GENIUS FORUMS

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: It looks like you are attempting to degrade what I'm saying by use of insults, nice.

It isn't my intention to denigrate you, but to help you. You have good insight and show some promise, but I would like to see you broaden and deepen your insight by becoming more logical.

As an example, your posts show that you are still battling the philosophic demons of solipsism and external reality. I guarantee you that becoming more logical will resolve this issue for you completely and take you to deeper pastures. Logic shows that objective reality of any kind is utterly impossible. It is a contradiction in terms, like a "square circle". The impossibility of objective reality means the impossibility of an external physical world (here we agree). But it also means the impossibility of solipsism, since the existence of nothing whatsoever beyond the mind is equally impossible. An objective nothingness is just as impossible as an objective somethingness. Thus, in one foul swoop, both external reality and solipsism are exposed for the delusions that they are.

Have faith in logic! Have faith in your own mind! Logic can take you past all these philosophic delusions and carry you into the Infinite, if you have the courage and desire.

Are we not allowed to talk about how "thoughts weaken the mind", while thinking? Or are we being too self-contradictory here also?

Only deluded, contradictory thoughts weaken the mind.

Your thoughts COULD be telling you your something your not and you would believe it, life IS an ever changing dream, it is made of the same "stuff" of dream, dreams can show you any illogical experience and you'll act like nothings gone amiss, our waking state is very similar in this respect.

Not if my thoughts are logically irrefutable. 1+1=2 in a dream is just as absolutely true as 1+1=2 in waking life.

There is no "strict logic" or ( basis of logic to compare what is logical and illogical), because what could be logical in infinite and endlessly changing manifestations? Which as you say are formless, anything can be seen, no matter how opposing it is to the logical conclusions we have made now.

Again, you are here using a particular basis or premise to deduce a logical conclusion. To wit:

Premise: Life is endlessly changing.
Deductive conclusion: Nothing can be concluded.

This is a blatant self-contradiction. I urge you to stop being so defensive and deal with the matter properly. This has nothing to do with me attacking your "language". It goes far deeper than that. We are looking directly into the inner workings of your own mind.

A better description, one thing leads to another but they can lead anywhere, from gravity to floating, from visibile to invisible, anything can happen in this dream, almost all of the logical deductions people have made based on their particular sense experiences are faulty... simply because they are based on particular sense experiences/manifestations, when there is an endless range of such experiences, and hence an endless range of logical deductions, each as logical as the last. (except for some self-evident things of course)

What you say here is true of empirical forms of knowledge, such as scientific knowledge. Any deduction based on what we see or hear will always be fraught with speculative uncertainty. But philosophic knowledge is different. It doesn't start with specific experiences. It goes straight to the heart of all experiences and proceeds from there.

Not telling us to abandon concepts or rationality?

"A good scientist has freed himself of concepts"

A good scientist (i.e the enlightened philosopher) frees himself from utterly everything, not just concepts. But in reaching this freedom he makes use of concepts and logic along every step of the way.

Logic, used properly, is like a wild bush fire that consumes everything in its path. Only when everything has been consumed does the fire disappear of its own accord. If you reject logic prematurely before it has the chance to clear away all of your delusions, then your mind will always remain irrational and distorted without you even realizing it.

When they are talking about not-knowing they are talking about realizing you don't know.

For example, "energy" means this to you ( imagining some electricity or an associated sense experience), when you say "wave" what you actually get from that is (imagine a wave or wavy line).

Not-knowing is literally about realizing you don't know....well almost anything, that your knowledge is shallow and limited, based on sensory illusion, manifestations.

If it was merely about "realizing you don't know", then half the world's population would be comprised of fully-enlightened buddhas. Agnosticism and postmodernist uncertainty are increasingly dominating the cultural landscape, both here in Australia and overseas. More and more people are settling for the easy belief that no one can ever know anything. They are morons, the lot of them. I would hate to think that you will become just like them.

The "not-knowing" of the sages is very profound. It has nothing to do with common ignorance. It is a deep understanding of the very nature of reality, an understanding that embraces the All. Don't be fooled by easy attainments!

David Quinn wrote: As an example, your posts show that you are still battling the philosophic demons of solipsism and external reality. I guarantee you that becoming more logical will resolve this issue for you completely and take you to deeper pastures. Logic shows that objective reality of any kind is utterly impossible. It is a contradiction in terms, like a "square circle". The impossibility of objective reality means the impossibility of an external physical world (here we agree). But it also means the impossibility of solipsism, since the existence of nothing whatsoever beyond the mind is equally impossible. An objective nothingness is just as impossible as an objective somethingness. Thus, in one foul swoop, both external reality and solipsism are exposed for the delusions that they are.

I am not advocating the individual notion of solipsism (that only I have a perspective and everyone else is existing in my "dream")
What I mean is I believe you, me, and everyone else all have their own perspective, their own sense experience, and that these sense experiences are interconnected. There is are things outside of my mind, there is multiple consciousness, and there is the unknown cause. (Not to mention whatever else may exist we have never been subject to)

The only thing I was really trying to point out is that I don't see any logical need for a physical reality that corresponds with our experiences of which we are interpreting.

David Quinn wrote: Again, you are here using a particular basis or premise to deduce a logical conclusion. To wit:

Premise: Life is endlessly changing.
Deductive conclusion: Nothing can be concluded.

What you say here is true of empirical forms of knowledge, such as scientific knowledge. Any deduction based on what we see or hear will always be fraught with speculative uncertainty. But philosophic knowledge is different. It doesn't start with specific experiences. It goes straight to the heart of all experiences and proceeds from there.

Language is about making blatant self-contradictions as the world is comprised of paradoxes, all language is inconsistent, and all language based thought inconsistent along with it, yet you still point out the inconsistency of my language.... meanings from words are all we should look for.

Yes, when I was calling most logic, "illogical" I was referring directly to this kind of logic, the logic based on manifestations, which is illogical as the manifestations go whichever way they like and are endlessly changing this kind logic.

Some philosophical knowledge is different, but not all. Often people take this empirical knowledge which is mostly based on assumptions, and then use the knowledge to determine things philosophically, this is the heart of the delusion I was talking about, that is the major problem which requires "not-knowing".

David Quinn wrote: A good scientist (i.e the enlightened philosopher) frees himself from utterly everything, not just concepts. But in reaching this freedom he makes use of concepts and logic along every step of the way.

Logic, used properly, is like a wild bush fire that consumes everything in its path. Only when everything has been consumed does the fire disappear of its own accord. If you reject logic prematurely before it has the chance to clear away all of your delusions, then your mind will always remain irrational and distorted without you even realizing it.

Yes, that already is a contradiction, Lao Tzu was being self-contradictory half the time he was writing the tao te ching, yet that doesn't make his meanings self-contradictory, most logical deductions are illogical because most logical deductions are empirical in nature( based on the manifestations) ".... I am aware this is a logical deduction in itself, sometimes we just have to be self-contradictory if we want to talk.

David Quinn wrote: If it was merely about "realizing you don't know", then half the world's population would be comprised of fully-enlightened buddhas. Agnosticism and postmodernist uncertainty are increasingly dominating the cultural landscape, both here in Australia and overseas. More and more people are settling for the easy belief that no one can ever know anything. They are morons, the lot of them. I would hate to think that you will become just like them.

The "not-knowing" of the sages is very profound. It has nothing to do with common ignorance. It is a deep understanding of the very nature of reality, an understanding that embraces the All. Don't be fooled by easy attainments!

It has nothing to do with common ignorance. It has to do with the uncommon ( in fact described as very rare) ability to realize the extent of ones ignorance. I don't believe close to half the worlds population has understood this.

That deep understanding of the nature of reality is linked closely to realizing almost all the knowledge you have assumed, is just that...assumed. I agree this in itself unrelated to a profound understanding of reality.

But it does lead to the end of the instant linking of sense-experience to concepts and language based thought, which allows for a non-judgmental, non bias, non-prejudice, what I have been calling, "enlightened vision mode", where everything looks alien to you that its as if it were the first time you ever saw it, this is what leads to that deep understanding of the nature of reality as it allows real and unclouded direct observation, wakefulness, the source of all understanding.

Again, I think we have been in agreement with most of what we've talked about so far so there is never any need for opposition, or even those backwards insult/ advice, "I would hate to think you would become just like them"... the Morons and idiots". You can end your worries David, I am more inclined to self-examination then you might think.

Yes logic can lead us to infinite, if it is the right kind of logic, and if the task is done with simplicity and cooperation.... rather than constant opposition, (something that usually arises naturally from the open nature of forum conversation)

Hello David,

What I mean by logic "working" is something along the lines of what you suggest re "discerning" the "essential dynamics" and "irrefutability" of logic, except that you base this on the law of identity whereas I don't privilege that law in the same way that you do. So, you see, you haven't really answered the questions that I posed. I don't deny that to our minds and in our observations of reality, it seems impossible for logic to fail, and we can observe the link between the logic of our abstractions of reality and the (inferred) logic in reality itself which our abstract logic mirrors, all of which is to say that logic seems to "work" - but this doesn't help to answer the question of whether it could have worked some other way, whether reality could have been built with a different underlying "logic", and whether we can really know how and why it "works" beyond merely observing that it does work in the way that it does (and yes, that it seems inevitable that it must). I think the difference between us here is that you believe you have gone as far as it is possible to go in interrogating reality, and that inferring from observation is the limit; I believe we've only scratched the surface and I assume a "beyond", a "why", in the absence of a good reason not to, and I haven't seen a good reason from you or anyone else on this forum. In asking these questions I also notice that in dreams I sometimes get a sense of an alternate logic, or at least hints at it, which encourages me in thinking that they are reasonable questions to ask.

To say that tautological truths "involve a creative act" is fine in the sense that defining a word could be seen as a creative act, but this doesn't change the fact that such truths are tautological, and of themselves (because of their form) don't tell us anything about the empirical world. I was only able to construct a non-tautological truth out of your "all things in the universe are finite" truth by rearranging it to actually assert things about the world rather than, as it does, merely (re)assert a definition. You protest that "the content differs" from the "all bachelors are unmarried" truth, and yet this is irrelevant, because we could equally reconstruct a non-tautological truth out of the content of the "all bachelors are unmarried" tautology by asserting "there exist in the world men who are unmarried". Do you see how this, too, rather than being tautological, says something concrete about the world? Do you see how the form of these truths matter? I get the sense that you don't. I get the sense that you don't recognise the difference between your tautological truths and the non-tautological truths that they can be rearranged into.

Your assertion that experiential truths are not a different class of truth because along with all truths they are "entirely logical" is like saying that elephants are not a different class of mammal because along with all mammals, they are "entirely alive". Sure, experiential truths are logical in the sense that they are logically structured and do not contradict themselves, but they are also distinct from "logical truths" as defined by philosophers (check the SEP link I provided if you want to better acquaint yourself with the concept), and definitional truths, in that they are not tautological, they actually say something about reality beyond that we can construct necessarily-true (by tautology) definitions and logical forms within reality. I mean, a case can be made that tautological truths do say something about reality in this sense - that they say something about the way logic and meaning work - but these are not the type of "sayings" you attribute to your own truths, you seem to believe that your truths say things beyond (formal) logic and meaning, that they describe facts about reality beyond these things.

It would be interesting if the house philosophy, which you (so humbly, David!) equate with the wisdom of sages, really did "demolish the duality of good and evil", and yet this would only be possible if it changed certain facts about the world, the "facts of heroic and diabolical acts" as it were, but which it does not. You may personally choose to define away good and evil; to me this is an act not of wisdom but of ignorance and folly, the act of a philosophical ostrich.

You suggest that rather than assessing alternative hypotheses we can "just develop a clear mind and follow the logic that takes us to the root of all things", by which I understand you to mean that there are no alternative hypotheses to the ones that you assert, which is a bit like saying there are no alternative dinners than meat and three veg. I gave you one example already, that of determinism versus indeterminism; there are plenty of others. I understand that to a guy who's decided that meat and three veg is the irrefutable dinner, the thought of a raw food delicacy is just plain delusional, but we all know how experience broadens the (culinary and rational) possibilities.

Your choice of philosophical meals is exactly that: a choice. Of course you have your justifications, but they are no more nor less valid than those of other epicures. I wouldn't be so quick to criticise you if you were to acknowledge this; if you weren't so hell-bent on presenting your ideas as "absolute" in the sense of being uncontestable. I'm sure that many of your critics would be less critical if you were to simply say, "Here's the way I prefer to look at reality, and here is how I like to live my life based on that perspective", rather than, "Here is the uncontestable truth about reality, and here is the only rational way to live; all other beliefs and approaches are delusional". You would be more truthful that way, and you wouldn't get people's backs up so much. But anyway, I know it's unlikely you'll ever do that, so here goes yet another post into the wind...

guest_of_logic wrote: ...but this doesn't help to answer the question of whether it could have worked some other way, whether reality could have been built with a different underlying "logic", and whether we can really know how and why it "works" beyond merely observing that it does work in the way that it does.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: A better description, one thing leads to another but they can lead anywhere, from gravity to floating, from visibile to invisible, anything can happen in this dream, almost all of the logical deductions people have made based on their particular sense experiences are faulty... simply because they are based on particular sense experiences/manifestations, when there is an endless range of such experiences, and hence an endless range of logical deductions, each as logical as the last. (except for some self-evident things of course)

We have both come to the exact same conclusion Laird, go us... if we are being realistic, we have really just agreed that all of the supposed physical laws aren't actually physical laws! Boy do philosophers trump scientists.

I would state it a little more cautiously than you just stated it, John, but I agree that the question as to what in reality is necessary and what is contingent; what is "law" and what is "contrivance" is a difficult one to answer. We can only hope to incessantly chip at necessity, ever expanding the reach of our hopefully perfectible wills.

I don't often state things cautiously, what we have assumed to be physical laws are derived from our particular sense experiences,

Those sense experiences could show anything, and our logical deductions would change with them, each logical deduction that is based on manifestations is as logical as it's contradictory counterpart.

Gravity moves me toward larger masses is as logical as gravity moves me away from larger masses.
Physical laws are based on limited and perpetually changing sense experiences.

So, in terms I understand, what you're saying is that physical "laws" are not (logically) necessary, but are contingent, and that there are other hypothetical sets of contingent physical laws that are (would be) as logical (i.e. make as much "sense") as the ones we have now?

Yes, you could even provide evidence for them.

And thereby just adding or modifying existing laws and theories, not creating any alternatives. Don't forget that "evidence" is not just based on senses but on logical consistency between all available data and the model. You can add conflicting data, you can modify the model but you cannot stop being consistent if the topic would still be: defining laws of any kind.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And thereby just adding or modifying existing laws and theories, not creating any alternatives. Don't forget that "evidence" is not just based on senses but on logical consistency between all available data and the model. You can add conflicting data, you can modify the model but you cannot stop being consistent if the topic would still be: defining laws of any kind.

And the logical consistency and data is based on sense experience, as all things are, and due to this, it is clear they are based on particular sense experiences, and since sense experience can show you anything imaginable, then any amount of physical laws could be deduced from those sense experiences, each could be evidenced as much as the last and be as logical as the last.

"Gravity moves me toward larger masses" is as logical as "gravity moves me away from larger masses.".... just not at this time, based on these particular and limited sense experiences.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:And the logical consistency and data is based on sense experience, as all things are, and due to this, it is clear they are based on particular sense experiences,

The only thing particular about our sense experience is that what we experience is what we experience. You cannot, however, pin down exactly where our sense experience originates.

and since sense experience can show you anything imaginable,

including our imagination...

then any amount of physical laws could be deduced from those sense experiences, each could be evidenced as much as the last and be as logical as the last.

"Gravity moves me toward larger masses" is as logical as "gravity moves me away from larger masses.".... just not at this time, based on these particular and limited sense experiences.

Agreed. Since science deals only with the empirical, it's use of logic is limited to finite phenomena. What this means is that our sense experience (human consciousness), by its objectifying nature, is able to directly sense only finite-ness.

But with the use if philosophical logic, which deals with the abstract, we are able to deduce absolute, universal truths regarding reality, such as, "the existence of all things (including physical laws) are dependent on an objectifying consciousness."

Bluerap,

Good to know, I think we should all be working collaboratively on pieces we can release for the masses, one's that bring about this special and "true knowledge" in others and gets the average mind to understand these ancient concepts, along with any profound wisdom we have discovered on our own. I'm currently trying to form such cooperative groups, but I only know very few simplistically smart people... and some of the GF users think too much before trying out new ideas :b

bluerap wrote:"the existence of all things (including physical laws) are dependent on an objectifying consciousness."

I should add to this that consciousness (sense experience) can't be said to exist by the same logic (a mistake I see you make in your posts), as it too is something that is defined by consciousness. This alludes to the "emptiness" that you see others comment about.

This added observation makes the statement above seem paradoxical. This may be why you consider logic to be inconsistent. Nonetheless, the statement is still undeniably truthful as it demonstrates the "emptiness" of reality.

"I should add to this that consciousness (sense experience) can't be said to exist by the same logic"

That's not a mistake, consciousness doesn't exist on its own, it is dependent on conditions.

But..my seeing, my experience of laptop, that exists, as far as the experience goes.

Although I am aware of the point you are making as this statement in itself is only one of these particular sense experiences, although, the fact that there is the seeing of the laptop, is absolute knowledge, not empirical, that isn't subject to the same logical inconsistencies, it doesn't require any deduction.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Yes, you could even provide evidence for them.

So, you're not even speaking of hypothetical alternative sets of laws in hypothetical alternative universes, you're saying that alternative (and opposing) sets of laws can be evidenced in this universe. Am I understanding correctly? If so, I'll play along - what evidence can you offer for the alternative law you suggest of gravity moving you away from larger masses, when we already have the evidence that we are not repelled by our (massive) planet but attracted to it?

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And thereby just adding or modifying existing laws and theories, not creating any alternatives. Don't forget that "evidence" is not just based on senses but on logical consistency between all available data and the model. You can add conflicting data, you can modify the model but you cannot stop being consistent if the topic would still be: defining laws of any kind.

And the logical consistency and data is based on sense experience, as all things are, and due to this, it is clear they are based on particular sense experiences, and since sense experience can show you anything imaginable, then any amount of physical laws could be deduced from those sense experiences, each could be evidenced as much as the last and be as logical as the last.

Data is based on modeling. Most theories and their evidence have been worked out mainly mathematically. The five senses are only a fragment of this, simply because the sense universe is so tiny compared what can be concluded to be there, even when we could never sense it directly.

While the senses can be manipulated to register way more than previously thought possible, it's not "everything"; the total range of our senses is limited actually. You cannot imagine infrared light for example. Just imagining some type of visible light, after conversion perhaps, which you then label to be 'infrared'. Or imagine how it would be like. But it's just not in range of our visual senses.

"Gravity moves me toward larger masses" is as logical as "gravity moves me away from larger masses.".... just not at this time, based on these particular and limited sense experiences.

There's no reason to assume all possibilities are happening or are able to happen sometime anywhere. Even the mind's eye has limitation. Imagine a 4D cube and rotate it around. Perhaps only certain configurations can take place because of inherent limitations. Even our imagination is not limitless obviously, we cannot imagine the size of the universe for example, only by making stupid little models in our mind or on the screen.

guest_of_logic wrote: So, you're not even speaking of hypothetical alternative sets of laws in hypothetical alternative universes, you're saying that alternative (and opposing) sets of laws can be evidenced in this universe. Am I understanding correctly?

Memory and identification with the self exist only in the present as new experiences of guest of logic. When you "die" or guest of logic's existence runs out for you, you will simply experience something else with no memory of any past sensual life as the memories you have now are momentary and specific sensual experiences of guest of logic.

The laws we experience today will not alter here in this place, or if they do alter, for example people are invisible or floating in the air, your mind would rationalize it based on past and assumed knowledge, which is based on some other assumed knowledge also taken from past sensual experience, all of this knowledge is confined to the experiences of guest of logic and guest of logic alone.

"Everything under the sun has been done and will be done again" - King Solomon from the Bible

I'm more specifically saying life is a dream with conditions, it is constantly changing and death,rebirth,gravity or gravity's opposite, are really just these miraculous and mysterious sensual experiences changing. There are no laws for what they can manifest, it "follows only itself".

Could you evidence gravity's opposite in a dream? Surely could, but not in a dream where we are all on the ground :b

Diebert

"the five senses are only a fragment of this"

beeeeeep wrong, the five senses make up all of the modelling mathematics ideas perceptions and consciousness you've ever experienced.

Your thoughts aren't in your control, that modelling is also "IT" producing thoughts and sense experience, it can produce any kind, no matter how contradictory.

Or more specifically this stream of feelings and thoughts which you have no control over are all as irrational as each other and are nothing more than experiences existing only in mind, there is nothing known besides them, no external and corresponding physical world.

You still act as if we are experiencing something with external existence besides the experience.

The universe = a shiteload of interconnected experiences, nothing more than experience has ever been known to exist or evidenced or supported, looking into the creations of consciousness is "what is".

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Memory and identification with the self exist only in the present as new experiences of guest of logic. When you "die" or guest of logic's existence runs out for you, you will simply experience something else with no memory of any past sensual life as the memories you have now are momentary and specific sensual experiences of guest of logic.

There is no experience without memory.

The universe = a shiteload of interconnected experiences, nothing more than experience has ever been known to exist or evidenced or supported, looking into the creations of consciousness is "what is".

Consciousness doesn't create anything. A more accurate depiction is that consciousness merely defines what is presented to it. Ultimately, it is just an interaction sprouting out of infinite causality.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: "the five senses are only a fragment of this"

beeeeeep wrong, the five senses make up all of the modelling mathematics ideas perceptions and consciousness you've ever experienced.

Call me next time you smell the correctness of a formula. Our senses are arbitrary names for parts of our nervous system and the way the mind deals with them. Of course you are trying to call the whole of the mind a "sense" but you are creating a circular argument with that definition (sensing senses). Why not call the mind "God" and have a more familiar religious framework to work with?

Your thoughts aren't in your control, that modelling is also "IT" producing thoughts and sense experience, it can produce any kind, no matter how contradictory.

Modelling means applying restrictions like self-consistency. Because of this contradictions are bound to expand or collapse the model eventually.

Or more specifically this stream of feelings and thoughts which you have no control over are all as irrational as each other and are nothing more than experiences existing only in mind, there is nothing known besides them, no external and corresponding physical world.

Why listening to you if it would be as irrational as the ravings of a drunken idiot? No, you imply to speak truth in your own view, something standing apart but you don't want to be consistent with what you found. You're avoiding the bigger problems. You sound typically like someone protecting oneself against the consequences of what has been discovered. Therefore everything "has to go" or "all the same". But it's not going to happen - only in your dreams.

There is no circular argument, all experiences flow as one, all senses and thought with them, you are like a formless witness to these experiences, your consciousness is defined by them and flows with them. The mind is all of everything, not the brain.

All empirical knowledge is irrational as it is based on flawed reasoning, on the particulars and on particular sense experience, which can show you anything.

The "Physical Laws" also aren't laws as they are based on these particular sense experiences, the world is but a transient illusion "like heat haze."

bluerap
You are witnessing the manifestations of consciousness, consciousness is not a result of the world, but the world a result of consciousness, experience exists, nothing else but the experience. The universe actually = sense experience. Memory exists only as a new manifestation of the transient present, a new angle, a new imagination of a past event, the memories you have are bluerap's and are in tune with bluerap, if bluerap dies, attachment from bluerap experience ends and maybe you end up as redrap with redrap experience, you won't have any of bluerap's memories, sadly. Now I would not name or presume to understand what creates our experiences, but the mind is the source of all the experiences, the source of the universe, which is experience, consciousness.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:There is no circular argument, all experiences flow as one, all senses and thought with them, you are like a formless witness to these experiences, your consciousness is defined by them and flows with them. The mind is all of everything, not the brain.

What is all of everything is nothing at all. Therefore our experiences are not even flowing, defining consciousness, mind or whatever description you want to go with.

All empirical knowledge is irrational as it is based on flawed reasoning, on the particulars and on particular sense experience, which can show you anything.

Why would knowledge be false just because the senses could show "anything"? It was always the task of reasoning to "make sense" out it after all. The flaw you are talking about is when a certain sense or observation is taken as "absolute" or "actual". But taking things in as absolute or actual is not the outcome of reasoning. It's a result of a desire to have it that way.

The "Physical Laws" also aren't laws as they are based on these particular sense experiences, the world is but a transient illusion "like heat haze."

As long as we define laws as being based on predicting "these particular sense experiences" (and we actually do!) then these are indeed laws. If it comes to unchanging absolute truths we can say something about the nature of experience and the nature of existence, which is absolute to each and every experience. But it should be clear both are addressing completely different things as physical laws are descriptive and absolute truths are existential. Only for people who live completely "descriptive" and have found their existence and identity in descriptions and associated feelings, perhaps it could be said they have instilled without realizing an absolute nature on something transient which is essentially ignorance.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Now I would not name or presume to understand what creates our experiences, but the mind is the source of all the experiences, the source of the universe, which is experience, consciousness.

The source of the empirical universe is the consciousness' interaction with the unknown. In turn, as you correctly allude, the source of consciousness is also the unknown, as consciousness is inherently limited. But to say that consciousness is all that is exists is incorrect, because it does indeed have a source (as do all things observed), albeit untraceable.

Diebert

The definition of the laws is still wrong, because they don't predict correctly, because everything is in a constant state of change, the laws will wrongly predict in the future, that is a guarantee, because the laws are based on thoughts which is based on particular sense experience, those thoughts don't actually make sense to you, you are only accepting them because well, they are your thoughts!

When you realize they are not your thoughts, that you are only witnessing them, you will see that most of the thoughts are irrational, based on irrational understandings and presumed knowledge, start thinking of it like you are viewing some other humans thoughts and you'll see how little you know about the scientific world :)

For example, say the word, "Wave", when you grow an illusory brain, and realize the word "wave" means nothing to you except for *picturing a little wave or a squiggly line*, and that this is the same for almost all language, then you'll see what I mean when I say almost all scientific understanding is bullshit that is based on irrational and assumed knowledge others have presumably proven before you. Presumed knowledge which is already based on empirical knowledge and already flawed.

Naming is the origin of all particular things, science is based on *particular things*, yet in reality, there are no *particular things* and therefore science is based on an understanding which is fundamentally wrong, especially since all of it's descriptions are held in language or mathematics which bare no real or consistent relation to reality. Like trying to do maths in a dream, it will work out for you, you'll rationalize it, but it doesn't mean shit.

2+1=4 is just as logical as 1+1=2, because you will believe any bullshit your thoughts tell you...they aren't your thoughts.

Finally starting to get what I mean?


bluerap

Yes but because that source is unknown and elusive it is only an obviously necessary belief, it is not known, not absolute knowledge, although I very much see the need for a source, the tao.

We don't know what's outside of our sense experience, there could be a lot of things. But the universe we know of, has only ever existed within sense experience. Nothing of "the Universe we know of" (which is made up of sense experience) exists outside of sense experience, that I can say for sure.

Finally starting to get what I mean?

Yes,
Your argument is nothing has its own essence.
that's true.
it doesn't mean nothing exists.
you get mighty close to nihilism.