GENIUS FORUMS

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Thoughts have the capacity to express the truth.

You consistantly fail to understand that there is no thought that is not a creation of the mind.

Look, I'm 43 and I've only just discerned that the sky appears to be blue. I'm a little bit slow when it comes to the bleeding obvious. Have a little compassion on me.

Creations of mind have the capacity to express the truth. That you acknowledge this to be true is proven by the large posts you make which are filled with your own creations of mind expressing what you think is true.

Steven wrote:

The very process of transcending relies on the reality of change.

First of all the Bias I was talking about is that irrespective of all other points to this discussion awareness must inevitably perceive a single direction of time. To be aware one must conclude upon conceptions that are ultimately premised upon sense data. Thus irrespective of the true nature of time, awareness can only exist within a mind containing that relationship of conclusion upon conception of sense data.

This means that "the reality of progressive change" is the inevitable state of conclusion and experience for any awareness, irrespective of backwards, forwards or motionless time.

In order for your awareness to exist it must inevitably think that all entities are moving forward through time. You literally cannot perceive any other direction of time with the human equipment as the process would deconstruct conclusion into sense data.

This gives no direct clues as to the actual nature of time in the Universe, only to explain why it is that we, existing as a set of conclusions, perceive a direction of time.

Time has no existence or meaning in an objective sense. It is always something which exists relative to an observer. Got it.

This is why the Totality is timeless. It is literally without time.

The Totality of All Existant Things is nothing more than the first accurate philosophical nod to Quantum Mechanics, whether you understand this is not something you have shown; the implications of this philosophical approach to QM is something you have shown to lack comprehension of.

You're probably right there. To me, understanding the Totality has infinitely greater implications, both spiritually and philosophically, than whatever support it can muster for the latest scientific theory.

The very first implication is that the categorisation of distinction between entities and the perception of absolute form arises from observation by an involved spectator, meaning that distinction between and perception of absolute entities arises out of the relationship between entities.

The second implication is that all entities are premised upon their total possible forms for the ability to exist in any form, and that any form is absolute only in its relationship both to itself and to all other entities that are possible.

The meaning here is that entities are distinct and seperate only insofar as they allow relationship between each other and the fulfilling of possible forms of existence, where each possible form is premised upon and related to all others for their inherant and collective existence.

Things can only exist in relation to other things. Got it.

The perception of motion and change in an unending instant comes from the fact that a life is the product of all the forms that constitute it, that you are one form producing a total life, and that a total life of all forms is what contitutes you, but you lack the ability to comprehend your relationships to the Totality of All Existant Things for what those relationships are.

My true nature is the totality of all there is. Got it.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Thoughts have the capacity to express the truth.

You consistantly fail to understand that there is no thought that is not a creation of the mind.

Look, I'm 43 and I've only just discerned that the sky appears to be blue.

And if you had stated that reality appears to change you would have had no arguement from me. A priori truth reasoned by a subject on what is perceived is a difficult and subtle process of thought, but nowhere near as difficult as attempting to peirce the veil that subjective existence as a part of the Totality must necessarilly place over the mind. Namely that what you see and think, and how you see and how you think, is an illusion created by your form and relationship to every other thing. Your eyes can only see what is absolute relative to you, and your mind is formed in such a way that the idea of motion and change is inevitable.

David Quinn wrote:Creations of mind have the capacity to express the truth. That you acknowledge this to be true is proven by the large posts you make which are filled with your own creations of mind expressing what you think is true.

David Quinn wrote:You're probably right there. To me, understanding the Totality has infinitely greater implications, both spiritually and philosophically, than whatever support it can muster for the latest scientific theory.

Do you understand the difference between spirituality and science? Between religion and rational thought? Between constructing illusions and deconstructing illusions? If you think that attempting to understand the implications Quantum Mechanics and the Totality have for each other is some attempt to validate science and disregard philosophy then you have long lost the thread of what it means to be a living mind.

Steven wrote: And if you had stated that reality appears to change you would have had no arguement from me. A priori truth reasoned by a subject on what is perceived is a difficult and subtle process of thought, but nowhere near as difficult as attempting to peirce the veil that subjective existence as a part of the Totality must necessarilly place over the mind. Namely that what you see and think, and how you see and how you think, is an illusion created by your form and relationship to every other thing. Your eyes can only see what is absolute relative to you, and your mind is formed in such a way that the idea of motion and change is inevitable.

What you appear to be saying here seems obvious to me, but that depends on exactly what you are trying to say. The point you are making isn't very clear.

Are you trying to say that everything is a matter of perspective? That all realities are shaped or determined by our perspective as observers? And if so, are you then saying there is no way we can access absolute truths that apply beyond our perspective as observers?

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: To me, understanding the Totality has infinitely greater implications, both spiritually and philosophically, than whatever support it can muster for the latest scientific theory.

Do you understand the difference between spirituality and science? Between religion and rational thought? Between constructing illusions and deconstructing illusions? If you think that attempting to understand the implications Quantum Mechanics and the Totality have for each other is some attempt to validate science and disregard philosophy then you have long lost the thread of what it means to be a living mind.

No, I'm saying that the content of quantum mechanics, or indeed of any other scientific theory, has no bearing on the philosophic understanding of the Totality. In other words, a person is perfectly capable of reaching a full understanding of the nature of the Totality, regardless of whether he studies quantum mechanics or not.

The Buddha's understanding of the Totality wasn't in any way diminished by his ignorance of quantum mechanics, nor can a person improve on the Buddha's understanding by studying quantum mechanics.

The quantum realm is confined to the realm of appearances. It presents an appearance to our minds and ultimately has no more substance than any other appearance. It is but a momentary illusion, among countless others. Understanding the Totality doesn't requires us to affirm a particular appearance, nor does it require us to look for evidence or support within a particular appearance. Such an attempt is seriously misguided, as it negates the truth that the Totality can never form an appearance, even though it generates every appearance that we ever experience.

-

David Quinn wrote:What you appear to be saying here seems obvious to me, but that depends on exactly what you are trying to say. The point you are making isn't very clear.

Are you trying to say that everything is a matter of perspective? That all realities are shaped or determined by our perspective as observers? And if so, are you then saying there is no way we can access absolute truths that apply beyond our perspective as observers?

Every work of thought I have come across that attempts to deal with any of these questions clearly state that the perspective of an observer is the only place from which that subject can perceive.

It is not a question of whether everything is defined by perspective and subjectivity, but realising that perspective and subjectivity define perspective and subjectivity.

There is nowhere else to begin from to see beyond perspective and subjectivity than the recognition of its implication. One cannot begin by forming the answers, only inspecting the instrument.

No, I'm saying that the content of quantum mechanics, or indeed of any other scientific theory, has no bearing on the philosophic understanding of the Totality. In other words, a person is perfectly capable of reaching a full understanding of the nature of the Totality, regardless of whether he studies quantum mechanics or not.

The Buddha's understanding of the Totality wasn't in any way diminished by his ignorance of quantum mechanics, nor can a person improve on the Buddha's understanding by studying quantum mechanics.

I am inclined to reject mere statements such as the quote above on sites like these, in discussions like this, and with people like yourself. They are words meant for yourself, and anyone else that wants to try to take a shortcut from questioning to calmness of certainty. They have no philosophical value, because philosophy is premised upon the need of the mind to question.

The quantum realm is confined to the realm of appearances. It presents an appearance to our minds and ultimately has no more substance than any other appearance. It is but a momentary illusion, among countless others.

The fact it is an illusion does not render it invalid, but means something.

Understanding the Totality doesn't requires us to affirm a particular appearance, nor does it require us to look for evidence or support within a particular appearance. Such an attempt is seriously misguided, as it negates the truth that the Totality can never form an appearance, even though it generates every appearance that we ever experience.

Im not looking for validation of the Totality within experience, but perhaps you are. If the Totality could not generate an appearance, we would not have a name for it, I would not be able to call it a "singularity" and Hubble would not be able to photograph its afterglow.

All you have done in this post is to go through my prior arguement to find points and concepts to fit into your philosophy of ignorance. Sure you can recognise its all there, and after being badgered will spout a post on the illusionary nature of everything to validate your ego, but you lack any form of coherence and consistency, utilising this arguementative flaw as a rhetorical weapon.

All you understand is the definition of the word everything. You don't know how to reconcile it with what you see. This is the single feature of our discussion together, and it is sad to see it end in this regression to nihilism and oblivion.

Do you know what the definition of reality is? The quality or state of being actual or true. It is not that appearances are illusions, but our interpretation of their relationships. If it is possible it exists, whatever it is, regardless of how we perceive it. What can you tell me about the "Totality"? That it is whole? That it is everything? That it cannot "appear" to an observer? You forget, or perhaps dont understand, that it is all around us, and can be viewed from within.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:What you appear to be saying here seems obvious to me, but that depends on exactly what you are trying to say. The point you are making isn't very clear.

Are you trying to say that everything is a matter of perspective? That all realities are shaped or determined by our perspective as observers? And if so, are you then saying there is no way we can access absolute truths that apply beyond our perspective as observers?

Every work of thought I have come across that attempts to deal with any of these questions clearly state that the perspective of an observer is the only place from which that subject can perceive.

Yes, that is obviously true.

It is not a question of whether everything is defined by perspective and subjectivity, but realising that perspective and subjectivity define perspective and subjectivity.

There is nowhere else to begin from to see beyond perspective and subjectivity than the recognition of its implication. One cannot begin by forming the answers, only inspecting the instrument.

You're still not being clear. Do you believe that knowledge is even possible, given that all attempts at gaining knowledge will necessarily rely on using the "instrument"? Even our inspections of the instrument can only come to naught, given that such inspections also rely on using the instrument.

There can be no knowledge of anything at all - is that your fundamental point of view?

Steven wrote:

No, I'm saying that the content of quantum mechanics, or indeed of any other scientific theory, has no bearing on the philosophic understanding of the Totality. In other words, a person is perfectly capable of reaching a full understanding of the nature of the Totality, regardless of whether he studies quantum mechanics or not.

The Buddha's understanding of the Totality wasn't in any way diminished by his ignorance of quantum mechanics, nor can a person improve on the Buddha's understanding by studying quantum mechanics.

I am inclined to reject mere statements such as the quote above on sites like these, in discussions like this, and with people like yourself. They are words meant for yourself, and anyone else that wants to try to take a shortcut from questioning to calmness of certainty. They have no philosophical value, because philosophy is premised upon the need of the mind to question.

On the contrary, they are an attempt to point to an amazing form of knowledge which can easily disturb the mind no end. But it is a form of knowledge which science cannot even begin to fathom.

You need to question your own premises on this, and not be so certain that philosophy has to be tied to science in order to function meaningfully.

Steven wrote:

Understanding the Totality doesn't requires us to affirm a particular appearance, nor does it require us to look for evidence or support within a particular appearance. Such an attempt is seriously misguided, as it negates the truth that the Totality can never form an appearance, even though it generates every appearance that we ever experience.

Im not looking for validation of the Totality within experience, but perhaps you are. If the Totality could not generate an appearance, we would not have a name for it, I would not be able to call it a "singularity" and Hubble would not be able to photograph its afterglow.

We can deduce its existence through the appearances that we do experience, but we cannot experience it directly as a form - the reason being that it has no form. Or if you like, its form is nothing other than the countless appearances that we experience.

Incidentally, I have to laugh at your description of Hubble photographing the Totality's "afterglow". Most amusing.

All you understand is the definition of the word everything. You don't know how to reconcile it with what you see. This is the single feature of our discussion together, and it is sad to see it end in this regression to nihilism and oblivion.

I have no problem reconciling the Totality with what I see. I think the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying about the formless nature of the Totality.

The Totality isn't something which is spread out like a fixed object in space and time. It doesn't objectively exist like a table or a chair, nor is it a singularity which long ago generated the universe as we know it. It is like a timeless intangible void and yet, at the same time, comprises utterly everything that exists. It is nothing, and yet everything.

A quantum probe will never uncover this great "nothingness". It is too present and immediate for such tools to be effective.

-

David Quinn wrote:There can be no knowledge of anything at all - is that your fundamental point of view?

David Quinn wrote:

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:What you appear to be saying here seems obvious to me, but that depends on exactly what you are trying to say. The point you are making isn't very clear.

Are you trying to say that everything is a matter of perspective? That all realities are shaped or determined by our perspective as observers? And if so, are you then saying there is no way we can access absolute truths that apply beyond our perspective as observers?

Every work of thought I have come across that attempts to deal with any of these questions clearly state that the perspective of an observer is the only place from which that subject can perceive.

Yes, that is obviously true.

Then you should slow down and read what it is I that am writing.

I think that I exist, insofar as what is observed and concluded to be an observed conclusion states that something observes and concludes I am observing, no matter the accuracy, factual truth, or premises allowing such state of which at this position there is no basis for contemplation.

This is the fundamental premise upon which all else stands, that something appears to observe and conclude, and rejection of which is beyond the scope of any validity for every mode of thought is premised upon acceptance of this perspective.

Cogito Ergo Sum. There is a reason why this ancient phrase is the foundation of metaphysics, above and beyond Platonic philosophy. That which thinks it is unable to reject it.

Irrespective of the factual basis of what may be apparitions and illusions, the instant that observation is concluded even upon false premises is instant the existence of the self becomes an a priori fact the observer and concluder, even if apparitions and illusions.

My existence is irrefutable to me and by me, and the end result even if illusionary and premised upon falsehoods becomes the basis for its own factual existence for it becomes what it thinks it is.

David Quinn wrote:

Steven wrote:It is not a question of whether everything is defined by perspective and subjectivity, but realising that perspective and subjectivity define perspective and subjectivity.

There is nowhere else to begin from to see beyond perspective and subjectivity than the recognition of its implication. One cannot begin by forming the answers, only inspecting the instrument.

You're still not being clear. Do you believe that knowledge is even possible, given that all attempts at gaining knowledge will necessarily rely on using the "instrument"? Even our inspections of the instrument can only come to naught, given that such inspections also rely on using the instrument.

There can be no knowledge of anything at all - is that your fundamental point of view?

There is knowledge only of that which you understand with absolute and irrefutable comprehension of precisely why and how it is. Thus while I state that one must begin with inspecting the instrument of perception and cognition, for it is the basis upon which perception and cognition are formed, you race along to your own finish line, refuting your own conclusion by thinking you refute mine through a statement positing knowledge premised upon the rejection of knowledge.

Validity of knowledge is a pyramidal structure due to the definitions of what is valid and invalid. The validity or invalidity of any philosophy, conclusion or idea rests upon the validity or invalidity of each and every detail upon which it is formed.

The "instrument" of perception and cognition is first and foremost an instrument of the analysis and synthesis of knowledge, "that which I know that cannot be otherwise", for it is the observation of conclusion that constitutes the a priori knowledge of self awareness. Which as I have already said cannot be refuted and brings about its own factual existence even if premised upon falsehoods.

The primary mechanism is reason upon comparison of conceptions and conclusions, for awareness is premised upon observation, observation upon differentiation, and differentiation upon order. The first knowledge reasoned by the "instrument of knowledge" after self awareness is that of ordering differences, not by choice but by inevitability, for without perception of differences there is no basis for awareness.

David Quinn wrote:

Steven wrote:

No, I'm saying that the content of quantum mechanics, or indeed of any other scientific theory, has no bearing on the philosophic understanding of the Totality. In other words, a person is perfectly capable of reaching a full understanding of the nature of the Totality, regardless of whether he studies quantum mechanics or not.

The Buddha's understanding of the Totality wasn't in any way diminished by his ignorance of quantum mechanics, nor can a person improve on the Buddha's understanding by studying quantum mechanics.

I am inclined to reject mere statements such as the quote above on sites like these, in discussions like this, and with people like yourself. They are words meant for yourself, and anyone else that wants to try to take a shortcut from questioning to calmness of certainty. They have no philosophical value, because philosophy is premised upon the need of the mind to question.

On the contrary, they are an attempt to point to an amazing form of knowledge which can easily disturb the mind no end. But it is a form of knowledge which science cannot even begin to fathom.

You need to question your own premises on this, and not be so certain that philosophy has to be tied to science in order to function meaningfully.

Knowledge is the product of the mind, and science and philosophy are the names given to how the mind approaches existence in search of knowledge. The value of either depends upon what is learned and understood by the mind, and no other concern is relevant.

David Quinn wrote:

Steven wrote:

Understanding the Totality doesn't requires us to affirm a particular appearance, nor does it require us to look for evidence or support within a particular appearance. Such an attempt is seriously misguided, as it negates the truth that the Totality can never form an appearance, even though it generates every appearance that we ever experience.

Im not looking for validation of the Totality within experience, but perhaps you are. If the Totality could not generate an appearance, we would not have a name for it, I would not be able to call it a "singularity" and Hubble would not be able to photograph its afterglow.

We can deduce its existence through the appearances that we do experience, but we cannot experience it directly as a form - the reason being that it has no form. Or if you like, its form is nothing other than the countless appearances that we experience.

Incidentally, I have to laugh at your description of Hubble photographing the Totality's "afterglow". Most amusing.

No doubt, but while you posit the "Timeless nature of the Totality" you dont apply a conceptual absence of Time to the Total of All. Nor do you understand what is explained by scientific observation and method when Time is removed from the descriptive framework.

You laugh because you fail to understand that this Universe is the Totality, which by definition is the Singularity that in a Timeless existence we no longer emerge from but are bounded by. The Totality is Everything and Timeless. You do not actually know what that means.

Welcome to the blackhole, David.

David Quinn wrote:

All you understand is the definition of the word everything. You don't know how to reconcile it with what you see. This is the single feature of our discussion together, and it is sad to see it end in this regression to nihilism and oblivion.

I have no problem reconciling the Totality with what I see. I think the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying about the formless nature of the Totality.

It is not that I don't understand, but that I disagree with you. The Form of the Totality is the most simple expression of the entirety of existence, and it contains every other Form.

David Quinn wrote: The Totality isn't something which is spread out like a fixed object in space and time. It doesn't objectively exist like a table or a chair, nor is it a singularity which long ago generated the universe as we know it.

Now now David we both know that "a singularity" did not long ago generate the Universe as we know it, because the Totality is Timeless. In the absence of Time Forms no longer originate from the point of their shared existence, but are bounded by their shared existence.

David Quinn wrote:It is like a timeless intangible void and yet, at the same time, comprises utterly everything that exists. It is nothing, and yet everything.

But you are positive it is not a singularity, because the singularity does not bound us in the absence of time, but is our point of origin in the presence of Time.

David Quinn wrote:A quantum probe will never uncover this great "nothingness". It is too present and immediate for such tools to be effective.

David, what are you describing? Remove Time from our Universe and then describe it.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Every work of thought I have come across that attempts to deal with any of these questions clearly state that the perspective of an observer is the only place from which that subject can perceive.

Yes, that is obviously true.

Then you should slow down and read what it is I that am writing.

I think that I exist, insofar as what is observed and concluded to be an observed conclusion states that something observes and concludes I am observing, no matter the accuracy, factual truth, or premises allowing such state of which at this position there is no basis for contemplation.

This is the fundamental premise upon which all else stands, that something appears to observe and conclude, and rejection of which is beyond the scope of any validity for every mode of thought is premised upon acceptance of this perspective.

Cogito Ergo Sum. There is a reason why this ancient phrase is the foundation of metaphysics, above and beyond Platonic philosophy. That which thinks it is unable to reject it.

Irrespective of the factual basis of what may be apparitions and illusions, the instant that observation is concluded even upon false premises is instant the existence of the self becomes an a priori fact the observer and concluder, even if apparitions and illusions.

My existence is irrefutable to me and by me, and the end result even if illusionary and premised upon falsehoods becomes the basis for its own factual existence for it becomes what it thinks it is.

Okay, good. You have uncovered something which you believe to be undeniably true and beyond the scope of relativity and sensual bias to undermine. I applaud that.

However, the existence of an "observer" can be challenged. It would depend on what you mean by an observer. Do you mean some kind of entity which observes? Or do you use the term more loosely to mean the simple act of observing?

It is conceivable that a computer will be able to observe in the future, even though there would be no specific entity inside it doing the observing.

My own undeniable truth in regards to this matter is that "experiences are happening/Reality is not nothing whatsoever".

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:You're still not being clear. Do you believe that knowledge is even possible, given that all attempts at gaining knowledge will necessarily rely on using the "instrument"? Even our inspections of the instrument can only come to naught, given that such inspections also rely on using the instrument.

There can be no knowledge of anything at all - is that your fundamental point of view?

There is knowledge only of that which you understand with absolute and irrefutable comprehension of precisely why and how it is. Thus while I state that one must begin with inspecting the instrument of perception and cognition, for it is the basis upon which perception and cognition are formed, you race along to your own finish line, refuting your own conclusion by thinking you refute mine through a statement positing knowledge premised upon the rejection of knowledge.

I'm merely trying to tease what you actually think, as your writing is often unclear.

Validity of knowledge is a pyramidal structure due to the definitions of what is valid and invalid. The validity or invalidity of any philosophy, conclusion or idea rests upon the validity or invalidity of each and every detail upon which it is formed.

The "instrument" of perception and cognition is first and foremost an instrument of the analysis and synthesis of knowledge, "that which I know that cannot be otherwise", for it is the observation of conclusion that constitutes the a priori knowledge of self awareness. Which as I have already said cannot be refuted and brings about its own factual existence even if premised upon falsehoods.

The primary mechanism is reason upon comparison of conceptions and conclusions, for awareness is premised upon observation, observation upon differentiation, and differentiation upon order. The first knowledge reasoned by the "instrument of knowledge" after self awareness is that of ordering differences, not by choice but by inevitability, for without perception of differences there is no basis for awareness.

Okay, so what is your next step after recognizing self-awareness?

Steven wrote:

On the contrary, they are an attempt to point to an amazing form of knowledge which can easily disturb the mind no end. But it is a form of knowledge which science cannot even begin to fathom.

You need to question your own premises on this, and not be so certain that philosophy has to be tied to science in order to function meaningfully.

Knowledge is the product of the mind, and science and philosophy are the names given to how the mind approaches existence in search of knowledge. The value of either depends upon what is learned and understood by the mind, and no other concern is relevant.

True, but at the same time science and philosophy are concerned with different areas of knowledge and their approaches are very different. The philosophic method isn't the scientific method, and vice versa.

Steven wrote:

We can deduce its existence through the appearances that we do experience, but we cannot experience it directly as a form - the reason being that it has no form. Or if you like, its form is nothing other than the countless appearances that we experience.

Incidentally, I have to laugh at your description of Hubble photographing the Totality's "afterglow". Most amusing.

No doubt, but while you posit the "Timeless nature of the Totality" you dont apply a conceptual absence of Time to the Total of All. Nor do you understand what is explained by scientific observation and method when Time is removed from the descriptive framework.

You laugh because you fail to understand that this Universe is the Totality, which by definition is the Singularity that in a Timeless existence we no longer emerge from but are bounded by. The Totality is Everything and Timeless. You do not actually know what that means.

Perhaps you should put more effort into explaining what you mean instead of telling me all the time how ignorant I am.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: I have no problem reconciling the Totality with what I see. I think the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying about the formless nature of the Totality.

It is not that I don't understand, but that I disagree with you. The Form of the Totality is the most simple expression of the entirety of existence, and it contains every other Form.

Right. And the simplest form of the Totality is formlessness.

The Totality couldn't generate any forms at all if it wasn't formless, just as countless water shapes couldn't be formed if water didn't have the somewhat formless nature that it does.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: The Totality isn't something which is spread out like a fixed object in space and time. It doesn't objectively exist like a table or a chair, nor is it a singularity which long ago generated the universe as we know it.

Now now David we both know that "a singularity" did not long ago generate the Universe as we know it, because the Totality is Timeless. In the absence of Time Forms no longer originate from the point of their shared existence, but are bounded by their shared existence.

You did talk about its afterglow, which implies that it occurred in the past.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: A quantum probe will never uncover this great "nothingness". It is too present and immediate for such tools to be effective.

David, what are you describing? Remove Time from our Universe and then describe it.

I already have.

-

Okay, good. You have uncovered something which you believe to be undeniably true and beyond the scope of relativity and sensual bias to undermine. I applaud that.

So claiming that a subject that thinks that he exists cannot refute Cogito Ergo Sum is a belief?

Is this a belief?

the perspective of an observer is the only place from which that subject can perceive

A conclusion that is necessarilly true when the premise is true is logic.

A belief is a conclusion that lacks a premise.

However, the existence of an "observer" can be challenged. It would depend on what you mean by an observer. Do you mean some kind of entity which observes? Or do you use the term more loosely to mean the simple act of observing?

What contitutes the observer is not a question that can be answered when dealing with the observation of conclusion of observation.

I was stating that if observation is concluded and conclusion observed, self awareness cannot be refuted.

It is conceivable that a computer will be able to observe in the future, even though there would be no specific entity inside it doing the observing.

A computer would require the ability to conclude, to observe conclusion, and to form new conclusions before it could become self aware. Talking about entities within that observe is speculating on what contitutes an observer.

My own undeniable truth in regards to this matter is that "experiences are happening/Reality is not nothing whatsoever".

I would refute the premise that experiences ARE happening in favour of the expressions "experiences appear to happen" or perhaps "I have the conclusion of the occurance of experience".

If we are to assume that observation et all may be illusions they we must be consistent, unless you have an arguement refuting the possibility that observation et all may be illusions.

Further you assume that what you see and what you think occur exactly like you think you see them and think you think them.

I would also posit the conclusion that I think therefore something must be.

Your first "undeniable truth" is the position I reject throughout this topic. Your second seems fair.

I'm merely trying to tease what you actually think, as your writing is often unclear.

Fingers pointing to the moon is not an excuse to avoid explaining your claims.

Okay, so what is your next step after recognizing self-awareness?

Puzzle for a while and then read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

True, but at the same time science and philosophy are concerned with different areas of knowledge and their approaches are very different. The philosophic method isn't the scientific method, and vice versa.

To get to the bones of the matter the only valid criticism of the scientific method is that it is based upon empirical data and therefore cannot be known directly whether it is valid or invalid, this however is premised upon rejecting the conceptions of the external world formed by concluding upon sense data, and you have already stated that "experiences are happening" and other such phrases, which means you do not reject what it is that you conclude you see.

Your specific arguement is that you do not need science to understand the Totality fully and that science cannot reveal the Totality. Science is a method of description of what we cannot directly see and unless you combine philosophy to science it is impossible to fully understand all that we do not see.

This is more respect than I have given any of your other "enlightenment arguements" and to appeal to the "fact" that you know you understand everything fully will see that end.

Perhaps you should put more effort into explaining what you mean instead of telling me all the time how ignorant I am.

Quite simply that when Time as a conception of motion is removed from the conception and perception of the Universe the Universe ceases to change, becomes apparently comprised of all possibly existing forms whose distinction is recognised across the distance now perceived instead of motion, within which all entities draw their form through their relationship to all other entities and to all other possible forms of themselves, and the Universe becomes bounded in all directions by what is the simplest form of everything literally encapsulating within it every other form of every other entity.

When time as a conception of motion is removed from the Universe, the singularity that is seen as our no longer existing origin becomes our existing boundary and existing form of simplest entirety. Each different form of possible existence, of possible entirety is laid out before us along the axis of distance we call Time, and as the distance between forms increases, so does their differences, and their similarity to the simplest form of all possible existence.

The Totality that you call now is only one possible form of all the possible forms of the Totality. It is within the simplest and most absolute Total Form of All Possible Existence that every other form of all that is possible exists, both distinct entities and all their possible variations.

The singularity that supposedly birthed our Universe bounds every possible form of our Universe, contains within it every possible form of our Universe and is the most absolute form of Everything by being the Form where everything is undifferentiated and containing within it every other possible form as well.

Right. And the simplest form of the Totality is formlessness.

No it is unity.

The Totality couldn't generate any forms at all if it wasn't formless, just as countless water shapes couldn't be formed if water didn't have the somewhat formless nature that it does.

The Totality doesnt generate forms for all that is possible already exists as a part of the Totality.

You did talk about its afterglow, which implies that it occurred in the past.

Did the afterglow contain everything the singularity did? Did it contain everything that has subsequently formed us?

It is a different form of everything that is possible.

I already have.

Does the Totality contain your first word? If change is real how can it?

Steven wrote:

Okay, good. You have uncovered something which you believe to be undeniably true and beyond the scope of relativity and sensual bias to undermine. I applaud that.

So claiming that a subject that thinks that he exists cannot refute Cogito Ergo Sum is a belief?

Is this a belief?

That there is a "thinker" who thinks is a belief - again, depending on what is meant by "thinker". We never experience or have first-hand knowledge that there is a thinker. All we ever experience first-hand are the thoughts that have been generated. The conclusion that there must be a thinker thinking these thoughts is, at best, an inference.

Steven wrote:

However, the existence of an "observer" can be challenged. It would depend on what you mean by an observer. Do you mean some kind of entity which observes? Or do you use the term more loosely to mean the simple act of observing?

What contitutes the observer is not a question that can be answered when dealing with the observation of conclusion of observation.
I was stating that if observation is concluded and conclusion observed, self awareness cannot be refuted.

Well, we can know for sure that there isn't really an "observer" or a "thinker" as such, by understanding that all things are generated by countless causes. We are essentially machines with no more soul or self than a computer.

Steven wrote:

It is conceivable that a computer will be able to observe in the future, even though there would be no specific entity inside it doing the observing.

A computer would require the ability to conclude, to observe conclusion, and to form new conclusions before it could become self aware. Talking about entities within that observe is speculating on what contitutes an observer.

As with anything else, whatever can be called an "observer" will always be a collection of processes that have arbitrarily been demarcated by our minds from the rest of the Nature

Steven wrote:

My own undeniable truth in regards to this matter is that "experiences are happening/Reality is not nothing whatsoever".

I would refute the premise that experiences ARE happening in favour of the expressions "experiences appear to happen" or perhaps "I have the conclusion of the occurance of experience".

Well, all we ever experience are appearances.

If we are to assume that observation et all may be illusions they we must be consistent, unless you have an arguement refuting the possibility that observation et all may be illusions.

What deluded people habitually project onto their experiences is illusory - for example, the projected belief that things objectively exist. For the person whose mind is undeluded, experiences are just what they are - neither real nor illusory.

Your first "undeniable truth" is the position I reject throughout this topic. Your second seems fair.

They are interrelated. That experiences are happening is sufficient proof that Reality is not nothing whatsoever. It is an irrefutable truth because it cannot be refuted without making use of an experience (such as a line of thought).

Steven wrote:

Okay, so what is your next step after recognizing self-awareness?

Puzzle for a while and then read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Oh, God no. You are a sadist. How about you just summarize your next move in a couple of paragraphs? I'm not interested in Kant's moves, just yours.

Steven wrote:

True, but at the same time science and philosophy are concerned with different areas of knowledge and their approaches are very different. The philosophic method isn't the scientific method, and vice versa.

To get to the bones of the matter the only valid criticism of the scientific method is that it is based upon empirical data and therefore cannot be known directly whether it is valid or invalid, this however is premised upon rejecting the conceptions of the external world formed by concluding upon sense data, and you have already stated that "experiences are happening" and other such phrases, which means you do not reject what it is that you conclude you see.

I don't have any problem with the scientific method as such. It is a perfectly valid tool for what its designed for. But I also recognize its limitations.

Your specific arguement is that you do not need science to understand the Totality fully and that science cannot reveal the Totality. Science is a method of description of what we cannot directly see and unless you combine philosophy to science it is impossible to fully understand all that we do not see.

Logic can see into areas where science and our own eyes cannot.

Steven wrote:

Perhaps you should put more effort into explaining what you mean instead of telling me all the time how ignorant I am.

Quite simply that when Time as a conception of motion is removed from the conception and perception of the Universe the Universe ceases to change, becomes apparently comprised of all possibly existing forms whose distinction is recognised across the distance now perceived instead of motion, within which all entities draw their form through their relationship to all other entities and to all other possible forms of themselves, and the Universe becomes bounded in all directions by what is the simplest form of everything literally encapsulating within it every other form of every other entity.

When time as a conception of motion is removed from the Universe, the singularity that is seen as our no longer existing origin becomes our existing boundary and existing form of simplest entirety. Each different form of possible existence, of possible entirety is laid out before us along the axis of distance we call Time, and as the distance between forms increases, so does their differences, and their similarity to the simplest form of all possible existence.

The Totality that you call now is only one possible form of all the possible forms of the Totality. It is within the simplest and most absolute Total Form of All Possible Existence that every other form of all that is possible exists, both distinct entities and all their possible variations.

The singularity that supposedly birthed our Universe bounds every possible form of our Universe, contains within it every possible form of our Universe and is the most absolute form of Everything by being the Form where everything is undifferentiated and containing within it every other possible form as well.

Okay, I'm not interested in this kind of thing. What you're essentially engaging in here is metaphysical modeling, which is still keeping your attention focused in the realm of appearances. The knowledge that I am speaking about goes beyond all metaphysical modeling, and beyond all appearances.

We are never going to meet half-way on this. I see your Totality as being a tiny slither of what I perceive as the Totality, as it is nothing more than an appearance in the moment, indeed just one appearance out of countless others. And it seems you see my Totality in the same way.

I used to engage in metaphysics a long time ago, but stopped when I saw that it can never achieve anything in a philosophic sense - although it might have some benefits to scientific understanding.

One thing you could answer, though, is how the above metaphysical model relates to your recognition of self-awareness. Where is the logical connection?

Steven wrote:

Right. And the simplest form of the Totality is formlessness.

No it is unity.

The formlessness of the Totality is a unity. It incorporates everything that exists into its being, with nothing left over.

Steven wrote:

The Totality couldn't generate any forms at all if it wasn't formless, just as countless water shapes couldn't be formed if water didn't have the somewhat formless nature that it does.

The Totality doesnt generate forms for all that is possible already exists as a part of the Totality.

That is certainly what appears to you in this moment.

Steven wrote:

I already have.

Does the Totality contain your first word? If change is real how can it?

It contains everything that exists - including changing processes and imagined static entities.

-

Kevin Solway wrote:

divine focus wrote:the masculine must be aware of the flow for there to be a recognition of this presence.

In my judgement women are not aware of the flow. If they were, they would be wise, and wouldn't find so much pleasure in shopping and accessories.

Women have no more of a tendency to be present than anything else; as people, they have as much of a tendency to not recognize this presence as men have. The only difference is that women focus more on the flowing aspect

Not in my experience they don't. As a rule, women don't focus on anything at all. Women flow in the same way that a river flows - completely unconsciously and wherever the environment dictates.

Could you not say that we "the masculine" are doing some sort of shopping too?

How many women would you estimate you observed to resolve to this conclusion about they're focus? I don't see women as not being able to comprehend or even follow in the same tracks as men do about the flow of life and what we call our conscience, of course they get distracted with vain objectiveness which gives them simple pleasure, but we cannot judge that to the truth of an extent unless we get a possible "biological" view of what it is like, otherwise saying you would experience it to know, simply put.

Relo wrote:Could you not say that we "the masculine" are doing some sort of shopping too?

Both men and women seek pleasure, but they do so in different ways. A man tends to seek greatness by creating a distance between himself and others - the distance of greatness. But women seek to merge with others. Shopping is a means of merging with the material world - which, to women, is a spiritual world.

How many women would you estimate you observed to resolve to this conclusion about they're focus?

Every woman I've ever experienced in my life.

Even those few women who appear to have masculine traits are a lot less masculine than they appear.

I don't see women as not being able to comprehend or even follow in the same tracks as men

When I see women becoming great philosophers and geniuses I'll believe that women can follow in the same tracks as men. I don't say it's impossible.

Relo wrote:I don't see women as not being able to comprehend or even follow in the same tracks as men

Of course they can. In the case of most men, there is no distinction between them and women.

So, are you a man or a woman and can you count the number of men you know on one hand?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Relo wrote:Could you not say that we "the masculine" are doing some sort of shopping too?

Both men and women seek pleasure, but they do so in different ways. A man tends to seek greatness by creating a distance between himself and others - the distance of greatness. But women seek to merge with others. Shopping is a means of merging with the material world - which, to women, is a spiritual world.

Well in a general sense of human males and females, I would say a better correlation that goes along with females and they're materialistic shopping would be the "male" way of buying cars or motorbikes to impress others around and a main factor in that is to appeal to females, as females would do somewhat the same to appeal to the opposite sex when we mention they're shopping.

I definitely agree with your statement about men wanting to seek greatness by creating and achieving distance from others, but I didn't feel that it was a fair comparison to females and they're shopping habits of enhancing they're so called physical features.

As of now I wouldn't really be able to come up with something that sits next to the masculine separation of greatness, but possibly them sharing in this trait alone could be a possibility, yet to be publicly seen as far as what comes to general knowledgeable terms when I think about it.