GENIUS FORUMS

Quinn wrote:A solipsist is someone who believes that everything exists in his own mind. Kevin's affirmation that the physical world is an illusion is something else entirely.

mikiel wrote:I simply meant that asserting "something else entirely" without any mention of what else... if the physical world is an illusion... is totally vacuous.

But Kevin had already replied prior to this lack of explanation you conceived on David’s part:

Solway wrote:I do believe there is an external world, but the "physical world", as people commonly believe in it (as an independent existence), is an illusion.

~

Shen wrote:How is it that even though “1,” for example, cannot be experienced in any other form than that of pure logic (that is, that one always experiences “1” thing and never “1”), we know ahead of experience (a priori) what “1” is exactly because it isn’t empirical?

mikiel wrote:How 'bout "Kosmos" as the One omnipresent Consciousness Whos body is the entire cosmos. How can "one" know this One? By direct identity, as each form (manifest as multiplicity) realizes "I Am One", the same Identity in all. All this, of course totally transcends "pure logic." The holographic model is my fave, tho. Every "bit" of the minutia embodies a mini version of the whole-0-gram.

Oh, mikiel. You have not transcended pure logic. You’re just not very good at it, yet. :)

Can you elaborate on this idea of “direct identity” realisable by each form, and does it include realisation in such things as tables, cat whiskers and cigarette butts?

Ok, you got me on this one. If you assume the totally absurd premise that there is no physical world…

What if your assumption is, as is the case with Kevin, that there is no independently existing physical world? How would that be different to your idea of the “One omnipresent Consciousness whose body is the entire cosmos”?

Since you use inverted commas when using the term, I gather also that you think pure logic is on the order of fantasy---of what order, then, are fantasy and the kind of abstractions you make? Illusory?

Exploring another one of Kevin's replies with your own ideas:

That which we experience is real.

So, let's say--hypothetically, of course--that you're a die-hard materialist and you believe the physical world is what is real and not what we experience (that is, you make no distinction between the two). Does it not follow from your idea of "oneness" and direct identity with the omnipresent cosmic-oneness that you would know everything that ever was, is and ever will be simply by touching your arse, for example?

Leyla Shen wrote:So, let's say--hypothetically, of course--that you're a die-hard materialist and you believe the physical world is what is real and not what we experience (that is, you make no distinction between the two). Does it not follow from your idea of "oneness" and direct identity with the omnipresent cosmic-oneness that you would know everything that ever was, is and ever will be simply by touching your arse, for example?

If the mind and the physical world were two entirely separate things, with some kind of real boundary between them, then there could be no interaction between the two. There would be no way that the mind could ever know of the physical world. For this reason alone we can reject the idea of a separate physical world.

Perhaps the truly die-hard materialist would say that the mind is itself entirely material — and I'm not sure I'd want to dispute that.

Does it not follow from your idea of "oneness" and direct identity with the omnipresent cosmic-oneness that you would know everything that ever was, is and ever will be simply by touching your arse, for example?

It depends on the degree to which you want to divide things up and how complicated you want to make things.

You can divide the Universe up into two things, "self" and "other", which keeps it pretty simple. Or you can make it even simpler just by lumping everything into the one single thing. Then you can know everything that every was and ever will be — because there's just one thing.

However, if you divide everything up into infinite parts, which you can conceivably do, then there's no way you can know everything.

Of course, you don't have any choice how many parts you are caused to divide things up into.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Isaac wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:That which we experience is real.

So what we are experiencing is not the physical world?

Something is causing what we experience.

When you think you are awake, you may be dreaming. Or our universe might be only a computer simulation. But even if we are all dreaming, or if our universe is a computer simulation, it will still be true that our experiences are caused by something.

If realism is true, then the laws of physics are necessarily point-of-view invariant. Our experience of reality (or the dream, or the simulation) has physical laws which are point-of-view invariant. There is no such restriction or constraints on a dream or a random computer simulation.

Isaac wrote:If realism is true . . .

I'll presume you mean "scientific realism" as distinguished from all the other kinds!

. . . then the laws of physics are necessarily point-of-view invariant. Our experience of reality (or the dream, or the simulation) has physical laws which are point-of-view invariant. There is no such restriction or constraints on a dream or a random computer simulation.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.

Let's say that all we experience is part of a computer simulation — not a "random" one (whatever that is), but a designed one. Still there will be certain laws that are point-of-view invariant, such as the law of cause and effect, which is a philosophical law. But all laws that are derived from or supported by empirical measurements may have been programmed-in to the simulation artificially.

Where to begin...
For openers, if you were to take a graduate level epistemology course, we would be closer to common understanding of how we know what we know.
Here's the Wiki link on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
And, if you want to go deeper, here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy version:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

As to logic, it may be helpful to specify the difference between deductive reasoning, i.e., what necessarily follows from a given premise (regardless of how absurd), and inductive reasoning, which can be summed up as the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observation.

That said, I'll jump into your post, responding in bold.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Quinn wrote:A solipsist is someone who believes that everything exists in his own mind. Kevin's affirmation that the physical world is an illusion is something else entirely.

mikiel wrote:I simply meant that asserting "something else entirely" without any mention of what else... if the physical world is an illusion... is totally vacuous.

But Kevin had already replied prior to this lack of explanation you conceived on David’s part:

Ok, I didn't study the whole thread before jumping in. Mea culpa on that point.

Solway wrote:I do believe there is an external world, but the "physical world", as people commonly believe in it (as an independent existence), is an illusion.

...Looking for my hair-splitting scalpel.... ah! So, the atomic chart of elements is good science on one level. It describes an objective physical world of atomic elements. Then comes the molecular level of combinations of atoms. Then along comes the quantum physics world of probabilities, Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, entangled particles, etc., another take, on the micro world of sub-atomics.

Then we go to mystic transcendence and find that there is no internal vs external anymore, there being no real boundaries, as already discussed here. (I realized this in '94, as shared in many contexts here already.)
Whew! Anyway, the "physical world" is not made of solid chunks of stuff but distinct quanta of energy in all the specific and very well known patterns described above.

~

Shen wrote:How is it that even though “1,” for example, cannot be experienced in any other form than that of pure logic (that is, that one always experiences “1” thing and never “1”), we know ahead of experience (a priori) what “1” is exactly because it isn’t empirical?

mikiel wrote:How 'bout "Kosmos" as the One omnipresent Consciousness Whos body is the entire cosmos. How can "one" know this One? By direct identity, as each form (manifest as multiplicity) realizes "I Am One", the same Identity in all. All this, of course totally transcends "pure logic." The holographic model is my fave, tho. Every "bit" of the minutia embodies a mini version of the whole-0-gram.

Oh, mikiel. You have not transcended pure logic. You’re just not very good at it, yet. :)
On what do you base this statement. GIGO applies to logic as well as computer programming, and that was the essence of my critique of logic in previous post.

Can you elaborate on this idea of “direct identity” realisable by each form, and does it include realisation in such things as tables, cat whiskers and cigarette butts?

Like I said, the holograpic model is a good example. Once "my personal separate identity" was seen as an illusuion and transcended, I realized that there is One Identity in all. Religious folks call it God Consciousness/Realization. It does not imply omniscience, but gnosis, which can be stated, as Jesus did, "I and the Creator are one."

Ok, you got me on this one. If you assume the totally absurd premise that there is no physical world…

What if your assumption is, as is the case with Kevin, that there is no independently existing physical world? How would that be different to your idea of the “One omnipresent Consciousness whose body is the entire cosmos”?

The "physical world", as in paragraph above, exists independent of sentient being's observation/perception of it. This is "known" a-priori, based on trust in our colective senses, including scietific technology and tecniques as actually seeing "things" from many different "angles" until a whole and reliable objective "picture" emerges, as per the scientific method of validation.
In the larger sense (gnosis) mystics know that It is all one being, and we can focus on given parts as our interest inspires us to investigate.

Since you use inverted commas when using the term, I gather also that you think pure logic is on the order of fantasy---of what order, then, are fantasy and the kind of abstractions you make? Illusory?

Again, no. But, as above, "knowledge" depends on reliable observation and inductive reasoning as well as classical deductive logic, which is vulnerable to the absurd premise problem, as best exemplified by solipsism

mikiel

Leyla Shen wrote:Exploring another one of Kevin's replies with your own ideas:

That which we experience is real.

So, let's say--hypothetically, of course--that you're a die-hard materialist and you believe the physical world is what is real and not what we experience (that is, you make no distinction between the two). Does it not follow from your idea of "oneness" and direct identity with the omnipresent cosmic-oneness that you would know everything that ever was, is and ever will be simply by touching your arse, for example?

I just touched on this as the distinction between omniscience, which doesn't exist in individual forms and realization of omnipresent Identity. In other words, gnostics know that consciousness is One ("I Am One") without knowing what It (consciousness) contains in all details. This goes to the distinction between Awareness Itself and what we are aware of, a point I've made many times in this forum.

But re: "(if) you believe the physical world is what is real and not what we experience (that is, you make no distinction between the two)....
Of course there are inaccurate perceptions of the physical world. I saw this all the time as a psychologist in mental hospitals. But this does not argue that there is no physical world independent of our small and insignificant species of Earthlings. We do not create the cosmos by out perception of it. This is known a-priori, as stated before. Gnosis is the prime example of a-priori epistemology. It is direct knowing, as in certainty, with no doubt whatsoever, in resonance with "what is" as distinct from subjective fantasy, which is transcended upon Awakening.
mikiel

Kevin,

Kevin Solway wrote:

Isaac wrote:If realism is true . . .

I'll presume you mean "scientific realism" as distinguished from all the other kinds!

. . . then the laws of physics are necessarily point-of-view invariant. Our experience of reality (or the dream, or the simulation) has physical laws which are point-of-view invariant. There is no such restriction or constraints on a dream or a random computer simulation.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying.

Let's say that all we experience is part of a computer simulation — not a "random" one (whatever that is), but a designed one. Still there will be certain laws that are point-of-view invariant, such as the law of cause and effect, which is a philosophical law. But all laws that are derived from or supported by empirical measurements may have been programmed-in to the simulation artificially.

A simulated reality would have no reason to have its laws be point-of-view invariance. It does not predict that it would be necessarily so. Scientific realism would. It is an inductive argument, but an argument nonetheless.

Isaac wrote:A simulated reality would have no reason to have its laws be point-of-view invariant.

How do you know this? It would depend on the reason the simulated reality was created. The creator of the simulation may have programmed such invariant laws into the simulation for some reason. But those laws will only be invariant within the simulation.

Solway wrote:Perhaps the truly die-hard materialist would say that the mind is itself entirely material — and I'm not sure I'd want to dispute that.

Well, there might well be good and wise reasons to not want to dispute it.

However, the only way a truly die-hard materialist could make such a claim would be to define all things abstract---thought, ideas, logic, truth, mind, self---as forms of perception that are necessarily, directly and only caused by some physical object/physical objects. Anything else, and I'd find it difficult to label him a materialist and get away with it, frankly.

If the boundaries of the physical universe are illusory (that is, the physical universe does not exist independently), exactly what are we saying it depends upon and to what are we pointing when we say “the Totality”?

The logical proof for the spiritual/abstract lies in a priori knowledge and pure logic (the fruits of the realm of simple dualistic thinking you referred to later in your post).

The assumption that the mind itself is entirely material necessarily is a disputation of such a thing as “pure” logic, by definition alone. (Why else do you think people go around using inverted commas so much? It's not something they can touch and hold, feel and cuddle, taste and see.) What is pure about it if it depends upon material objects for its existence and is itself simply another material form? Hence, any argument for pure logic disputes the notion that mind is entirely material---unless what we mean by a truly die-hard materialist is one who is essentially arguing for first cause, i.e., the first cause of mind is the physical/material.

And, well, I don’t believe in first causes, period.

David, what do you say?

divine focus wrote:

It would be incruguous to look for the source of movement in anything or any place, because obviously such a source cannot exist in beginningless Nature.

Would it then not make more sense to look at nature as the movement itself instead of a thing in which things move? This may make it harder to grasp mentally, as the mind works better with concrete things, but would it not be more accurate?

Leyla Shen wrote:If the boundaries of the physical universe are illusory (that is, the physical universe does not exist independently), exactly what are we saying it depends upon and to what are we pointing when we say “the Totality”?

If we divide the Totality up into two things "the physical" and "the non-physical", then the physical would be dependent on the non-physical, and the non-physical dependent on the physical. The created boundary between the two is not illusory, it's just that it's created, and doesn't exist in and of itself. The boundary is only illusory if we think it exists independently.

The assumption that the mind itself is entirely material necessarily is a disputation of such a thing as “pure” logic, by definition alone.

Not really. Computers are entirely material and yet they are able to process in a purely logical way.

What is pure about it if it depends upon material objects for its existence and is itself simply another material form?

Let's say that a computer processes 1 + 1 = 2. This fact will be true regardless of any empirical measurements, and that's why it's called "pure", even though it is dependent on a material computer processing it.

mikiel wrote:Where to begin...

Oh, I don’t know—why not just take a stab in the warm and unconscious, merged-void darkness?

For openers, if you were to take a graduate level epistemology course, we would be closer to common understanding of how we know what we know.

You reckon? My view is, if you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn’t need to imply I need an graduate course before you can be understood. Then again, perhaps I’m thinking of wisdom rather than smartness or, academic wankery…

Which of us is suffering from subjective fantasy?

That's a pretty funny statement, though. I need to take a course in order to arrive at a common understanding of how we know what we know. Apparently, you should have placed the word "common" in inverted commas, too.

As to logic, it may be helpful to specify the difference between deductive reasoning, i.e., what necessarily follows from a given premise (regardless of how absurd), and inductive reasoning, which can be summed up as the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observation.

What, exactly, caused you to assume I do not know the difference (assuming you are specifying this for my benefit, that is)?

LS: Oh, mikiel. You have not transcended pure logic. You’re just not very good at it, yet. :)

m: On what do you base this statement. GIGO applies to logic as well as computer programming, and that was the essence of my critique of logic in previous post.

My understanding of pure logic and your flowery, flowy way of doing anything but defining what is there to be transcended (my comment, by the way, had nothing to do with any previous post and everything to do with the supposed non-garbage-in comment it was directed at). Namely, this:

How 'bout "Kosmos" as the One omnipresent Consciousness Whos body is the entire cosmos. How can "one" know this One? By direct identity, as each form (manifest as multiplicity) realizes "I Am One", the same Identity in all. All this, of course totally transcends "pure logic." The holographic model is my fave, tho. Every "bit" of the minutia embodies a mini version of the whole-0-gram.

How does this transcend ‘ “pure logic” ’? Did you use something else in order to arrive at this realisation/transcendence? If so, what?

LS: Can you elaborate on this idea of “direct identity” realisable by each form, and does it include realisation in such things as tables, cat whiskers and cigarette butts?

m: Like I said, the holograpic model is a good example. Once "my personal separate identity" was seen as an illusuion and transcended, I realized that there is One Identity in all. Religious folks call it God Consciousness/Realization.

I do not know, nor am I inspired to make the effort to investigate, “the holographic model.” Can you not discuss the matter in plain English? It’s interesting that you feel it necessary, for example, to put the key terms in question—‘pure logic’ and ‘direct identity’—in inverted commas and think you’ve said something meaningful. Why do you do this? Is this what happens when you “transcend” pure logic?

It does not imply omniscience, but gnosis, which can be stated, as Jesus did, "I and the Creator are one."

Without a proper and clear context, this simply comes across as just another meaningless platitude.

LS: What if your assumption is, as is the case with Kevin, that there is no independently existing physical world? How would that be different to your idea of the “One omnipresent Consciousness whose body is the entire cosmos”?

m: The "physical world", as in paragraph above, exists independent of sentient being's observation/perception of it.

No, it doesn’t. This has been explained several times. The first time, you missed it and now you’re ignoring it.

This is "known" a-priori, based on trust in our colective senses, including scietific technology and tecniques as actually seeing "things" from many different "angles" until a whole and reliable objective "picture" emerges, as per the scientific method of validation.

There are those bloody inverted commas again…

I cannot “speak” to you under these conditions, God fucken help me, inşallah!

Jeez, man, am I getting you as an entirely separate identity, or what...

I think if your clientèle were not insane before they saw you, they certainly had every chance of it afterwards! Did you deliver therapy in inverted commas, as well?

LS: The assumption that the mind itself is entirely material necessarily is a disputation of such a thing as “pure” logic, by definition alone.

KS: Not really. Computers are entirely material and yet they are able to process in a purely logical way.

I disagree. What makes it a material object able to process purely logically is the non-inherent, non-illusory boundary between the physical and the non-physical. Given this non-illusory, non-inherent boundary, it is illogical to conclude that the computer is entirely material. Part of what makes it a computer is the non-physical aspect of its computing capacity. Otherwise, it’d just be a pile of metal, plastic and glass, etc.

LS: What is pure about it if it depends upon material objects for its existence and is itself simply another material form?

KS: Let's say that a computer processes 1 + 1 = 2. This fact will be true regardless of any empirical measurements, and that's why it's called "pure", even though it is dependent on a material computer processing it.

Precisely. Yet, by definition, it's not a computer unless it computes.

Leyla Shen wrote:

mikiel wrote:Where to begin...

Oh, I don’t know—why not just take a stab in the warm and unconscious, merged-void darkness?
Your smart-ass-isms are lame and irrelevant to any sincere dialogue toward mutual understanding.

For openers, if you were to take a graduate level epistemology course, we would be closer to common understanding of how we know what we know.

You reckon? My view is, if you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn’t need to imply I need an graduate course before you can be understood. Then again, perhaps I’m thinking of wisdom rather than smartness or, academic wankery…

So you think that a thorough understanding of how we arrive at real and true knowledge is "academic wankery?" The wisdom of knowing "how we know what we think we know" seems to elude you.
But you seem compalcent in your ignorance of epistemology. Maybe logic without reference to the "real world" is a satisfactory mind game for you.

Which of us is suffering from subjective fantasy?

Once the illusory subject/object boundary is transcended, one can then know the difference between objective reality and subjective fantasy. Since you show no sign of knowing the difference, I'd have to say the answer is that you are the one in question suffering.

That's a pretty funny statement, though. I need to take a course in order to arrive at a common understanding of how we know what we know. Apparently, you should have placed the word "common" in inverted commas, too.

If you have a clue about epistemology, I've seen no sign of it. You seem to think that the study of knowledge itself is irrelevant. Seems you prefer a nice round of tautology. Who cares about "the real world?" (Don't choke on those quotes now! )

As to logic, it may be helpful to specify the difference between deductive reasoning, i.e., what necessarily follows from a given premise (regardless of how absurd), and inductive reasoning, which can be summed up as the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observation.

What, exactly, caused you to assume I do not know the difference (assuming you are specifying this for my benefit, that is)?

Your harping on "pure logic" without mention of or a thought toward how the premise is validated.

LS: Oh, mikiel. You have not transcended pure logic. You’re just not very good at it, yet. :)

m: On what do you base this statement. GIGO applies to logic as well as computer programming, and that was the essence of my critique of logic in previous post.

My understanding of pure logic and your flowery, flowy way of doing anything but defining what is there to be transcended (my comment, by the way, had nothing to do with any previous post and everything to do with the supposed non-garbage-in comment it was directed at). Namely, this:

(Damn!... another person here with a personal dislike of my writing style! So what's your favorite ice cream flavor?... A non-sequitor?... not really. Same relevance to the discussion.)

How 'bout "Kosmos" as the One omnipresent Consciousness Whos body is the entire cosmos. How can "one" know this One? By direct identity, as each form (manifest as multiplicity) realizes "I Am One", the same Identity in all. All this, of course totally transcends "pure logic." The holographic model is my fave, tho. Every "bit" of the minutia embodies a mini version of the whole-0-gram.

How does this transcend ‘ “pure logic” ’? Did you use something else in order to arrive at this realisation/transcendence? If so, what?

If one sits still until all the mind chatter subsides, what is left is consciousness itself *transcending all content.* Most folks have at least heard of this as nirvana or samadhi. In the West it has been called God consciousness. Like I've said many times, it is realization of the universality (no "me/not me" boundary) of Awareness ItSelf beyond (transcending) the content, what we are aware of. The "what" here includes pure logic.

LS: Can you elaborate on this idea of “direct identity” realisable by each form, and does it include realisation in such things as tables, cat whiskers and cigarette butts?

"Realisation??" One "realizes" certain truths as distinct from fasehoods, realities as distinct from illusions. One *perceives* such things as the above. Maybe we do in fact speak different languages.

m: Like I said, the holograpic model is a good example. Once "my personal separate identity" was seen as an illusuion and transcended, I realized that there is One Identity in all. Religious folks call it God Consciousness/Realization.

I do not know, nor am I inspired to make the effort to investigate, “the holographic model.” Can you not discuss the matter in plain English? It’s interesting that you feel it necessary, for example, to put the key terms in question—‘pure logic’ and ‘direct identity’—in inverted commas and think you’ve said something meaningful. Why do you do this? Is this what happens when you “transcend” pure logic?

Too bad. the hologram is a perfect model for resonance of the part in identity with the whole. But then I'm half lay scientist. Excuuuuse me! And my use of quotes that do not refer to an actual quotations is just an old habit, obviously a "bad" habit in your judgement. For me they merely denote a misunderstood concept, or a phrase that has been hammerded to death. Its a very petty detail, worthy of a prissy school 'marm' with a burr up her "arse" about punctuation.

It does not imply omniscience, but gnosis, which can be stated, as Jesus did, "I and the Creator are one."

Without a proper and clear context, this simply comes across as just another meaningless platitude.

Here's some context for you, shared here a few time before. the same "realization" from mystics of several Traditions, all of whom realize identity in unity with The One.
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless

LS: What if your assumption is, as is the case with Kevin, that there is no independently existing physical world? How would that be different to your idea of the “One omnipresent Consciousness whose body is the entire cosmos”?

m: The "physical world", as in paragraph above, exists independent of sentient being's observation/perception of it.

No, it doesn’t. This has been explained several times. The first time, you missed it and now you’re ignoring it.

Maybe you missed it, but I got out my hair-splitting scalpel and gave a brief history of what science knows about the physical world as determined through rigorous application of the scientific method. You can ignore science but you can't make it go away, just so you can play in your little sandbox of "pure logic' without being distracted by all these annoying "facts" (Oops, there they are again... pesky little things, huh?)

This is "known" a-priori, based on trust in our colective senses, including scietific technology and tecniques as actually seeing "things" from many different "angles" until a whole and reliable objective "picture" emerges, as per the scientific method of validation.

There are those bloody inverted commas again…

I cannot “speak” to you under these conditions, God fucken help me, inşallah!

Petty, petty, petty! Why do you make such a BFD out of a small quirk of punctuation, and derail the substance of the discussion over it. Maybe a trivial re-arrangement of your priorities is in order.

Jeez, man, am I getting you as an entirely separate identity, or what...
Nah... just another individual form with a writing and punctuation style which seems to make you choke-n-puke. I see you also subscribe to ego's axiom, "Everyone should be more like me." As I said recently, no, thanks.

I think if your clientèle were not insane before they saw you, they certainly had every chance of it afterwards! Did you deliver therapy in inverted commas, as well?

This is punch line closing for your oh-so-cogent argument here?... an insult to my ability as a professional psychotherapist? And I'm not even counseling ego's in crisis or insane mental patients anymore. Moved on to transpersonal psychology, but that's probably another field about which you are clueless.

Oh well. Its been "interesting" (choke!) talking to you, but we clearly have nowhere to go from here.
Thanks for taking the time, anyway.
mikiel

Kevin Solway wrote:

Isaac wrote:A simulated reality would have no reason to have its laws be point-of-view invariant.

How do you know this? It would depend on the reason the simulated reality was created. The creator of the simulation may have programmed such invariant laws into the simulation for some reason. But those laws will only be invariant within the simulation.

Burden of proof fallacy! There is no reason to think that a simulated reality would predict point-of-view invariance. Please account for this prediction, or scientific realism seems to be the more probable.

Isaac wrote:A simulated reality would have no reason to have its laws be point-of-view invariant.

One reason a simulated reality would be likely to have its laws be point-of-view invariant is that it would be easier for the beings occupying that simulated reality to survive. If the laws kept changing all the time nothing much could be achieved.

Burden of proof fallacy!

You mean that you haven't provided the burden of proof?

Kevin,

Point-of-view invariance is not the same as laws that stay the same. Point-of-view invariance means that the laws of physics do not select a privileged frame of reference.

I do not see how a simulation would necessarily predict point-of-view invariance, other than being one of infinitely many possible outcomes.

Isaac wrote:Point-of-view invariance is not the same as laws that stay the same. Point-of-view invariance means that the laws of physics do not select a privileged frame of reference.

If you happen to be living in a computer simulation in which no gravity is perceived, then the physics you create will not include gravity.

What we perceive and what is real may be two entirely different things. So there is still point of view invariance. That is, we may perceive gravity from our point of view even though there is none. Our point of view does not privilege us.

divine focus wrote:

It would be incruguous to look for the source of movement in anything or any place, because obviously such a source cannot exist in beginningless Nature.

Would it then not make more sense to look at nature as the movement itself instead of a thing in which things move? This may make it harder to grasp mentally, as the mind works better with concrete things, but would it not be more accurate?

For example, if Nature was the sum function of all action, mathematically speaking, this would solve the problem of an eternal thing in which motion exists and there being nothing outside this thing to originate the motion. If there is no origin to the motion, this eternal thing would actually exist within infinite time. It wouldn't actually encompass time as it is expected to do, meaning that time would be outside of it and independent of it. Time itself would be the absolute and not any compilation of things, however infinite.

This is really the problem of an infinite thing: how can anything be infinite if it is a thing? It would then not be a thing, but it has to be something! Otherwise, you would not perceive anything. Action is the logical alternative to thingness, as action may combine seemlessly with action so as to be "one thing." This also places time within action--meaning that time is action happening--so that action may be absolute.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Isaac wrote:Point-of-view invariance is not the same as laws that stay the same. Point-of-view invariance means that the laws of physics do not select a privileged frame of reference.

If you happen to be living in a computer simulation in which no gravity is perceived, then the physics you create will not include gravity.

What we perceive and what is real may be two entirely different things. So there is still point of view invariance. That is, we may perceive gravity from our point of view even though there is none. Our point of view does not privilege us.

The content of our perception makes sense on scientific realism. It does not make much sense on a simulation.

.
All said and done, illusory or otherwise, objective or subjective, boundaries are here to stay and have always been, and are necessarily an inherent part of totality, without which consciousness or even the most rudimentary form of awareness is not possible. Without boundaries themselves, even totality cannot be; in fact that is what totality itself exactly IS, without any grand boundary encompassing this infiniteness; to say the least, at least just one boundary (/) that lies between the, I/not-I, or subjective/objective, or in other words yin/yang, is absolutely necessary, and this has nothing to do with any ONE particular thing existing inherently ('objectively' as generally understood), which is not possible in any which case however.

Nice thread; gives a good idea of where one comes from.

Ho-fucken-hum...

Forum's not working properly and I can't use the quotes function which, for the sake of clarity, will be invaluable in my reply to you, mickeymouse.

You'll have to hold on to your misplaced arrogance a little longer, therefore.

Leyla Shen wrote:Ho-fucken-hum...

Forum's not working properly and I can't use the quotes function which, for the sake of clarity, will be invaluable in my reply to you, mickeymouse.

You'll have to hold on to your misplaced arrogance a little longer, therefore.

If all you've got is smart-ass remarks and whining about my bizaar use of "inverted commas" you might as well save it.

I made several actual substantial points in my last reply to you, actually in response to your questions and arguments... which, from your replies so far, I have no expectation that you will address.

"mickeymouse"? What grade are you in? You actually sounded more intelligent than a first-grader up til now.

mikiel

Your smart-ass-isms are lame and irrelevant to any sincere dialogue toward mutual understanding.

And your transcendence of the illusory self appears to have been temporary, at best. Should I be more like you, mickeymouse? Mutual understanding between what, exactly? Two separate and personal selves?

The wisdom of knowing "how we know what we think we know" seems to elude you.
But you seem compalcent in your ignorance of epistemology. Maybe logic without reference to the "real world" is a satisfactory mind game for you.

Show me where I have applied logic “without reference to the real world.” Since you have transcended this illusory, separate and personal self, you must be referring to something on the order of the Royal "We," no? Perhaps you need to review what you know that you think you know. Apparently, what I know is eluding you.

Once the illusory subject/object boundary is transcended, one can then know the difference between objective reality and subjective fantasy. Since you show no sign of knowing the difference, I'd have to say the answer is that you are the one in question suffering.

Since you clearly have not transcended the illusory self to such an extent that you continue to assert that I have one, you are suffering from subjective fantasy and, thus, you are in no position to judge on the matter.

If you have a clue about epistemology, I've seen no sign of it. You seem to think that the study of knowledge itself is irrelevant. Seems you prefer a nice round of tautology. Who cares about "the real world?" (Don't choke on those quotes now! )

You have demonstrated no such thing--your assertions merely comprise subjective fantasy and impart nothing in terms of epistemology. And you want me to buy into your attempt to blame me for it? Not on your Nelly, Nobby.

m: As to logic, it may be helpful to specify the difference between deductive reasoning, i.e., what necessarily follows from a given premise (regardless of how absurd), and inductive reasoning, which can be summed up as the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observation.

L: What, exactly, caused you to assume I do not know the difference (assuming you are specifying this for my benefit, that is)?

m: Your harping on "pure logic" without mention of or a thought toward how the premise is validated.

In a discussion of pure logic, the definition must be clear. How can you make an argument on a subject you fail to define, except by putting it in quotation marks to indicate it's been hammered to death?

No, mikiel. I haven't even begun arguing with you. You refuse to take a clear position on the epistemological fundamentals.

(Damn!... another person here with a personal dislike of my writing style! So what's your favorite ice cream flavor?... A non-sequitor?... not really. Same relevance to the discussion.)

Well, yes. I don’t come here to witness different “writing styles.” In case you failed to notice, the forum has a different purpose--with which you are clearly at odds.

If one sits still until all the mind chatter subsides, what is left is consciousness itself *transcending all content.* Most folks have at least heard of this as nirvana or samadhi. In the West it has been called God consciousness. Like I've said many times, it is realization of the universality (no "me/not me" boundary) of Awareness ItSelf beyond (transcending) the content, what we are aware of. The "what" here includes pure logic.

Why is it then that despite this "transcendence," there is still "mind chatter" in universality?

LS: Can you elaborate on this idea of “direct identity” realisable by each form, and does it include realisation in such things as tables, cat whiskers and cigarette butts?

m: "Realisation??" One "realizes" certain truths as distinct from fasehoods, realities as distinct from illusions. One *perceives* such things as the above. Maybe we do in fact speak different languages.

Well, actually, I was repeating your own language. You used the term a few times without the quotes and now, with the quotes, you're implying you've hammered it to death? Apparently, you are still arguing with yourself. Here's it is, in the first instance:

mikiel wrote:How 'bout "Kosmos" as the One omnipresent Consciousness Whos body is the entire cosmos. How can "one" know this One? By direct identity, as each form (manifest as multiplicity) realizes "I Am One", the same Identity in all. All this, of course totally transcends "pure logic." The holographic model is my fave, tho. Every "bit" of the minutia embodies a mini version of the whole-0-gram.

L: I do not know, nor am I inspired to make the effort to investigate, “the holographic model.” Can you not discuss the matter in plain English? It’s interesting that you feel it necessary, for example, to put the key terms in question—‘pure logic’ and ‘direct identity’—in inverted commas and think you’ve said something meaningful. Why do you do this? Is this what happens when you “transcend” pure logic?

m: Too bad. the hologram is a perfect model for resonance of the part in identity with the whole.

Plain English helps. However, one has to be a master of the subject matter, first.

But then I'm half lay scientist. Excuuuuse me!

Try sticking to discussing the issue philosophically, then.

And my use of quotes that do not refer to an actual quotations is just an old habit, obviously a "bad" habit in your judgement. For me they merely denote a misunderstood concept, or a phrase that has been hammerded to death. Its a very petty detail, worthy of a prissy school 'marm' with a burr up her "arse" about punctuation.

Rubbish. This is just a further demonstration of how shallow your mind actually is. It’s not a bad habit; it’s a serious shortcoming---especially considering you think you know so much about knowing. I’ll give you, generous as this prissy school ‘marm’ with a burr up her arse is, a hint: if a good proportion of your contributions to this thread comprise such use of quotations, including KEY terms of the subject under discussion (one of them being a term you yourself volunteered), what have you actually said about epistemology and the particular subject of pure logic itself except that it‘s been hammered to death?

That’s right, darlin’---nothing.

Here's some context for you, shared here a few time before. the same "realization" from mystics of several Traditions, all of whom realize identity in unity with The One.
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#selfless

Actually, I found the page. It’s just in denial, like you.

Maybe you missed it, but I got out my hair-splitting scalpel and gave a brief history of what science knows about the physical world as determined through rigorous application of the scientific method. You can ignore science but you can't make it go away, just so you can play in your little sandbox of "pure logic' without being distracted by all these annoying "facts" (Oops, there they are again... pesky little things, huh?)

I’m not interested in the scientific pontificating of a half-scientist.

This is punch line closing for your oh-so-cogent argument here?... an insult to my ability as a professional psychotherapist? And I'm not even counseling ego's in crisis or insane mental patients anymore. Moved on to transpersonal psychology, but that's probably another field about which you are clueless.

You wouldn’t notice a cogent argument if it kicked you in the nuts, bucko.

And…transpersonal? Since you have already stated that there are no real boundaries, why do you engage in such a thing as “transpersonalism”? (I’ll give you ten points if you can tell me what usage those inverted commas represent. You need them, you‘re currently at -1,000,000, but you might have some trouble since I clearly do not say anything that has anything to do with the real world.)

If all you've got is smart-ass remarks and whining about my bizaar use of "inverted commas" you might as well save it.

Transcend thy illusory, separate and personal self...

In closing, I have this final remark: given that the separate, personal self is illusory and that you have transcended this idea, there is no real or, as you may like to call it, objective basis for your indignance or for any kind of emotional suffering whatsoever. Therefore, your characterisation of me is nothing but subjective fantasy, by your own reasoning. Removing such a personal, separate self (that is to say, transcending it) would mean that the manifest boundary would not be a personalised boundary. Clearly, there would be transcendence of both self and other, that is. The arguments made would not then be your supremely logical arguments with a few bad habits v. my grade school attitude--they would simply be an explication of truth. Yet, you continue to engage the world so, apparently sucked right in by your own personal superiority, whilst contrarily proclaiming to have transcended such a thing.

What manner of reasoning and objectivity is this?