GENIUS FORUMS

chikoka wrote:It means dont depend on each other for existance. Since you cant prove any moment other than now exists , points of time can be humean. They dont have to correlate .

Are you saying the 'now' possibly came from nothing?

The very first thing we started of with.

You mean like the big bang theory?

Lim (x-> infinity) for 2/x = 0

Did your calculator tell you that?

What does the relation called S (for separation) take as a domain in order to produce things. S(x) -> thing. What is the thing called x in that relation? If it doesnt take anything then you are saying the totality is not related to the things that make it up.

The Infinite is not nothing.. as long as you hold onto this odd belief, this discussion goes nowhere. And I've never said or suggested the Totality is not related to the things of it. It is only you that is claiming some sort of unrelatedness in reality.

Why don't you try disputing my point that conscious perspectives define boundaries?

Russell wrote:chikoka wrote:
It means dont depend on each other for existance. Since you cant prove any moment other than now exists , points of time can be humean. They dont have to correlate .

Are you saying the 'now' possibly came from nothing?

Yes,
Could you prove otherwise?

Russell wrote:Quote:
The very first thing we started of with.

You mean like the big bang theory?

No.
If you were to trace where any thing arises from you would trace all the way to itself.

Russell wrote:Quote:
Lim (x-> infinity) for 2/x = 0

Did your calculator tell you that?

I take it you've never done a calculus class before.
This is a difinitive result that occurs on equations where both the sided limits exist and x is continuos over the function.
Trust me , its right.

Russell wrote:Quote:
What does the relation called S (for separation) take as a domain in order to produce things. S(x) -> thing. What is the thing called x in that relation? If it doesnt take anything then you are saying the totality is not related to the things that make it up.

The Infinite is not nothing.. as long as you hold onto this odd belief, this discussion goes nowhere. And I've never said or suggested the Totality is not related to the things of it. It is only you that is claiming some sort of unrelatedness in reality.

Dude! youre failing to keep up.
Let me use simple english.

You say the brain (consciousness) takes a part of the totality and calls it a thing. But before the brain can take that "part of the totality" that part has to exist. If the part didnt exist before consciousness took it , how could it have taken it?
that means that takes *parts* (things) of the totality and calls them things. So parts (things) exist prior before the brain can take them. If the brain doesnt take parts of the totality to make things.(takes things to make things). What would it take to make them?

chikoka wrote:Yes,
Could you prove otherwise?

Funny, it seems Hume thought differently:

Hume wrote:I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.

-source

I take it you've never done a calculus class before.
This is a difinitive result that occurs on equations where both the sided limits exist and x is continuos over the function.
Trust me , its right.

I was enrolled in AP calculus in high school (admittedly briefly, at the time I figured that much amount of home and school work was unnecessary as I knew I wouldn't attend college, so I changed classes). I'm aware that you're using mathematics to try and prove that infinity = 0; reminds me of the physics experiment to "prove that chair isn't there." Bottom line is, they are not the same thing by definition.

Let me use simple english.

Please do, I take you never took grammar and spelling class?

You say the brain (consciousness) takes a part of the totality and calls it a thing. But before the brain can take that "part of the totality" that part has to exist. If the part didnt exist before consciousness took it , how could it have taken it?
that means that takes *parts* (things) of the totality and calls them things. So parts (things) exist prior before the brain can take them. If the brain doesnt take parts of the totality to make things.(takes things to make things). What would it take to make them?

Consciousness doesn't "take" anything, it merely perceives that which is presented to it. Consciousness was designed by nature to perceive finite perspectives. The very fact that different perspectives change what the things are perceived means that that which is not perceived, is undefinable. There are no characteristics beyond perspective. All we can say of that which lays beyond our consciousness is that it is the Totality, not "things."

chikoka,

you're asking what is thought-worthy.
doesn't that imply motive and opportunity?

chikoka wrote: You say the brain (consciousness) takes a part of the totality and calls it a thing. But before the brain can take that "part of the totality" that part has to exist. If the part didnt exist before consciousness took it , how could it have taken it?
that means that takes *parts* (things) of the totality and calls them things. So parts (things) exist prior before the brain can take them. If the brain doesnt take parts of the totality to make things.(takes things to make things). What would it take to make them?

You should both understand, the brain has as much to do with your experience as your friends foot. It is not the source of your experience, it is not the interpreter or reflector of reality, it is of the same significance and existence as any other view of passing form, like the sky. Something seen, nothing more.

seeker,

You should both understand, the brain has as much to do with your experience as your friends foot. It is not the source of your experience, it is not the interpreter or reflector of reality, it is of the same significance and existence as any other view of passing form, like the sky. Something seen, nothing more.

In respect to that Johnno,
chikoka is correctly saying,
to support that requires an infinite regress of justifiers therefore it isn't thought-worthy as explication.

insert standard reply:
you'se are talkin' about nuthin'.

Chikoka was making a point directed at Russel which I wasn't commenting on the accuracy of, I was commenting on the use of "the brain (consciousness)" as if those two are equated or as if the brain is the source of consciousness.

check the conditon of the condition you're in.

the sensorium is housed.

It's a big move for a sensorium to cognite its existence as conditional.

most likely a move unavailable to a sparrow or alligator.

once the big move is made a coherent structure of explication is necessary

Dennis Mahar wrote:
the sensorium is housed.
y

Assertion.

One such assertion is effectively making a thousand others whether aware of it or not. All thousand being completely unfounded.

One such assertion is effectively making a thousand others whether aware of it or not. All thousand being completely unfounded.

assertion.

Russell wrote:Funny, it seems Hume thought differently:

I never said that that was what hume thought. i used a concept of his "humean substances" to prove a concept of mine. That a thing can arise without cause.Even the word arise is misleading as it implies a process and hence time .We are talking of time not in time.

Russell wrote:I was enrolled in AP calculus in high school (admittedly briefly, at the time I figured that much amount of home and school work was unnecessary as I knew I wouldn't attend college, so I changed classes). I'm aware that you're using mathematics to try and prove that infinity = 0; reminds me of the physics experiment to "prove that chair isn't there." Bottom line is, they are not the same thing by definition.

I never ever said infinity = 0. I said anything divided by infinity = 0, and infinity divided by anything = infinity.

The limit of any proportionality of the universe , i.e. dividing something infinite , gives you infinity still. You cannot properly divide the infinite.

Look at dividing as sharing. If you had an infinite amount of money and were to share it among 5 people. Clearly they would each have an infinite amount of money since as you distribute it the amount you are distributing never ends.
Simmilarly as you are dividing the universe (totality) into things ,you would not end the process of dividing (or establishing boundaries) it.

Russell wrote:Quote:
Let me use simple English.

Please do, I take you never took grammar and spelling class?

:) lol

Russell wrote:Consciousness doesn't "take" anything, it merely perceives that which is presented to it. Consciousness was designed by nature to perceive finite perspectives. The very fact that different perspectives change what the things are perceived means that that which is not perceived, is undefinable. There are no characteristics beyond perspective. All we can say of that which lays beyond our consciousness is that it is the Totality, not "things."

"Take" means the actual process of perceiving a finite perspective. Say what you believe is that the totality (somehow) presents itself to consciousness. Then consciousness carves it up into things. I believe that you believe that that is the proper situation.

So the consciousness carves up that which is presented into things , right?
If that which is presented to consciousness is infinite then , as i explained, you can not carve it up (divide it) into anything finite else, as i explained above, you would never reach a position where you have a finite amount of things. Either you do have a finite amount of things , but then they are all infinite ,or, you have an infinite amount of finite things. Which do you choose?

Dennis Mahar wrote: insert standard reply:
you'se are talkin' about nuthin'.

Are you trying to be racist?

^ you joking chikoka? Anyway he was directing that at me.

Dennis Mahar wrote:
assertion.

Ok maybe, but it's not an assertion to say you made at least one, "housed".

Where is 'housed'? Where is the beginning? Where is '2/x = 0'?

This is IT.
It is what it is and it isn't what it isn't.
This is ultimate reality.
Its how it turned out.

when you leave the house to catch a bus the sensorium goes on the bus and doesn't stay back at the house.

the distinction is there's no I-me-mine about it despite appearances.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:^ you joking chikoka? Anyway he was directing that at me.

Sorry..i wasnt sure.

chikoka wrote:I never said that that was what hume thought. i used a concept of his "humean substances" to prove a concept of mine. That a thing can arise without cause.Even the word arise is misleading as it implies a process and hence time .We are talking of time not in time.

I'm not sure why Hume would come up with such a concept if he didn't believe that something could arise without a cause.. Do you have any examples of something coming out of/from nothing?

The limit of any proportionality of the universe , i.e. dividing something infinite , gives you infinity still. You cannot properly divide the infinite.

Good point, it's funny to see scientists look for a "master formula" for the universe, as if their finite calculations can account for an infinite universe.

Look at dividing as sharing. If you had an infinite amount of money and were to share it among 5 people. Clearly they would each have an infinite amount of money since as you distribute it the amount you are distributing never ends.
Simmilarly as you are dividing the universe (totality) into things ,you would not end the process of dividing (or establishing boundaries) it.

No argument here. The boundaries we perceive are the boundaries that we are caused to perceive.

"Take" means the actual process of perceiving a finite perspective. Say what you believe is that the totality (somehow) presents itself to consciousness. Then consciousness carves it up into things. I believe that you believe that that is the proper situation.

So the consciousness carves up that which is presented into things , right?
If that which is presented to consciousness is infinite then , as i explained, you can not carve it up (divide it) into anything finite else, as i explained above, you would never reach a position where you have a finite amount of things. Either you do have a finite amount of things , but then they are all infinite ,or, you have an infinite amount of finite things. Which do you choose?

Ultimately, there is only the Infinite, therefore the boundaries perceived by consciousness are ultimately illusory. Since boundaries (characteristics) are what make up 'things', that means that all things are 'illusions of staticness' so to speak, including consciousness. Furthermore, causation is the doer of all things, not any of the things themselves (no free will).

Interestingly, Hume argued for the compatibility of free will and determinism. I don't think 'compatibilism' is completely accurate though. It seems more logical to me that 'Liberty' (his word for free will) is an illusion out of 'necessity' (determinism).

Dennis Mahar wrote:This is IT.
It is what it is and it isn't what it isn't.
This is ultimate reality.
Its how it turned out.

when you leave the house to catch a bus the sensorium goes on the bus and doesn't stay back at the house.

Sounds like me to start. This is definitely it, not something else.

Yet you've confused it,this "sensorium" isn't part of a house moving about. The
appearances are changing, seeing bus to home passing by like a thought. That's the fact of it, it presents itself as sounds, imaginations, images, feelings arising and fading. That is IT, the ultimate nature, the fundamental, all else being manifestations of this,, and if not, what else is there?

Russell wrote:I'm not sure why Hume would come up with such a concept if he didn't believe that something could arise without a cause.. Do you have any examples of something coming out of/from nothing?

I asked you before , can you prove that any other moment other than "now" has ever, will ever , exist.

I said:

chikoka wrote:The limit of any proportionality of the universe , i.e. dividing something infinite , gives you infinity still. You cannot properly divide the infinite

Then you said:

Russell wrote:Good point

So how does consciousness do it? (properly divide the infinite into finite things)

chikoka wrote:I asked you before , can you prove that any other moment other than "now" has ever, will ever , exist.

"Now" is merely a concept that cannot exist without the concepts of past and future, i.e., ever-flowing time.

I said:

chikoka wrote:The limit of any proportionality of the universe , i.e. dividing something infinite , gives you infinity still. You cannot properly divide the infinite

Then you said:

Russell wrote:Good point

So how does consciousness do it? (properly divide the infinite into finite things)

It doesn't. It certainly seems to do so, but this is an illusion.

Russell wrote:"Now" is merely a concept that cannot exist without the concepts of past and future

I said a proof, not a statement .

Russell wrote:It doesn't. It certainly seems to do so, but this is an illusion.
Post

Is the illusion that it does so (carve up reality), or is the illusion the "things" that are carved up.

chikoka wrote:I said a proof, not a statement .

The proof is in the statement.

Of course there is only one "now", but there is no "now" without that which comprises of "now" (i.e., the flow of time). Otherwise, "now" is meaningless. Further, "time", and any segment of it, is just a measurement of change; there is no time without causation.

You're basically asking a trick question. You can't completely isolate a moment in time while also taking away everything that comprises the concept of time, without rendering it meaningless. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this :)

In fact, Hume says something similar to this (regarding 'necessity') in the link I provided, which makes me wonder if you're misinterpreting his concepts.

Is the illusion that it does so (carve up reality), or is the illusion the "things" that are carved up.

Both.. again, all things are illusory, including consciousness and its perceived boundaries. Anything defined/taken/carved in the Infinite is ultimately illusory, as you alluded to with your example of the infinite money split 5 ways. Dividing the Infinite into finites can't be done in any ultimately meaningful way, so anytime it appears to have been done, rest assured it is just a mirage of Nature.

seeker,

This is definitely it, not something else.

Watching a movie you can see how it is completely dependent on a myriad array of causes/conditions.
It is none of those causes/conditions either individually or collectively and yet if one of those causes/conditions is removed it disappears.
Not a single hair on a head is out of place.
The players have a motive and opportunity.
All the worlds a stage.
Provided the necessary causes/conditions are so it will come into being.

It looks and feels dangerous.
It's peaceful.

Russell wrote:

Ultimately, there is only the Infinite, therefore the boundaries perceived by consciousness are ultimately illusory. Since boundaries (characteristics) are what make up 'things', that means that all things are 'illusions of staticness' so to speak, including consciousness.

In other words, things themselves are not illusory -- they are necessarily real ; permanence is illusory. If that was not so, this could not possibly follow:

Furthermore, causation is the doer of all things, not any of the things themselves (no free will).

So many people confuse this. All things lack inherent existence is not the same as things don't exist.

Really, you just need a functioning brain and a dictionary.

So many people confuse this. All things lack inherent existence is not the same as things don't exist.

exactly.

Dennis Mahar wrote: Watching a movie you can see how it is completely dependent on a myriad array of causes/conditions.
It is none of those causes/conditions either individually or collectively and yet if one of those causes/conditions is removed it disappears.
Not a single hair on a head is out of place.
The players have a motive and opportunity.
All the worlds a stage.
Provided the necessary causes/conditions are so it will come into being.

You've spent too much time focused on the show, saying to cease such immersion is a useless experience, you've forgotten that the stage is where it's all happening.

The stage never goes anywhere and is the fundamental.
Try getting rid of it, try or a million million years, when you fail, explain to me how it's caused.
So far you've only been pointing at parts of the show as if they are relevant to the nature of our existence.

You also believe far too heavily in a fleeting show of knowledge, for example, I bet you wrote 'movie' and thought of the myriad conditions such as the wires, the light, the people who created it, spanning out forever.

Using imaginations to justify why there's a dream-like experience appearing.
The only thing that's there is the sight, the object does not exist independently of what is seen, it is not dependent on all the people or events that you think made it come about for you to watch, it is not a reflection emanating from your house, none of these exist as anything more than things seen, not the body, not the brain, not the whole universe.

You are referring to a hundred thousand views all appearing from the void that is existence,
trying to use those particulars of experience to say the experience itself is caused. It is simply what is.

You're never going to get it while you think you know about it.

Just realize you see a body and then think reflector,organs,brain,past,conditions,parents like an idiot day dreaming.
Yet all that's actually there for you is a sight.

Tell me, do you see a person half asleep and think organs,brain,bones,blood,parents?
Why not? Why do you draw a distinction between appearances?