Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...

Ok, got it JLN.

So, more precisely worded: even this illusion we call our ego, even this illusion is part of reality.

Hmmm...are illusions part of reality?

My first reaction is to say yes of course.

It seems to be that illusions are part of reality.

But illusions are not necessarily real.

something like that

0 Replies

An illusion is a real illusion. The mirage of a lake in the desert is a real mirage of a lake. Take it as such and don't try to drink from it.
I will not do so now, but one can also argue that the desert is an illusion so the mirage is an illusion within an illusion. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Maja, the word that is used in hinduism to describe the world means two things. One is illution. The other meaning is energy.

This word is often negatively charged, and is so because it is considered negative to be caught in maja. But since even the blood that runs through your veins is maya it is hard to understand just what is illution and what not.

Quote:

Hmmm...are illusions part of reality?

My first reaction is to say yes of course.

It seems to be that illusions are part of reality.

But illusions are not necessarily real.

What is "real"? What is reality? Is the fantasy I have about flying like superman part of reality? I'd say yes, but what say you?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Maja, the word that is used in hinduism to describe the world means two things. One is illution. The other meaning is energy.

This word is often negatively charged, and is so because it is considered negative to be caught in maja. But since even the blood that runs through your veins is maya it is hard to understand just what is illution and what not.

Quote:
Hmmm...are illusions part of reality?

My first reaction is to say yes of course.

It seems to be that illusions are part of reality.

But illusions are not necessarily real.

What is "real"? What is reality? Is the fantasy I have about flying like superman part of reality? I'd say yes, but what say you?

hmmmm....most definitely sounds unreal. You should see someone about that. Laughing

Seriously though: Sure, I guess its a real fantasy. Its just as real as any of my fantasies. Funny thing is, I can't really see your reality and your real fantasies.

And there's the rub: Reality is never precisely the same to any of us.

When we stand on a beach next to each other, and look at a rock, do we see the same rock?

0 Replies

Though in some instances, it is indeed.

Say both of us are looking at that rock, and we are not intoxicated. I note its colour, and you agree; I note its size and shape, and you agree; and, I note its location, and you agree and find it to be at that same location. Are we viewing the same rock, or has a phase-shift occurred in which another rock is superimposed on the first rock so that the two are inseparable? Shocked

0 Replies

Extra Medium and Pegasus, assuming that all things are expressions of interactions. I interact with something (quarks, atoms, molecules, and other names for mysterious realities) and the result is the experience of "rock". Then you interact with something that we consider the same something (even though at each moment reality is in process--everything is changing, as in Heraclitus' river that we cannot step in twice) and the result is another experience of "rock". The question when framed this way is did our separate interactions result in the same rock?

0 Replies

Nobody

Quote:

assuming that all things are expressions of interactions. I interact with something (quarks, atoms, molecules, and other names for mysterious realities) and the result is the experience of "rock".

There you are being dualist. Smile

You don't simply interact with the rock, as expressions of the interaction of quarks.
You have a previous meaning to the "rock". Not only a definition. You look at the rock and think "a bad place to swim" - and that is your meaning of rock in that precise moment.
Your interaction of the rock has a "background": your intentionality. You bring the meaning to the the interaction, and the rock brings ... the rock that means this or that.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Quote:

The question when framed this way is did our separate interactions result in the same rock?

Just how separate are these interactions? Not very. You're standing on the same beach, looking in the same light, breathing the same air. Your separate evolutions are also remarkably similar. You have evolved side by side and this evolution is in itself a synergy. You and the world around you is a synergy.

0 Replies

val

Quote:

You don't simply interact with the rock, as expressions of the interaction of quarks.
You have a previous meaning to the "rock". Not only a definition. You look at the rock and think "a bad place to swim" - and that is your meaning of rock in that precise moment.
Your interaction of the rock has a "background": your intentionality. You bring the meaning to the the interaction, and the rock brings ... the rock that means this or that.

0 Replies

Val and Cyracuz, I'm glad my "tentative" notion sparked such smart responses from you. I must reread your thoughts and consider Twyvel's input. But let me respond tentatively to Val's claim that I'm being dualistic. Of course I must speak dualistically when talking about our conventional notions "observer" and "rock." But I did indicate, I think, that what is real is not the observer or the rock but the experience of "rock" which IS the interaction between mysterious realities. The universe is a single reality (as "I" conceive "it") with a plural internal dynamic character. All "things" comprising the universe exist only by virtue of their interactions with other "things" an ultimately with all things. They do not exist prior to their generative interactions (as my comments may have suggested). The forms they take RESULT from the interactions; they all have something like conditioned and conditional realities--and they are, as recognized in Buddhist thought, fleetingly temporary and evanescent. Val, these interactions would include the "background" of the rock (part of its mysterious reality) and my intentions and the conceptions of "rock" I bring to the interaction. It is an infinetely complex and dynamic process. I don't know, but I think that the only constant is the overall dynamic process, the "dance" in which Vishnu creates and Shiva destroys.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Extra Medium and Pegasus, assuming that all things are expressions of interactions. I interact with something (quarks, atoms, molecules, and other names for mysterious realities) and the result is the experience of "rock". Then you interact with something that we consider the same something (even though at each moment reality is in process--everything is changing, as in Heraclitus' river that we cannot step in twice) and the result is another experience of "rock". The question when framed this way is did our separate interactions result in the same rock?

The expression 'expressions of interactions' is a tad equivocal, though it is understood nonetheless. By 'all things are expressions of interactions' I assume you mean that any one set of experience(s) can be translated, firstly, as an "interaction" between the thought object and the thinking subject, and, secondly, as an "expression" of such interactions between them. In this way, any experience is i., an interaction, and ii., an expression of that interaction.

As for the instance of the rock on the beach, I say this: though it may be the case that we can not step into the same river twice, two individuals (in a sober state) can interact with one and the same object under its progression from one state to another and so on, assuming the two individuals hold the same capacity in reference to eye sight, mental acuity, etc. In this way, there are indeed separate interactions, for there are two individuals and their capabilities can not be logically equivalent (which would imply one and the same person or top-tier twins), though the interactions are of the same object. Under these circumstances, the separate interactions are of the same object, and the object is thought of by two thinking subjects in which the capacities are not identical- though they do approach a certain "biological" identity of sorts.

If JL, Medium, and I were, say, at Daytona Beach viewing a splendid rock, the interactions are separate- for obvious reasons- though the object remains the same, given somewhat equivalent capacities of thought and so on. Firstly, without doubt, we consider it to be one and the same thing, and, secondly, we speak and discuss the properties of that object. Over some time, we find that we are investigating the same rock, and what was once considered to be a rock for each agent has now become a factual reception of one and the same object under all three considerations.

Of course, this is not definitive. Any thoughts?

0 Replies

Pegasus, I do think that experience is the interaction between my constitution (physical and cultural) and the various properties of "objects" encountered, but I was also referring to all properties and things in the universe. It is analogous to the color orange that results from the interaction of red and yellow. The analogy fails where red, yellow and blue, are primary colors that do not result from mixtures of other colors. But, literally, the primary colors, like all paints result from chemical interactions and the experience of them as phenomena result from the interaction between them, properties of light waves and properties of my nervous system.
When you, Medium and I talk about a rock on your beach, naive realism will initially lead us to believe that we have different perspectives on the same rock. Positivism. If we delve into the ontological and epistemological issues suggested by the situation we will, I think, come to see the rock as three different sets of phenomena for each of us. In other words I suspect that the process will go the other way. And of course this too is not definitive.

0 Replies

pegasus

Quote:

If JL, Medium, and I were, say, at Daytona Beach viewing a splendid rock, the interactions are separate- for obvious reasons- though the object remains the same, given somewhat equivalent capacities of thought and so on. Firstly, without doubt, we consider it to be one and the same thing, and, secondly, we speak and discuss the properties of that object. Over some time, we find that we are investigating the same rock, and what was once considered to be a rock for each agent has now become a factual reception of one and the same object under all three considerations.

Pegasus, first, "rock" is a mind construct, through language. It is an idea. You, Nobody and Medium see a dark think in the water and immediately integrate that thing in the concept of rock. Because, your interaction with the thing gives you only a visual impression of something dark, and if you touch it, sharp and heavy.
When you say "there is a rock" you are saying: there is something that seems to have the properties included in the concept of "rock". But the concept of rock doesn't refer to that specific thing you are seeing. It refers to itself, as definition, within a coherent system of relations called language.

Second, you would see "a rock" because you speak english and know the definition of "rock" and that dark thing over there seems to have, at least, some of the characteristics of the concept of "rock".

Third, I don't believe that you three see the "dark and sharp thing" the same way. You don't go to the beach and say: there is a rock. If you planing to swim, the rock has the meaning of "bad place to swim" and the same if you are planing to go fishing.
Our interaction with things is intentional. We chose what we perceive. In your example, you see the rock because you are looking for a place to swim or fishing. Or because you like rocks. But if you go to that beach looking for a friend you don't "see" the rock, although it interacts with your eyes.

0 Replies

Val, are you arguing the difference between seeing and noticing?

I think it was fresco who submitted a link on another thread concerning these things. The link was to BBC and something called the Reith Lectures. In the lectures he explains how some people see different things because the "wiring" between the eyes and the brain.

A person with a certain disorder will automatically associate numbers with colors. This is because the "wires" that submit color info and the wires that submit numbers are "crossed". The result is that he sees numbers as colors.

The number seven becomes identical to the color red for instance. If you wrote a lot of numbers on a page, all in black ink, the person with this "disorder" would see the different numbers displayed in different colors. These people often work as codebreakers and such due to their special abilities.

0 Replies

Val, I agree with this very useul and well expressed point:

When you say "there is a rock" you are saying: there is something that seems to have the properties included in the concept of "rock". But the concept of rock doesn't refer to that specific thing you are seeing. It refers to itself, as definition, within a coherent system of relations called language.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Pegasus, first, "rock" is a mind construct, through language. It is an idea. You, Nobody and Medium see a dark think in the water and immediately integrate that thing in the concept of rock. Because, your interaction with the thing gives you only a visual impression of something dark, and if you touch it, sharp and heavy.

This seems to border on idealism, that sort of idealism expounded by Bishop Berkeley, which is, of course, a splendid philosophy.

Though where and by what process is this "linguistic concept" derived from? If it is a construct of the thinking subject exclusively, where does it come from?

Quote:

When you say "there is a rock" you are saying: there is something that seems to have the properties included in the concept of "rock". But the concept of rock doesn't refer to that specific thing you are seeing. It refers to itself, as definition, within a coherent system of relations called language.

Then, if the reference is not between the subject and object, but within the subject exclusively, I revert to my question above: where does this concept come from? That the concept refers to itself and thereby generates a linguistic picture? Interesting...

Quote:

Second, you would see "a rock" because you speak english and know the definition of "rock" and that dark thing over there seems to have, at least, some of the characteristics of the concept of "rock".

Yes, the point precisely: I obtain a picture of a rock; this picture- this concept- is derived because of my knowledge and use of the English language? And, furthermore, that it is derived because its characteristics resemble that concept? Dubious, at best.

Quote:

Third, I don't believe that you three see the "dark and sharp thing" the same way. You don't go to the beach and say: there is a rock. If you planing to swim, the rock has the meaning of "bad place to swim" and the same if you are planing to go fishing.
Our interaction with things is intentional. We chose what we perceive. In your example, you see the rock because you are looking for a place to swim or fishing. Or because you like rocks. But if you go to that beach looking for a friend you don't "see" the rock, although it interacts with your eyes.

This is counter-intuitive. I most certainly do "...go to the beach and say: there is a rock." The rock is there prior to my arrival and remains there after my departure. The thinking subject- whether or not it is me, JL, or Medium- is not responsible for the existence of that rock. Of course, that the cognitive interaction is intentional is almost on the mark. In general, the world does not disappear once I am gone (Berkeleian idealism).

What is your view?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

When you say "there is a rock" you are saying: there is something that seems to have the properties included in the concept of "rock". But the concept of rock doesn't refer to that specific thing you are seeing. It refers to itself, as definition, within a coherent system of relations called language.

If the concept of 'rock' does not refer to that specific entity on the beach, and that entity comes about because of the reference of the concept to its own characteristics, then the existence of that entity is mind-dependent entirely, and so this is a form of idealism. Idealism, I have noted, is not altogether foolish, only flimsy at times.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

When you, Medium and I talk about a rock on your beach, naive realism will initially lead us to believe that we have different perspectives on the same rock. Positivism. If we delve into the ontological and epistemological issues suggested by the situation we will, I think, come to see the rock as three different sets of phenomena for each of us. In other words I suspect that the process will go the other way. And of course this too is not definitive.

Yes, I agree, to the extent that three discrete agents could form a cognitive interaction of one object at one location, and those interactions could form one and the same description.

Let us say we are all walking on Daytona Beach. We are talking about this or that, and JL or Medium spot a rock, and say, "...well, look at that brown rock adjacent to that spike in the sand- it's very bright and transparent; I like it." I turn to locate the rock and I find it to be precisely at the location described. I also note the same properties JL or Medium picked up on, and, let us say- for the sake of argument- that I agree: I like it as well. Now, we are all looking at the rock, and, moreover, we move in to pick it up and hold it. So we are all huddled around it, viewing and analyzing it in every way. At end, we find that the rock in question is, in fact, this same rock located by JL or Medium.

Now we have three discrete agents with discrete minds and therefore discrete cognitive powers. At this moment- the moment we spot a rock and decide to examine it- we have found ourselves to be in agreement on every one aspect (or property) of this rock. It is, in a word, that three discrete agents have arrived at one and the same object- the rock- through cognitive interaction and analysis. The phenomenon has come to be one and the same for each of us.

What is your opinion of this?

0 Replies

pegasus wrote:

Quote:

If the concept of 'rock' does not refer to that specific entity on the beach, and that entity comes about because of the reference of the concept to its own characteristics, then the existence of that entity is mind-dependent entirely, and so this is a form of idealism. Idealism, I have noted, is not altogether foolish, only flimsy at times.

0 Replies

Pegasus wrote:
"If the concept of 'rock' does not refer to that specific entity on the beach, and that entity comes about because of the reference of the concept to its own characteristics, then the existence of that entity is mind-dependent entirely, and so this is a form of idealism. Idealism, I have noted, is not altogether foolish, only flimsy at times."

And that applies, as well, to materialism or positivism. Sometimes they are useful, but always philosophically problematical.

Pegasus, I would imagine that the term, "rock", is merely an orientational device (Nagarjuna's "convenient designation") that serves to coordinate different individuals to particular "objects" in the world. Idealism would perhaps treat the term as a Platonic Ideal which exists as a mind-independent absolute reality. My notion of the term as (mind/culture-dependent) orientational-device-promoting-coordination-between-individuals-with-respect-to-"objects"-of-the-world) is similar to Plato's ideal form inasmuch as real rocks are different but similar enough to be classed as elements of the set, "rock".

Twyvel, with respect to that foundational but difficult concept, consciousness, can we say that there is consciousness without content? I I wish I had read more of David Chalmers, but when I look at experience, I see only content, never blank consciousness as a kind of empty vessel waiting to be filled with phenomena/content. I may be wrong, but that's the way it seems to me right now.

0 Replies

Modern philosophers- jukeboxes...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know