GENIUS FORUMS

Not philosophy. Philosophy gets me nothing.

So, to you, what is reality? Is it internal, external, or both? Do you believe in free will, that there is something outside the brain? Do you believe that there is something after death?

Loaded questions. Have at 'em [I'm sure they've ALL been asked before].

Reality is either that which is independent of the perceptions and conceptions that define existence, or it is the very perceptions and concepts themselves. Reality means either of those things, depending on the context of a discussion or thinking. Philosophy is what has told me this, not psychology.

I don't have any reason to believe in free will. Philosophy has also been what led me to this position.

That which exists independent of consciousness is certainly not nothing, but it is impossible to say what it is besides a seamless totality. Again, that's philosophy.

I have no reason to believe my personal consciousness does not get extinguished at the death of my body, but I do have many reasons to think that consciousness (as it is generated by younger generations) will carry on, and the ideas I value will carry on to some extent in younger people, who in turn will grow old and die. Wisdom or intelligence is a flame that gets passed from the old generation to the new.

Philosophy.

Reality is the physical devices before they are analysed by humans.

Cory, your ability to come to those conclusions is psychology, the macro study of neurology.

The reason you have beliefs the way you do is psychology, and all philosophy that you have ever gained the knowledge of is the seed of psychology.

Just a thought.

IJesusChrist wrote:Cory, your ability to come to those conclusions is psychology, the macro study of neurology.

Neurology has it's basis in biochemistry, which is rooted in chemistry, which is rooted in physics, and those physics have a basis in something beyond known physics, so I definitely don't limit my thinking to neurology. My thinking is based on the nature of causality itself.

Philosophy 'gets one' many things, an infinity of things, extraordinary things. Then, you have 'natural philosophy' which is the physical sciences, and again: it gets you so many things. It brings you into a fantastical realm of 'getting'. Philosophy (in this amplified sense) has utterly changed man's relationship to the world. You could never exhaust the praise for 'philosophy'.

But it seems that what philosophy can't do is to provide one with a sense of unity or relatedness with life, other people, the 'kosmos'.

Cory wrote: "That which exists independent of consciousness is certainly not nothing, but it is impossible to say what it is besides a seamless totality. Again, that's philosophy."

And this phrase seems to express the limits of philosophy, as I understand it. It seems that only the 'psyche', which is of course what is 'psychological' in us, can have a relationship that extends beyond philosophy (the arithmetic of ideas) into the domain of relatedness.

Psychology also 'gets one' things, but necessarily subjective things. Also, it always seems to be reflected things, not the thing-in-itself. At the worst it is terribly muddy, and at best, vague, personal, insubstantial.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Philosophy 'gets one' many things, an infinity of things, extraordinary things. Then, you have 'natural philosophy' which is the physical sciences, and again: it gets you so many things. It brings you into a fantastical realm of 'getting'. Philosophy (in this amplified sense) has utterly changed man's relationship to the world. You could never exhaust the praise for 'philosophy'.

But it seems that what philosophy can't do is to provide one with a sense of unity or relatedness with life, other people, the 'kosmos'.

I haven't had any problem in that regard.

It all depends on how far you push your logic. If a person keeps cutting it short, then the barrier between himself and the 'kosmos" will always remain in existence.

-

Philosophy is necessarily an activity of a reasoning person. Reason---I think most people intuitively recognize this---is a faculty of a part of a person. Generally speaking it is called 'the intellect'. Philosophy is, I think, a kind of mathematic of thought, and I don't think anyone would suppose that mathematical thought---though it goes very far in describing relationships and can construct vast models---can in and of itself have a 'relationship' with life, other people, or the 'kosmos'.

Is it fair to say that that relationship requires the 'whole person'?

So, unless you have redefined what is, can be or should be 'philosophy', I would have to assume that whatever relationship you have forged is part and parcel of a totality of yourself, through that and with that, including your 'psychology'. And in that it is not strictly 'philsophy' but a religious relationship.
____________________________________________________________

From a Wikipedia page: "For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. Thus religion is considered by some sources to extend to causes, principles, or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or matters of ethics or conscience, and not necessarily including belief in the supernatural."

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Philosophy is necessarily an activity of a reasoning person. Reason---I think most people intuitively recognize this---is a faculty of a part of a person. Generally speaking it is called 'the intellect'. Philosophy is, I think, a kind of mathematic of thought, and I don't think anyone would suppose that mathematical thought---though it goes very far in describing relationships and can construct vast models---can in and of itself have a 'relationship' with life, other people, or the 'kosmos'.

What if it was the case that the barriers between ourselves and reality were essentially "mathematical" in nature? It would mean that philosophy, although being performed by part of the person, would be engaged in the services of the whole person.

At root, the boundaries between ourselves and reality are imagined. We are already fully at one with the kosmos. We already experience the fullness of nirvana in every waking moment. It is just that our deluded imaginations lead us to think otherwise.

So, unless you have redefined what is, can be or should be 'philosophy', I would have to assume that whatever relationship you have forged is part and parcel of a totality of yourself, through that and with that, including your 'psychology'. And in that it is not strictly 'philsophy' but a religious relationship.

I know what you're getting at, but the problem with describing what I do as "religious" is that it has nothing in common with what is commonly call "religion" - there are no scriptures, no articles of blind faith, no moral codes, no rituals, no church sessions, no sing-alongs, etc. Just the intelligent endeavour of applying logic indiscriminately in all directions.

In other words, it is vastly different to religion in every aspect.

-

David wrote: "What if it was the case that the barriers between ourselves and reality were essentially "mathematical" in nature? It would mean that philosophy, although being performed by part of the person, would be engaged in the services of the whole person."

If that were the case you wouldn't put mathematical in quotations. ;-)

"At root, the boundaries between ourselves and reality are imagined. We are already fully at one with the kosmos. We already experience the fullness of nirvana in every waking moment. It is just that our deluded imaginations lead us to think otherwise."

You only need this, the second paragraph, to communicate what you mean. What is 'imagined' is not 'mathematical', though it may function as a 'formula' against the fuller, and truer, perception and (my God, did you actually say this?!?) 'experience'.

"I know what you're getting at, but the problem with describing what I do as "religious" is that it has nothing in common with what is commonly call "religion" - there are no scriptures, no articles of blind faith, no moral codes, no rituals, no church sessions, no sing-alongs, etc. Just the intelligent endeavour of applying logic indiscriminately in all directions."

I am using 'religion' in a far wider sense. That's why you said 'I know what you're getting at'.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:David wrote: "What if it was the case that the barriers between ourselves and reality were essentially "mathematical" in nature? It would mean that philosophy, although being performed by part of the person, would be engaged in the services of the whole person."

If that were the case you wouldn't put mathematical in quotations. ;-)

I was extending the analogy. Of course, the barriers aren't mathematical in nature, they are conceptual. I was drawing attention to the way in which philosophy - the art of manipulating conceptions - can service the whole person trapped inside his own conceptual prisons.

"At root, the boundaries between ourselves and reality are imagined. We are already fully at one with the kosmos. We already experience the fullness of nirvana in every waking moment. It is just that our deluded imaginations lead us to think otherwise."

You only need this, the second paragraph, to communicate what you mean. What is 'imagined' is not 'mathematical', though it may function as a 'formula' against the fuller, and truer, perception and (my God, did you actually say this?!?) 'experience'.

I've always stressed the experiential side of things. Wisdom is a combination of understanding and experiencing God.

Indeed, the two always go together. One cannot experience the nature of God without intellectual understanding it, nor can one intellectually understand it without experiencing its nature directly. The direct experience of God arises the moment the flaws in one's intellectual understanding disappear.

"I know what you're getting at, but the problem with describing what I do as "religious" is that it has nothing in common with what is commonly call "religion" - there are no scriptures, no articles of blind faith, no moral codes, no rituals, no church sessions, no sing-alongs, etc. Just the intelligent endeavour of applying logic indiscriminately in all directions."

I am using 'religion' in a far wider sense. That's why you said 'I know what you're getting at'.

I was referring to your idea that what I do goes beyond mere intellectualism. Yes, it goes beyond intellectualism, but it isn't religious in nature. It goes beyond religion as well.

-

something exists if human is convinced it exists, if human deems it suitable for existence. this is our reality. our reality depends on our desires, whether we 'desire' to believe this or not... because if you desire to not believe then you do not believe. your reality differs from others.

if i were to convince the entire world that i never existed, then i never did. i was never part of their reality.

Gurrb wrote:something exists if human is convinced it exists, if human deems it suitable for existence. this is our reality. our reality depends on our desires, whether we 'desire' to believe this or not... because if you desire to not believe then you do not believe. your reality differs from others.

if i were to convince the entire world that i never existed, then i never did. i was never part of their reality.

It seems like you are talking about individualized perception and not necessarily reality. I think a flaw in this line of reasoning is that in order for us to interact we would have to constitute part of the same reality, which would be independent of any invidiual perspective on it, or you are God and you create all of us. I think the reality beyond the individual ego is its own and in terms of our perspectives it determines that too. I like Metzinger's vision of the human brain boring a tunnel of perception through an otherwise highly (or infinitely) dense reality. What he calls The Ego Tunnel. The view suggests that our gross similarity of perception is a result of our gross similarity in reality and we have a shared manifold of perception. Of course, what Metzinger does not say is that even the perception of our physical organism is tied up in this shared manifold. Never-the-less, our shared manifold is true-ish, it will never be a complete description of our real existence. But that's obvious, for any description there are innumerable dynamics at play. Thus, it is useful to view ourselves as physical organisms, and of course that is pretty obvious too.

Animus wrote: It seems like you are talking about individualized perception and not necessarily reality.

I didn't know they were different. What I see, exists. If no one else sees it, does it exist? Eventually this will lead to a speach about schizophrenia which I believe is as far as one can go (more or less) into the ties between psychology, cognition, and reality.

Is a schizophrenic seeing reality? It certainly becomes reality to them, it only plays by different laws (rules) created by the psyche.

I believe psychology in essence, is everything. It is reality. Without psychology, would it all exist? I think I stated this before;
A tree falls in the woods, no one is around - does it make a sound?

The universe existed far before cognition and thought, much before consciousness - did it truly exist?

These questions can be deemed philosophical, but they really depend upon psychology. Psychology is, yes, neurology, and so on down the line to the forces of nature. Everything becomes fundamental, but does that mean it is still not psychology?

It may be egotistical to say that the universe did not exist before consciousness, but it is not completely wrong that it's existance may have actually differed; it may require a seperate definition from existed. We may need two definitions for existance - that which is percieved, and that which is required in order to be percieved, but not directly percieved itself.

A definition would satisfy my psychology.

IJesusChrist wrote:A definition would satisfy my psychology.

When we define such-and-such, as in when we denote the word "reality" to mean "everything that exists", have we gone and touched a world beyond psychology? How about when we use a syllogism?

Does our psychology matter when we discover that from "if p then q" and "if q then r", that "if p then r"? If anything, that's as much of a sign of an objective reality, distinct from our psychology, as the idea of the insubstantial sound of a tree falling in the forest.

Is:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: "if p then q" and "if q then r", that "if p then r"?

this reality before we observe it? We know it is going to happen before it does, however, is it reality? Now we're fucking with philosophy, and I don't like it.

our mind tells us (through knowledge) the universe existed prior to human. i can't really grasp existence through the theory of the mind that anything could've existed before consciousness.

consider the pre-existing universe (prior to consciouness) as 'potential' universe. it still existed, in a sense, but also didn't truly exist. once consciousness was created, all that was potentially existent, now was actually existent.

Guurb,

Thats what I was getting at - I believe their should be two definitions for our one definition of "existance" we have now.

That which had to exist, but was never observed, and that which can plainly be observed.

I don't know what we are talking about anymore. What's psychology?

There is no reality without psychology.

And psychology can manipulate reality.

Your moon is not my moon, but on some warped basis, we can relate.

Trevor wrote: "Does our psychology matter when we discover that from "if p then q" and "if q then r", that "if p then r"? If anything, that's as much of a sign of an objective reality, distinct from our psychology, as the idea of the insubstantial sound of a tree falling in the forest."

A fact is a fact and remains a fact. Only in a living person, and in the psyche of a living person, could 'truth' ever be sensed, known or described. Truth seems to be intimately linked to the psyche.

IJesusChrist wrote:And psychology can manipulate reality.

It can, but it has no intrinsic worth. Truth (no inherent existence) will always out in the end. Perhaps not in an individuals lifetime, or even the human race's entire existence lifetime, but in the end, it will prevail.

there are limited truths outside of psychology, they all pertain to a law(s). Psychology holds infinite truths to the conceiver.

It is hard to say how much psychology can truly govern. What I've experienced is that the laws of nature will always hold true, however, one can manipulate those laws in different senses and thus create different meanings from them, yet, at a baseline they are still the same laws as for all other experiencers.

It's an odd phenomenon that psychology can manipulate 'reality'. But yes, psychology needs the reality to manipulate, thus creating that end-all result you are speaking of.

Psychology does not manipulate reality; it engages it according to its type.

@Dan
Psychology manipulates reality, how can one thing be beautiful, yet disgusting? Large, yet small?

How can a car be a car, and not metal upon metal upon plastic?

How can assumptions prove correct, and not correct?

How can one person be right, and wrong at the same time?

Reality can be manipulated, as I defined it - reality is simply in your mind anyways. The reality outside is mostly space, emptiness, colorless, tasteless... senseless. We manipulate reality.

Unless you define reality as something else.