GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla:

No, I’m not completely closed to the idea of the superhuman -- I wouldn’t be posting to a genius forum if I were. However, I am not a philosophically well-read individual so, if anyone expects to speak of Nietzsche and his superhuman to me, they are going to have to do so in such a way that does not merely refer to the man and his labels, but speaks his ideas articulately.

Who mentioned Nietzsche? He is famous for his articulation of the idea, but it has no sole possessor. I was not actually expecting to talk to you about it, do you recall how it ended last time?---with definitions of 'god'.
However, I am not unwilling to try again.

I do recall telling you that this superhuman was your God -- so, I do not consider you to be a superatheist: just a conventional one.

So do I, perhaps for the reason of exposing 'suspected' religiosity in my nature, but for whatever reason, I do not see how it then follows that I am a conventional atheist. My calling myself a superatheist was a joke, but I'm still the most godless person I know.

I am not a fan of poetry and art, preferring to side with the likes of Socrates in Ion on such matters, ie. finding poets and artists as “divinely inspired” rather than what I would consider genius.

And you're telling me you're not well-read in philosophy! Socrates loved the poet Plato. I distinctly remember you saying you admired the works of Bach.

When is philosophy genius and when is it art?

A genius may not also be an artist? Must not different kinds of genius exist for genius to exist at all? I gather from such a question that you want to know where the highest genius lies.

Suergaz:I have read it thoroughly now (thank you) and my honking appears even more justified than I had at first thought.


Leyla: (My pleasure.)

I thought you might think it so. However, do you intend to just honk and disappear, or to contribute a cogent argument?

Reminds me of David’s desire to become a Diogenes(ish)-style apostle. Did he just honk and run away, too? Was there nothing to follow the honking, or was it that this was some sort of divinely inspired honking, made especially for certain ears?

I cannot profess to understand what you mean by the "contribution of a cogent argument" when it is readily understandable that there is no argument. I presented a point, where I thought one had been skewed, if not lacking altogether. If you can find fault with it, I am ready to discuss it further.

zag,

And you're telling me you're not well-read in philosophy!

I suppose if you think reading the complete texts of Alice in Wonderland, Ion, Lysis, Laches, Weininger’s Sex & Character and David’s Wisdom of the Infinite comprise being well-read in philosophy, then I am.

A genius may not also be an artist? Must not different kinds of genius exist for genius to exist at all?

This entire discussion has had everything to do with pure logic. Hence, I continue in that vein. If we define genius in such a way that necessarily requires different kinds of genius for genius to exist at all, then that would be necessarily so, by definition. I think that’s pretty straightforward. So, at a quick glance of your (sparingly) expressed view, when I consider the question: in what way do different kinds of genius exist for genius to exist at all?, I only discover that what appears to you as genius is that category of appearances (such as music) that are distinctly unique relative to other appearances of the same category.

On this basis, there actually is no distinction between art and philosophy: philosophy is another field of art, that is. Therefore, it would seem that you make no distinction between genius and an extraordinary artist -- including no reasons for such extraordinariness when such reasons should surely be as simple as the making of definitions used to arrive where you have currently on the subject, no?

Would you consider the above as an accurate account of your ideas?

I gather from such a question that you want to know where the highest genius lies.

Yes, apparently, that’s the $10m question.

I cannot profess to understand what you mean by the "contribution of a cogent argument" when it is readily understandable that there is no argument. I presented a point, where I thought one had been skewed, if not lacking altogether. If you can find fault with it, I am ready to discuss it further.

Well, in addressing the above it might be that you will also address this. Aside from that, I really need some sleep, so I’ll say more later on it if/when I think it’s relevant.

I suppose if you think reading the complete texts of Alice in Wonderland, Ion, Lysis, Laches, Weininger’s Sex & Character and David’s Wisdom of the Infinite comprise being well-read in philosophy, then I am.

No, but if you love Alice, I'm certain that somewhere, somehow, we're related.

zag: A genius may not also be an artist? Must not different kinds of genius exist for genius to exist at all?


Leyla: This entire discussion has had everything to do with pure logic. Hence, I continue in that vein. If we define genius in such a way that necessarily requires different kinds of genius for genius to exist at all, then that would be necessarily so, by definition. I think that’s pretty straightforward. So, at a quick glance of your (sparingly) expressed view, when I consider the question: in what way do different kinds of genius exist for genius to exist at all?, I only discover that what appears to you as genius is that category of appearances (such as music) that are distinctly unique relative to other appearances of the same category.

Then you have discovered what you wanted to discover.

On this basis, there actually is no distinction between art and philosophy: philosophy is another field of art, that is. Therefore, it would seem that you make no distinction between genius and an extraordinary artist -- including no reasons for such extraordinariness when such reasons should surely be as simple as the making of definitions used to arrive where you have currently on the subject, no?

Not so. Philosophy exists without works, without any expression outside of being. Art, as you no doubt agree, requires something more, or less. In the case of an extraordinary artist as genius, the distinction could be found in their art to a degree, but would rest primarily in their person.

Would you consider the above as an accurate account of your ideas?

No.

Leyla: When is philosophy genius and when is it art?

suergaz: I gather from such a question that you want to know where the highest genius lies.

Leyla:Yes, apparently, that’s the $10m question.

Ok. A straight answer to the question: It is genius as the life, art as the work.

suergaz: I cannot profess to understand what you mean by the "contribution of a cogent argument" when it is readily understandable that there is no argument. I presented a point, where I thought one had been skewed, if not lacking altogether. If you can find fault with it, I am ready to discuss it further.


Leyla: Well, in addressing the above it might be that you will also address this. Aside from that, I really need some sleep, so I’ll say more later on it if/when I think it’s relevant.

What?! Oh, you need sleep, Ok, tomorrow then?

"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of that is--be what you would seem to be--or, if you'd like it put more simply, never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."

"I think I should understand that better," Alice said very politely, "if I had it written down. But I can't quite follow it as you say it."

"That's nothing to what I could say if I chose," the Duchess replied, in a pleased tone.

She had quite forgotten the Duchess by this time, and was a little startled when she heard her voice close to her ear. `You're thinking about something, my dear, and that makes you forget to talk. I can't tell you just now what the moral of that is, but I shall remember it in a bit.'

`Perhaps it hasn't one,' Alice ventured to remark.

One of the Joys of reading Lewis Carroll is that he is writing with several of his other personas, under is given name of Dodgson, showing through, includings those of kiddie porn photographer, reverend, and inventor of the mathematics of logic. He invented a word game to demonstrate the power of his math. In it you take a word and changing it one letter at a time transform it into another word, like God into Jew (GOP, POD, PAD, PAW, PEW, JEW). There is a sheer beauty in that transformation process because it plays on so many levels, not the least of which is linguistics, the whole basis of philosophy and irony, to say nothing of paradox. Dodgson was intrigued by the concept of paradox, and how the whole of any one idea, or even a whole system of logic could fall victim to it, such as the sentence, "This sentence is a lie." If that sentence is true then it is a lie, and if it is a lie then it is true. Goedel took him one better and proved that all math as we know it is subject to this paradox. (cues up Gilbert and Sullivan background music, and the the pirates start singing, "Paradox, Paradox, a most unusual. . . "

Kevin, you better make up your mind as to what you mean by consciousness.

I don't believe there is any such thing as "verbal logic". There is just logic, of the A=A variety.

Right… and how did you actually express this? Just by chanting A=A? Which non-human species you think, (well, I mean the appearance that you think), actually think in terms of A=A? I know they experience and operate through recognizing a thing for what it is.

Sure, you can say you don’t believe when I call it ‘verbal logic’, but according to me you are saying the same thing here...

Conscious recognition, which is the element of logic, is quite an advanced operation.

What advanced operation? I though you said you don’t believe in any higher form of logic. “There is just logic, of the A=A variety.”

There are countless purely logical consequences to things appearing. We can be certain of all those logical consequences.

And what use is that certainty if it is reliant just on the certainty of appearances being appearances for certain, and ignoring or simply discounting how do appearances appear? Simply because we cannot be absolutely certain about that which appears, we do have ample evidence of very high probability, so how wise is it to through away the baby with the bath water?

S: You may be my dream character for all I know, right? So can I safely ignore you?

K: It's not wise to ask a dream character such questions. Only you can discover the answer for yourself.

That’s a wise advise, but I rather be a fool then be told that you are a figment of my imagination, because that is exactly what believing in the world of “pure” appearances comes down to.

We can never possibly know we aren't dreaming. But that isn't a hurdle to becoming wise.

Finally, your wisdom based on the certainty that appearances appear, is itself built over uncertain grounds, because according to this, appearances could be a dream, however certain you may be that appearances appear.

My point is that all pure logical reasoning is the very same kind of logic that is involved in the direct conscious experience of apppearances, and is therefore equally as certain.

Of course, appearances certainly appear, but my point is that your certainty of direct conscious experience of appearances may be a dream according to your own claims, for even with all your pure logical reasoning you cannot know weather you are dreaming or not.

Lewis Carroll was never a "Kiddie porn photographer"

I dont have my DSL functioning now, and can't find the particular site I am looking for that including quite a few of Carroll's photographs of your girls, including some of the nude rendering of pre-pubescent girls as if they were Brook Shields prophecies.

there was a lot of hidden sexuality, lust dreams, you name it, in the artistic vision of those photo graphs. even some of his fully clothed photographs of alice are masturbatory to say the least. I am not saying he himself either realized his drools showed in his work- - fruedian or jungian, who knows. It'd get him arrested by the internet cops today.

My nude girls? Give me a fucking break.

even some of his fully clothed photographs of alice are masturbatory to say the least.

Speak for yourself you pervert.

Sapius wrote:

Conscious recognition, which is the element of logic, is quite an advanced operation.

What advanced operation?

A=A

I though you said you don’t believe in any higher form of logic. “There is just logic, of the A=A variety.”

That's right.

Simply because we cannot be absolutely certain about that which appears

We can be 100% certain that what appears, appears.

Of course, appearances certainly appear, but my point is that your certainty of direct conscious experience of appearances may be a dream according to your own claims, for even with all your pure logical reasoning you cannot know weather you are dreaming or not.

It doesn't matter if we are dreaming or not, we can still be 100% certain that what appears to us, appears. The fact that we are dreaming doesn't diminish the fact of consciousness (and logic).

And also the fact of Reality itself. It doesn't matter if we are dreaming or not, as everything we experience is still a direct manifestation of Reality, regardless.

-

Kevin wrote:

S: I though you said you don’t believe in any higher form of logic. “There is just logic, of the A=A variety.”

K: That's right.

Sorry, now I don't believe that. I don't think an earthworm has the capability of thought as you do, or are you saying that you have a mental capability equal to that of an earthworm? The basis of consciousness is definitely being aware of A=A, but does an earthworm question its awareness? In my opinion, questioning requires logic, a process, and A=A is simple awareness through differentiation. A=A forms the bases of Logic, not logic itself.

We can be 100% certain that what appears, appears.

Sure, but we cannot be 100% certain of that what appears, exists, right? So what use is the certainty of appearances appear?

It doesn't matter if we are dreaming or not, we can still be 100% certain that what appears to us, appears.

Why does it not matter that we are dreaming or not? BTW, what is a dream?

A unicorn appears to my mind and I am 100% certain that it appears, so what next?

Dreams are appearances too, so what is the difference between the appearance of a unicorn and this post? Or are you just satisfied with the absolute certainty that both appearances appear?

The fact that we are dreaming doesn't diminish the fact of consciousness (and logic).

(and logic)? Why in brackets? Any ways, so our consciousness could not be an induced one? BTW, how does consciousness come about?

David wrote:

And also the fact of Reality itself. It doesn't matter if we are dreaming or not, as everything we experience is still a direct manifestation of Reality, regardless.

So all that appears, appears, and I am absolutely certain that it appears, but what next? Is there no discrimination between that which logically exists and that which does not logically exist? Do you agree that a unicorn exists? If not, why? Or does it not matter if it exists or not?

Moving to a closing argument, my point is that we are aware of when we are not dreaming otherwise we would not know what is dreaming. Now, speculation, which is one of the core attributes of a thinking mind, may pose impossible questions, but logically speaking there is no proof that we are dreaming all the time, in fact we have ample proof of when we are not dreaming. And even if one suggests that this communication could possibly be a dream, I can prove otherwise by simply pointing out to the coherent continuity of such communication, which does not exist in a dream. If I, a very big IF, or any of the billions of human beings wake up from this “dream” and meet up in another coherent dream, then you know that that could go back to infinite regress, but there is no such known evidence that we will wake up in another dream from what we know is not, it remains but an IF.

I am aware of my dreams, which may even be a dream within a dream, and I become well aware of that too, but where does the buck stop as far as my coherent consciousness is concerned? So I question, what is consciousness coherently and logically aware of? I am logically aware that this is no dream, and I know what a dream is, by definition.

In closing, I would say that it is more logical to ignore the claim that this may be a dream, because we know better in the face of non-existent evidence, or evidently accept that a theological God may exist, irrelevant of any logical argument otherwise.

Sapius wrote:

S: I though you said you don’t believe in any higher form of logic. “There is just logic, of the A=A variety.”

K: That's right.

Sorry, now I don't believe that. I don't think an earthworm has the capability of thought as you do, or are you saying that you have a mental capability equal to that of an earthworm?

I'm not sure what you are saying.

An earthworm doesn't have consciousness or logic so far as I can tell.

A=A forms the bases of Logic, not logic itself.

When you analyse them, you will find that literally all logical statements simplify to A=A.

In other words, the form of all purely logical statements is:

"A thing is such a way because that is the way it is."

We can be 100% certain that what appears, appears.

Sure, but we cannot be 100% certain of that what appears, exists, right? So what use is the certainty of appearances appear?

It's the only certainty we can ever have, so that's why it is useful. Anything else is only speculation.

It doesn't matter if we are dreaming or not, we can still be 100% certain that what appears to us, appears.

Why does it not matter that we are dreaming or not?

Since if we are dreaming, it's all we've got to deal with right now.

BTW, what is a dream?

A condition we might one day wake up out of.

Waking up involves gaining a possibly broader perspective on something.

A unicorn appears to my mind and I am 100% certain that it appears, so what next?

You tell me. That which appears to our mind is all that we've got to work with in life.

Dreams are appearances too, so what is the difference between the appearance of a unicorn and this post? Or are you just satisfied with the absolute certainty that both appearances appear?

Some things might lend themselves towards seeking for the appearance of empirical evidence, and other things don't. But no matter what you do, you can't ever get past the appearances.

The fact that we are dreaming doesn't diminish the fact of consciousness (and logic).

(and logic)? Why in brackets?

Logic is implicit in consciousness. Logic is what gives consciousness its consciousness.

Any ways, so our consciousness could not be an induced one? BTW, how does consciousness come about?

Consciousness is caused. It is caused by Nature.

. . . we have ample proof of when we are not dreaming.

All empirical evidence is necessarily uncertain.

It is not uncommon for people to be certain they are awake when they are in fact dreaming.

And even if one suggests that this communication could possibly be a dream, I can prove otherwise by simply pointing out to the coherent continuity of such communication, which does not exist in a dream.

Some people's dreams are a lot more coherent than the dreams of others. And some people's waking life is so incoherent that it's difficult to describe them as being awake.

In closing, I would say that it is more logical to ignore the claim that this may be a dream, because we know better in the face of non-existent evidence, or evidently accept that a theological God may exist, irrelevant of any logical argument otherwise.

I'm only interested in what we can be certain of, rather than in what is only speculated. It is certain that we might be dreaming, and it is uncertain that we are not.

Kevin,

S: Why does it not matter that we are dreaming or not?

K: Since if we are dreaming, it's all we've got to deal with right now.

Alas! So we could be dealing with dream appearances that we are certain about. That’s very logical and useful indeed. So are the rest of your statements. Good luck to us then, then. :)

ksolway wrote: That which appears to our mind is all that we've got to work with in life.

In another place, you seemed to make a distinction between it appearing to your mind that you had arms and actually having arms (and there are cases of people being mistaken about such things). [Maybe it was legs. I forget.]

Is there a difference? Is it just a matter of persistence over time, consistency, or the fact that actually having arms is something that other people will agree with you about (intersubjectivity)?

It is not uncommon for people to be certain they are awake when they are in fact dreaming.

I find that if I think about it in a dream, I can tell that I am dreaming, but that stream of thought tends to wake me up. There are certain cues in dreams that give them away - if you look for them. This is something that's not to hard to train yourself to do - but it may interrupt your sleep for a long while.

What I find interesting, if you find yourself in an unusual situation in a dream, if you ask "How did I get here?" A back story that explains whatever bizarreness is going on is automatically generated. Where you look is filled in. (A lot of this goes on in ordinary consciousness, as well.)

I am exhuming this thread as its contents are relevant to current discussions.

On page 1 of “The Relationship between matter and consciousness,” Sue wrote:

The bottom line is: the empirical is uncertain because we can’t know all the causal relationships pertaining to a thing – we only have our perception of the thing in the here and now to go on.

On page 3 of this thread, Kevin wrote some wise words worth repeating:

But yes, the materialist bases his philosophy on things that are uncertain. So he is the person who builds his house on sand.

By contrast the thinker bases his philosophy on that which is certain. So he builds his house on rock. The thinker still has access to the material, so he can build a house if he wants, but he is in control of it, so it can't fail. He is prepared for anything.

And:

A Christian thinks that all existence is determined by the fact that Jesus rose physically from the dead. They are shattered if this belief doesn't work out. So that would be a case of basing life on an uncertainty.

Most people base their lives upon receiving love from other people, or giving love to other people. This too is basing life on an uncertainty, and they are shattered if it doesn't work out.

A Buddha depends for his life on air, food, shelter, and the good-will or indifference of other people. But if he doesn't receive these things he is not shattered, since his roots go deeper still. Deeper than life.

.

Leyla, just a thought… you know what… I wonder if anything such as ‘empirical’ really makes sense to people who profess that all that one experiences is an appearance to the mind, and that would include the so called ‘empirical’ and it’s uncertainties so to speak. Wouldn’t it? So what exactly is ‘empirical’ in such contexts?

Hi, Sapius:

Leyla, just a thought… you know what… I wonder if anything such as ‘empirical’ really makes sense to people who profess that all that one experiences is an appearance to the mind, [snip]

Well, it makes sense to me since nothing that I have experienced (and am aware of) has not appeared to my mind.

So, if I am to contemplate things that I have “experienced” which I do not remember, for example, then in what sense could they be considered to be an experience that I have experienced.

Even unconscious experience appears to the mind as some sort of unconscious influence.

…and that would include the so called ‘empirical’ and it’s uncertainties so to speak. Wouldn’t it? So what exactly is ‘empirical’ in such contexts?

I would sum the empirical experience up as anything that appears through the senses. This in contrast with a priori (deductive) knowledge; pure logic. Of course, if what you deduce has no phenomenal relationship to the empirical world, then you might well be talking about empirically existing pink unicorns (or gravitons).

So, if one’s a priori knowledge does, in fact, refer to an object of the empirical world (as defined above), one accepts the integrity of all such experience on faith, but one’s reasoning about same is the only absolute certainty one can have within that context and by definition. That’s a definitively better proposition to post-modernism, which makes uncertainty itself its only certainty and has no basis for universality and thus the very quality of truth.

Whenever you see a thing such as law succeeding or failing, it succeeds or fails for these reasons. If the (empirical and/or scientific) evidence is true, then deductive conclusions drawn from same will be true as an empirical event also. However, if the empirical evidence is false then the deductive conclusions drawn will be true within the boundaries of that "evidence" but false as an empirical event of the past. Such a thing is useful as a predictive device.

Are women unconscious? Well, the evidence is pretty damning even if uncertain. Are they inherently unconscious? Perhaps only under precisely the same conditions with which we judge or fail to judge them today.

.

Leyla wrote;

Well, it (empirical) makes sense to me since nothing that I have experienced (and am aware of) has not appeared to my mind.

I would sum the empirical experience up as anything that appears through the senses. This in contrast with a priori (deductive) knowledge; pure logic.

Well, my query is, how is ‘in contrast with a priori (deductive) knowledge; pure logic’, itself NOT an appearance to the mind? Considering that even a thought is a thing.

Through what sense would you say a thought appears?

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Through what sense would you say a thought appears?

.

Through the sense of understanding that 'I think'.

But what sense is that?

.

Lets say the sense of thought perhaps.

S: Leyla, just a thought… you know what… I wonder if anything such as ‘empirical’ really makes sense to people who profess that all that one experiences is an appearance to the mind, and that would include the so called ‘empirical’ and it’s uncertainties so to speak. Wouldn’t it? So what exactly is ‘empirical’ in such contexts?

L: I would sum the empirical experience up as anything that appears through the senses. This in contrast with a priori (deductive) knowledge; pure logic.

S: Well, my query is, how is ‘in contrast with a priori (deductive) knowledge; pure logic’, itself NOT an appearance to the mind? Considering that even a thought is a thing.

L: Through what sense would you say a thought appears?

S: Lets say the sense of thought perhaps.

So, you are one of these people about which you wonder if anything such as “empirical” really makes sense?

A thought appears through itself, like the taste of an apple?

.