GENIUS FORUMS

Laird: we still haven't even validated our primary assumption yet.

Kevin: You can't validate logic, as the only way you could do it is with logic itself.

So how then can you prove that logic applies everywhere?

Laird: Empirical things trump logic.

Kevin: Where is your proof?

You forget that I don't believe in ultimate proofs as you do - I'm simply calling it as I see it - so it's not up to me to provide a proof, but since you do believe in ultimate proofs, it is incumbent upon you to prove that logic trumps empiricism.

Laird: You have no premises prior to this one: this is your starting premise.

Kevin: I begin with A=A.

That's not a premise, it's a symbolic representation of the notion of identity.

Laird: "A=A" is identification, not logic.

Kevin: Simply repeating something doesn't make it so.

If only you'd learn that lesson. But I'm not simply repeating it, I've also brought in a dictionary definition that shows that there is more to logic than just identification.

Laird: dictionary.com, whose first definition of "logic" is: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."

Kevin: That is a specialized use of the term "logic".

"Science" is a system of knowledge, but the logic I am speaking of is not a system of knowledge. It is the basis of knowledge itself.

Sure, logic can also be, as per dictionary.com's fourth definition: "reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions", or per its fifth definition: "convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness". It seems that you're thinking more of the fifth definition when you talk of logic.

Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding boundaries, you should consider this: If it were possible for there to be a boundary with only one side then what you would have is a self-existent thing - that is, an independently existent thing. Do you not see how this is impossible?

Your Totality is exactly that: an independently existent "block".

Kevin Solway wrote:Deep down you are trying to justify the existence of your ego. If it is possible for there to be a self-existent universe, then it is possible for there to be a self-existent ego.

That's an interesting idea but I don't think that it's true.

Personally I'm finding this debate quite interesting.In my view Laird is putting up a pretty decent battle.

However Laird..

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding boundaries, you should consider this: If it were possible for there to be a boundary with only one side then what you would have is a self-existent thing - that is, an independently existent thing. Do you not see how this is impossible?

Your Totality is exactly that: an independently existent "block".

I can't say I've ever seen any Q,S or R ever say anything other than "the Totality encompasses literally everything"

No independent existent 'block'.But rather All

.

Ataraxia wrote:Personally I'm finding this debate quite interesting.In my view Laird is putting up a pretty decent battle.

I'm glad you're finding it interesting and thanks for the kind words.

Ataraxia wrote:I can't say I've ever seen any Q,S or R ever say anything other than "the Totality encompasses literally everything"

No independent existent 'block'.But rather All

In the second post on page eight of this thread, Kevin writes "Since God is everything, by definition, everything is contained in God - not only as individualised items, but also as a single block." [italics Kevin's] And we all know that God and the Totality are equivalent by Kevin's reckoning. So much for justifying "block". How about "independently existent"? Well, it encompasses everything and there is nothing outside of it, so it is not dependent on anything, so it is independent. And that it exists is self-evident, we might even say that not only does it exist, but it is existence itself. So: the Totality is an "independently existent block".

Ataraxia wrote:Personally I'm finding this debate quite interesting.In my view Laird is putting up a pretty decent battle.

I'm finding this debate quite tedious because Kevin just continually dodges Laird's points to try and take it off topic. Respect for Laird spending the time to go back and keep asking the questions.

Laird wrote: I guess sometimes it takes me a bit of engagement to work out exactly what I find wrong with what's being put to me, so sometimes I don't quite hit the mark on the first attempt.

That is so evident. Instead of taking the time to think things through, to clarify both your own views and the views of whom you are speaking with, you sort of just spew out whatever is on your mind in the hope that something will stick. That is your idea of "thinking".

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I consider it very disrespectful to treat people like this. It is like getting drunk and expecting people to put with one's boorish yahooing.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:You are still fixated on the finger and ignoring where it is pointing. Everything in the book is the finger pointing. The wisdom to which it is pointing can't be found in the book, just as it can't be found in any book.

The finger is crooked. The crucial arguments of the book are poor.

You have no understanding of them. The finger couldn't be any straighter if it tried.

How can I trust where the finger is pointing when it can't even point straight? If the wisdom can't be found in the book, then why does the title of the book contain the word "Wisdom"?

Think about it, Laird. Just for a change.

Laird wrote:

David: As it happens, they can no more be proven false than 1+1=2 can, but again, such things don't really mean anything to me nowadays.

Laird: Oh, just like having other people know that you believe that you're enlightened "doesn't really mean anything to [you] nowadays". Sure, sure. Just like Paul McDermott doesn't care that he's famous, no doubt.

David: It might be true that he doesn't care.

Yeah, just like it might be true that you don't care.

Where is the argument here? Where is the substance? It's just another case of blindly throwing mud at something and hoping it sticks.

Poor Dave Toast has recently copped it. Who's next, I wonder?

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The trouble is, we can't have both an earliest point and an infinite past at the same time. If an earliest point exists, then the time between that point and the present will be finite. If time extends infinitely into the past, then there can be no earliest point. It's either one or the other, not both.

Since your argument demands both, it is incoherent.

I'll try to state it in a way that you might be able to grasp then:

The "present moment" must have travelled all the way from the infinite past to where we are now. This requires travelling over an infinite amount of time, which you agree is impossible. QED.

Again, you can't apply that argument here. The beginningless past lacks the structure of a starting point and a reaching for something infinitely into the future, which is what your argument is trying to present. I can understand why you want to apply the argument and why you think it seems natural to do so, but it can't be done without invoking constructs that are meaningless and contrived.

-

Laird wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:Personally I'm finding this debate quite interesting.In my view Laird is putting up a pretty decent battle.

I'm glad you're finding it interesting and thanks for the kind words.

Ataraxia wrote:I can't say I've ever seen any Q,S or R ever say anything other than "the Totality encompasses literally everything"

No independent existent 'block'.But rather All

In the second post on page eight of this thread, Kevin writes "Since God is everything, by definition, everything is contained in God - not only as individualised items, but also as a single block." [italics Kevin's]

Kevin used the term metaphorically, you silly sausage. To indicate the interconnectedness and deterministic nature of all things. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to focus on.

Is there anything ticking upstairs there at all?

-

...

Laird: I guess sometimes it takes me a bit of engagement to work out exactly what I find wrong with what's being put to me, so sometimes I don't quite hit the mark on the first attempt.

David: That is so evident. Instead of taking the time to think things through, to clarify both your own views and the views of whom you are speaking with, you sort of just spew out whatever is on your mind in the hope that something will stick. That is your idea of "thinking".

Nah, David, I wouldn't go that far. I definitely take the time to think things through and to clarify both viewpoints but I'm not perfect and occasionally my argument will slightly miss the mark - that's all that I'm saying.

Laird: How can I trust where the finger is pointing when it can't even point straight? If the wisdom can't be found in the book, then why does the title of the book contain the word "Wisdom"?

David: Think about it, Laird. Just for a change.

Hmm, OK then, let me try and guess what you would say if you were to answer the question rather than to throw it back at me. Perhaps something like "The Wisdom is arrived at through personal reflection upon the book's contents, even though it is not contained directly in the book's contents." Anywhere close?

David: As it happens, they can no more be proven false than 1+1=2 can, but again, such things don't really mean anything to me nowadays.

Laird: Oh, just like having other people know that you believe that you're enlightened "doesn't really mean anything to [you] nowadays". Sure, sure. Just like Paul McDermott doesn't care that he's famous, no doubt.

David: It might be true that he doesn't care.

Laird: Yeah, just like it might be true that you don't care.

David: Where is the argument here? Where is the substance? It's just another case of blindly throwing mud at something and hoping it sticks.

Not blindly. I have seen plenty of your posts to GF and heard enough of your podcasts to have formed some idea of your character, just as you have probably seen enough of my posts to have judged some of mine. If you want argument, then what I'm suggesting is that your spiel about pointing the finger to wisdom - supposedly acting purely for the benefit of others - is at least in part an assuaging of the desires of your own ego to be recognised as important and significant. And yes, as in all things I might be wrong, but that's the impression that I get.

David Quinn wrote:Poor Dave Toast has recently copped it.

Dave argued against me in support of QRS philosophy. He then engaged in a little back-and-forth with Kevin that suggested that he supported Kevin's ideas if not his approach. It's reasonable to conclude from those to actions that Dave supports QRS. I have no regret in making that claim. The only regret that I have is the strength with which I made it: it's entirely possible that he is after all, as James has asserted, his own man, and agrees with QRS in some respects whilst disagreeing in others. But I'd prefer that the man to speak for himself.

Laird: The "present moment" must have travelled all the way from the infinite past to where we are now. This requires travelling over an infinite amount of time, which you agree is impossible. QED.

David: Again, you can't apply that argument here. The beginningless past lacks the structure of a starting point

I'm not invoking a starting point, I'm invoking the infinite past.

David Quinn wrote:... and a reaching for something infinitely into the future, which is what your argument is trying to present.

The nature of the passage of time means that it is inherently "reaching for something". As for "infinitely into the future" - yeah, we both agree that it's impossible to achieve, which is what hammers the nail into the coffin of the notion of a beginningless past.

David Quinn wrote:Kevin used the term ["block"] metaphorically, you silly sausage. To indicate the interconnectedness and deterministic nature of all things. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to focus on.

However he used it, it's apt. You believe that the Totality is fixed and deterministic: block-like i.e. thing-like.

David Quinn wrote:Is there anything ticking upstairs there at all?

Oooo, getting personal now. You're but a brief step away from calling all of your opponents "idiots". I'll push you there yet.

xerox wrote:Debate is another beast entirely. Its competitive reasoning driven by logical rationalisation. Its flawed from the outset as the competitive, relativistic bent of right versus wrong or my position versus yours is essentially ego driven.

Just because debate is competitive doesn't mean that it can't uncover important ideas. Sometimes it's only when we are faced with powerful opposition that we arrive at our most potent conceptualisations.

xerox wrote:There's a lot of ego projection and psychological bashing under the guise of reasoned logic in this forum. It sufers as a consequence [...]

Agreed, although it can be entertaining.

xerox wrote:That aside, what about the idea that logic and reason are themselves illusions.

I don't agree with that any more than I agree with the idea that reality or the self are illusions.

Laird wrote:

Laird: The "present moment" must have travelled all the way from the infinite past to where we are now. This requires travelling over an infinite amount of time, which you agree is impossible. QED.

David: Again, you can't apply that argument here. The beginningless past lacks the structure of a starting point

I'm not invoking a starting point, I'm invoking the infinite past.

You are implicitly invoking a starting point by trying to equate the infinite past with that of moving forwards from a starting point to an infinite future. The two might seem similar on the surface, but in reality they are worlds apart.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:... and a reaching for something infinitely into the future, which is what your argument is trying to present.

The nature of the passage of time means that it is inherently "reaching for something". As for "infinitely into the future" - yeah, we both agree that it's impossible to achieve, which is what hammers the nail into the coffin of the notion of a beginningless past.

The present doesn't have to be "reached for". It is already here, and always has been.

DQ: Kevin used the term ["block"] metaphorically, you silly sausage. To indicate the interconnectedness and deterministic nature of all things. It has nothing to do with what you are trying to focus on.

Laird: However he used it, it's apt. You believe that the Totality is fixed and deterministic: block-like i.e. thing-like.

The things within the Totality are certainly deterministic, but the same can't be said of the Totality itself. This is because there is nothing beyond the Totality that could act as a determining influence.

-

Quinn, you are explosive. Registering consciousness-

=)

Laird wrote:I don't see the contradiction. Would you be so kind as to point it out for me?

I’ll try!

But secondly: you don't get it - I really don't care what the official definition of a boundary is. For a start, I'm as free as Kevin is to come up with my own, which I've already done and which doesn't imply two sides. But more to the point: not one of us can know whether ultimately reality conforms to your (and Kevin's) definition or to mine, and to say that either of them is logically correct - or however you want to phrase it - is meaningless without empirical evidence. For all that we know the universe has an ultimate finite boundary that has nothing on the other side of it.

I never have run up against a boundary that doesn't have something on the other side of it, but I'm not inferring anything from an arbitrary definition, I'm simply failing to build that assumption into my definition. I'm leaving open the possibility that there is an ultimate boundary that isn't comprised of two sides. I don't know whether there is or isn't, but either way, that's not going to change based my arbitrary definition - it's going to be the case regardless of my definition.

Since the two-sided definition conforms even to your own experience of boundaries (comprising, therefore, empirical evidence for the definition “boundary”) it’s meaningless to leave open the possibility of an “ultimate” boundary that isn’t comprised of two sides, by your own standards. So, in fact, a two-sided boundary speaks more meaningfully than you by those same standards as such an “assumption” is based directly on empirical evidence.

You must be prepared to wait for infinity for someone to reach a one-sided boundary of “the universe,” especially since every scientific effort we have made so far seems only to reveal more and more of the universe there, and that which we do discover has always been a question of relative forms, i.e., boundedness.

If you were to somehow get to this one-sided edge of the universe, how would you know that it was an edge without being able to conceive of the something you might call nothing beyond it?

Presently, I’m thinking of being inside a sphere, for example. Now, if I scrambled round and round in circles at the edge of this sphere, how could the thought or idea that it was the one-sided edge/limit/“finite boundary” of the universe even arise without the notion of “two-sided boundaries”?

Why would it be meaningful to call it a boundary when all empirical evidence, every boundary we have experienced and therefore called a boundary has both by definition and demonstrably shown that all boundaries have two sides?

If we were to suddenly get to the “edge of the universe” how could we possibly realise it as such--by peering into “nothing”, physically disintegrating, conceiving of nothing there from this one side of the universal “brick wall”?

I mean, it’s one thing to imagine absolute nothing. Quite another to experience it, I think. Have you ever done that?

Laird wrote:So how then can you prove that logic applies everywhere?

If a place is somewhere then it has an identity, and if it has an identity then logic is already in operation and applies.

Laird: Empirical things trump logic.

Kevin: Where is your proof?

You forget that I don't believe in ultimate proofs.

But you don't even provide empirical evidence!

In other words all you do is speculate. Therefore you should make sure that everything you say is couched in a speculative tone, so that it doesn't sound like you actually know something when in fact you are only speculating.

For example, when you think that something might be possible, you should say, "I think I believe that it is possible that such-and-such might be possible."

I begin with A=A.

That's not a premise, it's a symbolic representation of the notion of identity.

Once again, you mistake the finger for the moon.

Regarding the definition of logic. Look up "Informal logic" or "Non-formal" logic in Wikipedia. At least it will let you know that there are other forms of logic than formal logic. Or read the chapters on logic in Weininger's "Sex and Character".

It should be noted that both formal and informal logic are very recent creations of Western academia. But logic itself has been around a lot longer than Western academia.

That which is called "formal logic" is actually a system of logic, rather than logic itself.

Dictionaries are a record of definitions currently popular with fools.

Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding boundaries, you should consider this: If it were possible for there to be a boundary with only one side then what you would have is a self-existent thing - that is, an independently existent thing. Do you not see how this is impossible?

Your Totality is exactly that: an independently existent "block".

Since the Totality is defined specifically not to have a boundary, then it cannot possibly have a boundary with only one side.

Laird: Anyway Dave, you've made your allegiance plain: you're a QRS man through and through, albeit one with an advanced vocabulary.

Dave: This is so revealing mate. And it marks the end of our conversation. I don't have the patience nor the inclination of my benevolent idols.

Laird: I'm sorry if I have offended you Dave

You haven't.

Laird: but I simply wanted to point out that you seem to have allied yourself with folks whose reasoning I hold to be suspect to say the least and that that allegiance (error of judgment IMO) is going to necessarily taint you in my eyes (because IMO your judgment is lacking).

Hows about just reading my words and responding to them on their merits?

Jim: Dave Toast is his own man (as is Dave Hodges). He is no follower, no poor learner of QRS teachings.

Laird: I may have misjudged him then.

Hows about not judging me, just judging my words on the subject at hand?

DQ: Where is the argument here? Where is the substance? It's just another case of blindly throwing mud at something and hoping it sticks.

Poor Dave Toast has recently copped it. Who's next, I wonder?

Laird: Dave argued against me in support of QRS philosophy. He then engaged in a little back-and-forth with Kevin that suggested that he supported Kevin's ideas if not his approach. It's reasonable to conclude from those to actions that Dave supports QRS. I have no regret in making that claim. The only regret that I have is the strength with which I made it: it's entirely possible that he is after all, as James has asserted, his own man, and agrees with QRS in some respects whilst disagreeing in others. But I'd prefer that the man to speak for himself.

Nobody's got it. It has nothing to do with my being tarred with any brush or my feelings about that. The statement was revealing in that it betrayed the true motivation for Laird's part in our discourse and the way he approached it. As such, I had no desire to take any further part in said discourse, not having the patience nor the inclination to bang my head against the brick wall of anything other than the untainted and earnest exchange and testing of one another's statements.

Leyla Shen wrote:Since the two-sided definition conforms even to your own experience of boundaries (comprising, therefore, empirical evidence for the definition “boundary”) it’s meaningless to leave open the possibility of an “ultimate” boundary that isn’t comprised of two sides, by your own standards. So, in fact, a two-sided boundary speaks more meaningfully than you by those same standards as such an “assumption” is based directly on empirical evidence.

You must be prepared to wait for infinity for someone to reach a one-sided boundary of “the universe,” especially since every scientific effort we have made so far seems only to reveal more and more of the universe there, and that which we do discover has always been a question of relative forms, i.e., boundedness.

If you were to somehow get to this one-sided edge of the universe, how would you know that it was an edge without being able to conceive of the something you might call nothing beyond it?

Presently, I’m thinking of being inside a sphere, for example. Now, if I scrambled round and round in circles at the edge of this sphere, how could the thought or idea that it was the one-sided edge/limit/“finite boundary” of the universe even arise without the notion of “two-sided boundaries”?

Why would it be meaningful to call it a boundary when all empirical evidence, every boundary we have experienced and therefore called a boundary has both by definition and demonstrably shown that all boundaries have two sides?

If we were to suddenly get to the “edge of the universe” how could we possibly realise it as such--by peering into “nothing”, physically disintegrating, conceiving of nothing there from this one side of the universal “brick wall”?

I mean, it’s one thing to imagine absolute nothing. Quite another to experience it, I think. Have you ever done that?

Metaphysics is useless because that we on earth experience "boundaries" as having something on either side says nothing as to whether there can be some sort of "one-sided boundary" elsewhere. Who knows, maybe you turn into a magical unicorn when you peer off this "boundary". Frankly not something I'm going to speculate on because it is completely meaningless, and it is doubtful that our terminology could even describe other worlds, let alone that all words are bounded by our terminology.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Metaphysics is useless because that we on earth experience "boundaries" as having something on either side says nothing as to whether there can be some sort of "one-sided boundary" elsewhere.

Where is your proof?

Neil Melnyk wrote:Metaphysics is useless because that we on earth experience "boundaries" as having something on either side says nothing as to whether there can be some sort of "one-sided boundary" elsewhere. Who knows, maybe you turn into a magical unicorn when you peer off this "boundary". Frankly not something I'm going to speculate on because it is completely meaningless, and it is doubtful that our terminology could even describe other worlds, let alone that all words are bounded by our terminology.

I don’t know much about the uselessness of metaphysics, but I do believe that at lease there has to be nothing on the other side of this “one-sided-boundary”, and that that could extend infinitely, and if one means absolutely all that there is by ‘totality’, then that nothingness would be included too. So where exactly do we stand?

However, if one is referring to totality (absolutely all that there is itself- space, time and all possible dimensions included), then neither timelessness or otherwise, neither infinite nor finite, neither boundedness nor unboundedness applies to totality, since it is all-inclusive, which makes IT not any particular thing, hence is actually… humm… nothing really. Saying it is not-nothing-whatsoever, still makes it an IT, and describing IT as not-nothing-whatsoever is still a description of something that is not-nothing-whatsoever.

IMO, not even the word “totality” makes sense when referring to the absolutely all, let alone “God”, but we MUST have a ONE Absolute God by default-of-ego-demand, so if nothing else fits the bill for some, then ‘totality’ satisfies the ego and fills that emotional void. Not for a moment do we realize that consciousness itself liberates us from the bondage of a physically deterministic causality, enabling us to understand the process and use it; actively participate in creation with conscious intent.

On the other hand, I personally have no problems with anybody’s God, nor their definition of it; simply that it seems illogical in any which way; but one needs to keep in mind the emotional satisfaction the word brings; may be even an ultimate emotional satisfaction where knowing the Absolute and Ultimate Truth is concerned.

If nothing else, then may be metaphysics brings joy at least, so why object to someone’s happiness, Neil? You are not jealous, are you? :D

Kevin wrote:

It should be noted that both formal and informal logic are very recent creations of Western academia. But logic itself has been around a lot longer than Western academia.

It sure has. Logic itself has been around for as long as the Totality has, necessarily.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:Metaphysics is useless because that we on earth experience "boundaries" as having something on either side says nothing as to whether there can be some sort of "one-sided boundary" elsewhere.

Where is your proof?

Sick that your reply to everything I say is "prove it" and Laird has been asking you to prove something, anything really, and you just continue to dodge it.

This reminds me of the damn annoying little games my younger sister used to play. "Prove it!" --insert proof-- "Prove that!" --insert proof-- "Prove it!!"

It doesn't take too much thinking to realize that real "proof" isn't possible. The only "absolute truths" you guys have are tautologies, and you are arrogant enough to believe that the world you can point to fits within your tautologies just because they make grammatical sense. In other words you subordinate reality to the dictionary, to tie this in with what I said previously.

Sapius wrote:If nothing else, then may be metaphysics brings joy at least, so why object to someone’s happiness, Neil? You are not jealous, are you? :D

I have a genuine enmity towards stupid people. I think I need to get over this though or I will be the "loser" every time.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:Metaphysics is useless because that we on earth experience "boundaries" as having something on either side says nothing as to whether there can be some sort of "one-sided boundary" elsewhere.

Where is your proof?

Sick that your reply to everything I say is "prove it"

If a person makes outrageous claims, such as that it is possible that there can be boundaries that only have one side, then they should be asked to prove their claims.

It doesn't take too much thinking to realize that real "proof" isn't possible.

In other words, like Laird, you're only speculating when you say that boundaries with only one side might be possible. That is, you don't really know whether such things are possible or impossible.

The Möbius strip or Möbius band (pronounced /mo?bi??s, mei-/ i.e. beginning with "Moe" or "may"; German /?møbi?s/) is a surface with only one side and only one boundary component.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moebius_strip

clyde wrote:

The Möbius strip or Möbius band (pronounced /mo?bi??s, mei-/ i.e. beginning with "Moe" or "may"; German /?møbi?s/) is a surface with only one side and only one boundary component.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moebius_strip

Since a Möbius strip can be distinguished from what is not a Möbius strip there is a boundary between what is a Möbius strip and what isn't. That boundary has two sides.

In addition, boundaries only mean something within a particular context. Each small segment of a Möbius strip is a different context and each small segment of the strip has two sides.