GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor,

To certain aliens, the sky is black. To certain humans, the sky is blue.

That is a great, practical observation. You have no real fact as to the color of the sky though. Humans have their fact and aliens have theirs, and they contradict! Furthermore, unless you are actually some omnipotent entity this observation is simply your own subjective truth, not an absolute truth. The situation could appear different to others. You can do this ad infinitum. In the end you have your truths and I have mine, and we both have them for practical purposes whether we want to believe otherwise or not.

For instance, "reality is nothing whatsoever" must always be false.

I can affirm this as being true from my perspective but make no claim as to whether or not it is absolutely true. Go consult your dictionary though, it holds the keys to all absolute truth!

NM: Is it not an error to assume that things outside our empirical observations must necessary conform to these concepts and language?

Pfft, your version was way more "misleading" than my own. "Is it [strike]not[/strike] an error to assume that things outside our empirical observations must necessary conform to these concepts and language?"

You aren't laughing.

I am smiling, not quite laughing though. :)

Neil,

If, as you say, “everything comes from subjective perception”, does it not follow that there must be a perceiving subject; or do you deny the laws of though, as well as the authority of the dictionary?

And if everything comes from subjective perception, and so is dependent upon a perceiving subject, does this not mean that all things must partake of only a relative (contingent) existence?

And if all things are dependent upon the perceiving subject, does it not follow that the perceiving subject must partake of an absolute (necessary) existence, for a thing cannot arise without a cause, nor out of a cause that merely relative.

Neil,

Humans have their fact and aliens have theirs, and they contradict!

No, there is no contradiction. They merely perceive the same object differently.

Furthermore, unless you are actually some omnipotent entity this observation is simply your own subjective truth, not an absolute truth.

This, however, is a contradiction. You are trying to say something that is absolutely true! "It is always the case that an absolute truth requires an omnipotent entity to conceive of it. I am not, however, an omnipotent entity, therefore I cannot conceive of the aforementioned truth."

I can affirm this as being true from my perspective but make no claim as to whether or not it is absolutely true.

You are being stubborn, not wise. Proof of your stubbornness is evident in the insult you followed this claim with, which I feel no need to quote. You know what you said, and you know the malice that hides behind it.

Pfft, your version was way more "misleading" than my own.

False.

"Is it an error to assume that things outside our empirical observations must necessary conform to these concepts and language?"

Let's pare this down further, until it becomes a clear question.

1) Is it true that things outside our perceptions necessarily are described by concepts?
2) Are all things outside our perceptions described by concepts?
3) Can a concept describe any thing?

Yes, I say: a concept can be used to describe any thing.

I am smiling, not quite laughing though. :)

I am completely emotionless. Your emotions are clouding your judgement.

Trevor,

NM: Humans have their fact and aliens have theirs, and they contradict!

TS: No, there is no contradiction. They merely perceive the same object differently.

As do we.

NM: Furthermore, unless you are actually some omnipotent entity this observation is simply your own subjective truth, not an absolute truth.

TS: This, however, is a contradiction. You are trying to say something that is absolutely true! "It is always the case that an absolute truth requires an omnipotent entity to conceive of it. I am not, however, an omnipotent entity, therefore I cannot conceive of the aforementioned truth."

Wow you are back to square one of this thread? I have made it quite clear that I don't believe any of my truths are necessarily absolute, they are simply "my truths".

NM: "Is it an error to assume that things outside our empirical observations must necessary conform to these concepts and language?"

TS: Let's pare this down further, until it becomes a clear question.

1) Is it true that things outside our perceptions necessarily are described by concepts?
2) Are all things outside our perceptions described by concepts?
3) Can a concept describe any thing?

Yes, I say: a concept can be used to describe any thing.

You ignored my question and instead presented some retarded premises that you then affirmed. Good work.

Neil,

Wow you are back to square one of this thread? I have made it quite clear that I don't believe any of my truths are necessarily absolute, they are simply "my truths".

Yes, and until you accept that that proposition is false, you will never progress beyond square one. Aristotle himself wrote that someone who is unwilling to believe in logical truths is not worth talking to. I am starting to understand why he thought so, and think you need to continue this conversation with someone else, if anyone still feels you are worth the effort.

You ignored my question and instead presented some retarded premises that you then affirmed. Good work.

Actually, I restated your question until it was intelligible enough to answer. The question I answered is identical to the question you asked; if you do not see their identity, you do not know the definitions of the words you used and the words I used. Which means, yes, you will need to consult a dictionary (Nature won't do this for you: you will need to take some responsibility for your own beliefs).

Anyway, as I said, I'm through with you. You know what your problem is: you do not believe in absolute truths. That problem will recur until you realize that absolute truths exist.

Jehu wrote:for a thing cannot arise without a cause, nor out of a cause that merely relative.

I'm pretty sure I read something about an idea in quantum mechanics that says things can happen without causes....

yes....hawking and another man used this idea to try to explain the origin of the universe

illrod,

I'm pretty sure I read something about an idea in quantum mechanics that says things can happen without causes....

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet. I'll give it a few more hours, because I honestly don't want to waltz into this territory.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet. I'll give it a few more hours, because I honestly don't want to waltz into this territory.

do you know what the idea is called or have any links. I'd like to read more about it.

illrod: Bell's Theorem. It's on Wikipedia.

illrod wrote:

Jehu wrote:for a thing cannot arise without a cause, nor out of a cause that merely relative.

I'm pretty sure I read something about an idea in quantum mechanics that says things can happen without causes....

yes....hawking and another man used this idea to try to explain the origin of the universe

While Bell’s Theorem calls into question the idea of physical causality, and especially with respect to the idea of local realism, it does not eliminate the ultimate need for a cause. In fact, from the point of view of the absolute idealist, Bell’s theorem is yet one more piece of evidence that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant. Nevertheless, logic demands that there must be a cause to every effect, and that this cause must ultimately be real (absolute).

Regarding "metaphysics", it depends on what is meant by the term. If it means constructing an abstract, non-scientific edifice as a means of explaining the world, then engaging in metaphysics is delusional. But if it simply means using reason to dismantle all of one's deepest delusions, then engaging in metaphysics is a truthful and necessary activity.

The path to enlightenment is really one of dismantling the abstract world entirely and resting directly in the Reality which is already all around us.

As a result, the enlightened person goes beyond all the limitations that are associated with adhering to a particular abstraction - such as bias, interpretation, subjectivity, uncertainty, etc. He ultimately doesn't adhere to any point of view. He simply immerses himself in reality, without the need to sustain this immersion with a particular conception.

As for the term, "all possible worlds", that is simply a figure of speech to highlight the fact that a genuine truth can never be falsified under any circumstances. Nowhere in the Universe can a genuine truth ever be false.

An example is the truth all things are finite or limited in nature. In other words, a thing always falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. This is something which is necessarily true in all possible worlds. There can never be an instant, in any place or time or dimension, in which a particular thing isn't limited in extent, that it doesn't have a beginning or an end. All things are united by this characteristic.

Also, it should be noted that such a truth isn't a platonic abstraction, even though it is eternal. Rather, it is a truth which is naturally generated out of what a thing is. It is part and parcel of being a thing that it falls short of constituting the totality of all there is.

-

Trevor,

I am completely emotionless.

Interesting. Are you dead? Are your posts being "transmitted" through John Edward? If so, do you want John to acknowledge someone named Ruth, or maybe Robin, an "R" name? Maybe Roger?

Robert? Ralph?

Uni,

Interesting. Are you dead?

Your incessant urge to call my bluffs entertains me far more than that conversation did. Welcome back, Nat!

I can't promise a continued presence. My regular board died last week and I was bored this evening. Maybe I'll stick around and maybe I won't. A lot depends on whether I decide to do something more productive, which I should.

David Quinn, it's obvious that absolute truth and enlightenment are one and the same. Both assuming a 'state of perfection...' (??) both, scientifically speaking, as idiotic as the other.

For example, a bodhisattva, or "being of enlightenment," is essentially a "buddha to be" - someone who has achieved an advanced state of enlightenment (paramitas, perfection or absolute truth, i.e. primative myths and abstractions ) and therefore is qualified to enter nirvana ( heaven) and be a Buddha. The word is derived from the Sanskrit terms bodhi, which means "perfect knowledge" and sattvam, which means "essence, being" - thus "one whose essence is enlightenment or perfect knowledge."In Mahayana Buddhism, it is believed that all sentient beings will eventually reach the status of a bodhisattva, just before they attain complete enlightenment and become Buddhas...yawn...yawn...

If mankind survives into the next century they will laugh at this ego-drenched metaphysical psychobabble, and recognise it for the primative, meaningless stupidity it is. Dress it up how you like, couch it in eloquent philosophical language, its still crap, the evidence of which rests on nothing more than wishful thinking and bloated egos. It does not have the power to light even one light bulb!!!and whats the end product of this enlightenment? heaven, nirvana, in other words - nothing, fuck all.

have a nice day,

z

z,

If mankind survives into the next century they will laugh at this ego-drenched metaphysical psychobabble, and recognise it for the primative, meaningless stupidity it is.

I believe the same thing about string theory.

Except when I apply it to string theory, there is a significant chance that my prediction is accurate, since it is founded on precedent and not misunderstanding.

David,

Given that metaphysics entails a rational enquiry into the nature of the elements and first principles upon which the sciences are founded (something with the sciences themselves do not do), does it not follow that whatever knowledge is forthcoming must be ‘non-scientific’? In other words, are the terms ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ necessarily equivalent, or does the former take precedence over the latter?

'What elements? What principles? Whatever elements and principles metaphysicians dream up would by necessity be based on thin air. They can 'believe' what they like, be super rational and appeal to logic. But rationalism and logic alone are not scientific.

To assume 'science' is based on some hair-brain metaphysical element or principle, is stupid, unless you believe in intellignt design, creationism, or some other fundamentalist gar-gar, which, if they ever caught on, would set humanity back a thousand years...I think it was Nietzsche who said that belief, no matter how eloquently stated, PROVES NOTHING...

z

z,

To assume 'science' is based on some hair-brain metaphysical element or principle,

All sciences, however, have a metaphysical basis. A science begins when a metaphysic has laid all the ground work; the final metaphysical assumption is the first scientific assumption.

David,

Regarding "metaphysics", it depends on what is meant by the term. If it means constructing an abstract, non-scientific edifice as a means of explaining the world, then engaging in metaphysics is delusional. But if it simply means using reason to dismantle all of one's deepest delusions, then engaging in metaphysics is a truthful and necessary activity.
...
As for the term, "all possible worlds", that is simply a figure of speech to highlight the fact that a genuine truth can never be falsified under any circumstances. Nowhere in the Universe can a genuine truth ever be false.

Metaphysics means something like beyond nature or beyond our world. So talking about other worlds, all worlds, gods, and other intangible concepts is metaphysics. The thing to see is that metaphysics is built by wrongly using our language. The problem is basically: Nature -> Language -> Outside/Beyond-Nature. The last step is highly dubious.

An example is the truth all things are finite or limited in nature. In other words, a thing always falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. This is something which is necessarily true in all possible worlds. There can never be an instant, in any place or time or dimension, in which a particular thing isn't limited in extent, that it doesn't have a beginning or an end. All things are united by this characteristic.

This is a logical truth only because of the way we have defined terms like "finite". Remember that our whole language is derived from empirical observations. To assert that this language can then describe things outside our empirical observations is metaphysics.

Neil,

DQ: Regarding "metaphysics", it depends on what is meant by the term. If it means constructing an abstract, non-scientific edifice as a means of explaining the world, then engaging in metaphysics is delusional. But if it simply means using reason to dismantle all of one's deepest delusions, then engaging in metaphysics is a truthful and necessary activity.
...
As for the term, "all possible worlds", that is simply a figure of speech to highlight the fact that a genuine truth can never be falsified under any circumstances. Nowhere in the Universe can a genuine truth ever be false.

Neil: Metaphysics means something like beyond nature or beyond our world.

Strictly speaking, it means "beyond science", which is not the same thing as saying "beyond Nature". I agree that it is foolish to talk about going beyond Nature, especially if one conceives of Nature as being the totality of all there is. But pushing one's reasoning beyond science in order to understand those truths of Nature which are beyond the powers of science to either prove or disprove is a perfectly legitimate activity to engage in. And I would argue, a vitally important one too. It would cure most of the world's madness in an instant.

So talking about other worlds, all worlds, gods, and other intangible concepts is metaphysics.

Science deals in intangible concepts all the time. "Particle", "force", "energy", "law", "star", etc - these are all intangible generalizations upon which the entire edifice of science is built.

Nietzsche made the point that no two things in the world are ever alike, that there are really no such things as "stars" and particles" and so on. These are just abstract categories into which we lump seemingly not-too-dissimilar things together. And yet despite this, science is a perfectly legitimate activity that can be used to glean much information from the world. The same is equally true of philosophic reasoning.

The thing to see is that metaphysics is built by wrongly using our language.

Not if it is done intelligently and wisely. Having mastery over one's concepts, being fully in control of them, knowing directly in one's mind what each concept refers to - these are all keys to expert philosophic reasoning. An expert philosopher is no longer a slave to language in the way that ordinary thinkers are.

DQ: An example is the truth all things are finite or limited in nature. In other words, a thing always falls short
of constituting the totality of all there is. This is something which is necessarily true in all possible worlds. There can never be an instant, in any place or time or dimension, in which a particular thing isn't limited in extent, that it doesn't have a beginning or an end. All things are united by this characteristic.

Neil: This is a logical truth only because of the way we have defined terms like "finite".

While that is true, the beauty of this definition is that it is impossible for anything, anywhere, to fall outside of it. That is what makes the definition useful as far as philosophically understanding the nature of all phenomena is concerned.

Remember that our whole language is derived from empirical observations. To assert that this language can then describe things outside our empirical observations is metaphysics.

It is fortunate for me, then, that the concept of "finite", as I define it, applies to everything that I empirically observe.

-

Zarathustra,

David Quinn, it's obvious that absolute truth and enlightenment are one and the same. Both assuming a 'state of perfection...' (??) both, scientifically speaking, as idiotic as the other.

The phrase, "state of perfection", is just a figure of speech, really. It is not meant to imply that enlightened people live in a static, unchanging, metaphysical state. Quite the opposite, enlightened people are fully in tune with the restless, ever-changing chaos of Nature. They couldn't be further removed from a static, abstract state if they possibly tried.

The "perfection" that perfectly-enlightened people enjoy is one of never falling into deluded thought process, never being taken in by illusions, never being deceived by their own minds, etc. In other words, they are fully immersed in the ever-changing flow of Nature, constantly changing and mutating from one moment to the next, while at the same time never falling into illusion.

Ironically, it is actually non-enlightened people who are lost in abstract, metaphysical states. Enlightened people have dismantled these states completely.

We are all living directly in Reality, even in this very moment - Buddhas and non-Buddhas alike. At no point do we ever slip away from it. The difference with an enlightened person is that he never becomes unconscious of this through being lost in deluded thought processes.

If mankind survives into the next century they will laugh at this ego-drenched metaphysical psychobabble, and recognise it for the primative, meaningless stupidity it is. Dress it up how you like, couch it in eloquent philosophical language, its still crap, the evidence of which rests on nothing more than wishful thinking and bloated egos. It does not have the power to light even one light bulb!!!and whats the end product of this enlightenment? heaven, nirvana, in other words - nothing, fuck all.

There are many benefits to enlightenment, although they are primarily inward in nature. They involve freedom from delusion, blind spots, non-existent problems, attachments, fear, suffering, violence, insanity, etc. It means immersion in a higher-quality mode of existence involving tremendous clarity of mind, conceptual flexibility, penetrative insight, deep tranquility, and an awareness of what is beyond life and death.

Far more important than lightbulbs.

-

Jehu,

Given that metaphysics entails a rational enquiry into the nature of the elements and first principles upon which the sciences are founded (something with the sciences themselves do not do), does it not follow that whatever knowledge is forthcoming must be ‘non-scientific’? In other words, are the terms ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ necessarily equivalent, or does the former take precedence over the latter?

It depends on what our purpose is. If we want to uncover a scientific law or examine the reasons why things happen in a practical sense, it is rational to use science. But it would be irrational to do this if we want to discover what is absolutely true in life. For that purpose we would have to use pure logic.

The concept of cause and effect is a good example. This is a logical principle whose truth can only be uncovered by the use of pure logic. It is utterly beyond the powers of science to either prove or disprove. While science can suggest the validity of the principle, such as by making reference to the theory of evolution by natural selection or to cosmological theories dealing with the formation of galaxies and stars and so on, it lacks the power to validate it in an absolute sense. Only pure logic can do this.

-

The difference between metaphysical methodology and scientific methodology is simple: methphysical methodology is not open to proof (proving) but speculation from which conclusions are drawn. Scientific methodology is the exact opposite. It deals with the LAWS that constitute REALITY. One look at all the great inventions/discoveries will varify this. Absolute truth/ enlightenment, or whatever, may appeal to some people's egos, but in reality, tell us NOTHING about reality. Ultimately, human existence is a mystery. All we can do is speculate about the nature of our origins. At best, metaphysics is speculative, and can thus appeal to logic, at worst, well, have a listen to Benny Hinn...But in both cases it can prove NOTHING. Wishful thinking. Which I admit can at times be quite beautiful, and like everything beautiful, seductive...

By your logic David Quinn, an enlightened person ( knowing everything) should know how everything works, the logic behind it. The simple truth is: they don't. And there is not one speck of evidence in recorded history that can prove otherwise.

z

z, the standard of proof for metaphysical inquiry is actually very simple and thorough. Based on say, the principle of non-contradiction (that a statement cannot be both true and false), we can deduce some interesting things. For instance, if there is a statement such that if it were it true, we would form a contradiction, we know for a fact that the statement must be false. There are countless examples of such necessary truths, and they range from the insipid (an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist; I cannot perceive the sole colour of both blue and red) to the profound (I cannot doubt that I doubt; Reality is not nothing whatsoever; etc.)