19
   

Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Forums: Philosophy, Buddhism, Dualism, Buddha, Identity
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 01:06 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
In case you are asking what is the relevance of my previous post diatribe I will remind you that you often claim to have no beliefs all the while believing that very same exact assertion without presenting any proof that you have no beliefs...the only way for you to have no beliefs would require absolute knowledge with certainty...go figure why I am making a fuss out of this... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 01:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5303463)
No...Knowledge is information regarding something state of affairs certainty is proof...I guess you don't understand absolute skepticism is self defeating...

There are stuff that I might know that I might heard of for which I have no proof I have knowledge of it but no certainty and all the while I might also choose to believe it or not...but I have knowledge if I am informed about it !

For instance I have knowledge of my experiences but no proof that such experiences represent the true nature of reality...equally I have knowledge of my doubts but no proof that my doubts are legitimate...

It is true that sometimes Knowledge is used as implying certainty or proof but similarly it can be demonstrated that you might know something without having proof for it preventing what you believe comes to be proven true later on...what it means is that knowing and being certain do not necessarily entail each other !

PS - Again, beliefs, if and when true, constitute knowledge even if you don't have proof of them ! Proof can come later and demonstrate your knowledge was legitimate. (meaning at the time you had the information you had the knowledge) (not necessarily the understanding granted)


Sorry, Fil, but this is such nonsense I won't spend time tearing it apart.


No you don't tear it apart because you don't have any valid argument to tear apart something that is consensually established so be honest and address the argument !!!

Say I never saw a lemon and someone tells me lemons are yellow how come it is not true that I had the knowledge lemons are yellow even before I had the proof eh ???

It seams to me you have nothing but empty words there...


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 01:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Some people assert they KNOW there is a GOD...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert they KNOW there are no gods...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert there is no "self"...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert there is a "self"...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert the universe and all in it is an illusion...because they "believe" it.

Some people are naive realists and assert that the universe and all in it is exactly what it seems to be...because they "believe" it.

Me...I do not know if there is a GOD...do not know that there are no gods...do not know there is no self....do not know that there definitely is a self...I do not know if the universe and all in it is an illusion or not.

Sorry that upsets you so...but it is the truth.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 01:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Some people assert they KNOW there is a GOD...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert they KNOW there are no gods...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert there is no "self"...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert there is a "self"...because they "believe" it.

Some people assert the universe and all in it is an illusion...because they "believe" it.

Some people are naive realists and assert that the universe and all in it is exactly what it seems to be...because they "believe" it.

Me...I do not know if there is a GOD...do not know that there are no gods...do not know there is no self....do not know that there definitely is a self...I do not know if the universe and all in it is an illusion or not.

Sorry that upsets you so...but it is the truth.


No Frank, no, no, no !!!...Rather you are not certain there is or there is not a God/s, you are not certain there is a self, and so on...equally while you are certain of having a doubt if you doubting, you are not certain on weather such doubt is legitimate in what it intends to address !
Since you HAVE experiences and experiences NECESSARILY entail reactions you MUST have BELIEFS, that might or not constitute true knowledge depending on weather those beliefs are the case to be true even if you don't know if they are to be true !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 01:49 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
No Frank, no, no, no !!!...


Yes, yes, yes, yes, Fil.

Quote:
Rather you are not certain there is or there is not a God/s, you are not certain there is a self, and so on...


I do not know the true nature of REALITY...so I do not know any of those things. But those people seem to fit in the absurd niche that you want me to fit...so along with them.

Quote:
...equally while you are certain of having a doubt if you doubting, you are not certain on weather such doubt is legitimate in what it intends to address !


I have no idea of what that means.


Quote:
Since you HAVE experiences and experiences NECESSARILY entail reactions you MUST have BELIEFS,


Oh...is that written somewhere that I have not visited???

I have no "beliefs."

I do have some guesses...blind guesses. But that is all they are...blind guesses.


Quote:
... that might or not constitute true knowledge depending on weather those beliefs are the case to be true even if you don't know if they are to be true !


Do you really buy into that nonsense, Fil...or are you just saying that because you feel a need to try me wrong in some way?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Its odd you don't know what it means something some claim is to be legitimate or not after all that's what you been debating all along..it means if something is justified or not Frank what else ?...it means doubting for doubting has no merit a doubt must have a REASON !
Your guess work on you not knowing reality is just that guess work...it may well be the case all that you know about reality is all there is need to know after all...

PS - More, you are also to be enlightened that there are no blind guesses rather when we guess we have a motive to guess the way we guess..."guessing" opinions are not a random activity !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5303545)
Its odd you don't know what it means somethings is to be legitimate or not..it means if something is justified or not...doubting for doubting has no merit a doubt must have a REASON !


That sentence is an abomination. Not sure what in hell you were trying to say...but you missed the mark.

Quote:

Your guess work on you not knowing reality is just that guess work..


Ahhh...finally something on which we can agree. My guesses are guesses.

Brilliant!

Quote:
...it may well be the case all that you know about reality is all there is need to know after all...


It might. But I do not know if it is.

Quote:
PS - More, you are also to be enlightened that there are no blind guesses rather when we guess we have a motive to guess the way we guess...guessing is not a random activity !


Really!

If you are asserting there are no blind guesses...I guess I have to guess that you are doing so to give me something else to laugh at.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
...Its quite laughable that while I have no control of English I have a great control of concepts unlike you...you don't understand randomness as a concept you don't understand what an Absolute is, you don't even have a grasp on what is knowledge and why it is distinct from certainty...perhaps you ought to read a bit more on the subject before you make a fool of yourself in public...by the way address the question:

If I never saw a lemons color and someone tells me rightfully and truthfully lemons are yellow, how come it is not true that I came to had knowledge lemons are yellow even before I could be certain of it ? What is it that you can fault in this reasoning Frank ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
And what you are saying in this forum is "I don't know whether I'm discussing anything on a2k." LOL
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5303600)
...Its quite laughable that while I have no control of English I have a great control of concepts unlike you...you don't understand randomness as a concept you don't understand what an Absolute is, you don't even have a grasp on what is knowledge and why it is distinct from certainty...perhaps you ought to read a bit more on the subject before you make a fool of yourself in public...by the way address the question:



Sounds as though you think I am stupid...or underhanded. What could I tell ya?

I am neither.

Quote:
If I never saw a lemons color and someone tells me rightfully and truthfully lemons are yellow, how come it is not true that I came to had knowledge lemons are yellow even before I could be certain of it ? What is it that you can fault in this reasoning Frank ?


Your hypothetical makes no sense to me, Fil.

Do you know the true nature of REALITY?

Do you know if there is a GOD or if there are no gods?

Is the universe an illusion...or is it exactly what it seems to be?

Is there a self...or is there no such thing as self?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5303600)
And what you are saying in this forum is "I don't know whether I'm discussing anything on a2k." LOL


I am not saying that at all, ci. You are saying it.

LOL back atcha.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
But you "don't know!" LOL
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5303645)
But you "don't know!" LOL


Yup...I do not know.

LOL again.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:49 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The only thing you are adamantly sure of is "I don't know."

That to some degree is "reality." Yours.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 02:52 pm
Lets talk about justification then:

Lets say that I have a given belief upon X subject and that I have a a given rational justification to sustain that belief but I still don't have a final proof or certainty, that such belief might constitute knowledge of what is the case to be true. Now, is not like I have a blind guess on the subject as I have a complex justification to uphold my belief in place, it just happens for the time being I am not certain on whether my justification is complete or not, but it might be the case that my justification is after all complete...how is not true that my justified belief constituted true knowledge at the time if later on I came to learn my justification was complete ? I had knowledge and good reason to believe what I believed but was not fully certain has I had no proof although the proof of what I knew it is irrelevant for having good reason or justification on what I knew...after all mind experiments hypothesis that we come to imagine sometimes prove to be right empirically and although we have no proof at the time we imagine them coming to get a proof does not entail any additional information to the conjecture itself !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 03:00 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If I never saw a lemons color and someone tells me (rightfully and truthfully) lemons are yellow, how come it is not true that I came to had knowledge lemons are yellow even before I could be certain of it ? What is it that you can fault in this reasoning Frank ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You:
Your hypothetical makes no sense to me, Fil.


Maybe I am the stupid one here... Laughing
Do me a favor Frank and help me, go a step by step counter on this argument...a logical counter !

Why is it when beliefs are to be true you think they do not equate to having knowledge if knowledge simply means to have a correct representation of what is to be the case ???
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 03:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5303655)
The only thing you are adamantly sure of is "I don't know."

That to some degree is "reality." Yours.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts on that, ci.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 03:11 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil...a "belief" to me is just a guess about an unknown.

Some are right on the mark...others miss the mark.

Some people "believe" there is a GOD...some "believe" there are no gods.

Let's say one of those is correct.

Until it is PROVEN to be correct...it is just a guess.


The person making the guess should simply acknowledge that he/she does not KNOW the answer...but is making a guess.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 03:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Fil...a "belief" to me is just a guess about an unknown.

Some are right on the mark...others miss the mark.

Some people "believe" there is a GOD...some "believe" there are no gods.

Let's say one of those is correct.

Until it is PROVEN to be correct...it is just a guess.


The person making the guess should simply acknowledge that he/she does not KNOW the answer...but is making a guess.


You still don't get my point Frank !
I am not denying a guess is a guess I am just wondering how come you believe a guess might also not entail true knowledge ? where are they mutually exclusive ?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2013 03:44 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The problem in here resides with the modern concept of knowledge entailing proof, the scientific approach...now don't get me wrong I am a lover of science and all in favor of requiring proofs upon claims...but in turn the fact of the matter is that knowledge to the knower should only require the complete correspondence between an hypothesis and a matter of fact, as certainty wont provide any further degree of truth to such correspondence...justification although providing insight and understanding is nonetheless an entirely different matter...further can be argued that even when we have a complete justification, that is to mean, a complete hypothesis shown to be true later on, a final proof might and needs not to entail any new information relevant to the hypothesis itself...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?
  3. » Page 46
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 05:51:13
▲ ▼