GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin,

It depends what you mean by "truth".

That consciousness at its core is but recognition through differentiation that leads to reaction, depending on causality created conditions.

Depending on what things we bring into existence we will arrive at different truths.

Yes, and that is based in recognition through differentiation leading to whatever reaction. So, isn’t one essentially living the truth of consciousness? However, one may not be aware of it, or realize the implications, which eventually points to non-inherency.

This kind of truth I've just stated in that last paragraph is independent even of people's private languages, or whatever things they perceive.

But of course.

Sue,

I'm not sure what point you're making when you included a post of mine from the The Relationship between matter and consciousness thread, and the two posts of Kevin's from this thread?

Ryan provided four options (refer thread bolded above):

1. Some philosophers claim that consciousness precedes matter.
2. Some philosophers claim that matter precedes consciousness.
3. Some philosophers claim that matter and consciousness are inseparable, and therefore there is no hierarchy present at all.
4. And finally some philosophers claim that it cannot be known.

What is your position and why?

You replied:

We only know ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ as mental concepts. When we go looking for either in objective reality we always end up with more mental concepts. There is no way around this fact. Whatever we touch, smell, taste, see, or hear are only ever experienced mentally.

So, I’ll have to go for option number 5 – “None of the above”.

Later in the thread, you said:

The bottom line is: the empirical is uncertain because we can’t know all the causal relationships pertaining to a thing – we only have our perception of the thing in the here and now to go on.

Matter is a property of the empirical world--the world of things and experience. If all things are uncertain because we cannot know all the causal relationships pertaining to a thing and we only have our perception of the thing in the here and now, then that is the same as saying there is nothing one can be certain of. Knowing, however, that you are a pursuer of the infinite--the absolute--this cannot be true unless you are limiting the categories “things” to matter, energy, forces. I do not see pure logic, memory or consciousness as falling under this same category. Yet, when one adopts the idea that we do not know all the causal relationships pertaining to them, they necessarily belong to the same category of “empirical world.” This logically implies Ryan’s third option and not the fifth one you volunteered, since if we only know ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ as mental concepts, there is no separation between matter and consciousness.

It is impossible to make the distinctions Kevin makes (requoted below for ease of reference) without separating (distinguishing between) matter and consciousness and, therefore (ultimately), certainty and uncertainty.

Kevin Solway:

But yes, the materialist bases his philosophy on things that are uncertain. So he is the person who builds his house on sand.

By contrast the thinker bases his philosophy on that which is certain. So he builds his house on rock. The thinker still has access to the material, so he can build a house if he wants, but he is in control of it, so it can't fail. He is prepared for anything.

A Christian thinks that all existence is determined by the fact that Jesus rose physically from the dead. They are shattered if this belief doesn't work out. So that would be a case of basing life on an uncertainty.

Most people base their lives upon receiving love from other people, or giving love to other people. This too is basing life on an uncertainty, and they are shattered if it doesn't work out.

A Buddha depends for his life on air, food, shelter, and the good-will or indifference of other people. But if he doesn't receive these things he is not shattered, since his roots go deeper still. Deeper than life.

.

Leyla,

The empirical world is uncertain (built on sand) because we can never go outside of our own perception of it to verify if our perception is correct or not. All we can do is work with the appearances of things as they arise to us. This is a certainty.

Knowing that all we have to work with are appearances doesn’t prevent us from observing that all things are caused. All things are caused because a thing existing without causes wouldn’t be able to change. But things are always changing. From this observation, causality is known with certainty to be the fundamental creative force of all things.

Because things are caused, they have no inherent existence. Having no inherent existence doesn’t mean that the things that appear to us aren’t real. Each thing arises out of its causes, and then falls away, to be replaced by different things. No one thing is ever exactly the same. But we can know with absolute certainty that whatever a thing appears to be, is what it is.

These are solid rock certainties.

-
Sue

Leyla wrote:

Sue: We only know ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ as mental concepts.

This logically implies Ryan’s third option and not the fifth one you volunteered, since if we only know ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ as mental concepts, there is no separation between matter and consciousness.

Ryan List:
1. Some philosophers claim that consciousness precedes matter.
2. Some philosophers claim that matter precedes consciousness.
3. Some philosophers claim that matter and consciousness are inseparable, and therefore there is no hierarchy present at all.
4. And finally some philosophers claim that it cannot be known.

What is your position and why?

Ryan’s list doesn’t include any explanations of the terms used in it. Without explanations, the list is rendered meaningless. That is why I went for No.5 - none of the above.

It is impossible to make the distinctions Kevin makes (requoted below for ease of reference) without separating (distinguishing between) matter and consciousness and, therefore (ultimately), certainty and uncertainty.

Knowing that all things are mental concepts doesn’t interfere with our ability to discriminate between things. Obviously not, as ‘discriminating’ is one of those mental concepts – as is ‘reasoning’, ‘questioning’, and ‘thinking’. Without being able to make distinctions, everything would be a meaningless blur (which, of course, is another distinction.)

-
Sue

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:But we can know with absolute certainty that whatever a thing appears to be, is what it is.

OK This is what I can't understand here. If we see something that is clearly wrong then it isn't what it appears to be. In other words, if I'm holding a wax apple and I believe that it is an apple and it appears to be an apple to me that doesn't make it an apple. If I bite into said wax apple and realize that it's fake, it doesn't suddenly change into a wax apple it remains what it always was. Only the appearance has changed?

According to your consciousness it is a real apple up until you realize, one way or another, that is a wax apple.

It's similiar to the example of everything coming into existence as soon as we gain consciousness. Before you, or I were born, no thing existed. It is only through consciousness that things gain their identity. So getting back to the apple, your consciousness identifies it as a real apple until something alters your consciousness that changes the apple's identity from a real apple to a wax apple.

It's similar to you seeing people that aren't really there because of your disorder. Because up until you realize that there was noone talking to you, they were just as real as anything else you come into contact with.

Sue wrote: But we can know with absolute certainty that whatever a thing appears to be, is what it is

This statement to me appears wrong.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Sue wrote: But we can know with absolute certainty that whatever a thing appears to be, is what it is

This statement to me appears wrong.

Another way to put it is that a thing can never be other than what it appears to be.

Imagine you perceive a snake. It appears like a snake, so you consider it to be a snake. Later on what appears to be the same object now appears to be a stick, so you consider it to be a stick.

Note that it only appears that the eariler snake was really a stick.

That's why whatever appears, is what is.

Likewise, if it appears that what we are seeing with our eyes might not be the whole picture, then that is what is.

[Edited for spelling]

Kevin Wrote:

Another way to put it is that a thing can never be other than what it appears to be.

Imagine you perceive a snake. It appears like a snake, so you consider it to be a snake. Later on what appears to be the same object now appears to be stick, so you consider it to be a stick.

Note that it only appears that the eariler snake was really a stick.

That's why whatever appears, is what is.

What about this?

Things are what they are, even if we perceive them incorrectly. For instance: I may think an object is a snake, but when in actuality it is a stick, however this doesn’t change the fact that it was a stick all along.

And also...

Can I be certain of the existence of things that are outside of my field of awareness? For instance: Can I be absolutely certain that there are a large number of squirrels living in a 100 km radius around my house even though I am not directly perceiving them? Can I know from years of experience?

Can things only have existence within the field of consciousness or can something exist as confirmed knowledge outside the field?

So what happens if the "stick" bites you, and it deposits venom in you? To you, it still appears to be a stick, and it appears that you got snagged on part of the stick. You notice your arm swelling up to 5 times its normal diameter, and conclude you are allergic to that kind of stick, so you take it to the hospital with you so they can identify what kind of stick it is.

You arrive at the hospital and show the receptionist the "stick" as you try to explain what happened. The receptionist screams "snake" and runs for security.

It appears to be a stick to you while simultaneously it appears to be a snake to the receptionist. IMO, this does not reduce to A=A.

What is it when, and in this example, how does "a thing can never be other than what it appears to be" reduce to A=A in this example?

Ryan wrote:What about this?

Things are what they are, even if we perceive them incorrectly. For instance: I may think an object is a snake, but when in actuality it is a stick, however this doesn’t change the fact that it was a stick all along.

Yes, this is how I am seeing things as well.

I would like to hear a reply to this.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:What about this?

Things are what they are, even if we perceive them incorrectly.

So you are saying that it appears that things can be other than what they appear to be.

But that is not logical. A thing cannot appear to be other than what it appears to be.

Things can only be what they appear to be.

For instance: I may think an object is a snake, but when in actuality it is a stick, however this doesn’t change the fact that it was a stick all along.

It might appear that it was a stick all along. But that's all you can say.

You can never get past the appearances.

Can I be certain of the existence of things that are outside of my field of awareness? For instance: Can I be absolutely certain that there are a large number of squirrels living in a 100 km radius around my house even though I am not directly perceiving them? Can I know from years of experience?

No.

Can things only have existence within the field of consciousness or can something exist as confirmed knowledge outside the field?

The only thing that can have certainty are purely logical truths. These include logical truths about appearances.

For example, if you count the squirrels, you can then say with certainty how many squirrels there appears to be.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:So what happens if the "stick" bites you, and it deposits venom in you? To you, it still appears to be a stick, and it appears that you got snagged on part of the stick. You notice your arm swelling up to 5 times its normal diameter, and conclude you are allergic to that kind of stick, so you take it to the hospital with you so they can identify what kind of stick it is.

You arrive at the hospital and show the receptionist the "stick" as you try to explain what happened. The receptionist screams "snake" and runs for security.

It appears to be a stick to you while simultaneously it appears to be a snake to the receptionist. IMO, this does not reduce to A=A.

So far, all we have is one person who perceives it to be a stick, and another person who perceives it to be a snake.

Upon further scientific investigation it might appear to be either a stick or a snake, or something else entirely.

Logic (A=A) is never violated in this scenario.

Kevin wrote:

So you are saying that it appears that things can be other than what they appear to be?

Yes, I am saying there is an absolute truth of what things are independent of the deluded and limited perspective of the observer.

A=A, whether the observer is clear-minded enough to get it right or not.

I’ll give you an example. You, myself and Millipodium are walking in the forest, we’re on our way to a picnic, isn’t that exciting Kevin? now suddenly you spot something in the woods and shoot “Snake!” and run off with your arms waving in the air, I approach the same thing and yell “Lizard!” and I run in the opposite direction, and finally Millipodium approaches the object and he yells “Nihilist!” and he prances off too.

Now it turns out the object was a stick. A=A. Stick=Stick. All three of us were deluded, all three of us got it wrong, however there was an absolute truth of the matter that the object was a stick the entire time independent of what all three of us thought about it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:isn’t that exciting Kevin?

I don't know about the rest of you, but the visual has been the highlight of my week so far.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I am saying there is an absolute truth of what things are independent of the deluded and limited perspective of the observer.

Yes, I'm with you on that, insofar as the following.

Since the observer is one of the necessary causes of the existence of things (for example, in constructing boundaries) it's not possible for there to be "things" independent of the observer.

However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.

Often we are bitten by things we can't even see. But God knows exactly what is going on, so to speak.

Now it turns out the object was a stick. A=A. Stick=Stick. All three of us were deluded, all three of us got it wrong, however there was an absolute truth of the matter that the object was a stick the entire time independent of what all three of us thought about it.

Yes, in a way we could say that God knows that it is a stick, even though nobody else does, or can. Everyone else is working with appearances only.

Kevin wrote:

Everyone else is working with appearances only.

Alright Kevin, I have no major qualms with what you’ve just said, you appear to be right…

Kevin Solway wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I am saying there is an absolute truth of what things are independent of the deluded and limited perspective of the observer.

Yes, I'm with you on that, insofar as the following.

Since the observer is one of the necessary causes of the existence of things (for example, in constructing boundaries) it's not possible for there to be "things" independent of the observer.

However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.

Often we are bitten by things we can't even see. But God knows exactly what is going on, so to speak.

Now it turns out the object was a stick. A=A. Stick=Stick. All three of us were deluded, all three of us got it wrong, however there was an absolute truth of the matter that the object was a stick the entire time independent of what all three of us thought about it.

Yes, in a way we could say that God knows that it is a stick, even though nobody else does, or can. Everyone else is working with appearances only.

Ok, given that I am pleased with the above agreement, it feels right for me to try refining the following statements.

Kevin wrote: A thing cannot appear to be other than what it appears to be.

Instead should we not say:

An appearance cannot appear to be other than what it appears to be?

Kevin wrote: Things can only be what they appear to be

Instead should we not say:

Appearances can only be what they appear to be?

And so finally, when it comes to speaking about things, it seems best to say:

A thing can indeed be other than how it appears, while how a thing appears is merely how it appears.

Cory Duchesne wrote: ...it feels right for me to try refining the following statements.

Kevin wrote: A thing cannot appear to be other than what it appears to be.

Instead should we not say:

An appearance cannot appear to be other than what it appears to be?

Kevin wrote: Things can only be what they appear to be

Instead should we not say:

Appearances can only be what they appear to be?

And so finally, when it comes to speaking about things, it seems best to say:

A thing can indeed be other than how it appears, while how a thing appears is merely how it appears.

I agree with Cory's rephrasing.
.

Cory Duchesne wrote:And so finally, when it comes to speaking about things, it seems best to say:

A thing can indeed be other than how it appears, while how a thing appears is merely how it appears.

The only reason I don't like that phraseology is that we can't see things from a God's-eye view. "Things", for us at least, are always what appears to us.

Through science we hope to approach what God sees, so to speak, but we will never be able to cross the barrier of the senses.

The whole weight of modern science might determine, unanimously, that something is a stick, when God knows it is a snake.

So, in a way the thing was other than it appeared to us, but only to God.

So the last sentence proves that there is a valid way to use the word "thing" from this absolute-God perspective. But I think it has to be used with great care.

For example, just because what first appears to be a stick, later turns out to be a snake, doesn't mean that it is either of these things (to God).

But if we recognize that all we see are appearances, and that all that we perceive could be wrong if we held the standard of truth to be from God's view, wouldn't we have a more accurate appreciation of Reality? I guess this is similar to Plato's allegory of the cave shadows.

For convenience of language and delineation between how much evidence we have that a thing is what it appears to be, we would have times when it would be more appropriate to say "it is" and other times when it would be more appropriate to say "it appears to be" - and this may be what you are referring to when you say that we will never have God's eye view (true), but when speaking in absolute terms, I would rather say that a thing is never entirely what it appears to be.

What I mean by this is, even if something is a stick, and it appears to be a stick, it is also a conglomeration of molecules, which it does not appear to be to the naked eye. When viewed under an electron microscope, it no longer appears to be a stick, yet it still is a stick, as well as what it appears to be under the microscope. We may even be able to arrange it so we can simultaneously see it under both conditions, but then can we also see it simultaneously under a 10X microscope? Again, it will appear different, and still be all of the above - but merely have different appearances. Then can we view the other side at the same time? Perhaps one side has bark and the other side does not. Eventually, there will be a point that we have reached human limitations of perception, even with technological assistance - but God can see all of those and more.

When just talking, an average person can say "that's a stick" and figure it's no big deal if he was wrong (well, it looked like a stick from over there). But when looking for philosophical truths, I believe we need to be more precise, more aligned with God's view, than to accept something like "things are as they appear to be." I started taking philosophy seriously to not be fooled again, and accepting things on face value does not meet my criteria for truth and not being fooled. I expect more.

Well, I ain't so easily convinced.

Kevin wrote:

However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.

And surely what is really there is exactly what appears to be there for all or any particular individual/s, since the Totality (God) has determined it to be so.

Course, this is problematic because it means one cannot distinguish between sane and deluded on so called objective matters with this idea that a thing is what it appears to be.

Are you speaking of a conscious God, Kevin, when you say:

Through science we hope to approach what God sees, so to speak, but we will never be able to cross the barrier of the senses.

I mean, I see the "so to speak" qualifier, but I have no idea what you mean by it.

It seems to me that when one attempts to use objectivity as a measure of sanity and/or delusion, one misses the boat entirely. It is only through the faculty of logic and reason (living in the realm of certainty) that one becomes human--and all sane "objectivity" is incidental to that.

.

Kevin wrote:

The only reason I don't like that phraseology is that we can't see things from a God's-eye view. "Things", for us at least, are always what appears to us.

Through science we hope to approach what God sees, so to speak, but we will never be able to cross the barrier of the senses.

The whole weight of modern science might determine, unanimously, that something is a stick, when God knows it is a snake.

So, in a way the thing was other than it appeared to us, but only to God.

So the last sentence proves that there is a valid way to use the word "thing" from this absolute-God perspective. But I think it has to be used with great care.

For example, just because what first appears to be a stick, later turns out to be a snake, doesn't mean that it is either of these things (to God).

I know that you recommended caution when you introduced your “God’s-eye view” concept, but I think it only distracts from the main point of things are what they appear to be.

By introducing a ‘something’ outside of this point; a ‘something’ which you describe as knowable only to God, seems only to complicate the matter.

As we know, we can only speculate that the appearance of a thing relates somehow to ‘it’. There is no way we can ever know things apart from their appearance.

You wrote:

However, we could say, as a manner of speaking, that the Totality (God) determines things independently of what we perceive. So no matter whether we perceive either a snake or a stick, or whatever else, God has already determined what is really there.

Whether it be “a snake or a stick, or whatever else” are all determined by God. So “what is really there” is exactly what is ‘there’. Considering things that God determines “independently” from what we perceive, seems to place us back into the realm of speculation. And I can’t see the benefit of taking up such a position.

-
Sue

Sue wrote:
I know that you[Kevin] recommended caution when you introduced your “God’s-eye view” concept, but I think it only distracts from the main point of things are what they appear to be.

Ok, so why are we are confusing ‘things’ with ‘appearance’?

Is it not best to assert that the appearance is not the thing? An appearance is only an appearance. It is incorrect to say that things are what they appear to be.

The best way of expressing this sort of thing is to say that an appearance is as it appears.

As for ‘things’ - - I think that, if you sufficiently map out appearances, it will become clear that things cannot be known.

Sue wrote: By introducing a ‘something’ outside of this point; a ‘something’ which you describe as knowable only to God, seems only to complicate the matter.

I agree, introducing the ‘God’s eye view’ concept will generally be misinterpreted. It only took a few hours before Borommakot started a thread that was apparently inspired by Kevin’s ‘God’s eye view’ concept. He misinterpreted it in the way that I deem most people would.

Sue wrote: As we know, we can only speculate that the appearance of a thing relates somehow to ‘it’.

There is no ‘it’. There is no totally knowable thing. The pronoun ‘it’ would only be correct if you were using it to signify an appearance, rather than a thing.

Rather than merely speculate, we should map the relationship one appearance has to all of the appearances that we become introduced to. Suffering and desire for emotional stability will prod us to establish values. The more we map out appearances, the more clear it should become to us that things cannot be known. The less diligently and less broad we map, the more we become enslaved to 'the false reality of things'.

There is no inherently existing thing there to know. All we can do is work with appearances in a way that supports our values. If we value being high on drugs whenever we have the money, then we should work with the appearances of our environment in a way that maintains the appearance of feeling high on drugs.

Sue wrote: There is no way we can ever know things apart from their appearance.

All that we can know are appearances.

Sue wrote: “what is really there” is exactly what is ‘there’.

Perhaps you are concerning yourself with believing that which is not wise to believe. Or maybe you are just trying to say the same truth as I am trying to say. To me, your way of expressing appears not as effective as the way that I think the truth ought to be expressed. My way, appears to me, to be the most effective.

I think the better way of pointing toward truth is to say that we operate on the environment as it appears to us based on our conditioning (e.g., our values, interpretations, preferences, desires, estimations, etc.)

Our actions are the execution of programs, which are, in part, comprised of the way we have organized our interpretation of events. That is all we can really know. As for any given 'thing' --- I say that it is foolish to think that you can know it.

We are only in the position of establishing and modifying a functional relationship to the appearance of environment.

This is why I have emphasized 'functionality' in earlier posts.

An interpretation of appearances that leaves the individual less suprised and dissapointed by how events unfold, with more predictive power in regards to how events unfold and with more power and control over the unfolding environment, is an interpretation that is more functional and more wise.

Powerless, exploited (e.g., foolish) individuals have a dysfunctional, shallow and schitzophrenic interprepretation of reality. They are suprised, dissapointed, and angred by outcomes, they have poor foresight, fabricate unsuccessful plans, etc, etc. Their interpretation of appearances is dysfunctional, rather than functional. This is because their conceptions of causality are relatively less advanced, or pathetically crude.

How advanced can ones conception of causality be? It can become so advanced that even causality becomes an illusion.

Sue, (and anyone who believes like the following)

If you honestly believe that all things are as they appear to be, I have to strongly recommend that you never visit America. You would get killed, or at least seriously taken advantage of.