Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

truth
Frank, this dialog helps us to better understand our meanings--which is why I once noted that they help us to refine the terms of debate. Your use of the term, "guess", seems to differ from mine. To you, it seems to me, all thinking and understanding is ultimately guesswork. In a sense you are right. I was once invited to give a public talk on any topic of my choice. I chose to talk on the inherent inevitability of uncertainty in human thought. The talk was titled, The Blue Rose of Certainty (obviously there is no blue rose to find and enjoy, but the idea of it haunts its seeker). So I do agree with you in that sense. But when I say "guess" or "guesswork" I am referring to a self-consciously wild speculation, one lacking any degree of subjective certainty i.e., confidence), and resorted to as a last and perhaps desperate measure for lack of knowledge, evidence, intuition, etc.. Such guesses, unless they are VERY educated--in which case they are not what I would consider true guesses--are no better than 50-50 flips of a coin. So, what I FEEL to be so, is not to my way of thinking, guesswork. It always remains ULTIMATELY uncertain because of the theoretical possibility of delusion; but it amounts to much more FOR ME at least than a mere flip of a coin. I'm sure you mean something other than "mere guesswork" when you say "guess." This is your invitation to expand on the term's meaning for you. Once we all understand your meaning, unnecessary disagreements, based on misunderstanding, may be prevented.

0 Replies

truth
Rufio, as you may have discovered by now, I just answered your question on the new thread, "Truth." Sorry for the confusion. I hit the wrong icon.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, your points make sense, but please understand our dilemma. We want to" point" to a perspective, but there is no language to do so that does not look like metaphysical arguments. I am only trying to get you to look at our perspective, to "see" what we mean.

Indeed, JLN, that's certainly a dilemma. You can't talk about non-dualism except through dualistic concepts. You can't demonstrate the validity of your position through induction because the evidence is all in your head. And you can't do it through deduction because that only leads to insoluble paradoxes. That is quite a predicament.

But then, that's a pretty common predicament for the adherants of any metaphysical system. You can't persuade people to "see" your perspective if you can't persuade them to believe in it, and you can't persuade them to believe in it by the methods that we typically rely upon, because the logic and the evidence that support non-dualism also depend upon pre-existing belief in your position. In other words, whereas most people would follow the dictum that "seeing is believing," for the non-dualist it must be that "believing is seeing."

JLNobody wrote:

I do wish you and Terry and Frank did not make such extensive use of the cut and paste method you depend on. I know it's convenient, but it permits too many pseudo responses of the "you don't say so" type.

It's not just convenient, JLN, it makes it easier to keep the discussion focused. Furthermore, I see it as a courtesy to the persons that I quote: I want to make sure that I'm accurately addressing their points, in their own words.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, this dialog helps us to better understand our meanings--which is why I once noted that they help us to refine the terms of debate. Your use of the term, "guess", seems to differ from mine....

It really shouldn't. My definition of guess is not really all that unusual.

Quote:

To you, it seems to me, all thinking and understanding is ultimately guesswork.

Well, I understand full well how difficult it is to show anything with certainty.

But that is not at the crux of my agnosticism at all.

There are questions where I simply do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make reasonable, meaningful guesses.

If someone says to me that they are guessing there is a God -- and I ask for the evidence -- I normally get stuff like: Well look around. How can there be all this creation without a creator.

When someone says to me that they are guessing there are no gods -- I ask for the evidence -- I normally get stuff like: Well, they (the theists) can't show there is a god.

My personal estimation of the evidence used to justify a position of "God exists" or "There are no gods" ... is that it is ambiguous and contrived.

You may think otherwise.

Many people do.

What can I tell you?

But if you are telling me that because I can say I have enough evidence to convince me that China exists (although I have not personally experienced China) -- that I must also acknowledge that I have enough evidence to determine if gods exist or not...

...I think you are wrong.

And if you think that there is enough evidence upon which to base a guess that non-dualism is a REALITY of existence...

...I think you are wrong.

There certainly are such things such as "educated guesses" and "preponderance of evidence" -- and nothing I am saying or inferring should make you suppose I think otherwise.

Quote:

Such guesses, unless they are VERY educated--in which case they are not what I would consider true guesses--are no better than 50-50 flips of a coin. So, what I FEEL to be so, is not to my way of thinking, guesswork. It always remains ULTIMATELY uncertain because of the theoretical possibility of delusion; but it amounts to much more FOR ME at least than a mere flip of a coin. I'm sure you mean something other than "mere guesswork" when you say "guess." This is your invitation to expand on the term's meaning for you. Once we all understand your meaning, unnecessary disagreements, based on misunderstanding, may be prevented.

Can't fault you this stuff, JL. I gotta admit, though, that the term "true guesses" causes me to laugh. (No disrespect intended!)

0 Replies

Joe

At the risk of being a bore, "logic and evidence" are emphatically NOT offered in support of a non-dualist position. On the contrary it is the very problems with such concepts that indicate the need to seek alternative positions.

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, your post is very well put, despite the fact that few will make the effort to understand it.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

But then, that's a pretty common predicament for the adherants of any metaphysical system. You can't persuade people to "see" your perspective if you can't persuade them to believe in it, and you can't persuade them to believe in it by the methods that we typically rely upon, because the logic and the evidence that support non-dualism also depend upon pre-existing belief in your position. In other words, whereas most people would follow the dictum that "seeing is believing," for the non-dualist it must be that "believing is seeing."

That awareness cannot be observed is not a belief. It is an observation, a recognition.

That observation cannot be observed is obvious to JLNobody, frescoJLNobody has said, :wink: But it can only be pointed out. And recognising it >is not< a belief.

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, how clear. If THAT doesn't do it nothing will.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe

At the risk of being a bore, "logic and evidence" are emphatically NOT offered in support of a non-dualist position. On the contrary it is the very problems with such concepts that indicate the need to seek alternative positions.

Or said when Christians are defending THEIR belief system:

"You are trying to use logic and reason and looking for evidence -- but those kinds of things cannot be used to KNOW GOD. Don't you understand that GOD can be KNOWN without resort to that nonsense."

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Fresco, your post is very well put, despite the fact that few will make the effort to understand it.

Or said when Christians are defending THEIR belief system:

"There is just no getting through to these heathens. They simply will not make the effort to find GOD -- so they never will."

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe

At the risk of being a bore, "logic and evidence" are emphatically NOT offered in support of a non-dualist position. On the contrary it is the very problems with such concepts that indicate the need to seek alternative positions.

At the risk of being a bore, you're fooling yourself. Either that, or you haven't been paying attention. Deductive logic and inductive evidence are constantly being offered in an effort to demonstrate the truth of non-dualism. And to prove my point, I offer Twyvel's latest post as Exhibit no. 1.

0 Replies

Twyvel wrote:

"That awareness cannot be observed is not a belief. It is an observation, a recognition. "

The Christian equivalent: "Just look around you. Can you not see the creation? And if there is a creation, there must be a Creator."

"But it can only be pointed out. And recognising it >is not< a belief. "

TCE: But the truth is here for you -- and it is up to you to accept it. No one can force it down your throat.

0 Replies

truth
Sigh!

0 Replies

Frank and Joe,

We (three) are not "defending anything". We are pointing out that from our position, yours looks untenable. This is NOT the same as having a belief system, which Frank keeps waving at us, and it is not using "logic" to defeat logic.

It is a position from which words of common usage like "knowledge" "belief" and "existence" are put under the microscope in order to show their limitations and the unstated assumptions that underlie them. For me THAT is "philosophy".

Now of course it is not easy to give up "vested interests" in conventional categorizations like "agnosticism" on Frank's part or "metaphysics" on Joe's because a personal debating history and/or self perception may hang on such attachments. Those more "enlightened" than us would smile wisely at such "baggage", and laugh at our attempts to remind ourselves of the epistemological quagmire that we have partially escaped from by dropping baggage, by being tempted to try to throw a rope others who still carry it.

My own puzzlement over people who have not "moved on" is that some significant writers like Wittgenstein, must be incomprehensible to them, but no doubt a rationalization would be forthcoming.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank and Joe,

We (three) are not "defending anything".

Then you are fooling yourself.

0 Replies

truth
Joe, this is an example of what I was complaining about earlier. Through the use of the cut and paste method, you take a phrase from Fresco's more complete and thoughtful commentary and simply say "Then you are fooling yourself." Can't you make a counter argument, something more helpful, more thoughtful? What you have answered is lilttle more than the child's "Oh yeah?"

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, this is an example of what I was complaining about earlier. Through the use of the cut and paste method, you take a phrase from Fresco's more complete and thoughtful commentary and simply say "Then you are fooling yourself." Can't you make a counter argument, something more helpful, more thoughtful? What you have answered is lilttle more than the child's "Oh yeah?"

I'll copy-and-paste your entire post, JLN, so you can't accuse me of selectively quoting. Now, in response to the points you raise:

1. Any statement that one makes in these kinds of discussions is fair game. If the context is ignored, the original author is, of course, free to point that out.

2. In this particular case, Fresco's initial statement was sufficiently clear and declarative, so there was no need to provide anything additional as context. Indeed, for my point, the remainder of the post was mere surplusage.

3. I won't make a counter-argument to Fresco for the same reason I won't make a counter-argument to you: I've taken a pledge of abstinence from debates regarding the merits of non-dualism. What I've said on this topic I've said a dozen times already: there's no point in giving this particular dead horse another thrashing.

4. Speaking of dead animals, where's Centroles and how is he progressing on his search for the Amazing Lazarus Dog?

0 Replies

truth
Joe, oh yeah?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, oh yeah?

YEAH!

0 Replies

truth

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know