Reality

truth
God, that was badly wrlitten. Let me just summarize my core point. Dualism divides the world into objectivity and subectivity. There is the reality "out there" and the interpretations of it "in here". This builds on the central grammatical habit of the subject-object relationship in speech and thought ("I"/verb/"it"). I am simply noting that in the non-dualist perspective, the most important issue is not whether the world is an objective or a subjective reality (materialism versus idealism); the important thing is the reality of its (dynamic) UNITY. It has no metaphysically real divisions; it is, experientially speaking, an "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum"; all divisions--all differentiations--are the products of our dualistic thinking. SO, we can "see", as I tried to describe in my previous post, the world as completely objective OR completely subjective. I tend toward the subjective or idealistic bias, but the critical point is that the world is a unity, and it is relatlively unimportant whether we consider it an objective or a subjective unity. But it is important that we recognize that it is not inherently DIVIDED into objective and subjective.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

But I would like to return to the classic Hindu dictum, Tat Tvam Asi, (thou art that) to make a non-dualist point. When one meditates, one will eventually "see" that there is no dualism in one's immediate experience. If you sit down and look carefully you recognize EITHER that you ARE the context of your room. or that the room is the context that is you. In the first perspective, there is furniture, floor, walls, vases, books AND you. The context is not around and separate from you. In other words you have OBJECTIFIED yourself as "the world". There is only the unitary reality of the room, of which you are an essential ingredient (at that moment. You may leave to another context, and the room will have a new integrity or configuration) But you can also realize that you can take the opposite and equally non-dualist perspective on the you-and-the-room situation. Instead of objectifying the situation, you can--also as an expression of "tat tvam asi", SUBJECTIFY the context: the room and all its contexts becomes you. It is pure experience, and the feeling of you is only an equal part of this experience. In this case there is also a unity, a subjective intregrity. The same applies to all the experiences we have of the world. Ultimately it is us and we are it--two different ways of saying the same thing.

Sorry to intrude on this discussion you are having with Terry, but...

...a bit earlier, either in this thread or the other one where this is being discussed, Joe mentioned that you folks tend to avoid answering questions that sometimes come up -- and which really deserve answers.

I asked such a question of Twyvel, Fresco, and you a while back -- and none of you responded.

Since you brought this matter up again, allow me to ask it again -- and it is addressed to all three of you.

How do you KNOW you are not deluding yourself when this...revelation...hits?

When I first proposed the question, I mentioned that I almost always ask it of theists who claim "revelations" -- and I can tell you this: When I ask that question of the theists -- they always answer with variations of, "I just know, that's all."

(I'm not being facetious here) I hope you folks do better with your responses -- assuming you respond.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, I think I once answered that I do not KNOW that my non-dualist perspective is not delusional. But I said this in the same sense as I would answer the metaphysical question of how I KNOW that I exist. There is no way one can prove some things. But just as I cannot prove either my existence or its non-dualism, it seems vacuously academic to me.

0 Replies

Frank,

If you define "know" and "yourself" , we will respond accordingly....but you have had the answer many times and it doesn't satisfy you....its no good saying everybody agrees what "know" means .....there would be no such topic as "epistemology" if that were the case.

You have a vested interest in the "sanctity" of the terms "guess" and "belief". This point is self evident from your hundreds of posts on the matter.
Thats fine but you have to recognize that this stance is self limiting. In return you could classify "us" as having a vested interest in non-dualism, but we would argue that such a position is NOT self limiting. Thats the difference.

0 Replies

Terry,

If you want to debate at the level of "credibility of source" or "accuracy of German translation" don't expect an answer from me. My bottom line relies on my own resarch experience in perception some years ago, and now I am reading versions of my previous conclusions from various sources. I was and still am part of a significant paradigm shift of which you appear to be ignorant.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, I think I once answered that I do not KNOW that my non-dualist perspective is not delusional. But I said this in the same sense as I would answer the metaphysical question of how I KNOW that I exist. There is no way one can prove some things. But just as I cannot prove either my existence or its non-dualism, it seems vacuously academic to me.

So you are saying that you do NOT know if you are deluding yourself -- yet, like the theists, you continue to talk about this as though it is an established fact.

Do you truly not see the absurdity of this position.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

If you define "know" and "yourself" , we will respond accordingly....but you have had the answer many times and it doesn't satisfy you....its no good saying everybody agrees what "know" means .....there would be no such topic as "epistemology" if that were the case.

Right! And then I will be asked to define the word "the."

Gimme a break.

Since you seem very reluctant to actually answer this question, perhaps you will at least look over JL's response -- and point out any differences you have with his take on the matter?

Or -- as an alternative -- directly answer the question: How do you know you are not deluding yourself when "the truth" is "revealed" to you?

0 Replies

truth
Frank, you say "So you are saying that you do NOT know [you should have put "know", not "not in caps to correctly reflect my meaning] if you are deluding yourself--yet, like the theists, you continue to talk about this as though it is an established fact. Do you truly not see the absurdity of this position[?]"
Since my admission was regarding absolute metaphysical certainty, I do not think it absurd that I should procede under the "as if" assumption that I exist in my everyday life. But remember, I do not believe that "I" has any reality other than that which I assign to it, in my deluded state of everyday life. But my point was that in the absense of absolute certainty I am not any more absurd than you are in emailing me this message WITHOUT ABSOLUTE PROOF of my existence.

0 Replies

truth
But let me thank you guys for helping me, in my years of dementia, to develop new dendritic formations and synaptic connections.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

But let me thank you guys for helping me, in my years of dementia, to develop new dendritic formations and synaptic connections.

You are quite welcome -- whatever the hell that means. :wink:

0 Replies

C'mon Frank...He is referring to the physical side of knowing. His brain.

0 Replies

Terry

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, and the moon could be made of green cheese, and their bodies could have been taken over by aliens ... C'mon, twyvel, that is a pretty poor argument even for you.

"even for you"..........What is that supposed to meeeeeeeeean Terry?

The main point is, is that observed behavior is 'not' the observation of awareness.

***********************************

Main Entry: be·hav·ior
Pronunciation: bi-'hA-vy&r
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of Middle English behavour, from behaven
1 a : the manner of conducting oneself b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment
2 : the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior
3 : the way in which something functions or operates
- be·hav·ior·al /-vy&-r&l/ adjective
- be·hav·ior·al·ly /-r&-lE/ adverb

Main Entry: be·have
Pronunciation: bi-'hAv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): be·haved; be·hav·ing
Etymology: Middle English behaven, from be- + haven to have, hold
transitive senses
1 : to manage the actions of (oneself) in a particular way
2 : to conduct (oneself) in a proper manner
intransitive senses
1 : to act, function, or react in a particular way
2 : to conduct oneself properly
- be·hav·er noun

***********************************

You are actually asserting that third person observations of a person in the act of walking down the street is third person observation of awareness.

Utterly Absurd.

(unless of course you're a nondualist)

Quote:

Yes, we've already agreed that we cannot experience someone else's consciousness,

Quote:

but so what? We can measure the physiological changes in the brain in someone who we "observe" to be conscious, and compare it to our own personal experience of conscious self.

This one issue is whether or not consciousness can be observed. It is not about suppositions of what may produce it.

William James essay, Does Consciousness Exist?
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/consciousness.htm

Quote:

Science cannot completely explain the process - yet. So you would dump the system that gives a partial accounting and holds the promise of a full one, for one which gives absolutely no explanation at all? If non-dualism CAN explain where consciousness comes from, please enlighten us.

Quote:

It is too bad that your pre-conceived notions of consciousness require you to ignore the findings of neuroscience on the distinctly different states of consciousness that depend on which areas of the brain are activated.

it can be observed it is an it; it is an object, not a subject (or that which is observing). It is an it.

Consciousness is not an it.

There are no 'different states of consciousness, it's part of the dualist myth, or fog of delusions. There is only "different" content.

Quote:

Nice myth, but absolutely no scientific justisfication for it. We know that human (extended) consciousness requires brain structures that are completely lacking in insects and reptiles.

You are wrong, we do not 'know' if consciousness requires brains.

Quote:

Your "no-self" is actually the proto-self produced by the brainstem nuclei in conjunction with the hypothalmus and somatosensory cortices. That's where the buck stops, or more correctly where it starts. One of the basic flaws in your argument is that assumption that every observer needs to be observed.

If you are the observer and this observer that you are cannot observer itself then youyou do not exist as anything observable.

If knowledge comes about through an I observing, and this I cannot observe the I that the I is, then this I has no knowledge of the I that this I is.

Quote:

Perhaps you could explain to us how, if All is One, "we" got separated into contradictory schools of thought regarding reality?

Illusions.

Quote:

You invented the alleged infinite regress. It was never a real problem.

That consciousness cannot be observed is one of the biggest problems there is.

Along side:

What is the true nature of this existence?
What is the self?
Does god exist?

(And they may all be the same question, Smile

)

Quote:

Exactly what "consequences" might prevent us from believing as you do?

Nondualism.

Or giving up your dualism, and 'you" know what that means?

No-self.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Ahhh, Terry.

SO MANY BELIEF SYSTEMS...so little time to challenge them all.

Terry is an advocate and believer, and to use your word, a "peddler" of the Material Dualist Belief System, yet you not only do NOT challenge Terry on these beliefs you encourage and support her.

Nothing wrong with that, unless you claim to be neutral, which you do claim and which is bull.

I doubt if I have ever read words of yours that challenged someone's dualists beliefs. Unconsciously or otherwise you are a strong supporter of believers of dualism.

You are constantly attaching our position, and there is nothing wrong in that. But whenever anyone raises questions about your position as was done in the other thread, you start YELLING with capital letter, claiming:

THAT'S GODDAM BULLSHITetc.

We all live in a glass house, and your position is open for attack as is anyone's.

And I'm sure Terry can count on your continued support of Terry's dualists beliefs, indirectly and otherwise.

0 Replies

truth
Sorry, Frank. I assumed too much. It is known that the more we apply ourselves to intellectual challenges, even to work cross-word puzzles, we develop new connections between synapses and form new dentrites in the brain--a good way to slow down, or avoid, the dementia that often comes with age. You and I are both in our sixties, so our participation in the more intellectual threads of A2K is particularly beneficial for us.

0 Replies

Frank,

You ask about "self-dellusion".

Presumably this must begin with a definition of "reality" against which aberrence can be measured. But dualists claim that reality is "out there" as a testing standard, wheras monists argue that "reality" consists of a mutual state of existence between self and not self. So "self dellusion" is either undefined, or must be redefined as mismatch between EXPECTED outcomes of an interaction and ACTUAL outcomes. This view would give "knowledge" as "high level of confidence in predictions".

The problem for dualists presented to them by contemporary physics is that alternative "external realities" have been successfully "predicted". So to retain their dualism they might advocate "parallel universes". Or they may reject their dualism and see reality entirely encompassed by the interaction.

Either way, this puts "truth" out of the window, and "dellusion" seems to go with it.

I don't want to comment on JLN's use of "know" except to say that he seems to agree with me that "knowing" is not a substantial issue because the "self" which predicts (knows) is being transcended.

I referred above to "baggage" which some took personally, but just as I see my "point scoring self" as transient baggage I hope you might see some of your own personas the same way. It is by seeing these aspects of self for what they are
i.e. habitual interaction modes, that we can have a qualitatively different view of "reality".

0 Replies

Lemme think on some of this stuff.

I'll get back to youse!

0 Replies

Terry

Here's some points that support and question various positions:

" Think about it! Stick your hands on your head. Is that the real physical skull that you feel or is that just a phenomenal skull inside your brain? If the phenomenal world "reflexively" models the physical world quite well at short distances (as I suggest), it is the real skull and its physical location and extension are more or less where they seem to be. If we live in an inside-out world as Lehar suggests, the skull that we feel outside our brain is actually inside our brain, and the real skull is outside the farthest reaches of the phenomenal world, beyond the dome of the sky. If so, we suffer from a mass delusion. Our real skulls are bigger than the experienced universe. Lehar admits that this possibility is "incredible." I think it is absurd."

http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00002756/01/Lehar-Velmans_Commentary(cogprints).htm

*************

Infinite regress issues and other problems:

Based on the premise that we cannot (more reasonably) get outside of our minds and know that we are (i.e. mind in box), and the conclusion that we can only know what we know, it follows within the limits of what we know that the nature of what we know (i.e. the nature of human consciousness) precedes what we know. So any conception whether metaphysical or scientific will be primarily defined by the nature of our consciousness, and since human consciousness is apparently comparative and incomplete in nature (Arguments 1-7), comparative incompleteness will define, within limits, any knowledge of who we are."

http://www.inexpressible.com/arguments.html

"we cannot truly know who we are and be who we are at the same time",

"Further explanation of "we cannot [more reasonably] truly know":

"We cannot [more reasonably] truly know" refers to our inability to more reasonably show how we can know something entirety. The important point is that true knowledge or the lack of, in the context of the Competition, is contingent on more reasonably showing how we can know or not know something in entirety. More reasonableness refers to the consistency and soundness of a position in comparison to known antagonistic positions.

"We cannot [more reasonably] know" refers to our inability to more reasonably show how we can know something. The notion of know refers to the more reasonable correlation of conscious meaning between thought and (external or internal) objects.

Hence, to overcome the proposition it must be more reasonably shown how we can truly know who we are (i.e. know who we are in entirety). For instance, if it can be more reasonably shown how the human hand is truly part of who we are, the proposition would be overcome. (To argue this position, you need to more reasonably show how you can know the human hand in entirety. It would likely entail a theory of truth. Also, you would have to establish more reasonable true knowledge of who you are as well. (Viz., you cannot more reasonably show that something is truly part of who you are without more reasonably truly knowing who you are as a whole.))

(True knowledge of one part of who we are appears nonsensical, because in order to truly know one part of ourselves, we need to know who we are in entirety, otherwise we would have no true way of knowing that the part is truly part of who we are. Therefore, to overcome the proposition, you need to show how we can more reasonably know who we are in entirety, whether it be by a single individual in less than a millisecond of his or her lifetime. (Note, there are other possible ways to overcome the proposition like more reasonably showing that there is no who we are.))

************

Further explanation of "who we are":

Who we are: the entire make-up of ourselves as human beings.

The entire make-up of ourselves as human beings refers to whatever truly comprises ourselves on biological, neurological, or conscious levels, or any other level, including the actual composition of ourselves at the cellular and sub-atomic levels.

Our primary claim is that we ourselves must exist at some level, otherwise there would be no conscious awareness of thoughts/utterances/appearances. In other words, we must exist at some level in order to be aware of thoughts, even if there is something controlling our existence. (i.e. to say that we do not exist at any level, then it does not follow how we can be aware of thoughts, or to say that something else exists and not ourselves, then it does not follow how we can know that something else exists.)

The primary claim that we must exist at some level, acts as the foundation for the claim that we cannot truly know who we are in part or in whole and be who we are at the same time.

In the context of the Competition, there are no restrictions on the actual composition of who we are. The only requirement is to more reasonably show complete knowledge of who we are, whether in part or in whole.

http://www.inexpressible.com/e336-337.html

0 Replies

TRUTH
Fresco, frankly, I usually consider "knowing" within a framework of dualism, except in the "transcendental" sense of immediate experience of sensations. The sensation of redness, for example, is not of a quality "out there" but as a quality that IS me (i.e. tat tvam asi). But I confess that I generally use the term, knowing, naively. Even when I talk to Frank about the impossiblity of "knowing" something with absolute certainty, I am thinking within the framework of dualism. All my epistemological arguments reflect an assumption of dualism--even when I'm making an epistemolotical critique of dualism. For me it is virtually impossible to think, by means of language, non-dualistically. Nevertheless, my immediate, pre-reflective, awareness of life is non-dualistic, but THAT awareness can be characterized as 'unknowing." I'm aware (dualistically) that I have a ways to go. at least I "know" better. Very Happy

0 Replies

Alright, fresco, so the self isn't any less real than the world. Sure. But I still think it's pretty safe to say that new knowledge (knowledge that does not come from the self) comes from the world even if they are both equally real. Or is there another option?

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, I think of interactionism as the way we bring things into (our) world, into existence, as opposed to the way we obtain information about them. When I think of "knowing", I think of it in either of two ways: (1) "knowing" as immediate experience of something (my congenitally blind friend has no chance of "knowing" the color red, he does not have the neurological wherewithall to interact with the light or pigment stimuli that produces "redness"), and (2) knowing ABOUT something cognitively, having information servicable in manipulating or predicting the behavior of something. This latter kind of knowing is dualistic, the former is non-dualist but a different kind of knowing. Sometimes I call this pre-reflective experience "unknowing." Please critique.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know