GENIUS FORUMS

AlyOshA wrote:Pincho Paxton: "I agree actually. I think you are talking about yourself, and not facing the fact that other people can totally understand the reality of their environment. I can see in my mind all of the factors that are working on my senses to create the image, or smell, or taste. I can see the particles, and waves, and I can see how they are alligned. I know what the universe is, and how it began, and I know why I am here. None of this is taken from books, or any other source. I have totally discovered what I wanted to know. I am 100% satisfied with my results. I have no emptiness."
Pincho Paxton you are making a funny by saying this no? If you did not intend to be funny I just want to say that I find this absolutely hilarious.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochel ... ality.html

The writer contradicts himself by explaning the table from all angles. So he does know the table very well. He also explains all other experiences, from all viewpoints. Therefore you can know things from all viewpoints. It does not change the knowledge that you have. We have knowledge that uses tweens, which are things inbetween all that we know.

David,

NM: Do you then believe that they did not evolve with humans from the empirical world? I ask the same of you as I asked Kevin -- do you have some alternative theory of how language came about?

DQ: We've already gone through all this. It doesn't really matter where language and concepts originally came from if, in the here and now, we have the consciousness and freedom to do with them what we want.

I have to disagree that it doesn't matter where concepts came from. If our concepts are just inductions from phenomena on earth we can't claim they can accurately be used to describe anything above natural phenomena, nor can they provide any real "truth", only utility. I don't mean "everything" by "natural" and "absolute truth" doesn't fit into the category of "natural" unless you are willing to admit that your absolute truths are only absolutely true for yourself.

NM: How can you say this after 2 posts ago saying that all people who try to adopt an objective viewpoints are suffering an illusion? How can you "put truth in someone's perspective" other than your own?

DQ: I can do it because of the reality that some things are necessarily true in all possible worlds (or in all possible perspectives).

For example, a triangle with no sides can never come into being, no matter what your perspective is. In other words, it is eternally true in all perspectives that a triangle with no sides can never cone into being.

This is only true as a definition that you hold. To extend it to some other perspective without going through your own seems like you are projecting your thoughts and view of the world as though everyone else must share it. From the realization that objective viewpoints are impossible you could be right to project your interpretation of reality on everyone in this manner, but you then would have to recognize that "absolute truth" is not objective and is only for your utility.

The same principle applies in the case of "objective viewpoint". We can never escape our own subjective consciousness and peek at what lies beyond. This is a truth which automatically applies to all perspectives. It is eternally true in all perspectives that no one can ever attain an objective viewpoint.

Once again by definition and I have no reason to believe that our definitions, which I believe to be rooted in phenomena in our anthropomorphic interpretation of the world, must apply to "all possible perspectives".

Neil,

If our concepts are just inductions from phenomena on earth we can't claim they can accurately be used to describe anything above natural phenomena, nor can they provide any real "truth", only utility. I don't mean "everything" by "natural" and "absolute truth" doesn't fit into the category of "natural" unless you are willing to admit that your absolute truths are only absolutely true for yourself.

Okay, so you have a different definition of "natural". That's your choice. It has no bearing on the points I am making.

NM: How can you say this after 2 posts ago saying that all people who try to adopt an objective viewpoints are suffering an illusion? How can you "put truth in someone's perspective" other than your own?

DQ: I can do it because of the reality that some things are necessarily true in all possible worlds (or in all possible perspectives).

For example, a triangle with no sides can never come into being, no matter what your perspective is. In other words, it is eternally true in all perspectives that a triangle with no sides can never cone into being.

NM: This is only true as a definition that you hold. To extend it to some other perspective without going through your own seems like you are projecting your thoughts and view of the world as though everyone else must share it.

It doesn't matter if it just a definition that I hold or if other people share it. It still remains true in all perspectives that a triangle without sides can never come into being anywhere - given that a triangle is defined as a plane figure with three sides.

At root, it all boils down to recognizing that A=A always holds true in all perspectives. If a triangle is defined to have three sides, then a triangle without three sides automatically becomes an impossibility.

From the realization that objective viewpoints are impossible you could be right to project your interpretation of reality on everyone in this manner, but you then would have to recognize that "absolute truth" is not objective and is only for your utility.

It has utility for all truthful people.

DQ: The same principle applies in the case of "objective viewpoint". We can never escape our own subjective consciousness and peek at what lies beyond. This is a truth which automatically applies to all perspectives. It is eternally true in all perspectives that no one can ever attain an objective viewpoint.

NM: Once again by definition and I have no reason to believe that our definitions, which I believe to be rooted in phenomena in our anthropomorphic interpretation of the world, must apply to "all possible perspectives".

It is all part of seeing things as they are. A definition is not something that can be falsified through a mere change of perspective. It has its own internal logic which can only be altered by altering its component parts. Changing one's perspective can never change the component parts.

For example, if we were to change the definition of a triangle to a plane figure with four sides, then our perception of triangles would suddenly be different. But at the same time, it would automatically become true in all possible perspectives that triangles with three sides can never come into being.

-

Matt: Our subjective viewpoint is perfectly capable of discerning absolute truths. The fact that we can acknowledge our own subjectivity enables it.

Divine Focus: That's because, in a sense, the subjective is absolute.

Would that in other words mean that the relationship between two subjects is objective?

Sapius wrote:

Matt: Our subjective viewpoint is perfectly capable of discerning absolute truths. The fact that we can acknowledge our own subjectivity enables it.

Divine Focus: That's because, in a sense, the subjective is absolute.

Would that in other words mean that the relationship between two subjects is objective?

It just means that if you're acknowledging the truth of your situation then you're being objective.

David,

DQ: The same principle applies in the case of "objective viewpoint". We can never escape our own subjective consciousness and peek at what lies beyond. This is a truth which automatically applies to all perspectives. It is eternally true in all perspectives that no one can ever attain an objective viewpoint.

NM: Once again by definition and I have no reason to believe that our definitions, which I believe to be rooted in phenomena in our anthropomorphic interpretation of the world, must apply to "all possible perspectives".

DQ: It is all part of seeing things as they are. A definition is not something that can be falsified through a mere change of perspective. It has its own internal logic which can only be altered by altering its component parts. Changing one's perspective can never change the component parts.

I agree with this. However what makes you think that other perspectives wouldn't see "things as they are" differently than you? Perhaps what you clearly see as true they see as false. Perhaps our human consciousness is only a tiny little speck that is not capable of understanding anything beyond the empirical world (which includes their thoughts).

For example, if we were to change the definition of a triangle to a plane figure with four sides, then our perception of triangles would suddenly be different. But at the same time, it would automatically become true in all possible perspectives that triangles with three sides can never come into being.

How about if we genetically altered our sense organs and we could see in higher dimensions -- suddenly all our former "truths" would be replaced and there would still be to reason to think our truths must be true from any perspective.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Sapius wrote:

Matt: Our subjective viewpoint is perfectly capable of discerning absolute truths. The fact that we can acknowledge our own subjectivity enables it.

Divine Focus: That's because, in a sense, the subjective is absolute.

Would that in other words mean that the relationship between two subjects is objective?

It just means that if you're acknowledging the truth of your situation then you're being objective.

You mean objectivity depends on self-acknowledgment (subjectivity) about the truth of ones situations?

I though that since there are more than one subjectivity’s around, for example you and me, then the communicative relationship, which I think can be extended to all things, in other words causal relationship, has to be necessarily objective since I am not the only one around speaking to myself. Now am I?

Sapius wrote:You mean objectivity depends on self-acknowledgment (subjectivity) about the truth of ones situations?

Yeah. Objectivity is truthfulness, and the truth is subjectively realized. Finding truth requires incorporating the fact that we are realizing things subjectively.

I though that since there are more than one subjectivity’s around, for example you and me, then the communicative relationship, which I think can be extended to all things, in other words causal relationship, has to be necessarily objective since I am not the only one around speaking to myself. Now am I?

There's no way to be 100% certain that you are speaking to someone else. After all, you could be suffering from severe hallucinations. So, other people have to be considered uncertain. All we know is that the appearance of talking to other people is part of our subjective experience.

As a general rule, if you hold a view that depends on something that can never enter your subjective experience, like the existence of the experience of another person, then that view can't possibly yield truth or objectivity. Even more generally, anything that's not 100% certain can't yield truth.

Neil,

DQ: The same principle applies in the case of "objective viewpoint". We can never escape our own subjective consciousness and peek at what lies beyond. This is a truth which automatically applies to all perspectives. It is eternally true in all perspectives that no one can ever attain an objective viewpoint.

NM: Once again by definition and I have no reason to believe that our definitions, which I believe to be rooted in phenomena in our anthropomorphic interpretation of the world, must apply to "all possible perspectives".

DQ: It is all part of seeing things as they are. A definition is not something that can be falsified through a mere change of perspective. It has its own internal logic which can only be altered by altering its component parts. Changing one's perspective can never change the component parts.

NM: I agree with this. However what makes you think that other perspectives wouldn't see "things as they are" differently than you? Perhaps what you clearly see as true they see as false.

Then they are not seeing things as they are. Truthful people do not disagree when it comes to the fundamentals.

Perhaps our human consciousness is only a tiny little speck that is not capable of understanding anything beyond the empirical world (which includes their thoughts).

Fortunately, this isn't true.

DQ: For example, if we were to change the definition of a triangle to a plane figure with four sides, then our perception of triangles would suddenly be different. But at the same time, it would automatically become true in all possible perspectives that triangles with three sides can never come into being.

NM: How about if we genetically altered our sense organs and we could see in higher dimensions -- suddenly all our former "truths" would be replaced and there would still be to reason to think our truths must be true from any perspective.

It wouldn't have any bearing on those truths which are necessarily true in all possible perspectives. "All possible perspectives" includes all possible dimensions and all possible sense-fields.

That is what makes absolute truth special. Nothing can ever shake it.

-

David,

NM: I agree with this. However what makes you think that other perspectives wouldn't see "things as they are" differently than you? Perhaps what you clearly see as true they see as false.

DQ: Then they are not seeing things as they are. Truthful people do not disagree when it comes to the fundamentals.

What makes you think this perspective depends at all on truth or delusion? Perhaps there is some radically different form of consciousness and interpretation of the world -- calling your own perspective the only truthful one seems absurd to me. You didn't get to choose it when you were born. Don't you ever wonder if perhaps you are just part of some experiment being run by on you by -whoever-, and that your whole consciousness and reality is artificially created and maintained?

NM: Perhaps our human consciousness is only a tiny little speck that is not capable of understanding anything beyond the empirical world (which includes their thoughts).

DQ: Fortunately, this isn't true.

Our fundamental disagreement is here. You believe we can impose "laws" and "truths" on the "hidden void" where I believe we can't.

NM: How about if we genetically altered our sense organs and we could see in higher dimensions -- suddenly all our former "truths" would be replaced and there would still be to reason to think our truths must be true from any perspective.

DQ: It wouldn't have any bearing on those truths which are necessarily true in all possible perspectives. "All possible perspectives" includes all possible dimensions and all possible sense-fields.

It probably wouldn't have any bearing. But I deny that these "absolute truths" are the same ones that you, from your perspective, have identified. Until you can prove that your perspective is not limited, I have high reasons to doubt that you have access to any "absolute truths".

There's no way to be 100% certain that you are speaking to someone else. After all, you could be suffering from severe hallucinations.

Well Matt… you could be right… but I should keep in mind that I could be hallucinating Matt.

One may not be 100% certain of A=A thence, I guess.

Sapius wrote:

There's no way to be 100% certain that you are speaking to someone else. After all, you could be suffering from severe hallucinations.

Well Matt… you could be right… but I should keep in mind that I could be hallucinating Matt.

One may not be 100% certain of A=A thence, I guess.

Yeah, good point.

No, A=A doesn't rely on any metaphysical speculations.

Matt Gregory wrote:No, A=A doesn't rely on any metaphysical speculations.

It does if you are hallucinating. :)

Can we apply A=A to "the Totality"?

Seems meaningless to me. We cannot experience or sense certain things yet we can claim that they follow the rules of logic which are, after all, just a method our made up.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:No, A=A doesn't rely on any metaphysical speculations.

It does if you are hallucinating. :)

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

Neil Melnyk wrote:Can we apply A=A to "the Totality"?

Of course.

We cannot experience or sense certain things

Why do you think we have to sense something in order to draw conclusions about it?

yet we can claim that they follow the rules of logic which are, after all, just a method our made up.

We didn't make up logic. How would we do that? What would we use to make it up?

Matt,

NM: We cannot experience or sense certain things

MG: Why do you think we have to sense something in order to draw conclusions about it?

How can we extrapolate trends noticed on planet earth to things we can't experience or sense? The idea is nonsensical. How do we know anything about -something- that we can't experience or sense? We can't. We can try to define it but then it becomes simply abstract and not necessarily related to reality. There is a difference between "all possible things" and "all possible things that I can experience, sense, or think of". I think your Totality applies to the latter though you try to apply it to the former.

NM: yet we can claim that they follow the rules of logic which are, after all, just a method our made up.

MG: We didn't make up logic. How would we do that? What would we use to make it up?

I'm thinking logic evolved with our reasoning and language. How else was it made up? Give me an alternate theory -- did God give it to humans or something?

I think that logic starts with the sentience. So it is eternal.

Pincho Paxton wrote:I think that logic starts with the sentience. So it is eternal.

Proof sentience is eternal?

Neil Melnyk wrote:How can we extrapolate trends noticed on planet earth to things we can't experience or sense? The idea is nonsensical.

That's because "things we can't experience or sense" is a nonsensical idea.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:How can we extrapolate trends noticed on planet earth to things we can't experience or sense? The idea is nonsensical.

That's because "things we can't experience or sense" is a nonsensical idea.

Speaking to someone in the 13th Century about cell phones and the internet would be considered nonsensical. You do need some kind of experience of a subject to think at all about it beyond speculation.

Neil wrote:There is a difference between "all possible things" and "all possible things that I can experience, sense, or think of".

There is nothing you can't experience, or sense, or think of. It's only a question of personal value and desire.

Our experiences, and senses are all taken from results between an interaction with a sensor and the passage of information to that sensor. There are things in the universe that do not pass information to our physical universe. You can wear 3D polarized glasses to watch a 3D film so that both eyes see a different thing. The universe is polarised like the 3D glasses so that we are like a single eye, only able to interact with the parts that interact with our physical universe. We interact with a set of slits in the universe. But there are still areas in our own slits that we cannot interact with as well. Like the dark matter itself. Which is the creator of what we interact with.

divine focus wrote:Speaking to someone in the 13th Century about cell phones and the internet would be considered nonsensical. You do need some kind of experience of a subject to think at all about it beyond speculation.

divine focus wrote: There is nothing you can't experience, or sense, or think of. It's only a question of personal value and desire.

I can't experience, sense, or think of what will happen in the future just as people in the 13th century couldn't. Just as people in the past believed the world was flat was the truth, many of our truths of today could be overturned in the future. There could be dimensions that we are incapable of experiencing, sensing, or thinking of that we make contact with in the future.