GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:Okay, we'll start with (5) and (6):

5. You describe the universe as a group of "isolated constructions of consciousness", which (I initially thought, but see my later acknowledgement) implies that beyond each individual consciousness lie all of the other individual consciousnesses, which entails that outside of an individual consciousness at least all of those other consciousnesses must exist, which contradicts your assertion that nothing exists beyond the mind. I want to acknowledge that since identifying this problem, I have found another way to interpret the phrase that I primarily based it on, "each bubble [is] an isolated construction of consciousness": it is possible to interpret it as meaning that there is only one consciousness, which creates a whole lot of separate constructions within itself. If that's the case, though, then you haven't explained how it is that we each experience a separate consciousness if there is in fact only one universal consciousness within which each of our "constructions" exists.
6. If these "constructions of consciousness" are "isolated" as you describe them, then how is it that people can communicate and experience a mutually consistent reality?

I meant it in the sense that it is impossible for anyone to jump outside of their consciousness and peek at lies what beyond - including other people's fields of consciousness. Each of us is confined to our respective bubbles of consciousness in that respect.

How do these bubbles communicate? Well, each person in his bubble perceives the actions and words of other people within the bubble, interprets their meaning as best he can and responds accordingly.

Hang on, you say that each individual consciousness is an "isolated bubble", so then how is it that the "actions and words" of the "other people" (other "bubbles") somehow appear in this (isolated) "construction of consciousness"? There must be some form of communication between bubbles taking place, right?

To make it clear what I'm saying: guest_of_logic is bubble A, and David Quinn is bubble B. In bubble A, guest_of_logic types out a post to David Quinn: this post has an "appearance" within bubble A. Bubble B, however, is "isolated" from bubble A. How then is it that in bubble B, the post also makes an appearance?

David Quinn wrote:Hence, your charge that I am a solipsist is incorrect.

If you read carefully and between the lines, you might realise that I didn't actually make that charge, instead I simply commented that you would be a solipsist if you had not found a way to avoid the solipsistic implications of the position that "nothing exists beyond the mind". The way that you use is to hypothesise that there are multiple minds ("bubbles" or "constructions of consciousness"), which unfortunately contradicts your original solipsistic statement, because at least other minds exist (conventional definition) beyond the mind. Do you acknowledge that contradiction?

Skip, thanks for the feedback. Long time no see - I trust that you are well and have sufficient access to peanut butter and broccoli supplies.

I take your point re the "undercurrent of debate" in my posts, but I'm not really sure what the solution is because what could be perceived as "combativity" is for me a part of the making of my points in a way that is clear and direct enough for the other party to understand. Do you think that there's scope for me to continue to make clearly understood and direct points in a way that minimises conflict and the setting up of an adversarial situation? Please give me an example of something(s) that I've written in this thread and how I might have rewritten it (them) to avoid conflict.

As for easing up on the semantic refining of other people's words, I'll take your advice. Since - at least to you - my point seems to have been made, we can move on to conceptual rather than semantic issues.

101

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I meant it in the sense that it is impossible for anyone to jump outside of their consciousness and peek at lies what beyond - including other people's fields of consciousness. Each of us is confined to our respective bubbles of consciousness in that respect.

How do these bubbles communicate? Well, each person in his bubble perceives the actions and words of other people within the bubble, interprets their meaning as best he can and responds accordingly.

Hang on, you say that each individual consciousness is an "isolated bubble", so then how is it that the "actions and words" of the "other people" (other "bubbles") somehow appear in this (isolated) "construction of consciousness"? There must be some form of communication between bubbles taking place, right?

Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that we are in the realm of speculation here. It is impossible for a person to tell whether other bubbles, beside his own, even exist. If they do exist, and if the activity in one bubble has consequences in another bubble, then it is probably evidence that they are causally linked.

To make it clear what I'm saying: guest_of_logic is bubble A, and David Quinn is bubble B. In bubble A, guest_of_logic types out a post to David Quinn: this post has an "appearance" within bubble A. Bubble B, however, is "isolated" from bubble A. How then is it that in bubble B, the post also makes an appearance?

Each bubble is isolated in the sense that it cannot directly peer into the contents of another one. This doesn't automatically mean that each bubble is causally disconnected.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Hence, your charge that I am a solipsist is incorrect.

If you read carefully and between the lines, you might realise that I didn't actually make that charge, instead I simply commented that you would be a solipsist if you had not found a way to avoid the solipsistic implications of the position that "nothing exists beyond the mind". The way that you use is to hypothesise that there are multiple minds ("bubbles" or "constructions of consciousness"), which unfortunately contradicts your original solipsistic statement, because at least other minds exist (conventional definition) beyond the mind. Do you acknowledge that contradiction?

No. The phrases "beyond the mind" and "beyond my mind" have different meanings.

-

David Quinn wrote:Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that we are in the realm of speculation here. It is impossible for a person to tell whether other bubbles, beside his own, even exist.

Solipsism

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.

Leyla Shen wrote:Yet, a mirage appearing as an illusion in illusion (accepting the idea "all things are illusory" rather than "all things lack inherent existence") is still a mirage, by definition and in reality. There IS a distinction.

Yes, a mirage is doubly illusory, if you like. It can deceive us about what exists in the empirical world, as well as deceive us on a more philosophical level about the nature of existence.

Leyla Shen wrote:

DQ wrote:Whatever "hidden reality" we care to point to will also fall into the category of an illusion. That's the hidden reality.

[laughs] Did you type that with a straight finger?

As straight as my tongue, I assure you.

I suppose you're going to tell me that's not a paradox, either. If it is true that whatever hidden reality we care to point to is "also" in the category of an illusion then the reality you just cared to point to as hidden is the illusion. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

Not at all. I might have a problem if I mentally froze that picture of reality and started treating it as though it were reality itself.

However, I thought we were speaking about the hidden void; at no time in my mind were the two (hidden void and hidden reality) exactly the same thing! Even assuming a hidden void, there is still an unhidden aspect to, if you like, "ultimate" reality.

Good to hear.

So, what's your definition of paradox?

Confusion on a pedastal.

-

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that we are in the realm of speculation here. It is impossible for a person to tell whether other bubbles, beside his own, even exist.

Solipsism

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist.

If that is what solipsism is, then solispism is the only rational position one can adopt on the matter.

However, I've always taken solipsism to mean the belief that one's mind is the only mind there is.

-

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:"In principle" is a very weak platform to stand on. Any scenario could exist "in principle".

Yet again your reply is irrelevant and driven by basic misunderstanding and ignorance of my argument. "In principle", as I have been using the term, does not mean that any scenario could exist. It means the exact opposite, in fact.

Then you are using the phrase in a way that is not commonly understood by English speakers.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:All it takes is the existence of something which doesn't constitute an appearance and your entire philosophy goes down the gurgler.

More confusion from you. It's not my philosophy, David. What it actually is is the result of my critical exploration of your philosophy.

Which philosophy is that?

-

David Quinn wrote:
However, I've always taken solipsism to mean the belief that one's mind is the only mind there is.

-

I've always taken solipsism to mean that as well David.

m-w.com (Merriam-Webster)
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing ; also : extreme egocentrism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism

It is realistic to say that one truly cannot perceive another mind, but knowing another mind exists, is another deal all together.

Ephpheta

I think Democritus summed up most of this page with the following:
By convention there is sweet, by convention there is bitterness, by convention hot and cold, by convention color; but in reality there are only atoms and the void.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus

Its not as if he is saying we merely learn by convention, but there is experience by convention. In other words consciousness is not prior to the content which appears to it. And in 'reality' there are atoms and void. Atoms are what essentially happen when you take "bastard" logic to its ends, atoms and void.

Aristotle tells us that this theory of matter, commonly called atomism, was a reaction to Parmenides, who denied the existence of motion, change, or the void. Parmenides argued that the existence of a thing implied that it could not have "come into being", because "nothing comes from nothing". Moreover, he argued, movement was impossible, because one must move into "the void" and (as he identified "the void" with "nothing") the void does not exist and cannot be "moved into". His main contribution to chemistry was the suggestion of the atom which he called "atomos".

Perhaps Democritus wasn't talking about two separate things. Atoms and Void. Maybe he meant things and not-things. Atoms are what one ultimately perceives by the "bastard" senses, but the "legitimate" cuts through this to the void. Then it is not accurate to say that the atoms move into the void.

Democritus explained senses along these lines as well. He hypothesized that different tastes were a result of differently shaped atoms in contact with the tongue. Smells and sounds could be explained similarly. Vision works by the eye receiving "images" or "effluences" of bodies that are emanated. He stated that, "Sweet exists by convention, bitter by convention, color by convention; but in reality atoms and the void alone exist." This means that senses could not provide a direct or certain knowledge of the world. In his words, "It's necessary to realize that by this principle man is cut off from the real." Later philosophers use this to deny that any reliable knowledge can be obtained, but Democritus felt differently:
There are two forms of knowledge: one legitimate, one bastard. To the latter form belong all the following: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The legitimate is quite distinct from this. When the bastard form cannot see more minutely, nor hear nor smell nor taste nor perceive through touch, then another, finer form must be employed. - Democritus, Fragment 11, The Symmetry of Life

Its as if Democritus is saying that any reason informed by bastard senses is prone to deception. Thus he relied on legitimate to realize these amazing insights in 500 B.C. Actually examining the structure of reason and appearance in order to conclude that it was ultimately beyond reason. But isn't it sufficient to say that reason and cause are synonymous? And that both in their own respects are axioms?

Reason

a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"
an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon; "the reason a steady state was never reached was that the back pressure built up too slowly"
the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination; "we are told that man is endowed with reason and capable of distinguishing good from evil"
decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
rationality: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
argue: present reasons and arguments
cause: a justification for something existing or happening; "he had no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
think logically; "The children must learn to reason"
a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion; "there is reason to believe he is lying"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Cause

events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something; "they are trying to determine the cause of the crash"
a justification for something existing or happening; "he had no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
campaign: a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end; "he supported populist campaigns"; "they worked in the cause of world peace"; "the team was ready for a drive toward the pennant"; "the movement to end slavery"; "contributed to the war effort"
give rise to; cause to happen or occur, not always intentionally; "cause a commotion"; "make a stir"; "cause an accident"
causal agent: any entity that produces an effect or is responsible for events or results
induce: cause to do; cause to act in a specified manner; "The ads induced me to buy a VCR"; "My children finally got me to buy a computer"; "My wife made me buy a new sofa"
lawsuit: a comprehensive term for any proceeding in a court of law whereby an individual seeks a legal remedy; "the family brought suit against the landlord"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I don't see much distinction there. They are just two sides of the same coin, or one no-side of the same void.

So how is one ever going to reason themselves out of causality or reason? "The reason reason is wrong..." "Causality is wrong because..." "As a result of..." "Due to..." "Therefor..." I find it rather humorous that people even try. Atoms and Void.

Dan Rowden wrote:101

What's that supposed to mean?

David Quinn wrote:If they [the "bubbles" or "constructions of consciousness" of other people] do exist, and if the activity in one bubble has consequences in another bubble, then it is probably evidence that they are causally linked. [...] Each bubble is isolated in the sense that it cannot directly peer into the contents of another one. This doesn't automatically mean that each bubble is causally disconnected.

OK, that's the acknowledgement that I wanted from you, albeit that you phrased it rather weakly: I don't think that it's reasonable to suggest that the mutual consistencies of appearances between bubbles arise from pure chance, so causal linkages are the only realistic possibility.

So, what then is the nature of this causal linkage? Are "messages" (causes) sent between bubbles, through the reality in which the bubbles reside? I doubt that you'd want to accept that possibility, because then the messages would pass through a reality beyond the mind, contradicting your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind. It must instead be that the set of all bubbles is arranged such that each bubble directly touches every other bubble, such that messages can be sent directly between bubbles without passing through "external reality", right?

OK, so let's consider a difficulty that this system would have to deal with. Let's hypothesise that in bubble A (mine), it would in the absence of causes (messages) from other bubbles appear that my post gets sent, whereas in bubble B (yours), it would in the absence of causes (messages) from other bubbles appear that my post gets rejected by the forum software (i.e. when you go to look on the forum, my post would not appear). Clearly these are inconsistent appearances between the two bubbles, and if the two "constructions" are to remain consistent, then it is up to the causal linkage system (message-passing-between-bubbles system) to resolve them. So how does it go about resolving them? It would seem that there must be some pretty sophisticated processes in place to do that.

Where are those processes located then? They must again be inside of each bubble so as to avoid contradicting your premise that nothing exists beyond the mind. Can they really be characterised as mere "appearances" though? Considering that they actually regulate the consistency of appearances, and are processes that have effects but that don't actually "appear" in and of themselves, it would seem that they are more than just appearances. Again, we come to the conclusion that there is more to consciousness than just appearances.

Also let's contrast this proposed metaphysical system of yours with the conventional view of reality: that consciousness exists within "external reality", and that the reason that we all experience a mutually consistent reality (excluding the occurrence of personal hallucinations and delusions) is that we are all sensing that common "external reality". It seems a lot more plausible than your view that what we conventionally think of as "external reality" is actually uniquely contained within each consciousness and does not exist beyond it, and that these various different "external realities" are kept consistent through some sort of complicated message-passing-and-conflict-resolution causal system.

Please note that I'm not saying that your metaphysical system is impossible, just that:
a) you have no proof or even good evidence that it is correct, and that,
b) I don't see any explanatory/elegance advantages to your view over the conventional one - quite the opposite in fact.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:If you read carefully and between the lines, you might realise that I didn't actually make that charge, instead I simply commented that you would be a solipsist if you had not found a way to avoid the solipsistic implications of the position that "nothing exists beyond the mind". The way that you use is to hypothesise that there are multiple minds ("bubbles" or "constructions of consciousness"), which unfortunately contradicts your original solipsistic statement, because at least other minds exist (conventional definition) beyond the mind. Do you acknowledge that contradiction?

No. The phrases "beyond the mind" and "beyond my mind" have different meanings.

I don't see the relevance of that comment. In your (speculative) scenario, there are other minds beyond every mind, and "the mind" - even if we interpret it as meaning "the contents of all minds" - does not itself contain minds. Does it matter whether any particular mind that we look at is yours or not? The point is that there is a reality beyond it: other minds. Anyhow, I'm not going to press this point, because it seems to fall more into the class of semantics which skip suggested I avoid, rather than of the conceptual which I committed to switching my focus to.

On the issue of solipsism: Jason, much as I'd like to side with you (because I generally do, and exceptions are messy), I actually have to side with David and Animus. The definition that you picked seems to be quite a bit more liberal than any other definition of solipsism that I've seen, and is, as David quite rightly points out (although I'm going to water down what he said a little bit), a pretty sensible position to take.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: 101

What's that supposed to mean?

I think he means that your approach to these matters is still on the level of a first-year undergraduate.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:If they [the "bubbles" or "constructions of consciousness" of other people] do exist, and if the activity in one bubble has consequences in another bubble, then it is probably evidence that they are causally linked. [...] Each bubble is isolated in the sense that it cannot directly peer into the contents of another one. This doesn't automatically mean that each bubble is causally disconnected.

OK, that's the acknowledgement that I wanted from you, albeit that you phrased it rather weakly: I don't think that it's reasonable to suggest that the mutual consistencies of appearances between bubbles arise from pure chance, so causal linkages are the only realistic possibility.

So, what then is the nature of this causal linkage? Are "messages" (causes) sent between bubbles, through the reality in which the bubbles reside? I doubt that you'd want to accept that possibility, because then the messages would pass through a reality beyond the mind, contradicting your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind. It must instead be that the set of all bubbles is arranged such that each bubble directly touches every other bubble, such that messages can be sent directly between bubbles without passing through "external reality", right?

OK, so let's consider a difficulty that this system would have to deal with. Let's hypothesise that in bubble A (mine), it would in the absence of causes (messages) from other bubbles appear that my post gets sent, whereas in bubble B (yours), it would in the absence of causes (messages) from other bubbles appear that my post gets rejected by the forum software (i.e. when you go to look on the forum, my post would not appear). Clearly these are inconsistent appearances between the two bubbles, and if the two "constructions" are to remain consistent, then it is up to the causal linkage system (message-passing-between-bubbles system) to resolve them. So how does it go about resolving them? It would seem that there must be some pretty sophisticated processes in place to do that.

Where are those processes located then? They must again be inside of each bubble so as to avoid contradicting your premise that nothing exists beyond the mind. Can they really be characterised as mere "appearances" though? Considering that they actually regulate the consistency of appearances, and are processes that have effects but that don't actually "appear" in and of themselves, it would seem that they are more than just appearances. Again, we come to the conclusion that there is more to consciousness than just appearances.

Also let's contrast this proposed metaphysical system of yours with the conventional view of reality: that consciousness exists within "external reality", and that the reason that we all experience a mutually consistent reality (excluding the occurrence of personal hallucinations and delusions) is that we are all sensing that common "external reality". It seems a lot more plausible than your view that what we conventionally think of as "external reality" is actually uniquely contained within each consciousness and does not exist beyond it, and that these various different "external realities" are kept consistent through some sort of complicated message-passing-and-conflict-resolution causal system.

Please note that I'm not saying that your metaphysical system is impossible, just that:
a) you have no proof or even good evidence that it is correct, and that,
b) I don't see any explanatory/elegance advantages to your view over the conventional one - quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not advocating any kind of metaphysical system. You need to understand this. If you don't, you will continue to misunderstand WOTI and my approach to these matters.

All I'm doing is articulating the logical consequences of what is already known for certain (at least by me) - namely, that a thing can only exist by way of having form, and that form can only occur within the framework created an observer's perspective. This is a basic process of sticking closely to the facts. It doesn't involve any metaphysical projection or overlay.

Again, WOTI is not a metaphysical work. As stated in the introduction, its aim is to guide the reader in turning the mind away from conventional delusion and making it receptive to the wisdom of the Infinite. Its aims are spiritual in nature.

To repeat and expand on the point I made earlier, I don't really know whether other people's minds exist (beyond my mind). It seems they do, but I could be wrong. All I have to go on is the appearance of such minds in my own mind. These appearances could be hallucinations for all I know.

There also appears to be causal interplay between these appearing minds - both between themselves, and between them and my own mind - so I can conclude that they are causally linked in various practical ways. That is virtually all I can say on the matter, without verging into speculation.

It seems to me that you haven't yet fully grasped that it is impossible to resolve the issue in an objective sense. You are looking for some kind of objective account of how all these minds exist and communicate with one another. Such objectivity can never be found, as we are always stuck inside our own subjective consciousness.

The very idea of seeking an objective view of the universe is fundamentally deluded, as it involves the impossible feat of trying to jump outside our own consciousness. Moreover, it is meaningless to think of the universe existing in an objective sense. No one, not even a god, not even the universe itself, can ever become aware of the universe in an objective sense. Such objectivity doesn't exist. So your line of pursuit in this matter will always be doomed to failure, as it involves pursuing a phantom.

Again, all we ever have available to us are appearances, and we have no way of knowing whether any these appearances are hallucinatory or not. Understanding this is a basic first step towards becoming wise.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:If you read carefully and between the lines, you might realise that I didn't actually make that charge, instead I simply commented that you would be a solipsist if you had not found a way to avoid the solipsistic implications of the position that "nothing exists beyond the mind". The way that you use is to hypothesise that there are multiple minds ("bubbles" or "constructions of consciousness"), which unfortunately contradicts your original solipsistic statement, because at least other minds exist (conventional definition) beyond the mind. Do you acknowledge that contradiction?

No. The phrases "beyond the mind" and "beyond my mind" have different meanings.

I don't see the relevance of that comment. In your (speculative) scenario, there are other minds beyond every mind, and "the mind" - even if we interpret it as meaning "the contents of all minds" - does not itself contain minds. Does it matter whether any particular mind that we look at is yours or not? The point is that there is a reality beyond it: other minds.

If these other minds exist, then yes, there is existence beyond my own mind. But these other minds are still part of the general classification of "mind". So the issue of whether existence extends beyond the mind itself is not really being addressed by your arguments.

-

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: 101

What's that supposed to mean?

I think he means that your approach to these matters are still on the level of a first-year undergraduate.

It also means I really believe we need the Existence 101 thread I mentioned before. There's just too many concepts and levels of understanding swirling around in this discussion.

Animus wrote:I don't see much distinction there. They are just two sides of the same coin, or one no-side of the same void.

People often try to make the distinction because they are egotists who believe they are special. For example, if a car crash kills a couple's child, the couple will cry out for "reasons" for the death. Emotionally, they feel there has to be a Reason for its occurance. "We must have faith that it is a part of God's plan."

Meanwhile, the reasons are all there in the zillions of causal circumstances that produced the accident. But strangely enough, egotists don't find that very comforting or satisfying.

Animus wrote: So how is one ever going to reason themselves out of causality or reason? "The reason reason is wrong..." "Causality is wrong because..." "As a result of..." "Due to..." "Therefor..." I find it rather humorous that people even try. Atoms and Void.

"Things can just happen" is a popular attempt.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I think he means that your approach to these matters are still on the level of a first-year undergraduate.

It also means I really believe we need the Existence 101 thread I mentioned before. There's just too many concepts and levels of understanding swirling around in this discussion.

I would be against such a thread. It would be a case of codifying and setting in concrete what shouldn't be codified and set in concrete. And it wouldn't stop people's confusion about such basic concepts, in any case.

Advanced philosophic discussion - that is, the kind that really counts - will always be Zennish in nature. There's no way around it.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:"In principle" is a very weak platform to stand on. Any scenario could exist "in principle".

Yet again your reply is irrelevant and driven by basic misunderstanding and ignorance of my argument. "In principle", as I have been using the term, does not mean that any scenario could exist. It means the exact opposite, in fact.

Then you are using the phrase in a way that is not commonly understood by English speakers.

No I absolutely am not.

Say a scientist stated that "In principle it is possible to clone a human being." That means that the scenario of cloning a human being is a possibility because it conforms to very specific and strict genetic and scientific requirements, limitations, principles etc. As I said, the exact opposite of "any scenario could exist."

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:All it takes is the existence of something which doesn't constitute an appearance and your entire philosophy goes down the gurgler.

More confusion from you. It's not my philosophy, David. What it actually is is the result of my critical exploration of your philosophy.

Which philosophy is that?

Your philosophy that deals with appearances, causes, Totality, the hidden void etc.

Jason wrote: Say a scientist stated that "In principle it is possible to clone a human being." That means that the scenario of cloning a human being is a possibility because it conforms to very specific and strict genetic and scientific requirements, limitations, principles etc. As I said, the exact opposite of "any scenario could exist."

"In principle" essentially means "in theory". In other words, there is no hard evidence in support of it.

Cloning a human may well be possible "in principle", but until it actually happens it remains a speculative theory. It is the conversion from "in principle" to "hard fact" which counts.

None of this, however, justifies your dismal attempt to deal with the concept of formlessness on that thread.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote: What it actually is is the result of my critical exploration of your philosophy.

Which philosophy is that?

Your philosophy that deals with appearances, causes, Totality, the hidden void etc.

Then I can only reiterate the poor quality of your attempts to deal with these things.

Being an ostrich with his head firmly stuck in the sand so that he can continue to enjoy the fruits of masturbating to porn isn't philosophy.

-

guest_of_logic wrote:On the issue of solipsism: Jason, much as I'd like to side with you (because I generally do, and exceptions are messy), I actually have to side with David and Animus. The definition that you picked seems to be quite a bit more liberal than any other definition of solipsism that I've seen

Here's some more seein' for ya:

solipsism - dictionary.reference.com
solipsism - en.wiktionary.org
solipsism - google.com
solipsism - thefreedictionary.com
solipsism - dictionary.cambridge.org
solipsism - yourdictionary.com

I'm not a solipsist because I don't exist.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote: Say a scientist stated that "In principle it is possible to clone a human being." That means that the scenario of cloning a human being is a possibility because it conforms to very specific and strict genetic and scientific requirements, limitations, principles etc. As I said, the exact opposite of "any scenario could exist."

"In principle" essentially means "in theory". In other words, there is no hard evidence in support of it.

Cloning a human may well be possible "in principle", but until it actually happens it remains a speculative theory. It is the conversion from "in principle" to "hard fact" which counts.

God, it's like trying to feed a two year old using the 'choo-choo train going into tunnel' method. Guess what Einstein, there is no hard evidence for the hidden void, that's why it's in principle.

You also conveniently diverted from your original claim. You originally said that "Any scenario could exist "in principle"". When I told you that I was not using the term "in principle" in that way, you told me "then you are using the phrase in a way that is not commonly understood by English speakers." Now I show you how the phrase "in principle" is used all the time in a way that absolutely doesn't suggest that "any scenario could exist" and you completely ignore it and try to divert to something else.

David Quinn wrote:None of this, however, justifies your dismal attempt to deal with the concept of formlessness on that thread.

Oh right, and you think making crass insults about masturbation justifies your position? You're a lazy hyprocrite David, you have yet to even identify what you believe is wrong with my arguments.

Anyway, I wasn't even trying to justify my arguments, I was simply trying to explain them, as you still obviously don't understand them.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Which philosophy is that?

Your philosophy that deals with appearances, causes, Totality, the hidden void etc.

Then I can only reiterate the poor quality of your attempts to deal with these things.

You are reiterating nothing more than ad hominem, insults and lack of any actual counterarguments then.

David Quinn wrote:Being an ostrich with his head firmly stuck in the sand so that he can continue to enjoy the fruits of masturbating to porn isn't philosophy.

As we can all see, David, you are indeed simply reiterating ad hominem, insults and lack of any actual counterarguments. Pathetic.

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm not a solipsist because I don't exist.

Maybe you're just a solips then?

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote: Say a scientist stated that "In principle it is possible to clone a human being." That means that the scenario of cloning a human being is a possibility because it conforms to very specific and strict genetic and scientific requirements, limitations, principles etc. As I said, the exact opposite of "any scenario could exist."

"In principle" essentially means "in theory". In other words, there is no hard evidence in support of it.

Cloning a human may well be possible "in principle", but until it actually happens it remains a speculative theory. It is the conversion from "in principle" to "hard fact" which counts.

God, it's like trying to feed a two year old using the 'choo-choo train going into tunnel' method.

Are these sorts of comments really necessary?

If what you were saying was rational and clearly articulated, then I'm sure I would understand it pretty quickly.

Guess what Einstein, there is no hard evidence for the hidden void, that's why it's in principle.

The evidence for the hidden void is logical in nature, and therefore hard. There is nothing "in principle" about it.

Our conscious experiences could "in principle" be caused by mischevious pink elves. In reality, however, there is nothing logically necessary about the existence of such elves. The hidden void is another matter.

You also conveniently diverted from your original claim. You originally said that "Any scenario could exist "in principle"". When I told you that I was not using the term "in principle" in that way, you told me "then you are using the phrase in a way that is not commonly understood by English speakers." Now I show you how the phrase "in principle" is used all the time in a way that absolutely doesn't suggest that "any scenario could exist" and you completely ignore it and try to divert to something else.

Needless to say, I meant that any scenario within logical parameters could exist in principle. Square circles, for example, cannot exist in principle, due to their internal incoherence.

Outside of this, any scenario is possible, even pink elves. So I fail to see the value of your arguments.

It may be that I am slow, or it may be that your reasonings are poorly thought-out, due to too much masturbation.

-

Jason: God, it's like trying to feed a two year old using the 'choo-choo train going into tunnel' method

David: Are these sorts of comments really necessary?

Not really, but on the other hand… were these....?

David: All that masturbation has evidently gone to your head. It's turned your brain to mush.

David to gLogic: (on Dan’s 101): I think he means that your approach to these matters is still on the level of a first-year undergraduate.

I once heard: One should peer into ones own soul before pointing fingers at others.

David: So what do you call that aspect of reality which is beyond consciousness?

Jason: Unnecessary

David: To you, personally? Or to thinkers generally?

Incidentally, that thread you link to above shows you in a very poor light. The incisive Jason that I used to know seems to have gone missing.

Incidentally, To you, personally? Or to thinkers generally?

Could it be the lack, or incapability, that masturbation is so much on David mind recently.. hummm... :D

David, you wrote a lot of words in your last post, but none of them were specific to what I wrote. I'll try again, but first I'll make a couple of incidental comments.

David Quinn wrote:I'm not advocating any kind of metaphysical system. You need to understand this. If you don't, you will continue to misunderstand WOTI and my approach to these matters.

You are describing your view of the relationship between consciousness and existence, and the origins of consciousness. That counts as a metaphysical system to me. If you want to call it something else, though, then knock yourself out.

David Quinn wrote:All I'm doing is articulating the logical consequences of what is already known for certain (at least by me) - namely, that a thing can only exist by way of having form, and that form can only occur within the framework created an observer's perspective. This is a basic process of sticking closely to the facts. It doesn't involve any metaphysical projection or overlay.

I don't accept the premise that "form can only occur within the framework created [sic] an observer's perspective". As far as I'm concerned, the conventional perspective whereby "external reality" contains structure and differentiation (the basis of form) which the senses perceive and turn into "appearances" within consciousness is entirely plausible, and you'll have to do a lot better than to merely assert that form can only occur within the mind to convince me (or any rational person) that such is the case, or even that it is a more plausible alternative. So yes, your philosophy certainly does involve a metaphysical projection: the projection that nothing can exist outside of the mind.

David Quinn wrote:To repeat and expand on the point I made earlier, I don't really know whether other people's minds exist (beyond my mind). It seems they do, but I could be wrong. All I have to go on is the appearance of such minds in my own mind. These appearances could be hallucinations for all I know.

Right, you could be the only mind, but you're not a solipsist, so you don't really believe that you are. It's then reasonable to explore the consequences of believing in the existence of other minds.

David Quinn wrote:There also appears to be causal interplay between these appearing minds - both between themselves, and between them and my own mind - so I can conclude that they are causally linked in various practical ways. That is virtually all I can say on the matter, without verging into speculation.

It seems to me that you haven't yet fully grasped that it is impossible to resolve the issue in an objective sense. You are looking for some kind of objective account of how all these minds exist and communicate with one another. Such objectivity can never be found, as we are always stuck inside our own subjective consciousness.

Not exactly. What I'm looking to do is to contrast the conventional position (that consciousnesses exist within an external reality) with your perspective (that "external reality" exists within consciousnesses) to see which is more plausible. I put a whole lot of implications of your perspective to you, but you ignored them, so what I'll do now is to put them into point form and ask you whether or not you agree with each one, and ask you to explain why you agree or disagree (all of these assume that solipsism is false - i.e. that other people's consciousnesses are ontologically equivalent to our own, which you seem to accept as plausible):

1. The causes (or messages) sent between bubbles cannot be sent through the reality in which the bubbles reside, because this would mean that things (those causes/messages) exist beyond the mind, which would contradict your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind.
2. Given the above, it must instead be the case that the set of all bubbles is arranged such that each bubble directly "touches" every other bubble, such that causes/messages can be sent directly between bubbles without passing through "external reality".
3. The causal linkage system (message-passing-between-bubbles system) must involve some pretty sophisticated processes in order to ensure consistency between all bubbles, especially given the possibility of conflicts which this system would need to resolve somehow.
4. The processes referred to in (3) must be located inside of each bubble so as to avoid contradicting your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind (except for other minds and the hidden void).
5. The processes referred to in (3) can't correctly be characterised as mere "appearances", because they actually regulate the consistency of appearances, and therefore whilst they have effects (on appearances), they don't actually appear in and of themselves.
6. Given (5), consciousness is not equivalent to "all appearances", as Dan has elsewhere claimed (I'm paraphrasing him).
7. Given all of the above, the view that you promote (that "external reality" exists within consciousnesses) is both far less elegant and far less plausible than the conventional view (that consciousnesses exist within external reality).

I have one other new but related point to make, which I would again like you to respond to:
7. Ultimately (according to your claims), reality consists of "bubbles" of consciousness (plus the hidden void), which must each be finite given that you admit to the possibility that there could more than one of them. Therefore, unless there are an infinite number of these bubbles, "Ultimate Reality" is actually not infinite as you claim to have proved it to be, but merely appears to be infinite within consciousness.

David Quinn wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I really believe we need the Existence 101 thread I mentioned before. There's just too many concepts and levels of understanding swirling around in this discussion.

I would be against such a thread. It would be a case of codifying and setting in concrete what shouldn't be codified and set in concrete.

I don't understand why you are against clarity. You claim to be a highly logical thinker and to have understood reality through pure logic: good logic is very clear.

Anyhow, Dan, I don't see the need for such a thread given that we can thrash it out in this one, but hey, if you want to start it then I'll probably get involved.

By the way, feel free to address any of the problems that I summarised a few posts ago.

Jason wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:On the issue of solipsism: Jason, much as I'd like to side with you (because I generally do, and exceptions are messy), I actually have to side with David and Animus. The definition that you picked seems to be quite a bit more liberal than any other definition of solipsism that I've seen

Here's some more seein' for ya:

solipsism - dictionary.reference.com
solipsism - en.wiktionary.org
solipsism - google.com
solipsism - thefreedictionary.com
solipsism - dictionary.cambridge.org
solipsism - yourdictionary.com

Here are my tallies for all of the definitions that I read on those pages:
1. Tally: 6. Definition specifies only the belief that the self is everything.
2. Tally: 8. Definition specifies only the position that nothing beyond the self can be known/proved to exist.
3. Tally: 3. Definition specifies that either of the above two could apply.
4. Tally: 1. Definition refers to self-indulgence/self-preoccupation/egotism.
5. Tally: 1. Defined as "The notion that it is impossible ever to know another person, so why bother?".
6. Tally: 1. Defined as "the theory that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and states".

So OK, the definition that you first linked to (on Wikipedia) is not uncommon after all, but it is by no means the only one. Is it reasonable to call QRS solipsists then? Sure, but only in the weak sense, and not in the strong sense, and that's not particularly significant to me, because weak solipsism is IMO a very compelling and rational position anyhow, so I see no reason to criticise QRS for holding it.

guest_of_logic wrote: David, you wrote a lot of words in your last post, but none of them were specific to what I wrote.

They didn't address your need to grasp things academically and build castles out of them.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I'm not advocating any kind of metaphysical system. You need to understand this. If you don't, you will continue to misunderstand WOTI and my approach to these matters.

You are describing your view of the relationship between consciousness and existence, and the origins of consciousness. That counts as a metaphysical system to me. If you want to call it something else, though, then knock yourself out.

You will continue to misunderstand me, then.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:All I'm doing is articulating the logical consequences of what is already known for certain (at least by me) - namely, that a thing can only exist by way of having form, and that form can only occur within the framework created an observer's perspective. This is a basic process of sticking closely to the facts. It doesn't involve any metaphysical projection or overlay.

I don't accept the premise that "form can only occur within the framework created [sic] an observer's perspective". As far as I'm concerned, the conventional perspective whereby "external reality" contains structure and differentiation (the basis of form) which the senses perceive and turn into "appearances" within consciousness is entirely plausible, and you'll have to do a lot better than to merely assert that form can only occur within the mind to convince me (or any rational person) that such is the case, or even that it is a more plausible alternative.

This is a matter you are going to have to work out for yourself, if you have the capacity. It involves realizing that any "external reality" one cares to imagine or point to will always be an appearance, and that a thing-in-itself is a contradiction in terms.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:To repeat and expand on the point I made earlier, I don't really know whether other people's minds exist (beyond my mind). It seems they do, but I could be wrong. All I have to go on is the appearance of such minds in my own mind. These appearances could be hallucinations for all I know.

Right, you could be the only mind, but you're not a solipsist, so you don't really believe that you are. It's then reasonable to explore the consequences of believing in the existence of other minds.

What about the consequences of believing in neither scenario?

guest_of_logic wrote: What I'm looking to do is to contrast the conventional position (that consciousnesses exist within an external reality) with your perspective (that "external reality" exists within consciousnesses) to see which is more plausible. I put a whole lot of implications of your perspective to you, but you ignored them, so what I'll do now is to put them into point form and ask you whether or not you agree with each one, and ask you to explain why you agree or disagree (all of these assume that solipsism is false - i.e. that other people's consciousnesses are ontologically equivalent to our own, which you seem to accept as plausible):

1. The causes (or messages) sent between bubbles cannot be sent through the reality in which the bubbles reside, because this would mean that things (those causes/messages) exist beyond the mind, which would contradict your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind.

I don't assert that nothing is beyond the mind. "Nothingness" is an appearance as well and therefore requires an observer. The hidden void is neither something nor nothing. It is unimaginable to us.

guest_of_logic wrote: 2. Given the above, it must instead be the case that the set of all bubbles is arranged such that each bubble directly "touches" every other bubble, such that causes/messages can be sent directly between bubbles without passing through "external reality".

There are countless possible scenarios that could explain the appearance of bubbles being consistent and communicating with one another. For example, each bubble could be a virtual reality simulation housed in some kind of computer, all of them generated by the same core algorithms. Who knows?

We could speculate endlessly about how the bubbles are formed, but it would be a wasted exercise. It is still in the realm of form and doesn't really address the fundamental issues.

guest_of_logic wrote:3. The causal linkage system (message-passing-between-bubbles system) must involve some pretty sophisticated processes in order to ensure consistency between all bubbles, especially given the possibility of conflicts which this system would need to resolve somehow.
4. The processes referred to in (3) must be located inside of each bubble so as to avoid contradicting your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind (except for other minds and the hidden void).
5. The processes referred to in (3) can't correctly be characterised as mere "appearances", because they actually regulate the consistency of appearances, and therefore whilst they have effects (on appearances), they don't actually appear in and of themselves.
6. Given (5), consciousness is not equivalent to "all appearances", as Dan has elsewhere claimed (I'm paraphrasing him).
7. Given all of the above, the view that you promote (that "external reality" exists within consciousnesses) is both far less elegant and far less plausible than the conventional view (that consciousnesses exist within external reality).

It is the castle you have been building out of a misunderstanding of my words which is causing the inelegance.

7. Ultimately (according to your claims), reality consists of "bubbles" of consciousness (plus the hidden void), which must each be finite given that you admit to the possibility that there could more than one of them. Therefore, unless there are an infinite number of these bubbles, "Ultimate Reality" is actually not infinite as you claim to have proved it to be, but merely appears to be infinite within consciousness.

Reality is infinite in that it is the totality of all things and therefore unbounded. Nothing can ever exist beyond it. Whether this totality includes just one bubble of consciousness, or an infinite number of them, or none at all, is irrelevant.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I really believe we need the Existence 101 thread I mentioned before. There's just too many concepts and levels of understanding swirling around in this discussion.

I would be against such a thread. It would be a case of codifying and setting in concrete what shouldn't be codified and set in concrete.

I don't understand why you are against clarity. You claim to be a highly logical thinker and to have understood reality through pure logic: good logic is very clear.

Pick up the Tao Te Ching and observe real clarity at work. Everything about it directly points to the nature of reality. Yet it doesn't have a glossary.

It would depend on what Dan has in mind. If he wrote some Zennish essays on things like "existence", "reality", "truth", "cause", "infinite" that could be referred to by readers of this forum, then that would be fine. But I would be against any kind of academic treatment of these things.

In other words, I don't believe in the value of constructing frozen castles.

-

David Quinn wrote:[A]ny "external reality" one cares to imagine or point to will always be an appearance

I accept that if one imagines or points to external reality, then there is what you call "an appearance" in one's mind. How do you go from there to proving that this appearance does not actually correspond to anything in external reality?

David Quinn wrote:[A] thing-in-itself is a contradiction in terms.

What do you mean by "thing-in-itself"? For the sake of argument, I am going to interpret it as "a component of reality that exists outside of the mind, and which might or might not cause a corresponding appearance within the mind when perceived through the senses". I see nothing contradictory about that.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:Right, you could be the only mind, but you're not a solipsist, so you don't really believe that you are. It's then reasonable to explore the consequences of believing in the existence of other minds.

What about the consequences of believing in neither scenario?

I don't see how that's relevant. The point is that you posit that there are no objects beyond the mind (in other words, that there is no world "out there" beyond the mind), and that you also deny that you are a (strong) solipsist, and so I'm examining the consequences of those to compare their plausibility to the conventional position. So far your position is looking a lot less plausible.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:1. The causes (or messages) sent between bubbles cannot be sent through the reality in which the bubbles reside, because this would mean that things (those causes/messages) exist beyond the mind, which would contradict your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind.

I don't assert that nothing is beyond the mind. "Nothingness" is an appearance as well and therefore requires an observer. The hidden void is neither something nor nothing. It is unimaginable to us.

You have misunderstood what I mean by "nothing lies beyond the mind". You are interpreting as meaning "nothing-as-some-kind-of-entity lies beyond the mind", which is what allows you to posit that nothingness is an appearance (since it is some kind of entity). Actually, nothingness is the complete absence of appearances, and the complete lack of entities. The correct way to interpret "nothing lies beyond the mind" is: "no thing lies beyond the mind", or, in other words, "it is not the case that any thing(s) lie beyond the mind".

I don't, however, expect you to agree with me, so for the purposes of argument let me rephrase "your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind" as 'your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind, or in other words that there is no world "out there" beyond the mind').

Given that rephrasing, please respond to (1) directly.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote: 2. Given the above, it must instead be the case that the set of all bubbles is arranged such that each bubble directly "touches" every other bubble, such that causes/messages can be sent directly between bubbles without passing through "external reality".

There are countless possible scenarios that could explain the appearance of bubbles being consistent and communicating with one another. For example, each bubble could be a virtual reality simulation housed in some kind of computer, all of them generated by the same core algorithms.

In that case, the computer that houses the bubbles would be an object that exists beyond the mind, contradicting your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind.

But you mentioned that there are countless possible scenarios, so please present a few of them, taking care to avoid contradicting your premise that there are no objects beyond the mind.

David Quinn wrote:We could speculate endlessly about how the bubbles are formed, but it would be a wasted exercise.

Hmm? I thought that it was your contention that the bubbles are formed by the hidden void. From WOTI:

The actual creative agent of the construction, then, is not a brain or a computer or a God, but a "hidden void" which is necessarily beyond the scope of consciousness to perceive or grasp.

and

[T]he hidden void [...] possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live.

Moving on:

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:3. The causal linkage system (message-passing-between-bubbles system) must involve some pretty sophisticated processes in order to ensure consistency between all bubbles, especially given the possibility of conflicts which this system would need to resolve somehow.
4. The processes referred to in (3) must be located inside of each bubble so as to avoid contradicting your premise that nothing lies beyond the mind (except for other minds and the hidden void).
5. The processes referred to in (3) can't correctly be characterised as mere "appearances", because they actually regulate the consistency of appearances, and therefore whilst they have effects (on appearances), they don't actually appear in and of themselves.
6. Given (5), consciousness is not equivalent to "all appearances", as Dan has elsewhere claimed (I'm paraphrasing him).
7. Given all of the above, the view that you promote (that "external reality" exists within consciousnesses) is both far less elegant and far less plausible than the conventional view (that consciousnesses exist within external reality).

It is the castle you have been building out of a misunderstanding of my words which is causing the inelegance.

I'm simply exploring the implications of your beliefs. What I am doing is no different to what you did when you inferred the hidden void.

Again, please respond specifically to each point, stating whether or not you agree and why.

David Quinn wrote:

7. Ultimately (according to your claims), reality consists of "bubbles" of consciousness (plus the hidden void), which must each be finite given that you admit to the possibility that there could more than one of them. Therefore, unless there are an infinite number of these bubbles, "Ultimate Reality" is actually not infinite as you claim to have proved it to be, but merely appears to be infinite within consciousness.

Reality is infinite in that it is the totality of all things and therefore unbounded. Nothing can ever exist beyond it. Whether this totality includes just one bubble of consciousness, or an infinite number of them, or none at all, is irrelevant.

That's unresponsive to my argument. Bubbles are finite, and presumably there are a finite number of them, therefore reality is not unbounded - it only "appears" to be to the mind. Furthermore, consider that the "totality of all things" refers to appearances within consciousness, and since there is at any one time a finite set of appearances in consciousness, we can't even conclude that within consciousness, reality is infinite. About the only way that we can conclude that reality is infinite (in your philosophy) is in the temporal sense: that it has eternally existed and will eternally exist.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:I don't understand why you are against clarity. You claim to be a highly logical thinker and to have understood reality through pure logic: good logic is very clear.

Pick up the Tao Te Ching and observe real clarity at work. Everything about it directly points to the nature of reality. Yet it doesn't have a glossary.

It's debatable whether the Tao Te Ching really is clear, but I don't care to get into that debate. The point that I do want to make is that you're comparing apples with oranges, because the Tao Te Ching doesn't claim to be a purely logical approach to the understanding of Ultimate Reality, and in that regard it doesn't make the set of interrelated claims that you guys make and which are dependent on clear, logical definitions - claims such as that no objects exist beyond the mind, and that the constructs of consciousness originate in a "hidden void", etc. If you are going to promote your approach as logical, then it should be clear. The Tao Te Ching, which does not claim to be logical, has no such duty.