GENIUS FORUMS

Jason wrote:Be that as it may, my point stands: virtually no one believes that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, thus they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

"Inherent existence" effectively means "not dependent on causes." So, to the degree that a person believes that they cannot be extinguished, or other such nonsense, they believe in inherent existence.

People usually understand they need food, air, water, clothing, and other things to do with the body. They understand that sort of dependence.

Also, people generally understand that they can get help for problems from other people. They understand that sort of dependence, such as for physical illnesses, or mental illnesses.

And, people sometimes even understand that emotions happen because of certain circumstances. They understand that sort of dependence.

But they don't understand that the self, and the thoughts that create the self, are dependent on consciousness and on everything that creates consciousness. They believe that 'inner being' is in its own special continuum, isolated and independent of everything else.

Then, whatever that self 'needs' starts to be infected with the same delusion about independent existence. The self's boundaries include everything the self needs and relies on.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:Be that as it may, my point stands: virtually no one believes that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, thus they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

"Inherent existence" effectively means "not dependent on causes." So, to the degree that a person believes that they cannot be extinguished, or other such nonsense, they believe in inherent existence.

As long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists, then they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

So for example, if someone believes that their self will continue to exist in heaven, but they also believe that their self will not be the only thing that exists in heaven, then they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

Jason wrote:As long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists, then they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

That might be what you mean by "inherently exists", but that's not what I mean by it.

To me, "inherently exists" means "independent of causes" or "existing from its own side."

Kelly Jones wrote:People usually understand they need food, air, water, clothing, and other things to do with the body. They understand that sort of dependence.

Kelly you're missing the point. There is no absolute certainty that a person needs food, air or water. How one thing is likely to specifically effect another thing is for science(and similar methods) to decide. All that the principle of "non inherent existence" fundamentally says is that a thing cannot exist on its own. That's it. So as long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, then they do not believe that their self inherently exists.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:As long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists, then they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

That might be what you mean by "inherently exists", but that's not what I mean by it.

Oh it is exactly what you mean by it. I have simply purified it down to its essence.

To me, "inherently exists" means "independent of causes" or "existing from its own side."

Yeah, so heaven is the cause that allows the self to continue existing. So even people who believe in life after death don't think that their self inherently exists.

To me, "inherently exists" means "independent of causes" or "existing from its own side."

Yeah, so heaven is the cause that allows the self to continue existing. So even people who believe in life after death don't think that their self inherently exists.

Yes they do, because they think that heaven is eternal, and independent of causes, and they identify with heaven. They believe that heaven is inherently existent. And they think that heaven cannot destroy them personally, since they believe that heaven is immune from external influence.

Jason wrote:As long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists, then they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

There is nothing in the word inherent that implies that it is exclusive to a single thing.

Inherent existence of the self is what Descarte assumed in "I think, therefore I am;" that the "I" is in a special transcendent category, different from other things. This is a common sense idea that the "I" - the thing that thinks about things, and apprehends and defines things - is in a different category from the things that it thinks about; that it exists in some way that is prior to definitions, since it is the thing that creates definitions.

Descarte, and others, took the inherent existence of the self (or "the transcendence of the ego") as being intuitively obvious and needing no proof.

To think that your "I" is the only "I" would be solipsism, which I don't think many people take seriously. Non-autistic people generally understand that other people have a point of view; that they have an "I," rather than being simply objects or robots.

DHodges wrote:

Jason wrote:As long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists, then they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

There is nothing in the word inherent that implies that it is exclusive to a single thing.

There is if you're using the QSR definition of the word.

No, Jason, it's just not using your special made up definition of the word.
Inherent just doesn't mean what you are saying it means.

DHodges wrote:No, Jason, it's just not using your special made up definition of the word.

What? It's not my definition of the word that I'm using in these posts, it's QSR's.

(edit: QSR stands for Quinn Solway Rowden)

All that the principle of "non inherent existence" fundamentally says is that a thing cannot exist on its own. That's it. So as long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, then they do not believe that their self inherently exists.

Belief is the problem. Because there really isn't any thing that exists.

Look deeper at the causal interdependence of things. What it really means is that there are no things at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:To me, "inherently exists" means "independent of causes" or "existing from its own side."

Yeah, so heaven is the cause that allows the self to continue existing. So even people who believe in life after death don't think that their self inherently exists.

Yes they do, because they think that heaven is eternal, and independent of causes, and they identify with heaven. They believe that heaven is inherently existent.

If they believe that their self exists within heaven, then they believe that heaven causes the self. And if heaven causes the self, then the self also causes heaven - just like how A causes non-A and non-A causes A. Again we see that these people don't believe in inherent existence, be it of the self or of heaven.

Jason wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:they think that heaven is eternal, and independent of causes, and they identify with heaven. They believe that heaven is inherently existent.

If they believe that their self exists within heaven, then they believe that heaven causes the self. And if heaven causes the self, then the self also causes heaven - just like how A causes non-A and non-A causes A. Again we see that these people don't believe in inherent existence, be it of the self or of heaven.

As I say, people identify with heaven, and so their "self", in this case, is heaven itself.

And they believe that heaven is independent of causes, and therefore eternal. It's like ensconcing yourself in a castle and imagining that the castle is unassailable.

And even when people imagine themselves as individuals within heaven, they delude themselves that other people inside heaven won't be able to kill them.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Jason wrote:All that the principle of "non inherent existence" fundamentally says is that a thing cannot exist on its own. That's it. So as long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, then they do not believe that their self inherently exists.

Belief is the problem. Because there really isn't any thing that exists.

Look deeper at the causal interdependence of things. What it really means is that there are no things at all.

Surely you can do better than this Kelly. David tries to pull this trick all the time too. One minute he's saying things have "non-inherent existence", the next thing you know he's saying that they don't exist at all. Leyla and I have called him on it several times. It's pretty pathetic.

Fucken hell, you're desperately clutching at straws now!

Kevin Solway wrote:As I say, people identify with heaven, and so their "self", in this case, is heaven itself.

Kevin Solway wrote:even when people imagine themselves as individuals within heaven

Bwahahaha! How many people think that heaven will be some sort of solipsistic paradise?! Your "even when" implies that it is the exception for people not to think this! Ahahaha! Kevin this is absolutely pathetic! The lengths you go to, to try to save face! Man you are one sick puppy! The only question I have is whether you are only trying to convince me with this pap, or if it is also yourself you are trying to convince. If it's the latter then you are seriously seriously messed up.

Jason, there's no fixed boundary that a person has for himself. A person changes their boundary depending on what is convenient for themselves at the time. How people identify themselves can change from one moment to the next.

Many Americans get upset and take it personally if America is attacked or invaded, because they identify with the nation. This is an example of how people personally identify with an entire country.

My thinking is that the notion of inherent existence implies boundaries, thingness, which automatically paves the way for notions of causality. People draw the boundaries around a body image, and imagine blood and bones and tissue and consciousness etc to be inside of that. Lesser consciousness means less potent imagination, which means less potent self images.

The emotions on the other hand are in line with values placed on things that are in some way perceived to bear relation to the self. For example, if a country is threatened and this causes emotion, it is because the country is considered to be of value in some way, or ways, to the self. Due to quick habitual modes of thinking it simply becomes threat to nation -> emotion. The idea of identifying with the nation is of the nature of this simplified habit.

DHodges wrote:

Jason wrote:As long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists, then they don't believe that their self inherently exists.

There is nothing in the word inherent that implies that it is exclusive to a single thing.

Inherent existence of the self is what Descarte assumed in "I think, therefore I am;" that the "I" is in a special transcendent category, different from other things. This is a common sense idea that the "I" - the thing that thinks about things, and apprehends and defines things - is in a different category from the things that it thinks about; that it exists in some way that is prior to definitions, since it is the thing that creates definitions.

Descarte, and others, took the inherent existence of the self (or "the transcendence of the ego") as being intuitively obvious and needing no proof.

To think that your "I" is the only "I" would be solipsism, which I don't think many people take seriously. Non-autistic people generally understand that other people have a point of view; that they have an "I," rather than being simply objects or robots.

I think you're right. Jason somehow equates this issue with the issue of solipsism, which is bizarre.

-

Jason: All that the principle of "non inherent existence" fundamentally says is that a thing cannot exist on its own. That's it. So as long as a person doesn't believe that their self is the only thing that exists in the universe, then they do not believe that their self inherently exists.

Kelly: Belief is the problem. Because there really isn't any thing that exists. Look deeper at the causal interdependence of things. What it really means is that there are no things at all.

Jason: Surely you can do better than this Kelly. David tries to pull this trick all the time too. One minute he's saying things have "non-inherent existence", the next thing you know he's saying that they don't exist at all. Leyla and I have called him on it several times. It's pretty pathetic.

Jason, I don't think you understand it, but you already know I think this. You obviously have dealt with this issue in the past, so your mind is apparently made up. You believe you are not still learning about causation and its ramifications. You believe you can explain your position succinctly. Because of this, I think I have enough grounds to call you to debate. Do you accept?

It seems to me Jason is correct. Most Christians, for example, believe their souls will exist forever, but they also think it was created by God, therefore it doesn't inherently exist. Also, many believe that it will live forever because it is the will of God, but that without that the soul would be extinguished.

As for Descartes, that is not what I thought he meant by that - not that I ever studied him. Rather the phrase, I think therefore I am, is just a proof that with subjective awareness we have the one truth - that I exist because I am a conscious experiencer - that is irrefutable. The rest is all up for grabs.

I never heard of anyone thinking heaven is the cause of existence, where did that come from.

By the way, Kevin-

And even when people imagine themselves as individuals within heaven, they delude themselves that other people inside heaven won't be able to kill them.

Of course no one in heaven can kill them because heaven is a state of awareness that killers don't have access to. A killer in heaven is like a married bachelor.

Kelly,

Anna: Kelly, obviously something inherently exists, or we could not have existence. You can call it the totality or nature if you like. I tend to call it God, or the Absolute, perhaps Vishnu. The Tao.

Define existence.

Is this a stalling tactic? I am not sure what existence is, if I knew perhaps I could understand it better. Even physics speaks of nonmaterial particles, but I can't fathom that. I tend to not know what nonmaterial might mean. To me, anything that exists has a substance of some sort.

The problem is, we speak of the eternal but we can't understand it, no use pretending. And a causeless thing is unfathomable, except that it's the only possibility.

Iolaus wrote:It seems to me Jason is correct. Most Christians, for example, believe their souls will exist forever, but they also think it was created by God, therefore it doesn't inherently exist.

Christians believe that their soul cannot be destroyed by God, or the Devil, or anything else. It is in this way that they believe their soul is inherently existent. Belief in inherent existence is like a belief in an impervious barrier which blocks anything you don't like, but magically allows the things you do like to pass through.

And even when people imagine themselves as individuals within heaven, they delude themselves that other people inside heaven won't be able to kill them.

Of course no one in heaven can kill them because heaven is a state of awareness that killers don't have access to. A killer in heaven is like a married bachelor.

Nowhere is impervious to cause and effect. You might be a good person when you went to heaven, but after a few hundred years you might well become corrupted by evil influences from outside, like you might get through satellite tv.

It is a delusion of those who think such a place exists, to believe that such a place is impervious to outside influences, and this delusion comes from their natural tendency to believe in "inherent existence."

Iolaus wrote:It seems to me Jason is correct. Most Christians, for example, believe their souls will exist forever, but they also think it was created by God, therefore it doesn't inherently exist. Also, many believe that it will live forever because it is the will of God, but that without that the soul would be extinguished.

Yep this is exactly the type of thing I mean. It's amazing that this exceedingly simple point doesn't seem to be getting through to Kevin.

Kevin Solway wrote:Christians believe that their soul cannot be destroyed by God, or the Devil, or anything else. It is in this way that they believe their soul is inherently existent.

That something might exist forever doesn't mean it inherently exists. It would be caused to exist forever.