that walks.

To N0X23:

Incorrect.
You stated that even not choosing is a choice, which indicates that action is mandatory. You are then bound to act within the parameters that have been casually determined. This is in complete opposition of Freedom.

You then proceeded to present your classification of choice, yet you haven’t even been able to show that choice exists, all the while disregarding my points, using your logic, that clearly demonstrates that Free Will is a misnomer.
You are simply building a straw man and then appealing to its authority.

Yes, I stated that not choosing is also a choice, but I got it from Sartre. It is paradoxical that we are “forced into freedom.”

This is incorrect as well and is simply argumentative.
It’s apparent that you have no interest in discussing anything relative to truth, your egocentric arguments serve no other purpose then self aggrandizement.
That’s fine. If you want to be an exhibitionist, have at it. But I will not assist you in you public display of deluded, linguistic masturbation.
Thank you for your time, Nick.

Please tell me how it is incorrect that “… unicorns do exist as a concept. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to refer to them.” How could you refer to unicorns if they don’t exist even as a concept?

bis bald,

Nick

NickOtani wrote:No, ethics is a branch of philosophy.

In a sense, everything branches from ones philosophy.

The rational egoist would rather earn his rewards honestly and live in a community of like minded individuals. That would be more in his self-interest than being immoral in an immoral community.

Dishonesty is rather obviously only of interest for the egoist in an environment of honest, trusting people. It's in the self-interest of a fox to seek out a chicken coop for food, not the den of another fox.

There is probably a consensus on this board that I am some kind of obnoxious, mean person picking on these poor geniuses here

Well, I get the impression so far you might be too nice and trusting for real life philosophy. Too much chicken, not enough fox yet. The overall consensus on this board is a desire for truth against all costs. Apart from that it's more diverse than anywhere else I've been.

Objective reality is that which is “out there,” separate from the observer and not subject to his or her wishes and whims.

You only wish there's such reality! To me most personal wishes and whims are quite illusive anyway. Just another way to justify the way nature works through us.

Jamesh, you wrote this:

You are on the typical human ego trip. The great desire of humans to be special – which is the founding concept of all religions. It is just one step away from thinking of ourselves as having a soul and being immortal. This is delusion caused by emotions.

I can't see how you can say this, how you can know this, what if you're wrong, isn't it at least possibly true? How did you determine you have no soul?

Diebert you quoted and then said;

Quote:
Objective reality is that which is “out there,” separate from the observer and not subject to his or her wishes and whims.


You only wish there's such reality!

So then, what amazing faculty do you possess that informs you nothing is there? Or are you implying something else entirely?

Lennyrizzo wrote:Diebert you quoted and then said;

Quote:
Objective reality is that which is “out there,” separate from the observer and not subject to his or her wishes and whims.


You only wish there's such reality!

So then, what amazing faculty do you possess that informs you nothing is there? Or are you implying something else entirely?

The notion of an 'objective reality' or even a 'nothing' simply loses meaning when you seperate it from the observer or any process of observing, as Nick implied. And certainly something doesn't become suddenly 'objective' just because we cannot change it by the power of wishes and whims.

JamsH: You are on the typical human ego trip. The great desire of humans to be special – which is the founding concept of all religions. It is just one step away from thinking of ourselves as having a soul and being immortal. This is delusion caused by emotions.

Lenny: I can't see how you can say this, how you can know this, what if you're wrong, isn't it at least possibly true? How did you determine you have no soul?

No, based on all my personal experiences to date, it is not even remotely possibly true that a soul exists. I don’t even really know what a soul is supposed to be. What is it to you?

It can’t be what one thinks, as what one thinks is dependant upon memory and patterns of thought processing developed in live brains. It can’t be one’s emotions as emotions are just thoughts that result from the inducement of chemical change in one’s body. It can’t be plain old awareness, as such awareness without the addition of memory doesn’t know of its existence. During certain types of sleep the soul ceases to exist. Without experiences the soul would also cease to exist. Nothing, and certainly not souls, can possibly be separate and not inherently interconnected with the rest of the universe (except - to a certain extent anyway - non-spatially dependant, infinite, single property, formless forces – and souls certainly do not fit into this category as we attach our personality to the concept soul – we give it form).

I can’t see how the concept could have any meaning except as some form of magic, and I have never seen any evidence of magic existing. These days I find the concept of magic disgusting, it is the illusion of no prior cause. To say that god is the cause of souls, is just saying that souls are part of an uncaused god, it is just transferring the unexplained ‘magic’ to this imaginary god.

The soul is merely our most prominent accessible memories relating to the ego or the self, it is the net result of our past experiences stored in the brain under the data organisational category of “what makes up me”.

At this point in the discussion I'd like to know exactly what Nick means when he says something "exists". So, Nick, what does it mean for a thing to exist? I ask that because I don't think talking about whether things do or do not exist independent of an observer can take us anywhere without us, at some point, defining "existence".

Also, I don't quite understand why Nox is denying the existence of conceptual unicorns. Unicorns as a concept certainly exist, it's just that they lack any known empircal referent.


Dan Rowden

To Diebert van Rhijn:

In a sense, everything branches from ones philosophy.

Yes, but ethics is one of the main branches of established philosophy. Epistemology and metaphysics are the other main branches. Please feel free to check several other respectable sources on the internet or off.

Dishonesty is rather obviously only of interest for the egoist in an environment of honest, trusting people. It's in the self-interest of a fox to seek out a chicken coop for food, not the den of another fox.

In human communities, however, the fox is better off mixing in with the chickens and respecting them as he would want them to respect him. That way, he receives the benefits from being part of the community which is on guard against predators. He would lose all those benefits if it were revealed that he is a predator. It is, therefore, in his self-interest not to be a predator. Besides, if he earns his benefits honestly, by contributing to the community and not taking things by force, he is living authentically, not like someone who fakes reality, like someone on drugs who lives in a dream world or a brain in a vat having its pleasure nerve endings stimulated artificially. Would you rather win the race honestly, with hard work you really put in, or would you rather cheat or just think you won the race? How would you feel if you were shoeless Joe hearing a boy say, “Say it ain’t so!” There is no honor in being dishonest.

Well, I get the impression so far you might be too nice and trusting for real life philosophy. Too much chicken, not enough fox yet. The overall consensus on this board is a desire for truth against all costs. Apart from that it's more diverse than anywhere else I've been.

Hey, I have been around the block a few times. Have you read any of my autobiographical writings? I’ve seen more of the real world before I was twenty-one than many people see in a life-time. And, now that I just turned 58, I’ve had many more experiences in diverse settings and had to deal with diverse populations.
Also, not everybody thinks I’m nice. I’ve been banned from boards for being rude. Actually, I think I just stand up for what I believe. Sometimes I get caught up in a debate and make my points forcefully, with passion, and sometimes I’m direct and blunt. If I perceive that I’m being attacked first, I may retaliate. It just depends on how I’m feeling. I try not to let others play me or control me, so sometimes I may just walk away. It’s not important to me what jerks think of me.

To drowden:

At this point in the discussion I'd like to know exactly what Nick means when he says something "exists". So, Nick, what does it mean for a thing to exist? I ask that because I don't think talking about whether things do or do not exist independent of an observer can take us anywhere without us, at some point, defining "existence".

Defining “existence” is not an easy task. It might be impossible. “Every definition is the determination of a concept by indicating its higher genus and the differentia specifica. But since being is itself the supreme genus, it is evidently impossible to find a higher genus in which it would be included; therefore any definition of being becomes logically impossible.” (Alfred Stern, Sartre, His Philosophy and Psychoanalysis New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1953), p. 37)

Still, in common language, we assign existence to ourselves and various things or ideas we perceive or reason or combine reason and perception to verify. Some things we merely say are self-evident. It’s like we have to have a starting point, a line in the sand, an axiom to begin with and then just get started.

Idealists believe that real existence is in the mind, the perfect Platonic forms. Outside reality is just a reflection of those mental forms. Realists also believe in this dualism but think substance, external matter, is more real than the form. It approaches the form. It is the block of wood that becomes the clipper ship when manipulated by man. Pragmatists don’t even speculate on what is real. It is enough for them that something works, has the appearance of truth, and Existentialists feel that existence is a process of becoming. “Is” is too static to accurately deal with reality. Sartre said, in Being and Nothingness, he is what he is not and is not what he is.

The Existentialists have a point. “Existence” is a human construct, a human invention. Man brought the concept of “existence” into being. But some of us think there was something here before that also. It was something independent of us that we gave names to and said they exist.

Yes, some philosophers said those things were really only in our minds; they were mental things. However, other philosophers said we couldn’t really prove the existence of minds without the assumption of some things external to the mind. If “no matter, never mind.”

Clearly, everything to which we refer has existence at least as a concept. We can say Santa Claus and the current King of England and Unicorns have existence as mythical objects. They exist in the mind but not in objective reality. Contradictory objects like square circles or four sided triangles cannot be imagined, like Santa Claus, but we can still refer to them as abstract things we can’t conceptualize. Gun shot wounds have objective existence. I can’t pretend they don’t exist or are just in my imagination. They are independent of my wishes and whims. And, if something doesn’t exist at all, I can’t really refer to it. I wouldn’t know anything about it.

This could go on and on. Heidegger and Sartre wrote thousands of pages each on existence. It’s a major part of metaphysics and epistemology.

Perhaps we can get a feel for it but not simply define it from a dictionary.

Bis bald,

Nick

So what other tricks can you do monkey? You have been pretty dull and predictable thus far.

Yes, but ethics is one of the main branches of established philosophy. Epistemology and metaphysics are the other main branches.

I don’t regard ethics as really being philosophical in nature (outside of the fact that every belief is philosophical) - to me it is just politics, it is very womanly in nature. Ethics is a limited subsidiary field that almost bears no relationship to philosophies of reality.

There is no honor in being dishonest.

There is far less honor in being honest. Honor is merely a reward system from others to please the ego. Honor is always given to others as a recognition of desires for greatness within the self.

In human communities, however, the fox is better off mixing in with the chickens and respecting them as he would want them to respect him.

Foxes do not respect chickens as chickens, that is why they are foxes. The fox is not better off mixing with chickens except for food. Politicians are foxes that mix with chickens so as to devour them later – you seem to be a politician type.

Fucking teachers. I hope you know you are a teacher because you want to be a fox amongst chickens, whereas you are probably just a rooster who wants to peck hens.

Defining “existence” is not an easy task. It might be impossible.

Realness to me is about definitions. The more defined a thing becomes in one’s head the more real it is. The Totality is real and existing, and spatially there is can be no doubt that differences in the flow of forces within a particular area exist, but the definition of what one thing is compared to another is entirely based upon the needs of the perceiver to define and separate for the purposes of the perceiver, not that there is any definitive/objective separation between things.

Nick wrote:

DQ: Well, not quite. One proves the truth of casuality by proving that it is logically impossible for anything to be without causes. At the very least, a thing is dependent upon its constituent parts for its existence, as well as upon the existence of time and space, and the existence of Reality itself. All of these things count as causes.

N: How do you actually know these things exist in the absence of an observer? You are merely speculating.

We might theorize, when looking at anything, that it has a cause. It certainly seems to have one given our past experience of physical objects in general. But the only way to actually prove that it does have a cause is to go around and have a look.

But of course, even if we do this, we cannot leave behind the observer's perspective in any way. So even this maneuver is insufficient to demonstrate that it has a cause when not being observed.

The bottom line is that you are engaging in an act of blind faith in asserting that things have a cause independent of an observer. It's essentially, according to you, no different from the blind faith displayed by Christian fundamentalists.

I'm merely articulating the logical implications of your own beliefs. If you want to say that I am no different from a Christian fundamentalist, then the same reasoning must also apply to you.

Unfortunately, your attempt to turn the tables doesn't work in this case. This is because, unlike your theory that things can exist independently, the assertion that all things have causes is purely logical in nature. It isn't an empirical theory, in other words.

It is logically the case that a thing is dependent upon its constituent parts for its existence. One doesn't needed to go out and empirically observe everything in existence in order to affirm this truth. It is something which is necessarily true for all things.

The same applies for all objects existing in time and space - these objects necessarily depend on the existence of time and space for their existence. Thus, time and space count among the necessary causes of the object in question. Again, this is something which is necessarily true from a logical perspective.

This kind of logic cannot be applied to your theory of independent existence, however, as it isn't the case that things must have objective existence out of logical necessity.

DQ: Academic categories are usually too shallow and rigid to yield any real insight into the nature of reality. It's essentially a waste of time.

In my experience, academia is little more than a refuge designed for intellectuals who want to avoid all contact with reality. This is why academic conversation always comes across as lifeless and dull.

N: People who don’t recognize references and specialized jargon usually complain that it is dull and not real.
Then, they make up their own language expect people to accept them. If we don’t, they accuse us of being shallow and rigid and not in contact with reality and all these bad things. It’s their way of covering for their ignorance.

Funnily enough, I also have very little interest in what Aquinus, Anselm, Pascal, and Billy Graham have to say as well.

There is very little difference in my eyes between Western academic philosophy and medieval theology. They might each use specialized jargon, but their intellectual scope is exceedingly shallow and trivial. I consider both to be a joke.

DQ: I agree, but as far as this particular issue is concerned, it is the only methodology available to us.

N: Is this a justification or an apology?

Just the truth.

DQ: The opposite idea, however - namely, that nothing can exist independently of an observer - can indeed be proven by logic with 100% certainty.

N: Can logic exist independent of an observer?

No, but it can point the mind to timeless truths which necessarily apply to all things in all possible worlds - e.g. the truth that all things have causes.

BTW, according to Goedel, logic is not 100% certain.

Alas, Goedel was uncertain about this.

DQ: A "degree of certainty" in one's knowledge isn't good enough. It either has to be 100% certain or it's worthless.

N: We build computers and send people into space with only high degrees of certainty. This isn’t worthless. We can’t be 100% certain that the earth won’t collapse under us with the next step we take, yet we don’t wait for that certainty before we take our steps.

Obviously, I was speaking in the context of philosophical truth. Scientific knowledge clearly isn't worthless in a practical sense, but it is worthless when it comes to understanding the nature of Reality in a philosophic sense. For that you need to ascend to the higher realm of pure logic.

DQ: It is one thing to speculatively propose that things can exist independently of an observer, as a kind of tentative theory. I could accept this as a naive, but honest, proposal. But to assert it as a definite principle of existence - I'm sorry, but that's blind faith, on the same level as Christian fundamentalism.

N: But you can’t know, with 100% certainty, that I am wrong.

There is no question that you are wrong in asserting that things are capable of existing independently of an observer. Your assertion doesn't even have any internal consistency. It is basically incoherent.

For example, you assert that, say, a mountain is "objective" if it is impervious to our mental desires to change it. But in doing this, you are automatically linking the objective status of the mountain to the behaviour of other things (namely, our own minds.). That is, you are making the objective status of the mountain dependent upon the behaviour of these other things; you are making it subjective in nature, rather than objective.

It's a nice little irony that you've tangled yourself in.

-

NickOtani wrote:According to Goedel, logic is not 100% certain.

This kind of statement is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned how academic "philosophers" refer to the work of other people, without understanding the work of those other people.

Never, ever, did Goedel say "logic is not 100% certain".

Academics create a falsity as a foundation, which they all agree to agree on, and then build false constructs on top of it, thinking they are advancing knowledge.

Here is an interesting analogy which illustrates my position on academic philosophy:

Imagine a glorious sunset which encapsulates everything that is powerful and beautiful about Nature.

Now imagine that someone takes a photo of this sunset and feeds it into his computer. He then reduces the resolution of this image to such an extent that it degenerates into coarse pixels. The sunset in the image disappears, replaced by a grid of large coloured squares.

Academic philosophy is solely concerned with these squares. It likes to move them around and make interesting patterns. It likes to bestow honours upon those who can make the best patterns. It has no interest in the sunset itself, nor is it even aware that sunsets and the like exist. It is only interested in the squares and the pretty patterns they make.

The true philosopher, by contrast, sweeps all this away. He couldn't care less about such trivia. Instead he goes out into Nature and immerses himself in all of its wondrous glories.

-

Kevin wrote:

Never, ever, did Goedel say "logic is not 100% certain".

Even if he did it wouldn't mean anything, because Goedel himself used logic to reach his conclusions. So if logic really was uncertain, then Goedel's own conclusions would be just as uncertain. And thus we would have to dismiss them as having little worth.

In other words, the only possible way that Goedel's conclusions could be meaningful is if logic was indeed 100% certain and infallible.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Now imagine that someone takes a photo of this sunset and feeds it into his computer. He then reduces the resolution of this image to such an extent that it degenerates into coarse pixels. The sunset in the image disappears, replaced by a grid of large coloured squares.

Not only that, but the coloured squares were created by philosophers of the past - at least, so they claim. And those squares that are blue they have all reached a consensus are red. And those squares that are red they have all reached a consensus are "rontange" - a new word they have coined among themselves, but which no two of them can agree on what it means.

No, based on all my personal experiences to date, it is not even remotely possibly true that a soul exists. I don’t even really know what a soul is supposed to be. What is it to you?

I understood you to mean some part/parts of us (self) that persist forever, untouched by bodily death. For such an entity no proof can show it cannot be. Besides, although it appears that our bodies and brains are a necessary condition for our true existence this in the end may not be so.
Certainly something remains unchanged no matter what happens.

Perhaps that is your Soul!

Diebert…….

The notion of an 'objective reality' or even a 'nothing' simply loses meaning when you seperate it from the observer or any process of observing, as Nick implied. And certainly something doesn't become suddenly 'objective' just because we cannot change it by the power of wishes and whims.

……is there no possibility of not separating the observer and yet have ‘objective reality’, “out there”? It could be “separate” only in the sense that it cannot be affected by my will alone. In your opinion, is there anything at all "objective"?

David wrote:

This kind of logic cannot be applied to your theory of independent existence, however, as it isn't the case that things must have objective existence out of logical necessity.

And may I ask why one should not think in that direction? Objective existence may not necessarily mean disconnected existence “out there”. Consciousness does differentiate between things howsoever they may have interconnectedness through cause and effect. If they are not nothing whatsoever, why can’t I depend on my definitions of them? Are definitions objective enough? Do mutually agreed definitions make things objective enough?

I think that if I have any doubt about the objectivity of things “out there”, then the only way I could remove that doubt is by shooting a bullet through my brains. Would that logically help............ me?

Dan wrote:

Also, I don't quite understand why Nox is denying the existence of conceptual unicorns. Unicorns as a concept certainly exist, it's just that they lack any known empircal referent.

A concept that exists is a contradiction, it’s like a married bachelor, or a round square.
That which exists is alone real, immutable and without cause.
A concept is dependent on a conceptualizer. But both the creator and creation are intrinsically empty objects, unsupported by a non-existent subject. That which is inherently empty and with out establishment, cannot create and maintain another empty and unestablished object.
It is only thru ignorance that concepts exist.

N0X23 wrote:Dan wrote:

Also, I don't quite understand why Nox is denying the existence of conceptual unicorns. Unicorns as a concept certainly exist, it's just that they lack any known empircal referent.

A concept that exists is a contradiction, it’s like a married bachelor, or a round square.
That which exists is alone real, immutable and without cause.
A concept is dependent on a conceptualizer. But both the creator and creation are intrinsically empty objects, unsupported by a non-existent subject. That which is inherently empty and with out establishment, cannot create and maintain another empty and unestablished object.
It is only thru ignorance that concepts exist.

That’s amazing! Absolutely amazing NOX! I simply cannot phantom that such an intellectual concept could emerge from your ignorance! Of course, I understand that what you say here is inherently empty……. I feel chocked.

The notion of an 'objective reality' or even a 'nothing' simply loses meaning when you seperate it from the observer or any process of observing, as Nick implied. And certainly something doesn't become suddenly 'objective' just because we cannot change it by the power of wishes and whims.

You must understand the writer to mean independent for separate, but is that what Nick really means?
Did he provide justification for that claim?

Sapius wrote:

DQ: This kind of logic cannot be applied to your theory of independent existence, however, as it isn't the case that things must have objective existence out of logical necessity.

S: And may I ask why one should not think in that direction?

You can certainly try to think in that direction. It's just that you will never reach a successful conclusion.

Since there is no logical conflict between conceiving of all phenomena as "subjective" and our direct experience of the world, there is no compelling reason to believe that phenomena have to be "objective".

Objective existence may not necessarily mean disconnected existence “out there”. Consciousness does differentiate between things howsoever they may have interconnectedness through cause and effect. If they are not nothing whatsoever, why can’t I depend on my definitions of them? Are definitions objective enough? Do mutually agreed definitions make things objective enough?

It's wrong and unnecessary to think of a definition as being either subjective or objective. Definitions are just building blocks of thought. They are what enable us to engage in the process of logical reasoning and reaching conclusions. They inhabit a realm which is pre-objective and pre-subjective, if you will.

A definition isn't any less valid if only one person in the entire Universe uses it. Nor does it gain more validity if a million people start using it. Definitions cannot be judged in that way.

A good definition is one that is expertly crafted for the purpose at hand, which means that it can only be produced by clear-sighted and intelligent individuals. An example would be defining a "thing" to be any bounded or finite phenomena. Such a definition is perfect for the task of discovering philosophical truths which apply to all phenomena in the Universe. A poor definition of a thing in this context would be "any phenomena which is yellow", or, "any physical object which can be seen with the naked eye".

I think that if I have any doubt about the objectivity of things “out there”, then the only way I could remove that doubt is by shooting a bullet through my brains. Would that logically help............ me?

Well, you could try that if you want to, but it won't help you resolve the issue. A subjective Sapius is just as capable of blowing his brains out as an objective one.

-

NickOtani wrote:To Diebert van Rhijn:

In a sense, everything branches from ones philosophy.

Yes, but ethics is one of the main branches of established philosophy. Epistemology and metaphysics are the other main branches.

How can philosophy ever become part of an establishment without turning into its opposite? That question is the axe that lies as the foot of all the branches of established philosophy.

A similar problem is known to haunt the classical musician. Having received a thorough training at an established music school they are not yet a real musician, whatever skills on the instrument or reading or composing score they now possess. Every 'authentic' musician worth his salt will tell you they had to forget basically everything they learned to find back the music. Never will they outgrow mediocrity without this.

The one truly understanding music, the bare bones musician, will still perform even if you take away all score and all the instruments he's trained in. Only now he can prove he has music in him.

Besides, if he earns his benefits honestly, by contributing to the community and not taking things by force, he is living authentically, not like someone who fakes reality, like someone on drugs who lives in a dream world or a brain in a vat having its pleasure nerve endings stimulated artificially.

How can you be so sure your brains aren't in a vat? Apart from the literal question you can also wonder in how far communities by default fake reality on some levels for all its members as to ensure its own twisted survival.

I’ve seen more of the real world before I was twenty-one than many people see in a life-time.

Even if you were only ten years old or lived sixty years in a closet, it wouldn't matter one iota for bare bones philosophy. Actually it would probably be more promising if you were...