GENIUS FORUMS

Laird wrote:How is it that anything can be, where that anything might be everything?

I don't know what the complication is for you. Anything may be like a slice of the pie or the whole pie. That the pie can be sliced does not add or subtract from its beingness. I suspect you can see that, so you are probably asking something else. Would you try again, please?
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I don't think that haggling over a definition of "thing" is crucial to Laird to understanding the point.

Quite so. A definition is a pointer to a context in an interpretation. The point is in the interpretation, not in the pointer.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Laird wrote:How is it that anything can be, where that anything might be everything?

I don't know what the complication is for you. Anything may be like a slice of the pie or the whole pie. That the pie can be sliced does not add or subtract from its beingness. I suspect you can see that, so you are probably asking something else. Would you try again, please?

I would be delighted to and that you ask only increases my delight. My objection is in your use of terms such as "beingness". To me this implies "it simply is, so stop questioning". I am not interested in the fact that something simply is, but in how it is that it is. In this interest I recognise an infinity: that I could equally be interested in how it is that how it is is the case; and that I could then become interested in how it is that it is how it is how it is, etc. My contribution to this discussion is recognition that somewhere we come across the mystery of either infinity or paradox - or both - and that the ????ists (I have been requested to refrain from objectionable nomenclature but have not yet been provided an alternative) seem to be content to dismiss it from the realm of mystery whereas I find sustenance in this unknowingness (not solely or exclusively but at least in part).

Laird wrote:To me this implies "it simply is, so stop questioning".

"So stop questioning" is a false overlay. No one here has suggested that you stop questioning, and if you look at the sheer quantity of material on this site on A=A, I'm sure you could see that the fact of something being what it is has not been a "so stop questioning" inference. I need some kind of placeholder word to indicate the parameters of a thing being. Is there a particular word you prefer? I can't say that I would use that word all the time, so I must ask you to get over the false idea that such an indication infers to stop questioning, but at times I will need to use some word to indicate a specific concept of parameters.

Laird wrote:I am not interested in the fact that something simply is, but in how it is that it is.

It still seems to me that you are asking about causality. Due to limitations of time (and sometimes limitations of information), no one can explain each specific in a point-per-point detail - and you see this which is why you asked for the fundamental of it all, which is causality.

Laird wrote:My contribution to this discussion is recognition that somewhere we come across the mystery of either infinity or paradox

Perhaps this is what you are looking for: Infinity is paradoxical in nature. The point of understanding is when this fact is no longer mysterious.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I need some kind of placeholder word to indicate the parameters of a thing being. Is there a particular word you prefer?

I am happy with the verb "to exist" inasmuch as it does not imply how the thing exists.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Laird wrote:I am not interested in the fact that something simply is, but in how it is that it is.

It still seems to me that you are asking about causality. Due to limitations of time (and sometimes limitations of information), no one can explain each specific in a point-per-point detail - and you see this which is why you asked for the fundamental of it all, which is causality.

Or is it? Science postulates that time has a beginning. What meaning does causality have outside of time? And if you reject the scientific model in favour of an eternal model then what is your rationale?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Perhaps this is what you are looking for: Infinity is paradoxical in nature. The point of understanding is when this fact is no longer mysterious..

Or perhaps the point of understanding is when the mysterious is insurmountable (I do not believe that it is but I recognise that for what it is: a belief).

Laird wrote:I am happy with the verb "to exist" inasmuch as it does not imply how the thing exists.

"Exist" has a lot of implications on this board that point to levels where nothing really exists. Please understand my reason for not wanting to use that term except in certain contexts pointing to the foundation level of Ultimate Reality. Do you happen to have another?

Laird wrote:Science postulates that time has a beginning.

That correlates with the big bang theory, in which it is proposed that the big bang came from a massive singularity in which all laws of physics broke down. The argument also can include such measuring devices as a year being the passing of a planet around its sun one time, so if there were no planets and no suns, there could be no years. These just point to divisional constructs. Time itself is not a measure of divisions, and is not hinged to that which time might be measured by.

There is no evidence of before the big bang, but neither is there any reason to believe that the singularity from which it came was not the result of the previous universe collapsing on itself. All things go through a process of rebirth, and there is no reason to support that the universe does not go through a process of rebirth on its own.

Laird wrote:What meaning does causality have outside of time?

There is no "outside of time" other than the ultimate void, which I can best map out for you as being on a plane that is superimposed with existence. Time is in the plane of existence, but there would be no causality in the void.

Laird wrote:And if you reject the scientific model in favour of an eternal model then what is your rationale?

Science only deals with that which can be perceived directly or indirectly through the five senses. Logic can reach beyond that. Science is a great verifier of logic in the realm it can reach, but good logic is not limited by what science can prove at this time. In fact, science follows logic (not the other way around).

Laird wrote:Or perhaps the point of understanding is when the mysterious is insurmountable (I do not believe that it is but I recognise that for what it is: a belief).

Leprechauns sitting on a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow is also a belief. I prefer logical beliefs.

A point when the mysterious is insurmountable would more logically be called permanent confusion than understanding.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:"Exist" has a lot of implications on this board that point to levels where nothing really exists. Please understand my reason for not wanting to use that term except in certain contexts pointing to the foundation level of Ultimate Reality. Do you happen to have another?

Not that I can think of right now. I don't want to dictate your choice of terms anyhow and context is everything. I'm expressing only that the context in which I see you using similar terms suggests to me acceptance that you prefer to present as understanding.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Time itself is not a measure of divisions, and is not hinged to that which time might be measured by.

Provisionally agreed unless it turns out that time is discrete in which case the progression from one moment to the next moment would be a measure of division in itself.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:There is no evidence of before the big bang

As best I understand the concept (and I have not studied the mathematics), the concept of "before the big bang" has no meaning. Time was created in the big bang. There can be no evidence of "before the big bang" because "before" implies the existence of time, which is a property of our temporally-bounded universe according to this model.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:All things go through a process of rebirth, and there is no reason to support that the universe does not go through a process of rebirth on its own.

I would be fascinated if that were the case - my mind has difficulty grasping the concept of a universe collapsing in on itself and then re-exploding from a new singularity. What is the nature of the new time that emerges: is it identical to the time of the past universe? How can we contrast it against the time of the old universe - we cannot say that it occurred "after" because it did not occur in the context of time. Perhaps it is enough to simply say that "time was forged twice" (or, more likely, "infinitely many times").

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:There is no "outside of time" other than the ultimate void, which I can best map out for you as being on a plane that is superimposed with existence. Time is in the plane of existence, but there would be no causality in the void.

So your belief is contrary to that of David, who charges that nothingness is not of necessity the natural state - you seem to assert that it is and that somethingness is an imposition upon this natural state.

I agree that the idea of causality in the void is hard to imagine. Yet somewhere in all of this we have a "something from nothing". Somewhere our imaginations fail us.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Science only deals with that which can be perceived directly or indirectly through the five senses. Logic can reach beyond that.

Logic works on abstraction. How do you prove the necessity of a correspondence between abstraction and reality?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Science is a great verifier of logic in the realm it can reach, but good logic is not limited by what science can prove at this time.

I'm interested to know how you arrived at this position because I can easily imagine that exact statement coming out of Kevin's mouth. Is it an "independent" belief or something that you have learnt from this forum?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:In fact, science follows logic (not the other way around).

I would have phrased that as "In fact, science and logic are two contexts of human rationality, neither of higher intrinsic value."

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Laird wrote:Or perhaps the point of understanding is when the mysterious is insurmountable (I do not believe that it is but I recognise that for what it is: a belief).

Leprechauns sitting on a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow is also a belief. I prefer logical beliefs.

If that's another way of saying "I like to believe in what makes sense to me" then I have the same preference.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:A point when the mysterious is insurmountable would more logically be called permanent confusion than understanding.

That explains a lot about my life. :-P

Laird wrote:As best I understand the concept (and I have not studied the mathematics), the concept of "before the big bang" has no meaning. Time was created in the big bang. There can be no evidence of "before the big bang" because "before" implies the existence of time, which is a property of our temporally-bounded universe according to this model.

If time were created in the big bang, there would be no before because there would be no time for a before to be in. My proposition is that time was not created in the big bang (or more accurately to my concept, before the most recent big bang, or any of the big bangs before that). In my concept, time always was.

Laird wrote:Perhaps it is enough to simply say that "time was forged twice" (or, more likely, "infinitely many times").

There was no need to reforge time - unless you want to look at it as time is perpetually being forged. Same concept, two perspectives.

Laird wrote:So your belief is contrary to that of David, who charges that nothingness is not of necessity the natural state - you seem to assert that it is and that somethingness is an imposition upon this natural state.

No, David and I are in agreement on this. In the other thread I linked you to, David was being asked about his statement of something springing from nothing. Neither so much an imposition on the other as both are an imposition on each other. That is why I said the void was superimposed with existence, rather than saying one was superimposed on the other. And neither is of necessity the natural state.

Laird wrote:I agree that the idea of causality in the void is hard to imagine. Yet somewhere in all of this we have a "something from nothing". Somewhere our imaginations fail us.

Where are you getting "something from nothing" in this?

Laird wrote:Logic works on abstraction. How do you prove the necessity of a correspondence between abstraction and reality?

Because logic is an abstraction of reality. An abstraction of unreality would be illogical.

Laird wrote:

Science is a great verifier of logic in the realm it can reach, but good logic is not limited by what science can prove at this time.

I'm interested to know how you arrived at this position because I can easily imagine that exact statement coming out of Kevin's mouth. Is it an "independent" belief or something that you have learnt from this forum?

I don't recall. I thought it the moment I composed the post, but it is likely that I ran across a similar concept on this forum... I don't accept anything until I can see it as true myself, but my thoughts have been influenced by this forum just as Kevin's thoughts were influenced by the books he read. I was drawn to this forum in part by similarities of certain beliefs between here and what I already believed... Einstein once said that imagination is more important than knowledge, so it could have been influenced by that statement as well. Although I remember a great deal of where I get things, once a concept becomes mine, I don't footnote all the causal events of the concept being in my head.

Laird wrote:

In fact, science follows logic (not the other way around).

I would have phrased that as "In fact, science and logic are two contexts of human rationality, neither of higher intrinsic value."

I meant sequentially. Science comes up with what they think is a logical hypothesis (so they needed logic before they could even get started), then they perform their experiments to test it out.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If time were created in the big bang, there would be no before because there would be no time for a before to be in.

I think that we see the same thing here.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:My proposition is that time was not created in the big bang
[...]
There was no need to reforge time - unless you want to look at it as time is perpetually being forged. Same concept, two perspectives.

I think that you are talking about the concept of time, and I am talking about time itself. Do you find that distinction meaningful?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:In the other thread I linked you to, David was being asked about his statement of something springing from nothing.

And there you made the revealing claim that: "Nothing springs from nothingness, which is why nothing really exists at all."

I say revealing because to me this is a statement of paradox and if I were to choose one word that best describes my current level of understanding of reality it would be "paradoxical".

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:That is why I said the void was superimposed with existence, rather than saying one was superimposed on the other.

The two parts of that statement strike me as contradictory (I welcome any paradox in your nature though).

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Where are you getting "something from nothing" in this?

As I quoted you above, nothing can exist. And yet it does. It's inexplicable (to me at this point in time). Even (especially) through logic.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Laird wrote:Logic works on abstraction. How do you prove the necessity of a correspondence between abstraction and reality?

Because logic is an abstraction of reality.

How do you know that it is the correct abstraction? How do you know that there is not another system of logic - used by alien races - whose correspondence with reality is greater than that of our logic?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:An abstraction of unreality would be illogical.

It would exist in reality so it could be as logical as an abstraction of reality. Or if you want to conceive of it as existing in unreality, then: what we call illogical in reality might be conceived of as logical in unreality.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I don't recall. I thought it the moment I composed the post, but it is likely that I ran across a similar concept on this forum... I don't accept anything until I can see it as true myself, but my thoughts have been influenced by this forum just as Kevin's thoughts were influenced by the books he read.

You would say that "we are all a product of cause and effect", right?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Einstein once said that imagination is more important than knowledge

They are interdependent.

Elizabeth: In fact, science follows logic (not the other way around).
Laird: I would have phrased that as "In fact, science and logic are two contexts of human rationality, neither of higher intrinsic value."
Elizabeth: I meant sequentially. Science comes up with what they think is a logical hypothesis (so they needed logic before they could even get started), then they perform their experiments to test it out.

Logic arose as a result of the scientific method in nature - evolution. Evolution - the scientific method in action - produced an effective means - logic - of abstracting the world based on its usefulness in predicting and modelling reality. They are two sides of the same coin. The coin is a metaphor for all useful means of evolving life (most significantly, reason).

Laird,

DQ: Firstly, before I address anything else, I object to your use of the word "totalitarian" to describe my perspective.

L: What would you rather your perspective be denoted as?

Deep and truthful will do. :)

Or failing that, the rational perspective.

DQ: I was trying to prompt you into recognizing the irrationality of the question you were asking.

L: You charge irrationality, I charge paradox. Who is right? And how can we know? Is it not a matter of interpretation that we improve as insight affords us opportunity?

I don't believe in paradox, other than as an artificial product of contradictions in one's thinking. In other words, Reality isn't really paradoxical, only faulty thinking makes it so.

Also, a lot of people in my experience tend to stagnate in the easy, glib answer of "paradox" and no longer see the need to resolve their perception of paradox via improvements in their thinking. Paradox is something that many people find comforting, because it absolves them of the need to reach greater clarity of mind and assume greater responsibility for their thoughts and actions.

DQ" As for mystery, I personally consider being conscious of the nature of Reality to be far more interesting and awe-inspiring than wallowing in "mystery" - particularly contrived mysteries that deluded minds artificially create for themselves, such as those mentioned on this thread.

L: Your position seems to be "it is as it is". My response is "there is more to it than that: how is it that it is?" Your counter is "the question is meaningless". I retort "it has meaning to my honestly seeking mind". We reach an impasse.

If you really are honest in your seeking, then one day you will realize that the question you are asking has no basis to it, other than emotion and attachment to pleasure.

Keep in mind that all these feelings and perceptions that you describe have been fully experienced by myself and Kevin and other deep thinkers in times past. You're not describing anything foreign or unfamiliar to me. It's a matter of working through these experiences and understanding the basis of them.

And again, your characterization of my position as "it is as it is" completely misses the mark. Rather, my position is one of opening the mind to the glories of the Infinite and exploring its endless vistas. It isn't one of settling down inside a particular intellectual concept.

DQ: Ideally, the experience of mystery should act as a spur to deepen one's perspective and gain realization, to stimulate the mind into further rational investigation. Simply wallowing in it for its own sake only serves to turn it into a form of entertainment, rather like having a passive drug-experience.

L: Is not the point of stimulation and investigation to improve one's capacity for pleasure and for stimulating pleasure in others? Do you find something objectionable in a passive experience that brings pleasure? If so, then what?

There is nothing inherently wrong with experiencing pleasure as such. It's only a problem when people get stuck on certain kinds of pleasure.

A baby in a cradle gets pleasure from looking at rattles. That is fine for that period of time, but if the baby were to grow up into an adult and continue to find sustained pleasure in shaking rattles, then there is clearly something wrong. It would indicate that his psychological development is suffering from stunted growth.

Similarly, getting pleasure out of riding a ferry at night is fine as far as it goes, but if an attachment to those kinds of experiences becomes an obsession and starts to hinder your intellectual and psychological development elsewhere, then it becomes a problem.

DQ: I'm saying that questions like, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "How did Reality come into being?", are misguided because they do not take into account that all of time is contained within Reality itself. There is no "before" or "after" outside of Reality.

L: You seemed to be making a more specific comment on the nature of time and momentariness which is a topic that interests me. What do you make of the current scientific model that posits a beginning of time?

I would characterize that particular aspect of those models as wishful thinking. There is no way that a scientific model can prove that time has a beginning, just as there is no way that a scientific model can describe what lies beyond its scope. There is nothing in these models which precludes, say, the possibility of previous universes or other currently existing universes existing side by side with ours.

Scientists are often given to extreme hyperbole when it comes to their theories and discoveries, particularly physicists, and this is one example of it.

How do you conceive of causality outside of time?

Physically, causality and time are intertwined, since a causal process can only occur in time, and time is observed and measured by observing causal processes. In this sense, wherever there is causality, there is time, and vice versa.

On the other hand, the process of causality itself, which spans the entirety of Nature, is beyond time in the sense that it exists timelessly. No amount of time or causal change can undermine its reality.

-

L: What would you rather your perspective be denoted as?

DQ: Deep and truthful will do. :)

DQ: Or failing that, the rational perspective.

I suggest a compromise: "rational infinitism".

David Quinn wrote:[A] lot of people in my experience tend to stagnate in the easy, glib answer of "paradox" and no longer see the need to resolve their perception of paradox via improvements in their thinking.

We agree on the desirability of evolving one's position then.

David Quinn wrote:Paradox is something that many people find comforting, because it absolves them of the need to reach greater clarity of mind and assume greater responsibility for their thoughts and actions.

This does not seem to be a need for all people - witness the link to the sociopath-psychopath lecture that Elizabeth provided. Those who assume responsibility protect the irresponsible.

David Quinn wrote:If you really are honest in your seeking, then one day you will realize that the question you are asking has no basis to it, other than emotion and attachment to pleasure.

If you really were honest in your attitude to absolute truth then you would acknowledge that imagination is the biggest argument against the possibility of finding it.

David Quinn wrote:Keep in mind that ... [y]ou're not describing anything foreign or unfamiliar to me.

And realise that I can conceptualise the end point of your position (an unbounded infinite universe that is proven to be so through reasoning) but that I can't confirm the steps required to reach it, nor - mostly because of my imagination - can I bring myself to declare its necessity.

David Quinn wrote:[M]y position ... isn't one of settling down inside a particular intellectual concept.

So then you are open to the possibility that you have not yet found absolute truth?

David Quinn wrote:There is nothing inherently wrong with experiencing pleasure as such. It's only a problem when people get stuck on certain kinds of pleasure.

Imagine that there was a drug that you could take that caused every part of your mind and body to feel pleasure greater than that of orgasm - the ultimate pleasurable experience: I'll call this hypothetical drug "Heaven". When you're on heaven, all you do is experience - your thoughts stop and you are completely frozen physically: you literally cannot move, nor do you want to. You are freed from all desires. It has no negative side effects nor do you ever come down from it: once you take it you no longer need breath, food, exercise or a heartbeat. You do, however, age normally. Now imagine that there exists a place where you can be assured of never being interrupted by a human being, animal or anything else for the rest of your life. Would you go there and take heaven?

L: What do you make of the current scientific model that posits a beginning of time?

D: I would characterize that particular aspect of those models as wishful thinking. There is no way that a scientific model can prove that time has a beginning

Likewise there is no way that you can prove that it does not.

L: How do you conceive of causality outside of time?

DQ: Physically, causality and time are intertwined, since a causal process can only occur in time

In other words, you don't, except that...

David Quinn wrote:the process of causality ... exists timelessly.

I put it to you that you are only able to conceive of this process due to observations, that you declare all observations to be doubtable (dependent on limited sensory input) and that you therefore must doubt the process of causality.

Laird; Interesting thoughts… I welcome a strong thinker such as yourself :)

A few points and comments to help me understand your position better.

Since you are new here, and generally people don’t look back in other threads, (I know it is rather cumbersome to sift through tons of topics that generally go off topic), I simply want to inform you that English is not my first language, so don’t grill me on my poor use of words. Please see it contextually.

Jamesh, in one of the possibilities that I imagine this is the case. In that possibility one of the fundamental properties of existence is will. Evolution is the expression of will in realising itself. Before life there was will: matter and the laws of the universe evolved that will might express itself in greater and greater levels of complexity. The ultimate purpose of existence would then be nothing more than self-expression. The purpose of language would be simply to share expression for the purpose of evolving the inherent will of existence into yet higher levels of expressivity. Another way of looking at it would be to say that we are evolving towards God, where God is the answer to the question that is asked in the void: "what would I be if I could be anything that I wanted to be?"

In whatever sense that it may be, why do you introduce God, when it was quite understandable until then?

Laird,

Logic is a useful power of expression used by (at least human) conscious life within the universe. That is not to say that it is necessarily the means by which we find ultimate realisation/insight on the universe, if such a thing is even possible. It might be that ultimate realisation has the nature of what in our current logical expression we would term contradiction. We might need to evolve new systems of reasoning before we are capable of realising and expressing the deeper meaning in life. I have no idea what form those systems might take except to draw inspiration from the concept of "doublethink" in George Orwell's 1984.

I’m not aware of George Orwell’s, but I do not necessarily see “logic” only as explained above.

It (Logic) is not only an academically described system of deduction, but is an inherent system of existence at its core. In other words, existence at its core is not illogical, but it can create doubts (which arise logically too) through reasoning, but our conclusions may rest on false reasoning, but not logic itself.

In my opinion, ‘reasoning’ is something that we have always questioned since we were first aware that we are indeed ‘reasoning’. So what does reasoning rest upon or how does it occur? And I find that human consciousness is necessary for it to come about. And what is that based in or off of? I find it is based in and off recognition through differentiation, as in a thing is recognized through and against the contrast of all that it is not. (A=A).

Now this does not only apply to human consciousness, but to all that one might consider a thing; to the deepest realm of quantum or otherwise, existence. For a wave or a particle has to necessarily recognize through differentiation, (within its own dimensional environment), before it can react in any way. And all such "reactions" are necessarily logical, but not always reasonable as seen and judged through reason. Absolutely nothing is illogical when seen through the core system (logic), through which reasoning operates, and we know how unreasonable reasoing can be, most of the times.

Laird,

David, as I wrote in my original post, I'm trying to express paradox. How is it that anything can be, where that anything might be everything?

In my opinion, a thing is not everything.

A thing is, necessarily not what all other is, to be what it is, and it cannot be what it is without all that it is not, hence a thing is merely a reflection of all that it is not, hence has no inherent (independently existing) existence of its own. There isn’t any paradox at all.

Laird,

As best I understand the concept (and I have not studied the mathematics), the concept of "before the big bang" has no meaning. Time was created in the big bang. There can be no evidence of "before the big bang" because "before" implies the existence of time, which is a property of our temporally-bounded universe according to this model.

Elizabeth,

If time were created in the big bang, there would be no before because there would be no time for a before to be in. My proposition is that time was not created in the big bang (or more accurately to my concept, before the most recent big bang, or any of the big bangs before that). In my concept, time always was.

Laird,

I think that we see the same thing here.

I think that you are talking about the concept of time, and I am talking about time itself. Do you find that distinction meaningful?

At least I don’t find that distinction meaningful.

Time is necessarily contextual, and holds no meaning beyond that. Time does not exist and cannot be applied for or to existence; infinite that existence is in every which sense, no particualr "sense" does apply; even ‘infinite’ does not apply. Neither does 'nothigness' nor 'thingness'; just to make myself further clear.

Essentially, no particular sense applies to existence, hence is neither meaningful nor meaningless, neither timeless nor finite, and so on and so forth. Just this particular realization should cease all questioning as far as existence goes, otherwise, existence is open to healthy (or unhealthy) reasoning over every which subject one can think of.

Laird,

I put it to you (David) that you are only able to conceive of this process due to observations, that you declare all observations to be doubtable (dependent on limited sensory input) and that you therefore must doubt the process of causality.

There is no doubt that causality is not happening as far as a thing is concerned; but as far as existence goes, ‘happening’ does not apply either, so causality is necessarily contextual, whereas existence is not; contextually speaking of course :D

Essentially, one can only pass on such a realization in silence; otherwise, it is the mother of all big bangs within. :D

I’m on the road, so please pardon my untimely response if need be.

Laird,

DQ: [A] lot of people in my experience tend to stagnate in the easy, glib answer of "paradox" and no longer see the need to resolve their perception of paradox via improvements in their thinking.

L: We agree on the desirability of evolving one's position then.

As long as it means evolving into timeless truth, sure.

DQ: If you really are honest in your seeking, then one day you will realize that the question you are asking has no basis to it, other than emotion and attachment to pleasure.

L: If you really were honest in your attitude to absolute truth then you would acknowledge that imagination is the biggest argument against the possibility of finding it.

You're implying that my imagination is limited and that is the reason why I think I know the absolute truth. But I don't think you yet understand how the great truths of life are utterly beyond the imagination to doubt. Indeed, that is partly what makes them so great.

A mundane example is the truth that "consciousness is occurring/experiences are happening". This is impossible to doubt because the very act of trying to doubt it is itself a conscious experience. Thus, in the very attempt to doubt it, one affirms it.

It doesn't matter how great your imagination is, or what powers it might have, you still cannot use it to doubt this truth without automatically affirming it.

All the great truths of life are like this. By their very nature, they are utterly invincible in the face of a doubting imagination.

DQ:Keep in mind that ... [y]ou're not describing anything foreign or unfamiliar to me.

And realise that I can conceptualise the end point of your position (an unbounded infinite universe that is proven to be so through reasoning) but that I can't confirm the steps required to reach it, nor - mostly because of my imagination - can I bring myself to declare its necessity.

This means, then, that you don't really understand it.

That's okay. These are difficult points to understand and require great philosophical skill and imagination. Not many people are capable of this. I'm not trying to slight you here, just pointing out that there is more to this philosophy than you are presently seeing.

DQ: My position ... isn't one of settling down inside a particular intellectual concept.

L: So then you are open to the possibility that you have not yet found absolute truth?

No, I've definitely found absolute truth, but it isn't something that can be confined within an intellectual concept. It is the very emptiness of Nature itself. One either dives into it and explores its infinite subtleties, or one shies away from it and stays safely within the finite, conceptual realm.

DQ: There is nothing inherently wrong with experiencing pleasure as such. It's only a problem when people get stuck on certain kinds of pleasure.

L: Imagine that there was a drug that you could take that caused every part of your mind and body to feel pleasure greater than that of orgasm - the ultimate pleasurable experience: I'll call this hypothetical drug "Heaven". When you're on heaven, all you do is experience - your thoughts stop and you are completely frozen physically: you literally cannot move, nor do you want to. You are freed from all desires. It has no negative side effects nor do you ever come down from it: once you take it you no longer need breath, food, exercise or a heartbeat. You do, however, age normally. Now imagine that there exists a place where you can be assured of never being interrupted by a human being, animal or anything else for the rest of your life. Would you go there and take heaven?

Well, there are a number of problems with this, aside from the obvious fact that it is pure fantasy.

For example, if our thoughts were to cease in this heaven, then it means that our consciousness will also cease. This is because thought is intrinsic to consciousness. Without thought distinguishing between things, and memory creating a sense of self-awareness, consciousness becomes impossible. So in effect, what you are describing above is a form of death.

On the other hand, if our thought and memory are still going to be in operation, and if our ego is still going to remain in existence - all of which are needed for the enjoyment of this heaven - then the problem of boredom comes into play. There have been plenty of cases in the past where people have given up the "good life" - wealth, nice lifestyle, plenty of amusements, etc - simply out of sheer boredom. They wanted to do something more fulfilling with their lives. So I'm not sure that the hedonistic heaven which you describe will be all that satisfying for people. They might enjoy it for awhile, but sooner or later they will want to do something else.

L: What do you make of the current scientific model that posits a beginning of time?

DQ: I would characterize that particular aspect of those models as wishful thinking. There is no way that a scientific model can prove that time has a beginning

L: Likewise there is no way that you can prove that it does not.

Logically, since all things have causes, there can be no beginning to Nature, or to time.

DQ: the process of causality ... exists timelessly.

L: I put it to you that you are only able to conceive of this process due to observations, that you declare all observations to be doubtable (dependent on limited sensory input) and that you therefore must doubt the process of causality.

Observations initially gave me the idea of causality, but it was pure logical thought which enabled me to prove its truth and universal application.

If you're interested, I describe this process in some detail in a book called: Wisdom of the Infinite

-

Sapius wrote:Laird; Interesting thoughts… I welcome a strong thinker such as yourself :)

Thank you for your affirmation, it is valuable to me. I affirm in you the deep respectability of a moral stance that places such high regard on improving the lives of the disadvantaged and that translates this into effective action. Perhaps when you return from the road you could explain how you arrived at your position. That would be the sort of discussion that I had envisaged for this thread.

Sapius wrote:In whatever sense that it may be, why do you introduce God, when it was quite understandable until then?

Because evolution is in try-based-on-existing-traits, succeed-and-reinforce-with-pleasure or fail-and-flag-pain. "God", the concept, has been traditionally used as a pointer to the unknown. There is still much that is unknown, but we now know more than ever. I am trying to evolve our existing idea of God based on what we now know. Perhaps you are experiencing discomfort due to the failure that you perceive in the associations that you currently align with the concept, or perhaps you genuinely find discomfort in the new context that I am trying to establish for it. [edited final sentence - was two - for better expression]

Sapius wrote:I’m not aware of George Orwell

1984 is one of the most human and mind-expanding books that I have ever read. Please sate yourself upon it.

Sapius wrote:[O]ur conclusions may rest on false reasoning, but not logic itself.

So you conceive of such a thing as "pure logic", which I presume would be part of the rational infinitist's packaging of "absolute truth" (I am presuming David's acceptance of my proposed nomenclature here). Do you believe that the logic that we make use of corresponds to that ideal version? - because I see no reason to make that claim other than desire for certitude.

Sapius wrote:I find that human consciousness is necessary for it [reasoning] to come about.

Agreed.

Sapius wrote:And what is that based in or off of? I find it is based in and off recognition through differentiation, as in a thing is recognized through and against the contrast of all that it is not. (A=A).

I think that you have pointed to something useful there. Something else that I find useful is the idea that consciousness is a process of interpretation. It consists of taking an attitudinal position and then running various plausibility tests against that position in the same way that natural evolution runs survival tests against its genetic positions. This is why I make the claim that science (real-world plausibility testing) and consciousness (mental-world plausibility testing) are evolution (natural-world survival testing) in action.

Sapius wrote:For a wave or a particle has to necessarily recognize through differentiation, (within its own dimensional environment), before it can react in any way.

I think that what you are trying to suggest is that energy and matter are at their core discrete.

Sapius wrote:In my opinion, a thing is not everything.

A thing is, necessarily not what all other is

In the immediately prior quote you seemed to suggest that matter/energy are at their core discrete. To me this implies the possibility that a core thing can be defined in relation to nothing other than itself, even though it can interact with that which it is not. [minor edit to add "it"]

Sapius wrote:[Laird-to-Elizabeth]: I think that you are talking about the concept of time, and I am talking about time itself. Do you find that distinction meaningful?

At least I don’t find that distinction meaningful.

I will try then to explain how I see it. Consciousness consists of an interpretive model. This model is useful in directing future action (where action includes thought). The usefulness of this model is in its reflection of an external (but linked) reality (I believe in a distinction between consciousness and the material): it abstracts enough detail to provide predictive power. So then we have the "material" time, and we have its abstract representation in our consciousness. That is the distinction that I am referring to.

Sapius wrote:Essentially, no particular sense applies to existence, hence is neither meaningful nor meaningless, neither timeless nor finite, and so on and so forth.

I relate that to my idea that life is a paradox: that everything is at once meaningful yet meaningless, timeless yet momentary, wave yet particle, caused yet uncaused.

Sapius wrote:Just this particular realization should cease all questioning as far as existence goes

And how do we evolve if we refrain from testing pathways through questioning?

Sapius wrote:Laird: I put it to you (David) that you are only able to conceive of this process due to observations, that you declare all observations to be doubtable (dependent on limited sensory input) and that you therefore must doubt the process of causality.

There is no doubt that causality is not happening as far as a thing is concerned; but as far as existence goes, ‘happening’ does not apply either, so causality is necessarily contextual, whereas existence is not; contextually speaking of course :D

Essentially, one can only pass on such a realization in silence; otherwise, it is the mother of all big bangs within. :D

I am tempted to pass over in silence that I did not comprehend at all what you said but in fairness I let you know.

Sapius wrote:I’m on the road, so please pardon my untimely response if need be.

May goodwill sustain you.

David Quinn wrote:You're implying that my imagination is limited and that is the reason why I think I know the absolute truth.

I'm implying the possibility that imagination is even more unlimited than you believe reality to be. I will further suggest the possibility that imagination gives birth to reality.

David Quinn wrote:A mundane example is the truth that "consciousness is occurring/experiences are happening". This is impossible to doubt because the very act of trying to doubt it is itself a conscious experience. Thus, in the very attempt to doubt it, one affirms it.

As I wrote in my original post, I too believe in the absolute truth of experiences such as consciousness, where "absolute" is paradoxically defined in a subjective sense.

David Quinn wrote:It doesn't matter how great your imagination is, or what powers it might have, you still cannot use it to doubt this truth without automatically affirming it.

Oh but you're only saying that because you can't imagine otherwise.

David Quinn wrote:I'm not trying to slight you here, just pointing out that there is more to this philosophy than you are presently seeing.

I will maintain an open yet critical position.

DQ: My position ... isn't one of settling down inside a particular intellectual concept.

L: So then you are open to the possibility that you have not yet found absolute truth?

DQ: No, I've definitely found absolute truth, but it isn't something that can be confined within an intellectual concept.

So absolute truth is an experience rather than a conception?

DQ: There is nothing inherently wrong with experiencing pleasure as such. It's only a problem when people get stuck on certain kinds of pleasure.

L: Imagine that there was a drug that you could take that caused every part of your mind and body to feel pleasure greater than that of orgasm - the ultimate pleasurable experience: I'll call this hypothetical drug "Heaven". When you're on heaven, all you do is experience - your thoughts stop and you are completely frozen physically: you literally cannot move, nor do you want to. You are freed from all desires. It has no negative side effects nor do you ever come down from it: once you take it you no longer need breath, food, exercise or a heartbeat. You do, however, age normally. Now imagine that there exists a place where you can be assured of never being interrupted by a human being, animal or anything else for the rest of your life. Would you go there and take heaven?

DQ: Well, there are a number of problems with this, aside from the obvious fact that it is pure fantasy.

That's its most positive attribute.

David Quinn wrote:For example, if our thoughts were to cease in this heaven, then it means that our consciousness will also cease. This is because thought is intrinsic to consciousness. Without thought distinguishing between things, and memory creating a sense of self-awareness, consciousness becomes impossible. So in effect, what you are describing above is a form of death.

I imagine the possibility that consciousness is a cause rather than an effect. That pure consciousness (awareness of the self without any attendant intellectualisation/conceptualisation) can exist independently of the material. So without thought we would be simply aware.

David Quinn wrote:On the other hand, if our thought and memory are still going to be in operation, and if our ego is still going to remain in existence - all of which are needed for the enjoyment of this heaven - then the problem of boredom comes into play.

Well let's explore that by taking as our starting point my comparison of this state with the state of orgasm. As a man, my orgasm lasts for - if I'm lucky - ten or fifteen seconds. I'm told that a woman can sustain this pleasure for longer. So perhaps we can appeal to the women on this forum to explain whether they feel any possibility of boredom in the sustained pleasure of orgasm. I know that from my brief experiences I can't imagine it.

Aside from the interesting question of whether such boredom *would* occur, I'd like to propose that in this scenario it *does not* occur.

Is there any temptation there for you now?

David Quinn wrote:Logically, since all things have causes, there can be no beginning to Nature, or to time.

What if the whole is greater than logic?

DQ: the process of causality ... exists timelessly.

L: I put it to you that you are only able to conceive of this process due to observations, that you declare all observations to be doubtable (dependent on limited sensory input) and that you therefore must doubt the process of causality.

DQ: Observations initially gave me the idea of causality, but it was pure logical thought which enabled me to prove its truth and universal application.

Logical thought based on doubtable input. Garbage in, garbage out, to recapitulate the point that Victor made in his podcast.

David Quinn wrote:If you're interested, I describe this process in some detail in a book called: Wisdom of the Infinite

I may at some point read both your book and Kevin's "Poison for the heart" however I have a stack of other things to read first.

Laird wrote:What if the whole is greater than logic?

If you're not completely convinced of the truth of logic, then logical arguments won't be able to sway you.

That's something you need to resolve first, before you try to tackle any other arguments - like causality, etc.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:What if the whole is greater than logic?

If you're not completely convinced of the truth of logic, then logical arguments won't be able to sway you.

I am convinced (that is to say that it is my most plausible current belief) that my intelligent consciousness is a process of which logic is a part and that it (consciousness as well as its contained expressivity, logic) plays a useful role where useful means avoidance of suffering and advancement of complex, loving expression.

Laird wrote:my intelligent consciousness is a process of which logic is a part and that it (consciousness as well as its contained expressivity, logic) plays a useful role where useful means avoidance of suffering and advancement of complex, loving expression.

What do you do if logic destroys "loving expression"? Do you reject logic in favour of "loving expression", or do you drop "loving expression"?

[ You also need to give a good defiinition of "loving expression" for it to mean anything. ]

Kevin Solway wrote:What do you do if logic destroys "loving expression"?

I do not imagine the possibility.

Kevin Solway wrote:[ You also need to give a good defiinition of "loving expression" for it to mean anything. ]

I thought that I had done something similar in the thread on the awkwardness of an inadequate expression of love. I will try again: "loving expression is the mechanism by which we experience joy, happiness and all of the positive emotions, including some that initially seem instead like suffering, such as sadness and longing; by mechanism I mean a structured process of energy exchange, generation or realisation". [edited to add a missing word]

Laird,

Your philosophy seems to be that of: invent your own reality if you can't imagine a reason not to.

Is that accurate?

Dan Rowden wrote:Laird,

Your philosophy seems to be that of: invent your own reality if you can't imagine a reason not to.

Is that accurate?

Dan, I'm open to the possibility that we (or, more likely, some force of will higher than yet connected to us) are creating or, as you put it, inventing, reality. I don't turn that into an assertion of fact though: my base philosophy is more minimalist than that. Perhaps the best way of describing it is that I believe that consciousness is, amongst other things, the adoption of a position. As we engage with others we become more aware of the nature of our position and of the alternative possible positions. We evaluate those possibilities for insight and if we find sufficient plausibility and utility in them then we adopt them as our own in part or in their entirety. My fundamental position is that as far as possible, I should not have a position so that I am as open as I can be to the insights that others might afford me in changing my position. This might seem quite contradictory: my position is that positions are an inherent aspect of consciousness yet I seek to be positionless that I can more flexibly change my position. I prefer to view this not as a contradiction but as further evidence of the fundamentally paradoxical nature of life. That is how I interpret what little I know of the Zen teachings: they are trying to describe life's paradox without naming it. It is also why I prefer to use words like "might" and "perhaps" than their more assertive cousins. Another part of my basic position is the idea of trying to look at situations from as many different perspectives as possible: that's why I write that balance is important. In my attempt to explore life in a balanced manner I will occasionally adopt more assertive terminology in order to provoke in myself and in others a stronger process of evaluation. [edited to append the final three sentences]