GENIUS FORUMS

If the ego is self-delusional, does that mean that if you were the only person on an island, and having never seen another human before, you wouldn't have an ego? Why couldn't you still be 'proud' if you were the only person on the island? Is the ego delusional not only because of the relation with other humans, but also with achievements within the environment, such as feeling proud that you hunted big game? So then following, that pride would be impossible if the conditions would not allow it?

If a person was alone on an island and was not thinking logically, then he would develop many false beliefs. These would lead to emotions, just like any wild animal.

If everything is determined how can any belief be false.

There is no falsity.

Is the ego delusional not only because of the relation with other humans, but also with achievements within the environment, such as feeling proud that you hunted big game?

The ego is not delusional. The ego merely does not necessarily do what is best for oneself over the long term - better outcomes can be achieved if one learns to control the ego and concentrate on the mind.

For the most part however, it is better outcomes for the herd, not necessarily the individual. If one has to go against the herd, then expect turmoil. If one too strongly follows the herd then expect death or pain.

Jamesh,

If everything is determined how can any belief be false.

There is no falsity.

What? That sounds like you just said (translated): "the belief that the entire universe cannot deviate from predictable patterns implies that no belief can be incorrect. Because I hold this belief --namely, that the universe is ultimately non-random in nature -- no beliefs are ever incorrect."

Did I read you correctly? ...Because that sounds like a hell of a non-sequitur.

James wrote:

If everything is determined how can any belief be false.

If everything is determined, then the belief that things aren't determined would be false.

-

Faust13 wrote:If the ego is self-delusional, does that mean that if you were the only person on an island, and having never seen another human before, you wouldn't have an ego?

The surrounding water still would mirror a warped reflection back at you. The other is created with the world that comes with it.

Actually the complexity of our senses acts like a mirror, or a gauge or dial, to facilitate our higher reasoning functions; now it can take into account 'itself'.

By default one has a distorted view of this process, caused by constant ripples and waves in the water. So there's work left to perfect, clarifying the image as to become able to understand its fundamental illusion that fuels so much of our actions.

If the ego is self-delusional, does that mean that if you were the only person on an island, and having never seen another human before, you wouldn't have an ego?

only those things shall and may exist which we make necessary to ourselves.indeed ,not in conformity to logical/moral standards but to our own urges to valuate,to valuate by as if(consciously false,appearance).

bert wrote:only those things shall and may exist which we make necessary to ourselves.indeed ,not in conformity to logical/moral standards but to our own urges to valuate,to valuate by as if(consciously false,appearance)

Consciously false, appearance = to deny the former judgement for the latter ... ?

Intrinsic basis for 'as if' ?

Steven Coyle wrote:

bert wrote:only those things shall and may exist which we make necessary to ourselves.indeed ,not in conformity to logical/moral standards but to our own urges to valuate,to valuate by as if(consciously false,appearance)

Consciously false, appearance = to deny the former judgement for the latter ... ?

Intrinsic basis for 'as if' ?

we "deny the former judgement for the latter" because when we are in terms of time and space we cognize towards delusive conceptions bred from an distorted-conceived word-symbol of the primal Id.
I call the phenomenal(I stick with my senses on the world) the positivistic of thought.
supposedly,S Dali meant the same when he said:the real is an epiphenomenon of thought,a result of non-thought, a phenomenon of amnesia.the true real is within us and we project it...

James,

If everything is determined how can any belief be false.

Actually, this does not make much sense, really, because if EVERYTHING is DETERMINED, then neither positions would hold any real values, for those are DETERMINED too, hence making comparative values a senseless exercise; a senseless and meaningless comparative-ness so to speak. Which leaves no room for falsity or truthfulness to hold any real meaning.

On the other hand, if we say that “we” are the meaning makers, then how is the “we” or the meaning making not determined? Again, making “we” and the meaning making a literal illusion, hence ripping out the foundation of absolutely anything one might consider False, or Truth, attained through logic and reasoning, for it makes that too a literal illusion.

Finally, I would like to add, that as far as existence, totality, is concerned, determinism or otherwise, cannot be applied to existence - totality itself, for both are an interdependent “parts”, and do not contradict each other on that level, for either being “this” or “that”, in whatsoever sense, does not really apply to existence, totality.

Hence I say that ‘will’ working freely does not go against a very sensible and logical causal process; each moment being determined in the NOW, with literally infinite possibilities being open to every moment in and of the NOW, making all truths and falsities, and absolutely everything, TRUE to their meanings.

Existence is not all that senseless after all; the choice of looking at it as ‘either – or’ or ‘neither’ is a real choice that depends on logic and reasoning, which are also as real as the choices made, in and of the NOW.

David,

If everything is determined, then the belief that things aren't determined would be false.

If everything were (pre) determined, then comparativeness would have no real value to begin with.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:If a person was alone on an island and was not thinking logically, then he would develop many false beliefs. These would lead to emotions, just like any wild animal.

what. we will always have emotions.

Sapius wrote:

DQ: If everything is determined, then the belief that things aren't determined would be false.

S: If everything were (pre) determined, then comparativeness would have no real value to begin with.

Trees are predetermined, yet healthy trees can be compared to diseased ones.

Truthful people are predetermined to have truthful beliefs, while untruthful people are predetermined to have false ones. An example of a false belief is, "Ideas in a universe of predetermination cannot be compared".

In the language of Jesus, those who are predetermined to be truthful are "God's chosen few".

-

I have no problem with determination and causation fitting together.

But predetermination doesn't fit into my understanding of causation, even if by predetermination one means that, from the "outset" of everything, everything that could be created will by necessity be subject to cause and effect. The reason is that causation would have to be in play before any things are created, for predetermination to have any meaning, and that doesn't make any sense to me.

How are you defining predetermination, David?

David,

Trees are predetermined, yet healthy trees can be compared to diseased ones.

Yes, they CAN be compared, but the very act of comparing is a caused one too, which is predetermined, hence comparing would be a meaningless act, at least from an individuals point of view who takes absolute determinism as an absolute fact. And since causality is not a thinking or an acting entity, then what is comparing what, and how does a judgment reached thereby have any meaningful value either way?

Truthful people are predetermined to have truthful beliefs, while untruthful people are predetermined to have false ones.

Exactly! You said it; and for that very reason alone, there be no sense of value in and of any thing that is predetermined either way, comparatively speaking. So Truth and Falsity being predetermined by determination, does not hold any comparative MEANING, making consciousness a senseless, meaningless discriminator.

An example of a false belief is, "Ideas in a universe of predetermination cannot be compared".

I never said that ideas couldn’t be compared, but that the act of comparing and hence judging either way holds no meaning in an absolutely pre-deterministic system.

In the language of Jesus, those who are predetermined to be truthful are "God's chosen few".

…and those that are not chosen, are not truthful; so where is the problem either way then? If “God” alone is the doer of it all, then how is an individual’s reasoning or judgments thence reached, HIS doing in any ways? So how can one hold any one responsible for any thing at all. It would be a meaningless comparison; should/could we then hang God for a murder? Or in other words, how could we hang an innocent individual being unconsciously driven by “God”?

There is no individual consciousness then; in fact, consciousness itself would hold no real meaning or value as such, including A=A, or the reasoning that concludes that as the foundation of consciousness.

Absolute determinism reduces consciousness to unconsciousness, if not, please give me a logically sound line of reasoning that shows otherwise. How does right or wrong have any meaningful value if both are helplessly predetermined?

Kelly wrote:

I have no problem with determination and causation fitting together.

But predetermination doesn't fit into my understanding of causation, even if by predetermination one means that, from the "outset" of everything, everything that could be created will by necessity be subject to cause and effect. The reason is that causation would have to be in play before any things are created, for predetermination to have any meaning, and that doesn't make any sense to me.

That's true. Determinism is predeterminism without the "outset" or "pre" bit.

In other words, since there is no beginning to Nature, we can't say that the unfolding of Nature has been predetermined by some initial edict or process in the past. And yet, because every event is fully determined by its causes, we can say that an event's existence was marked even before it came into being. In that sense, all things are predetermined.

-

Sapius wrote:

DQ: Trees are predetermined, yet healthy trees can be compared to diseased ones.

S: Yes, they CAN be compared, but the very act of comparing is a caused one too, which is predetermined, hence comparing would be a meaningless act, at least from an individuals point of view who takes absolute determinism as an absolute fact.

A healthy tree is still a healthy tree, and a diseased tree is still a diseased tree, even in a causal universe. The distinction remains meaningful and real.

And since causality is not a thinking or an acting entity, then what is comparing what, and how does a judgment reached thereby have any meaningful value either way?

You're misunderstanding the nature of causality here. Causality isn't a distinct process which occurs over and above the things it creates. On the contrary, it exists within these things. Indeed, it is these things.

How causality is expressed in any given moment depends on what actually exists in that moment. When consciousness exists, causality is expressed through this consciousness. Consciousness becomes one of the factors in the overall causal flow of Nature.

You shouldn't think that causality and conscious activity are separate processes. Consciousness and its decision-making powers are real, even though these powers both have causes and effects.

Imagining causality as a distinct process throws up all sorts of weird and wonderful non-existent dilemmas. For example, since the principle of causality isn't bouncy, how can it create bouncy balls?

-

David,

You're misunderstanding the nature of causality here.

I don’t think so, because… as you continue to explain…

Causality isn't a distinct process which occurs over and above the things it creates. On the contrary, it exists within these things. Indeed, it is these things.

…this is how I understand “it” too. Hence, causality is not only an “external” factor, but internal too, and in fact, for exactly the same reason you mention, it is an absolutely internal factor of a thing that is being expressed in a “will-full” manner in conjunction with its environment, in and of every 'alive' moment. I know it is hard to imagine because subconsciously we take “causality” as a separate factor even though we talk about “it” otherwise, and think that that is in absolute control in a linier fashion.

How causality is expressed in any given moment depends on what actually exists in that moment.

In a manner of speaking, yes, but this sentence reflects “causality” as a ‘thing’, which “it” is not. The ‘expression’ and the ‘moment’ are not two different things, nor is “causality”.

When consciousness exists,

When exactly does “consciousness” come to exist? I know that when you say ‘consciousness’, you mean the human type that is capable of defining and reasoning, but what about other life forms? Do they not have just enough consciousness to handle their own perceptual environment? (It is possible to see “consciousness” in action even beyond that.)

causality is expressed through this consciousness.

If ‘causality is indeed these things’, as you know it to be, I see that consciousness is expressed through causality, and not the other way around. In fact, just as there would be no essential difference between causality and things, there is no essential difference between causality and consciousness.

Consciousness becomes one of the factors in the overall causal flow of Nature.

No, one cannot separate ‘consciousness’ FROM Nature. Consciousness IS Nature, for there is no “flow” where consciousness itself is concerned. It literally has no beginning or end, unlike what we infer to things seen empirically, and infer ‘no beginning or end’ to A Thing. That is true only in a poetic sense. But without consciousness, nothing exists, and since existence could never have a beginning, so would consciousness not have a beginning, in fact, they are one and the same.

All that consciousness needs is any two THINGS around for A=A (recognition through differentiation) to happen, that is not only the foundation OF consciousness, but is exactly just that, and there was no “time” that this was not so, because logically that is impossible.

You shouldn't think that causality and conscious activity are separate processes.

I do?

Consciousness and its decision-making powers are real, even though these powers both have causes and effects.

I agree. So there is a will at work although based in and of causality. In fact, will is no more than conscious decision-making, which is none other than consciousness itself at work. Hence, decision-making is not a LITERAL illusion because consciousness is not. Consciousness can choose from the possible options existent bringing forth an entirely new effect, hence the possibility of infinitely diverse and unique creativity. No two things are alike.

Imagining causality as a distinct process throws up all sorts of weird and wonderful non-existent dilemmas. For example, since the principle of causality isn't bouncy, how can it create bouncy balls?

I agree that it does create weird and wonderful non-existent dilemmas, but I don’t see what you are getting at with the ‘bouncy ball’ example?

To Kelly you wrote…

In other words, since there is no beginning to Nature, we can't say that the unfolding of Nature has been predetermined by some initial edict or process in the past.

Yes, for that would mean attributing a cause to causality, which would be absurd.

And yet, because every event is fully determined by its causes, we can say that an event's existence was marked even before it came into being.

No, you cannot say that ‘an event’s existence WAS marked even before it came into being’, because there is no moment-to-moment flow as far as existence, or consciousness itself is concerned. (Please see below before responding to this)

David: “How causality is expressed in any given moment depends on what actually exists in that moment.”

…the conscious moment is all that exists, not what exists IN that moment, for that moment is forever “here and alive”, not the things. There is no past or future to that “moment”, nor is there a “present”. That is purely the Now, without any reference in time.

In that sense, all things are predetermined.

Only if seen through ‘time’, which is yet another real but an illusory aspect sensed through the perceptually live moment, and experienced by a ‘thing’ as a ‘thing’, which is but a form. And how real or permanent is a form from “moment-to-moment”? Hence, is it not just the perpetually conscious moment that is alive? …irrelevant of a time and memory based temporal thing. Existence is not because of “me”, “I” am because existence IS, and “I” am no more than an experiencing ‘conscious moment’ in and of existence, beyond which… there is absolutely no ‘beyond’ at all.

Absolutely all things loose their essentiality once the truth of the Now is realized, and things are simply recognized as things, no more, no less, which is simply a change of perspective. That includes any though, even that of causality or Truth, that is not to say that all that “I’ experience, including the “I”, is an illusion, for what is reality otherwise?

Jamesh wrote:If everything is determined how can any belief be false.

There is no falsity.

Is the ego delusional not only because of the relation with other humans, but also with achievements within the environment, such as feeling proud that you hunted big game?

The ego is not delusional. The ego merely does not necessarily do what is best for oneself over the long term - better outcomes can be achieved if one learns to control the ego and concentrate on the mind.

For the most part however, it is better outcomes for the herd, not necessarily the individual. If one has to go against the herd, then expect turmoil. If one too strongly follows the herd then expect death or pain.

I'm talking about individual ego. So you would consider individual ego justified? IE not going with the herd, being an excellent human being, etc..