GENIUS FORUMS

Sorry for the late response, Leyla - I missed your post in the midst of the dialogue with Kev.

Leyla Shen wrote:OK. I think you're far from alone, on that score! And I appreciate the particular honesty, here. :)

Cool. :-) It's the only way that I can really be comfortable with myself, even though it exposes me at times.

Leyla Shen wrote:To explore this idea further, in the context of hypothetical pure consciousness, what would it mean to "believe in the concept of a soul" given that state, hypothetically speaking, of course.

Here's a metaphor that came to me just before reading your post. Consider the GF thread that we're participating in: there are numerous posts in it, and each one typically refers to a previous post. If we take the posts and the references between them to be thoughts / the causal flow of consciousness, then the thread itself is the soul - the container of that consciousness - that which maintains the continuity of the self aside from thought, memory, association and all of the extraneous functionality that we associate with intelligent consciousness as opposed to pure consciousness. So pure consciousness is an empty thread; an unperturbed soul.

Leyla Shen wrote:And, if you can imagine such a pure consciousness, how would you differentiate it from, or find it in conflict with, the notion of pure logic and certainty?

I believe that logic is a means of expressing and modelling reality and it's possible to me that we have not found the ultimate logic yet. The main reason that I believe this is that logic as we currently practice it can't explain paradox, and I view the universe as one huge paradox. You already know that I am certain only of the very basics - and that to me is what pure consciousness is - the very basics. So in one sense I don't differentiate pure consciousness from certainty - pure consciousness is the experience of the certainty of the existence of one's soul. As for how pure logic relates to pure consciousness: as I've defined it, pure consciousness is divorced from understanding (aside from the simple understanding that one exists), and logic requires complex understanding, so they are distinct.

Leyla Shen wrote:In other words, what about thought itself exactly do you find fundamentally deluded/flawed?

I don't know if I'd ordinarily go so far as to label thought deluded or flawed, but since you put it like that I'll attempt an explanation in those terms. Often I wonder whether - in terms of the big questions - thought is merely taking us round and round in a never-ending (but admittedly ever-more-complex) spiral. We seem to be capable of imagining all sorts of amazing possibilities - scientists are constantly coming up with all sorts of brilliant models for the universe. I've just read in Paul Davies' book, The Mind of God, about the Hartle-Hawking model of the universe, where at the very beginning of the universe time merges with space - there's no ultimate "beginning"; as Stephen Hawking expresses it "The boundary conditions of the universe is that it has no boundary". Pretty cool stuff in my opinion. Thing is, we can come up with ever more clever explanations, but how are we ever going to know which one is it? And how are we ever going to explain how the laws that define our universe came to be in the first place? I can't imagine ever being able to ultimately solve the riddle, but maybe that's just because I'm limiting my imagination. In the meantime, I find it helpful to say: all of that which remains (and which is likely to remain) a riddle is what I call God.

In other ways, though, thought is very useful. In everyday life it helps me to predict which particular course of action is going to be the most beneficial for not only me but for the people around me. So I don't think that thought is totally flawed or deluded.

Leyla Shen wrote:Would a purely conscious individual never think again?

This is, as passthrough seems to agree, a very interesting question. First off, I'll reiterate that I'm not sure whether this state is even attainable. Secondly, I'm not sure whether it's sustainable. Imagine being purely and simply there, without motion or thought... is it possible to still the breath completely, to dispense with the need to eat and drink, to stop one's heartbeat and pulse? I'm very interested to know the answer to these questions, and have done some self-exploration, however I ended up in a mental hospital as a result.

Let's imagine though that such a state is attainable... is it interruptable? What happens when the police break into your locked-up house, or a bushwalker wanders into your isolated cave, and you are caught in this - to other people, strange - state of stillness? They prod you, poke you... do you feel them? Does thought return to you?

The other implication of your question is whether or not this hypothetical state is preferable to the state where thoughts arise. I think that in some ways it is (thought directs energy and effort into the material arena whereas perhaps we could be directing into a more spiritual arena), and in some ways it isn't (through thought we improve the material world for each other). I'd like to imagine though that such a state is both possible and desirable. It's the best chance that I can imagine of truly coming into union with God, whatever God turns out to be.

Anyway, I've given you all a little more opportunity to think to yourselves, "what a fruitcake". Enjoy! ;-)

That the Universe can exist without having been caused, if not a mystery, is certainly a profound -- and unexplainable -- fact.

Logic is the same as math, which is the same as science. The trouble with using the elemental "software" called logic, is the relatively primitive "hardware" used to run it, namely humans. And, can it effectively be used as the only (or ultimate) operating system? Will it get one where one wants to go? Where does one want to go?

Put in different terms, what power does the cell have with which to perceive the whole body? Certainly some aspects of the whole can be extrapolated from the cell's position. Can the cell's logical calculations go beyond the trite and mundane? Of what value is A=A? Of what value is "cause and effect." Of what value is value? What does meaning mean?

Logic is a tool; for what? What is the point of the exercise? So, the cell establishes a relationship with the whole, becoming semi-conscious. Does it know the whole? Can it ever know the whole from it's singular position? Can it know there are greater bodies within which the body it calls whole resides? Can it ever perceive the scale of the actual Totality? Can logic be applied to the Totality in any but the most trite and general way? Why would it presuppose to tell how all levels of the Totality operate? In what way does this help the cell?

Are there levels of logic? How does the cell know that its definition of logic is the ultimate one? Perhaps the cell is only using the 'local" version, which applies to the local system, one that includes gravity, coincidence, and cause and effect? Who defines delusion and enlightenment, ultimately? Of what use is relative absolutism, the stance of the Genius (as far as I can see, this is ultimate truth, so it is what I believe...).

Kevin Solway wrote:[Y]ou are assuming that there is a reality independent of thought, and which thought corresponds to. There isn't.

So then of what substance is thought comprised?

Is this an absolute truth?

Laird: So then how did you arrive at that certainty [that logic perfectly reflects reality]?

Kevin: The same way that I arrive at the certainty that I am having experiences.

There's a difference between the two. Experiences occur to one - one has no choice in the matter (unless one is in a deep sleep or anaesthetised). Logic is a tool that one uses - one chooses whether or not it is appropriate for the task. You have obviously chosen to use the tool of logic. What I want to know is on what basis you have decided that the tool of logic is guaranteed to provide absolute truth.

Laird: how did you determine which out of expectation and logical conclusion was more absolutely important?

Kevin: When I realized that the expectation was a delusion it lost all importance because I valued truth more highly than untruth.

So it seems that you believe that realisations are part of the path to absolute truth, which seems fair enough. How then can you be 100% certain that the realisations that you have had are absolutely true?

Laird: So I want to know why your original expectation that the universe is subject to causality should not be preeminent over your later logical system that describes that universe

Kevin: I've already explained this. When I realized that the Universe was Infinite, rather than finite, the question of it being subject to causality disappeared, for obvious reasons.

Your original expectation that causality applies to the universe seems to be a rational one (as a logical development of the expectation-based-on-observation that nothing is ever uncaused). So does the idea of an uncaused universe that contains all causes. How did you decide that it is absolutely true that these two rational beliefs cannot be reconciled?

Laird: why should you not build your logical system to maintain this expectation-based-on-observation rather than to destroy it?

Kevin: I observe that that which is Infinite cannot be caused.

In that context "observe" is an inaccurate word. You cannot observe the Infinite, you can only infer it. And your inference that the Infinite cannot be caused is part of the logical system that you have built. So then why should you decree absolute faith in such a logical system where this inference wipes out your original rational expectation rather than in the possibility that an as-yet unknown logical system allows the expectation to remain unassailed?

Laird: I can imagine a logical system where the All is not infinite.

Kevin: Then you would be using a different definition of "the All". There would be things other and apart from your "All".

In this hypothetical system, there are no things 'other and apart from the "All"'. In this hypothetical system, the "end" of time maps back on to the beginning of time. The "edges" of three-dimensional space map back onto that three-dimensional space, in a way analogous to that by which the möbius[*] strip maps two sides into one.

[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip

Laird,

Jason wrote:If you don't believe me, tell me one thing that is not an experience.

Laird wrote:A rock. I can experience it, but it seems highly likely to me that a rock has an independent existence even when I do not experience it.

Of course, if you look at it, all you are doing in this case is directly experiencing the thoughts "It is highly likely that rocks exist even when I am not experiencing them.", nothing more.

And the experience itself, of these thoughts, is once again absolutely certain.

I'll just come back to my primary point: direct experience is all there is. To some it might seem like I'm not saying all that much, and in a way that's true, but I'm making this point because I think it can be a fundamental and absolutely certain base(or at least stepping-stone) for philosophy and for truth.

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:[Y]ou are assuming that there is a reality independent of thought, and which thought corresponds to. There isn't.

So then of what substance is thought comprised?

That's a matter for science to decide. Probably some kind of chemical information.

Is this an absolute truth?

Whatever science determines is not an absolute truth.

Laird: So then how did you arrive at that certainty [that logic perfectly reflects reality]?

Kevin: The same way that I arrive at the certainty that I am having experiences.

There's a difference between the two. Experiences occur to one - one has no choice in the matter (unless one is in a deep sleep or anaesthetised). Logic is a tool that one uses - one chooses whether or not it is appropriate for the task.

No. Logic is something we use automatically, because it is appropriate to everything we experience.

Whenever we experience a "thing", logic is in operation, saying A=A, and A is none other than A.

You have obviously chosen to use the tool of logic.

No. It is simply the way the conscious mind functions.

How then can you be 100% certain that the realisations that you have had are absolutely true?

Because they are 100% logical.

Your original expectation that causality applies to the universe seems to be a rational one

Not to me it doesn't, because I now realize that I was misidentifying the Universe. I was considering it to be something finite, when it wasn't.

How did you decide that it is absolutely true that these two rational beliefs cannot be reconciled?

Because it is logically impossible for a thing to be itself and not itself at the same time. It is logically impossible to be finite and infinite (ie, not finite) at the same time.

Laird: why should you not build your logical system to maintain this expectation-based-on-observation rather than to destroy it?

Kevin: I observe that that which is Infinite cannot be caused.

In that context "observe" is an inaccurate word. You cannot observe the Infinite, you can only infer it.

No, I actually observe it.

And your inference that the Infinite cannot be caused is part of the logical system that you have built.

Logic is the essence of consciousness.

So then why should you decree absolute faith in such a logical system where this inference wipes out your original rational expectation rather than in the possibility that an as-yet unknown logical system allows the expectation to remain unassailed?

Logic trumps everything else.

Laird: I can imagine a logical system where the All is not infinite.

Kevin: Then you would be using a different definition of "the All". There would be things other and apart from your "All".

In this hypothetical system, there are no things 'other and apart from the "All"'. In this hypothetical system, the "end" of time maps back on to the beginning of time. The "edges" of three-dimensional space map back onto that three-dimensional space, in a way analogous to that by which the möbius[*] strip maps two sides into one.

When something wraps around, like a mobius strip, there is something that it wraps around in. And it is that which you are excluding from your definition of "All".

Kevin wrote:

Laird: How did you decide that it is absolutely true that these two rational beliefs cannot be reconciled?

Kevin: Because it is logically impossible for a thing to be itself and not itself at the same time. It is logically impossible to be finite and infinite (ie, not finite) at the same time.

That is the key point. If a person cannot understand and appreciate the truth of A=A, then he cannot even begin to engage in genuine thought and seriously seek the ultimate truth. He will simply a remain a speculator who goes nowhere.

Recognizing the supremacy of A=A over and above the child-like desire to keep believing in mystery and paradox - that is the key decision that anyone wanting to grow up to be a philosopher has to make.

-

L: I hope that we can find mostly agreement although I suspect that there will be areas where I will decide that you are going beyond my level of commitment and faith.

P: And that is ok, I am NOT holding myself as a teacher, but a student. I have searched for other philosophy boards, but there is nothing like this that I have found. The caliber of minds and discussion here is such that you cannot find other places. Other boards have one or two members that might be a nice addition to this forum, but their forums are so shallow. The more academic boards are just that...cold and academic. Here, philosophy is put to life...it is inspiring, but also difficult because you have a concentration of minds who have seriously devoted a good deal of time to thinking...so it is challenging.

However, I am not asking that you commit to anything I say...challenging the beliefs I hold allows me to recognize the flaws in my thinking. It is through this forum and the lack of affirmation of what I believe by other members that also allows me to see another viewpoint that differs from mine, which makes you truly question what you believe by thinking (as you have done here) why you believe as you do; otherwise, you are limited by your own view.

Laird, when you have time, you ought to read a little of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, if you have not already. If you are most adventurous you can read the first part here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

If you would like to understand more of First Cause, read here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm

However, he had his detractors and he may have addressed it here or in another area. No matter how much logic you address it with it is an ontological argument where acceptance requires a “leap of faith” and a reliance on that leap to a degree of certainty that your life depends on it. We had to write a paper on the three arguments for the existence of God, none of which could withstand the arguments of empiricists- at least in my mind, but I really need to reread David's book sometime soon...However, scientists have come up with all types of theories, but none of their theories refute the possibility of a First Cause. You see things from a somewhat Christian perspective. Aquinas was a Catholic Christian philosopher and theolgian. His logic is impeccable, which is why I want to study him more...and perhaps you may enjoy reading him as well if you like reading logical proofs.

L: Well it must matter to the extent that our Creator is involved with us within time by triggering our consciences/inner voices as you seem to believe our Creator does. I will refer back to this comment later in the post.

P: Well, I would not characterize it exactly how you stated...I will discuss it wherever you have it, but I do not agree that time is a necessary factor with God.

L: By the way, are you comfortable applying the masculine pronoun to God?

P: It was said in the Bible that God declared himself to Moses as I AM WHO AM. I am not a feminist, but I also do not think women to be second class citizens either...”He” is perfectly acceptable... when I use this in sentences, I mean it gender neutral anyhow. I often have gotten to where I use the term “one” rather than his/her, he/she so as not to be specific, but that is more formal English. Write what comes natural, I take no offense. I am more interested in substance rather than form.

L: You seem to be expressing a slightly different position in that quote than you are now - now you make a distinction betweeen "physical" and "spiritual". In that quote you seem to make less distinction. And this distinction is what troubles me most about your position. You take away the Devil and any opposition to God, and you retain God as first and only cause. So then this distinction seems to me to be quite artificial. There is only God and what God creates; why should we view what he creates (the physical) as in some sense unworthy - surely, as the ultimate good force, God can create only good things?

P: I’m not sure that I am. The phenomena is what we perceive, the noumena is that which IS. Matt’s explanation made this so clear when talking about the painting as a hologram. My initial discussion concerned how two people have two different perceptions of the same painting, but Matt expanded the questionable nature of finiteness we think we know to be reality. In other words, all we have of the finite is our perception...even Kant agreed with Hume on this one...but he then went on to explain his categorical arguments and a priori knowledge, which is also a discussion between Matt and myself and others.

I think you are misconstruing my notions of the physical as something that is bad. If God is good and all things come from God then they are inherently good. There is a distinction then in making them God...you can go forwards but not backwards. It’s like in math, 2 is included in the number set but the number set is not limited to 2.

I take away the Devil because the devil does not oppose God. First, the devil is a mythical idea. Second, D[evil] is an absence of God. You side with evil, you are absent God. Further if you take one item in the set, say me for example, the fact that I exist is a good thing, but it doesn’t make me good, kind of like that old cliche: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

It is a natural tendency for us to think of ourselves as good and correct in our view point. So, to acknowledge we are not necessarily good and right, is to understand the truth - it does not mean self-deprecation.

L: It's here where you seem to require that God have a temporal nature - that God inserts awareness/conscience into people at various times. This is what I referred to up the top where you asked whether time matters to God.

P: In my opinion, it would seem that time is not important to God, only to us who use it to make order. The Spirit goes where it will. John wrote:

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

I do not take this to mean the same thing as baptism and being a “born again” Christian...I take this to mean that we are finite creatures but that if we choose God we can become infinite...in that our soul is nurtured through a spiritual relationship vis a vis the Holy Spirit - that is, God, who comes and goes at will....now here, it gets really gray for me because it is difficult to determine how this works. I am aware of it but when Jesus said: but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going...I can relate that I believe it to be God because of the realization that had occurred, as it couldn’t have been me alone for I would stand confused on something and it would later reveal itself out of the blue...so I may be stuck with Nicodemus in the perplexity of the cause of such events...I am most assuredly not an enlightened one...but I do accept it as God, whatever that is. I also believe that those who are “born of the Spirit” do come and go like the wind in your life.

It would be interesting to have a discussion about how causality could relate to this issue, but that may be another thread for another day.

L: Here is the difficulty that I have with your model: as I understand it, you claim that God is absolutely good, that God is the cause of everything, and that there is no opposing force that we might refer to as Satan. So then where does evil come from? It seems to have no source - I am again confronted with the paradox of uncausedness. Can you resolve it for me?

P: The opposing force is ourself. Ok, let’s back up here. God is First Cause. God is all good. As I said above, all things that are created are good, but it doesn’t mean that I cannot be bad because I can choose to do an evil act or not. Animals are non-moral. They can kill and it is not considered bad or evil. However, we can kill and it can be considered evil. So, we have the capacity for evil through genetic disposition and environment. For instance, my father is a very negative person, therefore it is not surprising that I see things in a negative perspective because of genetics and living around him. Not that being negative is necessarily evil, I was just using it as an example of something that is influential.

So what causes evil? We do. And what causes us? God. So it would seem that indirectly God caused evil. Now, if God is all good, then resolution to these evil acts would necessarily be good... So, in some ways, if what I said about God countering us...giving us reason to determine that which is good and evil and we do evil and we become conscious of our evil based on the action, then we change towards the good, thus the resolution being good. However, if we never become aware of the evil act, we die absent God...absent good...eternal justice, perhaps? Again it is like losing the battle but winning the war.

L: I know of a solution to this problem, but I want to find out how you resolve it before discussing my own view.

Did I resolve it above? I had to think on that one a bit. I still do not believe in a mythical devil as a being that causes evil...that would place him on the level with God. Hmmm...so then if we cause evil that would also be the same thing....but even though I cannot explain this just yet, my position is that we create the evil...it is a warranted belief.

L: So then the soul is partly physical? The findings of science seem to indicate that reason is part of the processes of the physical brain. Or do you reject that this is an implication of science? It seems that you must, because you seem to answer my first question in the negative by writing that "[t]he physical body is a machine, the soul is life…essence."

In thinking about this one, you are correct that there must exist a connect between the two. Although I have no intelligent answer to give, it would seem that it would have to do with knowledge and will to act. The intellect reasons, but the soul wills to act...but as to how these two are interrelated, I could not tell you.

L: I'm not sure if I'm getting repetitive here, but couldn't you view it that to choose the "finite" world is spiritually acceptable because it is part of God's perfection?

Perhaps I am not verbalizing very well...Let me try it this way: do you know people who are completely obsessed with money, fame or fortune? It is in every waking thought, every stressful moment of their life. They eat, breathe and live with this obsession? This obsession is their god...this god does not equal God - it is not truth, it is not good. It is limited by their life, therefore finite. The inevitabilty is that if they do not see this error, they will die absent good. So what about those who do choose God over the world, it is my warranted belief that eternity will be with God. Soul over Body...not Body over Soul.

Laird: Would you accept this phrasing?: God expects us to do our best but to believe that whatever level we achieve God will find a way to make it perfect anyway?

passthrough: [...] Anyhow, my husband said something that was interesting – that is, God does not play favorites.

I would hope that God has mercy as well as justice, for one cannot be without the other…but he also showed through Jesus Christ what he expects. Did Jesus Christ throw the stone at the adulteress? No…but what did he ask her to do? Go and SIN NO MORE.

L: I'm not sure whether that's a yes, a no or a maybe in answer to my question... :-)

Giving you a sermon, no doubt. No, he will not, but through mercy and justice, truth wins out...what that truth is can only be guessed...again, if you go on what Jesus said: if you know me you know the Father. Therefore, based on Jesus’ mercy but also judgment, we can then surmise that as long as one strives for perfection, though he may fail, will be subject to these same terms.

L: What I mean is this: you decide to accept God as absolute truth. So now what are the consequences of that decision? I have gathered from elsewhere that you believe that one consequence is that you inherit eternal life. Are there any other consequences - perhaps more mundane, wordly consequences such as being better spiritually supported? You seem to suggest this when you write "I suppose the practical consequences that I am speaking about are those of the Holy Spirit".

I know that through life’s circumstances that I should live rather than die.

I know that I need to work on this ideal of spiritual love that Christ held for others.

I do not know that I will inherit eternal life, but I know that living any other way than the truth brings chaos...the truth being those principles that Jesus taught and are very similar to many other religious leaders throughout history.

I know that living the truth makes it difficult to function in the world and to relate to others and even more difficult to live with myself, if I did not live the truth, but knew what the truth was. It is a struggle because I fight the past...sometimes it is hard to forgive yourself and move on.

L: And how are we to consume ourselves in the Causer when - as you have previously written - we have very little understanding of what exactly this Causer is? Perhaps: the Causer provides us with so little understanding so that we will be so mystified that we will consume ourselves in the search for understanding.

I don’t want to say that we are victims of causality, as a determinist might say, but in some sense we are...however, it is no excuse for not trying to break free from that which one is born into. I think we are all given opportunity to rise above our situation, for some it is more difficult than others and for some the circumstances are more difficult than others, which is why I cannot think of a God who shows no mercy while in the throes of justice for the sake of goodness. As for providing us with little or no understanding...this is cause and effect...the ball is already rolling since the beginning of time.

The Catholic in me has a mantra engrained that our duty is to know, love and serve God...so it is not consuming but an obligation, a duty to the Creator. In practical circumstances, Catholicism aside, to do otherwise is to invite chaos...there is no other alternative but to carry through attempting righteous living.

L: If you accept this answer, then would you also accept that spirituality is in part a quest for understanding?

I don’t accept the answer, but I may need you to define what you mean by spirituality - that word means different things to different people.

L: That abyss being the fear of not being able to love as God intends you to?

Abyss (emphasis on the capital A) which is the knowledge that God exists but at a loss for understanding what that means. Here is where people will say I’m delusional, possibly, but I know that the guy who said it, understood exactly what I meant...so, either he is delusional too, or God is an Abyss that I cannot grasp...but he exists and has been realized in sporadic circumstances throughout life. Don’t ask me to explain...I cannot.

L: Do either of us seem like the physically aggressive type? I don't think it's in our natures. We get on well in real life.

I was kind of joking there with you both...

L: Oh, I don't think that their theories are completely baseless. I just don't put as much value on differentiating levels of consciousness as the rational infinitists do.

I didn’t realize they did this...do you have a reference to this differentiation of which you speak?

L: I prefer to view all people as basically good and doing the best that they can with what they've got. If we can help each other to do better then that's part of the joy and the process of life. I don't think that we are too far apart on that idea.

No, we are not, but I do not view all people as basically good - I hold out reservation for which I have some justification. Some misjudge my motives, which is a pity for I am quite harmless and certainly not dangerous...but such is life.

Jason, I think we agree that we can be certain that we experience, and that thoughts are a type of experience.

I'm not sure whether you agree to the likelihood of an independent reality beyond our immediate experience.

Carl G: an inspired post - I have read it through several times. Truly wonderfully written and thought-provoking. I don't know what depths of your soul you pulled it from - it was subtle yet complex and oh so appropriate to the discussion of this thread.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote: You cannot observe the Infinite, you can only infer it.

No, I actually observe it.

Observation is by definition limited in scope, therefore you certainly do not observe the infinite.

Carl G: an inspired post - I have read it through several times. Truly wonderfully written and thought-provoking. I don't know what depths of your soul you pulled it from - it was subtle yet complex and oh so appropriate to the discussion of this thread.

And best of all, it says nothing definite, which is right up your alley.

The questions that Carl pose can be resolved in seconds by anyone who is serious about their thought.

-

Kevin: [Y]ou are assuming that there is a reality independent of thought, and which thought corresponds to. There isn't.

Laird: So then of what substance is thought comprised?

Kevin: That's a matter for science to decide. Probably some kind of chemical information.

Oh, so there is a reality independent of thought: the chemical of which it is comprised.

Kevin Solway wrote:Whatever science determines is not an absolute truth.

Does science rely on logic?

Laird: So then how did you arrive at that certainty [that logic perfectly reflects reality]?

Kevin: The same way that I arrive at the certainty that I am having experiences.

Laird: There's a difference between the two. Experiences occur to one - one has no choice in the matter (unless one is in a deep sleep or anaesthetised). Logic is a tool that one uses - one chooses whether or not it is appropriate for the task.

Kevin: No. Logic is something we use automatically, because it is appropriate to everything we experience.

We choose what we apply logic to. We can instead choose arbitrary beliefs that simply make us feel good.

Laird: You have obviously chosen to use the tool of logic.

Kevin: No. It is simply the way the conscious mind functions.

Ah, so you arrived at your certainty in the infallibility of logic because you can see no other tool.

Laird: How then can you be 100% certain that the realisations that you have had are absolutely true?

Kevin: Because they are 100% logical.

Tomorrow you will have a new realisation that is even more logical than all of the realisations that you have already had and that overthrows your entire system. If you hold absolute truth in your hand then prove me wrong.

Laird: Your original expectation that causality applies to the universe seems to be a rational one

Kevin: Not to me it doesn't, because I now realize that I was misidentifying the Universe. I was considering it to be something finite, when it wasn't.

So your explanation of the universe boils down to: "It is infinite and it just is. Questioning is futile."

Laird: How did you decide that it is absolutely true that these two rational beliefs cannot be reconciled?

Kevin: Because it is logically impossible for a thing to be itself and not itself at the same time. It is logically impossible to be finite and infinite (ie, not finite) at the same time.

So you are 100% certain that the concept of single identity, A=A, is absolutely true from all perspectives?

Kevin Solway wrote:I actually observe [the Infinite].

What does it look like?

Kevin Solway wrote:Logic is the essence of consciousness.

What about memory, awareness and association?

Laird: So then why should you decree absolute faith in such a logical system where this inference wipes out your original rational expectation rather than in the possibility that an as-yet unknown logical system allows the expectation to remain unassailed?

Kevin: Logic trumps everything else.

That doesn't answer the question. I'm suggesting the possibility that a higher form of logic explains how the universe can be both caused and uncaused. How can you be absolutely certain that this is not the case?

Laird: I can imagine a logical system where the All is not infinite.

Kevin: Then you would be using a different definition of "the All". There would be things other and apart from your "All".

Laird: In this hypothetical system, there are no things 'other and apart from the "All"'. In this hypothetical system, the "end" of time maps back on to the beginning of time. The "edges" of three-dimensional space map back onto that three-dimensional space, in a way analogous to that by which the möbius[*] strip maps two sides into one.

Kevin: When something wraps around, like a mobius strip, there is something that it wraps around in. And it is that which you are excluding from your definition of "All".

In my hypothetical system a mapping of dimensions does not require anything other than the dimensions themselves.

Laird wrote:

Laird: So then of what substance is thought comprised?

Kevin: That's a matter for science to decide. Probably some kind of chemical information.

Oh, so there is a reality independent of thought: the chemical of which it is comprised.

No. A part is not independent of the whole of which it is a part.

Kevin Solway wrote:Whatever science determines is not an absolute truth.

Does science rely on logic?

When it's done properly it does. And it is precisely because of logic that we can be certain that scientific "truths" are uncertain.

Kevin: No. Logic is something we use automatically, because it is appropriate to everything we experience.

We choose what we apply logic to.

Logic is necessary for any choosing.

Ah, so you arrived at your certainty in the infallibility of logic because you can see no other tool.

I can see lots of tools: for example, hammers, screwdrivers, chisels, etc. But logic is the only tool that can be used for reasoning and for arriving at truth.

Tomorrow you will have a new realisation that is even more logical than all of the realisations that you have already had

Once again, you are only guessing.

If you hold absolute truth in your hand then prove me wrong.

I don't believe you currently have the right kind of mind to perceive the truth. If you did, you would already perceive it.

So your explanation of the universe boils down to: "It is infinite and it just is. Questioning is futile."

No. I don't offer an explanation for it. To do so would be irrational.

So you are 100% certain that the concept of single identity, A=A, is absolutely true from all perspectives?

Yes.

I actually observe [the Infinite].

What does it look like?

It looks like what all wise teachings are pointing to.

Kevin Solway wrote:Logic is the essence of consciousness.

What about memory, awareness and association?

They are all part of logic.

I'm suggesting the possibility that a higher form of logic

There is no higher logic than A=A.

Kevin: When something wraps around, like a mobius strip, there is something that it wraps around in. And it is that which you are excluding from your definition of "All".

In my hypothetical system a mapping of dimensions does not require anything other than the dimensions themselves.

That would only work if you had infinite dimensions, each wrapping within a higher dimension. In which case it would still be Infinite.

David Quinn wrote:Kevin wrote:

Laird: How did you decide that it is absolutely true that these two rational beliefs cannot be reconciled?

Kevin: Because it is logically impossible for a thing to be itself and not itself at the same time. It is logically impossible to be finite and infinite (ie, not finite) at the same time.

That is the key point. If a person cannot understand and appreciate the truth of A=A, then he cannot even begin to engage in genuine thought and seriously seek the ultimate truth.

A thing is itself; i.e. mystery = mystery. I agree. Proper identification is important for sane and clear thinking. I agree. Proper can have various meanings, though. Accurate is one. Useful is another. Poetic/ metaphoric is a third.

and seriously seek the ultimate truth.

For me, the “ultimate” truth concerns myself, my inner workings, not the universe. And, in that regard I have learned much, by close observation and testing. For you I suspect the object and goal is different. I am working on self-transformation through personal information, while you seem to be working on the same through world information.

He will simply remain a speculator who goes nowhere.

In a broad sense, yes, recognizing, on some level at least, that a thing is itself is necessary for soul development. It is a key to basic sanity, in fact (for those few who are concerned with it). But I suspect you mean more. By your emphasis you indicate A=A need be a foremost thought in order for spiritual development to proceed. I disagree. It may be an essential component of what you would term a proper philosophical view. But philosophy itself is only one branch of the tree.

Nevertheless, we humans are highly susceptible to misidentification. Therefore every model we construct must be a working model. Certainty regarding any but the most mundane facts is a luxury a wise scientist (logician, mathematician) does not allow himself. The working model, built of experience, with provisional suppositions subject to continual testing, and revision, by not only the mind, but the emotions and body, too. Or, as you say, the seeker stops growing.

Contemplation and logic are fine in themselves; their results can yield marvelous tools. But it is a mistake to presuppose that one’s theoretical explanation of the whole can be extrapolated accurately to the whole. Beyond the mundane; yes a thing is itself. When this happens, all sorts of unsupportable positions arise, such as all seeming synchronicity is necessarily mere coincidence, when death occurs, in all cases the human essence dissipates like a rain cloud does, and there can be no soul or higher self.

Recognizing the supremacy of A=A over and above the child-like desire to keep believing in mystery and paradox -- that is the key decision that anyone wanting to grow up to be a philosopher has to make.

Believing the supremacy of A=A over and above the belief in mystery and paradox -- that is the key decision that anyone wanting to be a philosopher has to make.

Which is fine, it is not my goal to be a philosopher.

But really, your statement does not negate anything. Mystery = mystery, and, paradox = paradox.

Carl G wrote:But really, your statement does not negate anything. Mystery = mystery, and, paradox = paradox.

Negation of mystery and paradox = negation of mystery and paradox.

Kevin: I actually observe [the Infinite].

Laird: What does it look like?

Kevin: It looks like what all wise teachings are pointing to

In other words, Kevin hasn't observed the infinite - he simply apprehends it due to 'what he believes' are the logical implications of the empirical data that he reasons about. Kevin, like all of us, only percieves the tip of the iceberg.

David Quinn wrote:
The questions that Carl pose can be resolved in seconds by anyone who is serious about their thought.

That sounds like dogma talking.

Shakespeare wrote:

O conspiracy,
Sham’st thou to show thy dang’rous brow by night
When evils are most free? O then, by day
Where will thou find a cavern dark enough
To mask thy monstrous visage?

It took me a while to figure out, but I knew that this place was the answer to the past. Now, I know the truth.... If I didn’t think that what I went through had not put me in a better place, I would despise you until I died.

I also realize that you could do a lot of harm here, but I am relying on the fact that you have other virtues. I would appreciate your decency in letting it rest, as I paid a high price for my foolishness...

Regards and Goodbye...

passthrough, to whom was your post addressed - who did you mean by "you"?

Is this a final goodbye? Shall I not compose a further post in our discussion?

Laird: So then of what substance is thought comprised?

Kevin: That's a matter for science to decide. Probably some kind of chemical information.

Laird: Oh, so there is a reality independent of thought: the chemical of which it is comprised.

Kevin: No. A part is not independent of the whole of which it is a part.

But what happened to your law of identity, A=A? part != whole. thought != that of which it is comprised.

Kevin: Whatever science determines is not an absolute truth.

Laird: Does science rely on logic?

Kevin: When it's done properly it does. And it is precisely because of logic that we can be certain that scientific "truths" are uncertain.

And does philosophy rely on observation?

Kevin: No. Logic is something we use automatically, because it is appropriate to everything we experience.

Laird: We choose what we apply logic to.

Kevin: Logic is necessary for any choosing.

We could instead choose randomly.

Laird: Ah, so you arrived at your certainty in the infallibility of logic because you can see no other tool.

Kevin: I can see lots of tools: for example, hammers, screwdrivers, chisels, etc. But logic is the only tool that can be used for reasoning and for arriving at truth.

Given that you describe only physical tools, and not tools of the mind, I take it that you indeed cannot see any tool but logic, and that you are convinced in its infallibility simply because you see nothing else to use. Yes?

Laird: Tomorrow you will have a new realisation that is even more logical than all of the realisations that you have already had [...] If you hold absolute truth in your hand then prove me wrong.

Kevin: I don't believe you currently have the right kind of mind to perceive the truth. If you did, you would already perceive it.

Don't want to accept the challenge? So then at least to me it seems that you are not so absolutely certain after all. A truly certain man would have explained - using his absolute logic - how he knows that his current certainty can never be overturned by a later and greater realisation.

Laird: So your explanation of the universe boils down to: "It is infinite and it just is. Questioning is futile."

Kevin: No. I don't offer an explanation for it. To do so would be irrational.

I don't understand why you write "No". Your subsequent elaboration indicates that the answer should be "Yes": "I don't offer an explanation for it" seems to me to be very similar to "Questioning is futile".

Laird: So you are 100% certain that the concept of single identity, A=A, is absolutely true from all perspectives?

Kevin: Yes.

What then do you make of the idea that in dreams an object is often that which it is not? In a dream I might turn to sit on a chair only it's a chocolate rabbit. I reach out for the telephone except that it's a dressing gown.

What do you make of the idea that the same situation is A to the first person and B to a second person? The same situation is both A and B.

My point is that it's possible to imagine that a system of logic might exist where this law of identity is not so prominent. I don't argue that it necessarily does exist, merely that the possibility that it exists precludes absolute certainty of the type that you invest in the concept of A=A.

Kevin: I actually observe [the Infinite].

Laird: What does it look like?

Kevin: It looks like what all wise teachings are pointing to.

Namely?

Kevin: Logic is the essence of consciousness.

Laird: What about memory, awareness and association?

Kevin: They are all part of logic.

More abuse of the law of identity. logic != consciousness.

There is no higher logic than A=A.

And you are absolutely certain because...?

Kevin: When something wraps around, like a mobius strip, there is something that it wraps around in. And it is that which you are excluding from your definition of "All".

Laird: In my hypothetical system a mapping of dimensions does not require anything other than the dimensions themselves.

Kevin: That would only work if you had infinite dimensions, each wrapping within a higher dimension. In which case it would still be Infinite.

In my hypothetical system there are only three spatial dimensions and one time dimension, and it still "works". You are taking the analogy of the möbius strip too far: the mapping does not exist in any higher dimension. You simply pass through the "end" of the dimensions and arrive at a different point within those dimensions.

Laird wrote:

No. A part is not independent of the whole of which it is a part.

But what happened to your law of identity, A=A? part != whole. thought != that of which it is comprised.

"A" and "not A" are dependent on each other.

Does philosophy rely on observation?

It depends what you mean by "observation". Philosophy depends on the contents of the mind, but doesn't delve into guesswork.

Kevin: Logic is necessary for any choosing.

L: We could instead choose randomly.

Logic is necessary even for this. For example, to choose by throwing a dice requires logic.

Given that you describe only physical tools, and not tools of the mind, I take it that you indeed cannot see any tool but logic, and that you are convinced in its infallibility simply because you see nothing else to use. Yes?

No. There are many tools of the mind. For example, there is the tool of anger, the tool of blind belief, the tool of irrationality, etc. But only the tool of logic can deliver us to truth.

Don't want to accept the challenge?

Everything I have written on this forum is an explication of absolute truth, but you are unable to see it.

A truly certain man would have explained - using his absolute logic - how he knows that his current certainty can never be overturned by a later and greater realisation.

It is for the same reason that you will never be able to overturn the truth that you are having experiences.

What then do you make of the idea that in dreams an object is often that which it is not?

In dreams, things are always precisely what they are.

In a dream I might turn to sit on a chair only it's a chocolate rabbit.

At first there was a chair, and then there was a chocolate rabbit. The chair is a chair, and the chocolate rabbit is a chocolate rabbit.

What do you make of the idea that the same situation is A to the first person and B to a second person? The same situation is both A and B.

You haven't made any effort to understand what A=A means. All it means is "a thing is itself, and none other than itself".

The first person might see a chair, while the second person sees a rabbit. That's all there is to it.

chair = chair. rabbit = rabbit.

My point is that it's possible to imagine that a system of logic might exist where this law of identity is not so prominent.

Not when you understand the essence of logic. (A=A)

It looks like what all wise teachings are pointing to.

Namely?

God, Brahman, the Dharmakaya, Truth.

logic != consciousness.

I didn't say that logic was identical with consciousness.

There is no higher logic than A=A.

And you are absolutely certain because...?

Because A=A is what logic is, by definition.

You simply pass through the "end" of the dimensions and arrive at a different point within those dimensions.

Just as there is something other than a mobius strip, there exists something other than whatever else you might want to wrap.

Kevin: No. A part is not independent of the whole of which it is a part.

Laird: But what happened to your law of identity, A=A? part != whole. thought != that of which it is comprised.

Kevin: "A" and "not A" are dependent on each other.

I'd probably phrase that as: "A" and "not A" are complementary aspects. But be that as it may, your argument that thought is the ultimate reality seems to boil down to: thought (probably) depends on chemicals, therefore thought is chemicals. You still have an identity problem: thought != that of which it is comprised.

But be that as it may, let's accept your reasoning for argument's sake. Now we can equally say that chemicals depend on thought, therefore everything is based, not on thought, but on chemicals. Or, to illustrate the absurdity of your position more fully, we could say that "everything that is not this computer monitor in front of me" depends on that computer monitor. So, to echo your words back at you: "You are assuming that there is a reality independent of this computer monitor, and which that computer monitor corresponds to. There isn't."

Laird: Does philosophy rely on observation?

Kevin: It depends what you mean by "observation". Philosophy depends on the contents of the mind, but doesn't delve into guesswork.

And where do the contents of the mind come from, if not from observation?

Kevin: Logic is necessary for any choosing.

Laird: We could instead choose randomly.

Kevin: Logic is necessary even for this. For example, to choose by throwing a dice requires logic.

By what definition of logic is random choice logical?

Laird: Given that you describe only physical tools, and not tools of the mind, I take it that you indeed cannot see any tool but logic, and that you are convinced in its infallibility simply because you see nothing else to use. Yes?

Kevin: No. There are many tools of the mind. For example, there is the tool of anger, the tool of blind belief, the tool of irrationality, etc. But only the tool of logic can deliver us to truth.

OK, you do see other mental tools after all - so then you have chosen logic as the best of the bunch. How then did you decide that logic was the best tool to use?

Laird: Don't want to accept the challenge?

Kevin: Everything I have written on this forum is an explication of absolute truth, but you are unable to see it.

I'll take that as a "correct, I don't want to accept the challenge because I realise that I have no means of dealing with it". To remind you of what the challenge was, I'll repeat it:

Tomorrow you will have a new realisation that is even more logical than all of the realisations that you have already had. If you hold absolute truth in your hand then prove me wrong.

Laird: A truly certain man would have explained - using his absolute logic - how he knows that his current certainty can never be overturned by a later and greater realisation.

Kevin: It is for the same reason that you will never be able to overturn the truth that you are having experiences.

An appeal to similarity isn't good enough because the two are not similar enough. Experiences do not explain anything: realisations do. So how can you be absolutely certain that the explanation provided by a realisation is an ultimate one?

Laird: What then do you make of the idea that in dreams an object is often that which it is not?

Kevin: In dreams, things are always precisely what they are.

That's one way of looking at it. I'm sharing a different possibility: that things have multiple identities.

Laird: In a dream I might turn to sit on a chair only it's a chocolate rabbit.

Kevin: At first there was a chair, and then there was a chocolate rabbit. The chair is a chair, and the chocolate rabbit is a chocolate rabbit.

I experience a period where it is both a chair and a chocolate rabbit.

Laird: What do you make of the idea that the same situation is A to the first person and B to a second person? The same situation is both A and B.

Kevin: You haven't made any effort to understand what A=A means. All it means is "a thing is itself, and none other than itself".

The first person might see a chair, while the second person sees a rabbit. That's all there is to it.

chair = chair. rabbit = rabbit.

It is from one perspective a chair and from another a rabbit. It has no solid identity.

Laird: My point is that it's possible to imagine that a system of logic might exist where this law of identity is not so prominent.

Kevin: Not when you understand the essence of logic. (A=A)

In other words: "maybe you can imagine it, but I can't". Are you not interested in challenging limitations?

[re-inserting some context]
Kevin: I actually observe [the Infinite].

Laird: What does it look like?

Kevin: It looks like what all wise teachings are pointing to.

Laird: Namely?

Kevin: God, Brahman, the Dharmakaya, Truth.

So you have observed God?

Laird: logic != consciousness.

Kevin: I didn't say that logic was identical with consciousness.

No, but you implied it by saying that memory, awareness and association are part of logic; I hold that they are better tied to consciousness and on an equal footing with logic. In other words, logic is a facet of consciousness just like memory, awareness and association. It is not superior to nor a container for those functions.

Laird: There is no higher logic than A=A.

Kevin: And you are absolutely certain because...?

Laird: Because A=A is what logic is, by definition.

That looks suspiciously to me like "because I said so". Do you have any more meaningful argument?

Laird: You simply pass through the "end" of the dimensions and arrive at a different point within those dimensions.

Kevin: Just as there is something other than a mobius strip, there exists something other than whatever else you might want to wrap.

I've already warned you not to stretch the mobius strip analogy too far. My hypothetical system does not work according to a "wrapping", but instead according to a "mapping". It is mathematical in nature. You could think of it as the four dimensions of our universe continuing according to some mathematical function, and that once that function reaches a certain point, then those dimensions continue not into "new" regions but into "already-existing" regions.

Does this model accurately describe reality? I don't know, but to me it's a pretty intriguing possibility. And that's what your ideas are to me: a pretty intriguing possibility. All that I'm looking for from you is the concession that perhaps you don't, after all, hold absolute truth in hand, but that you at least have some pretty special and interesting ideas, just as other people including many scientists have some pretty special and interesting ideas. In other words, I'm asking you to come down off your pedestal and acknowledge that you're in the same boat as the rest of us: a decent bloke, doing the best with what you've got, sharing his thoughts, wisdom and understanding with other people because it's interesting for you and for other people, not because you're some kind of master.

I hope that I don't come across too unkindly Kev because I honestly do think that you have some cool ideas. I just worry about whether your presentation of speculative thought as absolute truth is damaging to some of the people who come to this forum, even though on the other hand I observe that many of them recognise your ideas for the speculation that they are: not all participants do recognise this, and I at least have the advantage of being able to engage you verbally - I feel that it is my duty to call it as I see it for those who have less personal access to you.

Laird wrote:thought (probably) depends on chemicals, therefore thought is chemicals.

I've never said or implied that thought is chemicals.

I don't know what you find difficult about understanding this. A whole is dependent on its parts, and the parts are dependent on the whole.

we could say that "everything that is not this computer monitor in front of me" depends on that computer monitor.

That (one thing) that is other than the computer monitor is dependent on the computer monitor, yes.

And where do the contents of the mind come from, if not from observation?

I don't know where they come from. But they certainly come from somewhere.

Kevin: Logic is necessary for any choosing.

Laird: We could instead choose randomly.

Kevin: Logic is necessary even for this. For example, to choose by throwing a dice requires logic.

By what definition of logic is random choice logical?

Logic is required to choose whether to make a random choice (eg, to throw a dice). It is also required to decide whether the dice is in fact returning a random result.

If there is just randomness, then there is no choice.

only the tool of logic can deliver us to truth.

How then did you decide that logic was the best tool to use?

By using logic.

I'll take that as a "correct, I don't want to accept the challenge

Take it however you like, but all your questions have already been answered in full.

So how can you be absolutely certain that the explanation provided by a realisation is an ultimate one?

When you realize that A=A you will know the answer.

I experience a period where it is both a chair and a chocolate rabbit.

Then you are fooling yourself, and have not clarified your own thought.

It is from one perspective a chair and from another a rabbit. It has no solid identity.

You are thinking of an "it" that is independent of perspectives. There is no such thing.

In other words: "maybe you can imagine it

You are extremely bad at guessing what other people are thinking. I don't think for a minute that maybe you can imagine it.

Are you not interested in challenging limitations?

Truth is a limitation it is futile to challenge.

So you have observed God?

Yes, as I define it.

L: And you are absolutely certain because...?

K: Because A=A is what logic is, by definition.

That looks suspiciously to me like "because I said so".

You are welcome to try and develop a logic where a thing is not what it is. Good luck to you.

All that I'm looking for from you is the concession that perhaps you don't, after all, hold absolute truth in hand, but that you at least have some pretty special and interesting ideas

In other words you're not looking for the truth, but only to have your own beliefs confirmed.

Laird: thought (probably) depends on chemicals, therefore thought is chemicals.

Kevin: I've never said or implied that thought is chemicals.

When I wrote: "Oh, so there is a reality independent of thought: the chemical of which it is comprised", you replied: "No. A part is not independent of the whole of which it is a part."

So what did you intend to imply by that if not that thought cannot be considered to be separate from the chemicals that comprise it?

Kevin Solway wrote:I don't know what you find difficult about understanding this. A whole is dependent on its parts, and the parts are dependent on the whole.

I find the inferences that you are drawing from this position difficult to understand. I posit that there is thought and that there is the separate and independent reality in which thought exists. You come back with some sort of mystical "everything is interdependent" statements that to me boil down to: we could choose anything as the basis of reality because everything depends on everything else. So if everything is interdependent, then why choose thought as your basis of reality as opposed to some other random conception such as "chemicals" or "quantum mechanics"?

Laird: we could say that "everything that is not this computer monitor in front of me" depends on that computer monitor.

Kevin: That (one thing) that is other than the computer monitor is dependent on the computer monitor, yes.

So then the computer monitor is as fundamental as thought: there is no reality independent of this computer monitor.

Laird: And where do the contents of the mind come from, if not from observation?

Kevin: I don't know where they come from. But they certainly come from somewhere.

You don't know - so what happened to all of that 100% certainty?

Kevin: Logic is necessary for any choosing.

Laird: We could instead choose randomly.

Kevin: Logic is necessary even for this. For example, to choose by throwing a dice requires logic.

Laird: By what definition of logic is random choice logical?

Kevin: Logic is required to choose whether to make a random choice (eg, to throw a dice). It is also required to decide whether the dice is in fact returning a random result.

So we make a choice whether to invest our will-power in logic or in randomness. Once we've made that choice though, logic no longer applies. (we do not need to make any decisions about whether the dice returns a random result, we merely follow the result). Have you read "The Diceman" by Luke Reinhart? It's an excellent book about exactly this topic - a guy who decides to invest all decision-making power in the roll of the dice.

Kevin: only the tool of logic can deliver us to truth.

Laird: How then did you decide that logic was the best tool to use?

Kevin: By using logic.

Oh, so you used logic to decide that logic was the best tool. Do you see the self-referential problem here? Your decision to use logic is based on the presumption that logic is the best tool, which is the very proposition that you are hoping to prove. It's like if I say that I have faith that faith is the ultimate path - it proves nothing. David made this very point in the podcast with Victor - I'm surprised that you fell into the same trap.

Laird: I'll take that as a "correct, I don't want to accept the challenge

Kevin: Take it however you like, but all your questions have already been answered in full. [...] When you realize that A=A you will know the answer.

That doesn't inspire me with any further confidence that you actually have an answer to the challenge of disproving the possibility that tomorrow you will wake up with a higher realisation than you already have. It sounds like a claim of "I have the answer but I'm not telling, you have to work it out for yourself" whereas at the same time you claim that absolute truth is very simple. If it's so simple, then it's no skin off your nose to prove it to interested people like me.

Laird: I experience a period where it is both a chair and a chocolate rabbit.

Kevin: Then you are fooling yourself, and have not clarified your own thought.

Well I'm glad that someone has a better understanding of my thought than I do! ;-)

Laird: It is from one perspective a chair and from another a rabbit. It has no solid identity.

Kevin: You are thinking of an "it" that is independent of perspectives. There is no such thing.

OK, well I'm glad that you said that because it's an interesting idea. You will unfortunately have to concede though that it throws out the window the idea of absolute truth, because if a thing does not exist independently of perspective, then it does not exist absolutely.

Another possible way that I can see of looking at things is that there is something that has an intrinsic identity but that the "something" is malleable enough to appear differently from different perspectives.

Laird: In other words: "maybe you can imagine it

Kevin: You are extremely bad at guessing what other people are thinking. I don't think for a minute that maybe you can imagine it.

Well trying to convince you of what I can or can't imagine is a waste of time. Suffice it to say that you express the position that you cannot imagine it.

Laird: Are you not interested in challenging limitations?

Kevin: Truth is a limitation it is futile to challenge.

Well, finally, an admission that your truth is limited.

Laird: So you have observed God?

Kevin: Yes, as I define it.

I don't think that there's anywhere that I can go from here. If what you say is true then you are a very privileged human being. I can't imagine how anyone can "observe the Infinite" but then I don't claim to have imagined everything yet.

Laird: And you are absolutely certain because...?

Kevin: Because A=A is what logic is, by definition.

Laird: That looks suspiciously to me like "because I said so".

Kevin: You are welcome to try and develop a logic where a thing is not what it is. Good luck to you.

That's still not a proof that it's impossible. Still want to cling to 100% certainty?

Laird: All that I'm looking for from you is the concession that perhaps you don't, after all, hold absolute truth in hand, but that you at least have some pretty special and interesting ideas

Kevin: In other words you're not looking for the truth, but only to have your own beliefs confirmed.

I'm pushing my own beliefs in the absence of convincing evidence that I should adjust them: that is the scientific (and human) approach. I think that my attitude in this debate is proof enough of my openness to truth in whatever form it comes to me.

Laird wrote:So if everything is interdependent, then why choose thought as your basis of reality as opposed to some other random conception such as "chemicals" or "quantum mechanics"?

All these things are thoughts.

there is no reality independent of this computer monitor.

All things are interdependent.

Laird: And where do the contents of the mind come from, if not from observation?

Kevin: I don't know where they come from. But they certainly come from somewhere.

You don't know - so what happened to all of that 100% certainty?

There are countless things I am uncertain of. For example, I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow.

So we make a choice whether to invest our will-power in logic or in randomness.

You may use logic to hand your will over, in part, to a random process like the throw of a dice.

Once we've made that choice though, logic no longer applies.

You have to make the choice continually, since you are making choices every single moment.

Even after having decided to let your decisions be determined by the throw of a dice, you will then have to decide to stick with this decision or not, and you will need to do this continually.

we do not need to make any decisions about whether the dice returns a random result, we merely follow the result

But if the result isn't random - let's say the result of a dice throw is controlled by another person - then we're merely handing our will over to another person.

Have you read "The Diceman" by Luke Reinhart? It's an excellent book about exactly this topic - a guy who decides to invest all decision-making power in the roll of the dice.

I don't think it's interesting at all, because he didn't make all his decisions by the roll of a dice. For example, he didn't, minute-by-minute, use a dice to daily decide whether he should drink or eat, or live or die, or whether he should be a suicide bomber or not. He limited the throwing of the dice to only particular decisions, and he himself determined what the various results would entail.

so you used logic to decide that logic was the best tool.

Of course. If I used illogic, or the throw of a dice to decide, the decision would be invalid.

Do you see the self-referential problem here?

There is no problem.

Your decision to use logic is based on the presumption that logic is the best tool

Logic is the only tool when it comes to reasoning. So there's no choice about the matter.

If you think, you must use logic. And if you don't think, then you're unable to make any decisions at all.

If you can't see this simple point then no further words will be able to throw light on it for you.

It sounds like a claim of "I have the answer but I'm not telling, you have to work it out for yourself"

The answer has already been given in full, but it's not the answer you want to hear.

If it's so simple, then it's no skin off your nose to prove it to interested people like me.

You have the mistaken belief that you are able to understand simple things.

if a thing does not exist independently of perspective, then it does not exist absolutely.

It is an absolute truth that things do not exist independently of all other thngs.

Finally, an admission that your truth is limited.

Truth can never be other than what it is, so of course it is limited.

Shardrol wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote: I wonder if you ever heard this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3AvigRGakA

Heh :)

Good grief, Leyla, what is that?

It was quite bizarre, especially the juxtaposition of this black-leather-coated creature attempting to be sexy & his conservatively-dressed audience of trained seals. Looking into his utterly vacant eyes was not a happy experience.
.

Perhaps "vacant" should be listed under "masculine traits" as it is most easily observed in men.

observe

To an extent he must have been acting, but I'm not sure that much vacancy can be faked.
.
edit jeeze, another vacant guy, and another
.