1. Existence comprises information
2. Information necessitates interpretation
3. Awareness is the ultimate interpretive medium
4. Therefore awareness IS existence
The first of my arguments. Some clarification necessary of course, I will try...
Existence=EVERYTHING IN TOTALITY
Information=BITS OF THING
Awareness=THE INTERPRETER
Interpretation=VALIDATION OF INFORMATION
-I claim that a conscious experiencer is necessary for the information content of a thing to be (and the thing itself), inanimacy as a set requiring this to be enabled, being alone unstable. Awareness equals, validates, existence by experiencing it. As a part of awareness, the individual verifies as existent all that is conceived of. Where awareness is not, there is no means for verification.
-Furthermore, as awareness as an apparent whole is divided into individual entities, the individual may only verify as existent that which they are aware of. As they are not aware of other minds, objectivity, and facts communicated them by "others", these are not actually existent.
-I obviously have equated verification of existence with the property of existence. I.e. What is not verified (through awareness; conceived of) cannot exist.
Tweet
Hahahah thank you!
And indeed it is not.
I, at least, will not shun possibilities due to emotion. Working with substance. If you attack it, may you have a better reason than "this is causing a reaction in my brain interpreted as bad",
It is incredibly unorthodox, but it fits into place. And not that it's saying a whole lot or trying to, but thus far it's been infallible on logical grounds.
What kind of drivel is this? I'm just going to ignore the last three paragraphs as they seem particularly uninteresting. For one thing, with respect to the last paragraph, I'm pretty sure you misusing the term 'phonology'.
What I find more provocative are your proclamations, posing as arguments, about 'information' and 'knowledge'. While there's something about them that allows them to be made sense of, I'm pretty sure you are missing the point of their respective uses. Let's take an example: Suppose I know that what I'm observing is that it's a eucalyptus tree. How can I know this? Well, as you say, it could be that I've developed a concept of it, a concept that gives me the ability to recognize it as such when I observe it, attaching the name 'eucalyptus tree' when it conforms to what I've learned to call it. However this form of knowledge, sometimes called knowledge from experience, isn't always acceptable, as it might not be in some intellectual circles, notably those in which one has to discover its "true" nature (what gives it its "true" meaning), which is to say one needs to to be able to justify one's claim to knowledge. [See footnote for why I use scare quotes around 'true'.]
In any case, 'information' (in this context) has exactly these same properties, the difference being that one counts it as information rather than knowledge because information will or may, in conjunction with other information, lead to knowledge. It forms part of the justification needed. Knowledge, in this context, becomes the accumulation and relevant processing of sufficient information. We will know it's a eucalyptus tree because we have gathered sufficient information (in the form of clues) to satisfy the ("true") definition of eucalyptus tree. Information constitutes the ingredients, which when sufficiently accumulated and processed (properly mixed together) constitute knowledge. Presumably for the purposes of developing educated knowledge we have to ferret out that information and make an argument which satisfies (justifies it). For this purpose we would have to list the ingredients we need to know in order to determine what needs to be satisfied (it's definition), and then tick off (pick out the information from) what is observed in order to show that it conforms to that definition.
(My use of scare quotes around "true" is an attempt to ward off pursuing this difficult concept in this thread, yet at the same time differentiating it from arbitrary uses of the term as it might be seen in mathematics and logic.)
James
I suppose the "something about them in their usage here" (or some such variant) has not effectively been grasped? I was hoping to skip the definition wars... The main focus here is, "If knowledge of an object does not exist, how does the object exist?"
I did specify MY definitions regardless, which are used here, feel free to substitute your own words, only let me know first! :P Or is more clarification requested? :s
Why drag epistemological issues into any discussion of existence? Lots of things exist that I'm not aware of and will never be aware of? Are you thinking along the lines of the method of doubt of Descartes? I.e., are you more interested in how reality can be known or in reality itself? If it is the former, why bother with the question of your 'main focus'? If it is the latter, why worry about whether it can be known? I certainly understand that you or others may not be convinced of the existence of something until there is sufficient evidence of it, but if there's no real dispute about it, I don't see what the problem is. If, on the other hand, your quest has to do with the nature of existence itself, I don't see how you're going to get very far by beginning with the claim that knowledge itself is what brings about its existence or constitutes its existence.
James
James
In informing you of my theory of existence, I would be responding to the question of how there are lots of things that exist that I'm unaware of. The reason that this is the case is that the theory doesn't require that I be aware of them. For example, the air in the room I'm writing is full of particles that I'm unaware of. I take them to exist because it's part of theory of air that it contains particles that are too small for me to see. Note in this example, I'm restricting myself to the understanding of 'awareness' which is manifested in consciousness in the usual way, not its use to cover all sorts of things that one has learned from one's experience. However, I could exclude this interpretation as well, just because their existence isn't predicated on my having learned it. One becomes aware of their existence, one doesn't bring about their existence by becoming aware of it. I've learned that Uranus, the planet, exists. It didn't pop into existence just because I became aware of it by such learning.
James
But you haven't personally identified it?
If you have, before you did, how was it factually there? Because the information is, because humans appear to have gone to a lot of trouble that DEFINITELY "proves" it? Or now that you've seen it, you KNOW that it exists now and always did, but you didn't before empirically discovering it?
People are trained through experience to believe all sorts of seemingly crazy material. Many "normal" viewpoints seem to me far more absurd than many that are rejected immediately.
I respect your theory, and it is the typical viewpoint of the world. However, I am attempting to work with truth, proofs, rather than possibilities, and to this end, while yes perhaps the objective exists, how may you say it does? Or does that part not matter? :P
Two different awarenesses cannot both overlap and be separate entities. Then other awarenesses would hypothetically be brought into the same category as inanimate objectivity, if one cannot conceive of another mind, the other mind is not included within the portal that defines existence for that individual.
Well, I know that some people cannot imagine a single awareness at the core of every unique and dynamic personal awareness. An infinite different personal awarenesses can have a single core awareness. I view the universe as many layers of awareness with a core awareness that is a sum of all of awareness.
I've also stumbled across this view. It did seem plausible: God is all life, a network of consciousness, interconnected, yet.... separate? We are differing branches? Then there must be a part of our consciousness, somewhere, that connects to ALL the rest, there can be no total transition, there must be a form of total overlap. If this is the case, I am you and you are me, we are one, as is all life. At the heart of our minds (lol), the barely acknowledged, it could be...
I think it would help if you spelled out the reference to 'it', because the use of 'it' requires me to read your mind. Notwithstanding, I suppose I'm at fault as well, because I intentionally left unspecified what my 'theory of existence' was, thinking you would realize that it didn't matter what that theory was because it was only that the theory didn't require it being due to my being aware of it, as in the example of air particles. I suppose I was too subtle.
So you dispute that air that surrounds me is comprised of particles?
You haven't presented any reason that I need to prove it. It is a well-established fact that air is comprised of particles too small to see. Indeed even if I were able to "prove" it, this wouldn't change the status of existence of that which is proved. Similarly, if I wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't change its status. Proof is not what makes something exist or not exist.
So? I fail to see your point here. Are you trying to come up with a proof that supernatural exists? Or doesn't?
Note that I'm trying to get you move away from confusing ontological questions with epistemological questions. I believe you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to prove or disprove something exists by making use of arguments that deal with how one knows whether or not something exists. To get a feel for this, you might check out the proofs of the existence of god as well as their objections/refutations. When one offers up a proof of the existence of something, or its contrary, one is not engaging in an epistemological endeavor, which is to say in how we know that something exists, even if part of that proof includes statements such as "I've seen it." Rather one is engaging in an ontological examination. One examines the proof or refutation not from the perspective one's knowledge or belief of it, but rather to whether the proof or refutation is adequate to its task.
James
Yes, of course, knowing what everything is, is a theory of everything itself. Knowing! This is what I mean in saying "proofs". As in, this is what we know for sure, and cannot deny, the rest comes after as mere speculation, as I see it. This is the existence I see as proven:
I think, therefore I am; something exists, as nothing cannot.
My mind defines existence.
Objective chance allows no decisive factors and is impossible.
The senses exist and are dependent on conceptualisation, sight=not necessarily indicative of more than 2D, tactioception validates the 3D plane it entails (though perhaps not 3D as it is usually defined, for it commonly acknowledged that all senses are of the brain), the rest exist and definitively suggest only the product of their existence.
In a simple nutshell... This is all there is for sure.
This is where you go wrong. I'd previously criticized the first part on the basis of it confusing metaphysics with epistemology. On the second part, if you are going to tie proof to knowledge, you should realize that because knowledge is restricted to a knower, the alleged 'proof' would be what you use to justify your knowing it and because it would be an alleged proof, there is no necessity that it is true or even adequate to the justification needed. Moreover, even if there is a proof that is adequate to the task, this doesn't mean you know it and have found it adequate. This is why, in addition to justification, you also need the proposition to be true and to have a belief that it is true in order to qualify it as knowledge. Indeed, if you demand proof, you may find yourself on the horns of a dilemma, should you press it too far. For example, if you begin with a definition and a set of axioms you may be able to prove some proposition is true on the basis of them. One could say you provided a deductive proof. However, this isn't going to help much if the axioms are faulty or the definitions aren't true. And how are you going to prove the axioms are true and the definitions are true? Alternatively, your proof could be of the inductive kind as for example having observed something to be the case without exception you conclude that it must be true without exception. Unfortunately for you, such an induction doesn't guarantee its truth. The best you'll be able to say is that it hasn't yet failed. In other words, empirically based "proofs" don't work. For criminal proceedings, one uses the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (which doesn't imply "beyond all doubt" and essentially means you have to provide a good reason for doubting.) Despite this, however, in accordance with the law of large numbers, you might be able to develop a probable model that has some truth to it. (Though even here you have to take care that you would have to assume that the universe is ordered and subject to inviolable laws, such that, for example, what you think of as tomorrow will have some semblance with what you expect to be and the universe won't suddenly develop a schism in which the universe functions in a completely different way).
Note that you should realize here that subsequent philosophers, notably Hume (and Kant) have found weaknesses in his proof. What is this "I" that Descartes claims he has proven to exist. What is this "something" that exists? Descartes has a particular model in which the "I" is some kind of substance, different from a material substance, and having no property of "extension." I suspect you haven't given it enough thought. Indeed, might it not be possible that the thoughts being claimed are not the result of you thinking them, but rather that the thoughts merely appear from nowhere. What is the connection that links thoughts with your "I"?
Your solipsism at this point is not even able to handle your own existence, I'm afraid.
James
Would you at least agree that the belief "There is a first-personal thought now" is apodictically true?
I tend to agree with Descartes' conclusion in a rough sense. However, this is not the same thing as saying that "Cogito ergo Sum" is the best representation of what it is that he encountered about consciousness. I put more reliance on how the idea has been worked on and refined over the years by later philosophers. The issue of the 'self' or the 'ego', coupled with some notion of existence, as represented by Descartes' 'Sum', remains to this day a bit of a mystery. Descartes himself had some reservations about his conclusion when he paused over the idea of expanding the doubter/thinker beyond its temporal association with his awareness of doubting/thinking. He required the intervention of some other argument (which I can't remember off the top of my head) to complete it.
James
This is perfect James, and I have just posted to Part 2 that conceptual proofs are subjective and empirical observations, while perhaps undeniable, are always fallible indicators of the 'future'.
I agree with every word. As for confusing two different fields, well, unless you elaborate as you do on why this is a problem, I couldn't care (:
I admire this; rather than not giving it enough thought, perhaps my conclusion is that if you are going to wonder at the connection between "I" and "thinking" you have transcended mere language and will never be able to speak a satisfactory conscious word again. (Basically, when it comes down to it, "I" is a rough symbol and rough auditory expression, indicating or rather drawing upon nothing defined in or by conception...)
Perhaps not, but this attempts to express the viewpoint that it is the mind that recognises existence for the individual. What is outside of the mind cannot exist for the individual..
It was elaborated at some length in my referral. Perhaps you didn't notice it. Here's one of my posts from this topic. Notwithstanding this, however, I'm pretty much convinced that you have no real interest in what exists at all, of even what it means to exist. Any ultimate explanation on your part will only be an empty gesture. Despite this, I am probably wrong. If so, I doubt I'll be able to assist in your project until you get past digging deeper inside what you believe is inside you. Many a great philosopher has spent a life time going down this path. Perhaps you will be equally as successful or unsuccessful as they have been.
James
Alrighty...
I am referring generally to that which you have not personally verified but nevertheless accept as true. Perhaps that the earth is round, perhaps that a certain continent exists. No matter how convinced we all may be of their validity, they still remain only as a possibility, yes? If you jump off a building, it is a possibility you will fall, not a fact. There are many hypothetical possibilities that may be imagined that would not entail the truth of these 'facts' but do entail the facts that have been experienced.
Hahah... personally I fail to distinguish between natural supernatural and man/man-made, there is no clearly defined line, even for divine.. My point is that we are all biased by our experience including our forced conformity, and the ideas we conform to accept are often far more ludicrous than those we would reject on a whim, and hysterically. It's difficult to take scepticism too far.
I added "as you do" to the reasoning that it is a bad thing, I recognised this... I might've stated before that I have 'analysed' many God arguments... tell me then, what I have to work with if not personal knowledge? Imagining the objective, what is not conceived of, is just another form of personal intuition, one cannot reach outside of the mind.
When you say that believing that all that is experienced is all that exists is illusory and riddled with fault, how do you through that ascertain the existence of something outside of your knowledge? You, James, expressed Kant's viewpoint as, for "too many reasons to list", such an argument is self-defeating for there must be a source of change outside of the awareness. I said supposing the source is the final one governing all, namely necessity, how all must be, then, as it pervades all, it need not exist outside of awareness and the argument holds for now... then what is the reply?
I... don't know what this is supposed to mean at all. Take no interest in existence? Is that even possible?
This confirms your interest in knowledge, not existence.
This is your assumption. It is an assumption which is self-defeating.
The reasons have to do with Kant's need to resolve the question of making sense of the possibility of scientific knowledge (the determination of the laws of the universe) of a phenomenal world with moral laws within us, by recognizing the powers of reason, on the former through the critique of pure reason, while on the latter on critique of practical reason, these two operating in different realms. There can be no science of morals and there can be no morality to the world that science investigates. However, these ideas have since been weakened considerably what with the advent of Darwin's theory of evolution in one direction, and in the other direction by science's grasp of a world that isn't entirely Newtonian (coupled with the advances in mathematics, logic, and statistics. Specifically, however, what I was referring to, is the advances in information theory.
See the first part of my response above.
James
I saw... I did not really respond. I do not see far enough into the basis. Any response I would give to that alone has been given already.
As you know I equate the two. And I also wonder how any interest may not be termed 'interest in existence'.
This.... is your assumption? :P
For what I am expressing, in the context I am expressing it, to be termed assumption, you must tell me how the inconceivable may be conceived of.
You are saying that Kant was required to speak with regards to the assumption of scientific knowlege? Doesn't reflect necessarily, as science involves assumption... I simply wish to know more of his views then, and clearly.
Awareness is Existence
Moderator: Lomax
77 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
 |
 |
Awareness is Existence
by Keep_Relentless on March 14th, 2012, 8:36 pm
Last edited by Lomax on March 26th, 2012, 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Changed title
Reason: Changed title
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
 |
 |
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 15th, 2012, 11:00 am
I suppose the absurdity of your position is no reason for you to reconsider it. I'm reminded of something one of my bosses once said about existence. Namely, if it isn't documented, it doesn't exist. Of course, he was a business man.
James
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 15th, 2012, 4:38 pm
owleye wrote:I suppose the absurdity of your position is no reason for you to reconsider it. I'm reminded of something one of my bosses once said about existence. Namely, if it isn't documented, it doesn't exist. Of course, he was a business man.
James
Hahahah thank you!
And indeed it is not.
I, at least, will not shun possibilities due to emotion. Working with substance. If you attack it, may you have a better reason than "this is causing a reaction in my brain interpreted as bad",
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 15th, 2012, 4:39 pm
Keep_Relentless wrote:owleye wrote:I suppose the absurdity of your position is no reason for you to reconsider it. I'm reminded of something one of my bosses once said about existence. Namely, if it isn't documented, it doesn't exist. Of course, he was a business man.
James
Hahahah thank you!
And indeed it is not.
I, at least, will not shun possibilities due to emotion. Working with substance. If you attack it, may you have a better reason than "this is causing a reaction in my brain interpreted as bad",
It is incredibly unorthodox, but it fits into place. And not that it's saying a whole lot or trying to, but thus far it's been infallible on logical grounds.
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by BadgerJelly on March 17th, 2012, 7:01 am
I think we need to address two things. Information and Knowledge.
The universe has evolved and so have concepts. Knowledge is the product of concept. Information is just information. Alone its useless.
Interpretation is relative so in some ways its redundant without a concept to apply to it. The information can exist and be intrerpreted and used but we don't know how we should be using it.
Awareness - This is what I have and others don't.
I think Phonology can help us a great deal. We have history but we don't really understand what somepone meant 1000 years ago or 500 years ago. Just look at Shakespeare
The universe has evolved and so have concepts. Knowledge is the product of concept. Information is just information. Alone its useless.
Interpretation is relative so in some ways its redundant without a concept to apply to it. The information can exist and be intrerpreted and used but we don't know how we should be using it.
Awareness - This is what I have and others don't.
I think Phonology can help us a great deal. We have history but we don't really understand what somepone meant 1000 years ago or 500 years ago. Just look at Shakespeare
-
BadgerJelly - Active Member
- Posts: 1538
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 17th, 2012, 12:13 pm
BadgerJelly wrote:I think we need to address two things. Information and Knowledge.
The universe has evolved and so have concepts. Knowledge is the product of concept. Information is just information. Alone its useless.
Interpretation is relative so in some ways its redundant without a concept to apply to it. The information can exist and be intrerpreted and used but we don't know how we should be using it.
Awareness - This is what I have and others don't.
I think Phonology can help us a great deal. We have history but we don't really understand what somepone meant 1000 years ago or 500 years ago. Just look at Shakespeare
What kind of drivel is this? I'm just going to ignore the last three paragraphs as they seem particularly uninteresting. For one thing, with respect to the last paragraph, I'm pretty sure you misusing the term 'phonology'.
What I find more provocative are your proclamations, posing as arguments, about 'information' and 'knowledge'. While there's something about them that allows them to be made sense of, I'm pretty sure you are missing the point of their respective uses. Let's take an example: Suppose I know that what I'm observing is that it's a eucalyptus tree. How can I know this? Well, as you say, it could be that I've developed a concept of it, a concept that gives me the ability to recognize it as such when I observe it, attaching the name 'eucalyptus tree' when it conforms to what I've learned to call it. However this form of knowledge, sometimes called knowledge from experience, isn't always acceptable, as it might not be in some intellectual circles, notably those in which one has to discover its "true" nature (what gives it its "true" meaning), which is to say one needs to to be able to justify one's claim to knowledge. [See footnote for why I use scare quotes around 'true'.]
In any case, 'information' (in this context) has exactly these same properties, the difference being that one counts it as information rather than knowledge because information will or may, in conjunction with other information, lead to knowledge. It forms part of the justification needed. Knowledge, in this context, becomes the accumulation and relevant processing of sufficient information. We will know it's a eucalyptus tree because we have gathered sufficient information (in the form of clues) to satisfy the ("true") definition of eucalyptus tree. Information constitutes the ingredients, which when sufficiently accumulated and processed (properly mixed together) constitute knowledge. Presumably for the purposes of developing educated knowledge we have to ferret out that information and make an argument which satisfies (justifies it). For this purpose we would have to list the ingredients we need to know in order to determine what needs to be satisfied (it's definition), and then tick off (pick out the information from) what is observed in order to show that it conforms to that definition.
(My use of scare quotes around "true" is an attempt to ward off pursuing this difficult concept in this thread, yet at the same time differentiating it from arbitrary uses of the term as it might be seen in mathematics and logic.)
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 17th, 2012, 8:41 pm
owleye wrote:Information constitutes the ingredients,
I suppose the "something about them in their usage here" (or some such variant) has not effectively been grasped? I was hoping to skip the definition wars... The main focus here is, "If knowledge of an object does not exist, how does the object exist?"
I did specify MY definitions regardless, which are used here, feel free to substitute your own words, only let me know first! :P Or is more clarification requested? :s
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 18th, 2012, 3:40 pm
Keep_Relentless wrote:owleye wrote:Information constitutes the ingredients,
I suppose the "something about them in their usage here" (or some such variant) has not effectively been grasped? I was hoping to skip the definition wars... The main focus here is, "If knowledge of an object does not exist, how does the object exist?"
I did specify MY definitions regardless, which are used here, feel free to substitute your own words, only let me know first! :P Or is more clarification requested? :s
Why drag epistemological issues into any discussion of existence? Lots of things exist that I'm not aware of and will never be aware of? Are you thinking along the lines of the method of doubt of Descartes? I.e., are you more interested in how reality can be known or in reality itself? If it is the former, why bother with the question of your 'main focus'? If it is the latter, why worry about whether it can be known? I certainly understand that you or others may not be convinced of the existence of something until there is sufficient evidence of it, but if there's no real dispute about it, I don't see what the problem is. If, on the other hand, your quest has to do with the nature of existence itself, I don't see how you're going to get very far by beginning with the claim that knowledge itself is what brings about its existence or constitutes its existence.
James
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 18th, 2012, 6:28 pm
James,
Both of course! Any and all.
Well, the 'main focus' as I see it is this rational proof of the existence of the inconceivable, towards the definition of reality and existence. Feel free to bring up whatever you please as is your right but at the end of the day this is what I am after in creating the thread. You say "there are lots of things that exist that I am not aware of", tell me how. Where your mind and your reality and your knowledge define the existence that you speak of, how may anything be affirmed to be outside of your knowledge BY your knowledge?
Both of course! Any and all.
Well, the 'main focus' as I see it is this rational proof of the existence of the inconceivable, towards the definition of reality and existence. Feel free to bring up whatever you please as is your right but at the end of the day this is what I am after in creating the thread. You say "there are lots of things that exist that I am not aware of", tell me how. Where your mind and your reality and your knowledge define the existence that you speak of, how may anything be affirmed to be outside of your knowledge BY your knowledge?
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 19th, 2012, 11:35 am
Keep_Relentless wrote:James,
Both of course! Any and all.
Well, the 'main focus' as I see it is this rational proof of the existence of the inconceivable, towards the definition of reality and existence. Feel free to bring up whatever you please as is your right but at the end of the day this is what I am after in creating the thread. You say "there are lots of things that exist that I am not aware of", tell me how. Where your mind and your reality and your knowledge define the existence that you speak of, how may anything be affirmed to be outside of your knowledge BY your knowledge?
In informing you of my theory of existence, I would be responding to the question of how there are lots of things that exist that I'm unaware of. The reason that this is the case is that the theory doesn't require that I be aware of them. For example, the air in the room I'm writing is full of particles that I'm unaware of. I take them to exist because it's part of theory of air that it contains particles that are too small for me to see. Note in this example, I'm restricting myself to the understanding of 'awareness' which is manifested in consciousness in the usual way, not its use to cover all sorts of things that one has learned from one's experience. However, I could exclude this interpretation as well, just because their existence isn't predicated on my having learned it. One becomes aware of their existence, one doesn't bring about their existence by becoming aware of it. I've learned that Uranus, the planet, exists. It didn't pop into existence just because I became aware of it by such learning.
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 19th, 2012, 5:26 pm
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:James,
Both of course! Any and all.
Well, the 'main focus' as I see it is this rational proof of the existence of the inconceivable, towards the definition of reality and existence. Feel free to bring up whatever you please as is your right but at the end of the day this is what I am after in creating the thread. You say "there are lots of things that exist that I am not aware of", tell me how. Where your mind and your reality and your knowledge define the existence that you speak of, how may anything be affirmed to be outside of your knowledge BY your knowledge?
In informing you of my theory of existence, I would be responding to the question of how there are lots of things that exist that I'm unaware of. The reason that this is the case is that the theory doesn't require that I be aware of them. For example, the air in the room I'm writing is full of particles that I'm unaware of. I take them to exist because it's part of theory of air that it contains particles that are too small for me to see. Note in this example, I'm restricting myself to the understanding of 'awareness' which is manifested in consciousness in the usual way, not its use to cover all sorts of things that one has learned from one's experience. However, I could exclude this interpretation as well, just because their existence isn't predicated on my having learned it. One becomes aware of their existence, one doesn't bring about their existence by becoming aware of it. I've learned that Uranus, the planet, exists. It didn't pop into existence just because I became aware of it by such learning.
James
But you haven't personally identified it?
If you have, before you did, how was it factually there? Because the information is, because humans appear to have gone to a lot of trouble that DEFINITELY "proves" it? Or now that you've seen it, you KNOW that it exists now and always did, but you didn't before empirically discovering it?
People are trained through experience to believe all sorts of seemingly crazy material. Many "normal" viewpoints seem to me far more absurd than many that are rejected immediately.
I respect your theory, and it is the typical viewpoint of the world. However, I am attempting to work with truth, proofs, rather than possibilities, and to this end, while yes perhaps the objective exists, how may you say it does? Or does that part not matter? :P
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by kangs79 on March 19th, 2012, 6:02 pm
There is one big hole in these types of arguments about what you don't know doesn't exist. You are assuming that what ever you are not aware of is not capable of being aware. What if every object from the largest galaxy to the smallest subatomic particle is aware of its own existence. If you bring the one universal consciousness into the equation. Then the sum of all these aware objects leads to the one supreme consciousness that verifies that everything that is around you wether you know of it or not is real and exists no matter what your awareness. Since a person is not the totality of all consciousness they will never be aware of everything that exists in reality.
-
kangs79 - Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 23 Apr 2011
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 19th, 2012, 6:56 pm
kangs79 wrote:There is one big hole in these types of arguments about what you don't know doesn't exist. You are assuming that what ever you are not aware of is not capable of being aware. What if every object from the largest galaxy to the smallest subatomic particle is aware of its own existence. If you bring the one universal consciousness into the equation. Then the sum of all these aware objects leads to the one supreme consciousness that verifies that everything that is around you wether you know of it or not is real and exists no matter what your awareness. Since a person is not the totality of all consciousness they will never be aware of everything that exists in reality.
Two different awarenesses cannot both overlap and be separate entities. Then other awarenesses would hypothetically be brought into the same category as inanimate objectivity, if one cannot conceive of another mind, the other mind is not included within the portal that defines existence for that individual.
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by kangs79 on March 19th, 2012, 7:17 pm
Keep_Relentless wrote:kangs79 wrote:There is one big hole in these types of arguments about what you don't know doesn't exist. You are assuming that what ever you are not aware of is not capable of being aware. What if every object from the largest galaxy to the smallest subatomic particle is aware of its own existence. If you bring the one universal consciousness into the equation. Then the sum of all these aware objects leads to the one supreme consciousness that verifies that everything that is around you wether you know of it or not is real and exists no matter what your awareness. Since a person is not the totality of all consciousness they will never be aware of everything that exists in reality.
Two different awarenesses cannot both overlap and be separate entities. Then other awarenesses would hypothetically be brought into the same category as inanimate objectivity, if one cannot conceive of another mind, the other mind is not included within the portal that defines existence for that individual.
Well, I know that some people cannot imagine a single awareness at the core of every unique and dynamic personal awareness. An infinite different personal awarenesses can have a single core awareness. I view the universe as many layers of awareness with a core awareness that is a sum of all of awareness.
-
kangs79 - Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 23 Apr 2011
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 19th, 2012, 7:45 pm
kangs79 wrote:Well, I know that some people cannot imagine a single awareness at the core of every unique and dynamic personal awareness. An infinite different personal awarenesses can have a single core awareness. I view the universe as many layers of awareness with a core awareness that is a sum of all of awareness.
I've also stumbled across this view. It did seem plausible: God is all life, a network of consciousness, interconnected, yet.... separate? We are differing branches? Then there must be a part of our consciousness, somewhere, that connects to ALL the rest, there can be no total transition, there must be a form of total overlap. If this is the case, I am you and you are me, we are one, as is all life. At the heart of our minds (lol), the barely acknowledged, it could be...
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by charon on March 20th, 2012, 9:36 am
It seems to me you can go on speculating till doomsday and still not understand it.
If you want - I don't know why but if you do - a theory of everything then surely you must first know what everything is, right? Otherwise your theory will be a jelly bean or two short of the whole packet...
Also why do you want a theory? It's like a starving person wanting a theory of food. I don't see the point really.
If you want - I don't know why but if you do - a theory of everything then surely you must first know what everything is, right? Otherwise your theory will be a jelly bean or two short of the whole packet...
Also why do you want a theory? It's like a starving person wanting a theory of food. I don't see the point really.
- charon
- Active Member
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: 02 Mar 2011
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 20th, 2012, 11:14 am
Keep_Relentless wrote:But you haven't personally identified it?
I think it would help if you spelled out the reference to 'it', because the use of 'it' requires me to read your mind. Notwithstanding, I suppose I'm at fault as well, because I intentionally left unspecified what my 'theory of existence' was, thinking you would realize that it didn't matter what that theory was because it was only that the theory didn't require it being due to my being aware of it, as in the example of air particles. I suppose I was too subtle.
Keep_Relentless wrote:If you have, before you did, how was it factually there?
So you dispute that air that surrounds me is comprised of particles?
Keep_Relentless wrote:Because the information is, because humans appear to have gone to a lot of trouble that DEFINITELY "proves" it? Or now that you've seen it, you KNOW that it exists now and always did, but you didn't before empirically discovering it?
You haven't presented any reason that I need to prove it. It is a well-established fact that air is comprised of particles too small to see. Indeed even if I were able to "prove" it, this wouldn't change the status of existence of that which is proved. Similarly, if I wasn't able to prove it, this wouldn't change its status. Proof is not what makes something exist or not exist.
Keep_Relentless wrote:People are trained through experience to believe all sorts of seemingly crazy material. Many "normal" viewpoints seem to me far more absurd than many that are rejected immediately.
So? I fail to see your point here. Are you trying to come up with a proof that supernatural exists? Or doesn't?
Keep_Relentless wrote:I respect your theory, and it is the typical viewpoint of the world. However, I am attempting to work with truth, proofs, rather than possibilities, and to this end, while yes perhaps the objective exists, how may you say it does? Or does that part not matter? :P
Note that I'm trying to get you move away from confusing ontological questions with epistemological questions. I believe you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to prove or disprove something exists by making use of arguments that deal with how one knows whether or not something exists. To get a feel for this, you might check out the proofs of the existence of god as well as their objections/refutations. When one offers up a proof of the existence of something, or its contrary, one is not engaging in an epistemological endeavor, which is to say in how we know that something exists, even if part of that proof includes statements such as "I've seen it." Rather one is engaging in an ontological examination. One examines the proof or refutation not from the perspective one's knowledge or belief of it, but rather to whether the proof or refutation is adequate to its task.
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by charon on March 20th, 2012, 2:11 pm
Keep_Relentless
Then you must deal with fact and fact alone, not idea or theory.
Because the operations of the mind aren't everything, they're limited. It's an illusion to believe that all we experience is all there is.
I am attempting to work with truth
Then you must deal with fact and fact alone, not idea or theory.
while yes perhaps the objective exists, how may you say it does?
Because the operations of the mind aren't everything, they're limited. It's an illusion to believe that all we experience is all there is.
- charon
- Active Member
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: 02 Mar 2011
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 20th, 2012, 8:59 pm
charon wrote:It seems to me you can go on speculating till doomsday and still not understand it.
If you want - I don't know why but if you do - a theory of everything then surely you must first know what everything is, right? Otherwise your theory will be a jelly bean or two short of the whole packet...
Also why do you want a theory? It's like a starving person wanting a theory of food. I don't see the point really.
Yes, of course, knowing what everything is, is a theory of everything itself. Knowing! This is what I mean in saying "proofs". As in, this is what we know for sure, and cannot deny, the rest comes after as mere speculation, as I see it. This is the existence I see as proven:
I think, therefore I am; something exists, as nothing cannot.
My mind defines existence.
Objective chance allows no decisive factors and is impossible.
The senses exist and are dependent on conceptualisation, sight=not necessarily indicative of more than 2D, tactioception validates the 3D plane it entails (though perhaps not 3D as it is usually defined, for it commonly acknowledged that all senses are of the brain), the rest exist and definitively suggest only the product of their existence.
In a simple nutshell... This is all there is for sure.
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 21st, 2012, 12:20 am
Keep_Relentless wrote:Yes, of course, knowing what everything is, is a theory of everything itself. Knowing! This is what I mean in saying "proofs".
This is where you go wrong. I'd previously criticized the first part on the basis of it confusing metaphysics with epistemology. On the second part, if you are going to tie proof to knowledge, you should realize that because knowledge is restricted to a knower, the alleged 'proof' would be what you use to justify your knowing it and because it would be an alleged proof, there is no necessity that it is true or even adequate to the justification needed. Moreover, even if there is a proof that is adequate to the task, this doesn't mean you know it and have found it adequate. This is why, in addition to justification, you also need the proposition to be true and to have a belief that it is true in order to qualify it as knowledge. Indeed, if you demand proof, you may find yourself on the horns of a dilemma, should you press it too far. For example, if you begin with a definition and a set of axioms you may be able to prove some proposition is true on the basis of them. One could say you provided a deductive proof. However, this isn't going to help much if the axioms are faulty or the definitions aren't true. And how are you going to prove the axioms are true and the definitions are true? Alternatively, your proof could be of the inductive kind as for example having observed something to be the case without exception you conclude that it must be true without exception. Unfortunately for you, such an induction doesn't guarantee its truth. The best you'll be able to say is that it hasn't yet failed. In other words, empirically based "proofs" don't work. For criminal proceedings, one uses the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (which doesn't imply "beyond all doubt" and essentially means you have to provide a good reason for doubting.) Despite this, however, in accordance with the law of large numbers, you might be able to develop a probable model that has some truth to it. (Though even here you have to take care that you would have to assume that the universe is ordered and subject to inviolable laws, such that, for example, what you think of as tomorrow will have some semblance with what you expect to be and the universe won't suddenly develop a schism in which the universe functions in a completely different way).
Keep_Relentless wrote:I think, therefore I am; something exists, as nothing cannot.
Note that you should realize here that subsequent philosophers, notably Hume (and Kant) have found weaknesses in his proof. What is this "I" that Descartes claims he has proven to exist. What is this "something" that exists? Descartes has a particular model in which the "I" is some kind of substance, different from a material substance, and having no property of "extension." I suspect you haven't given it enough thought. Indeed, might it not be possible that the thoughts being claimed are not the result of you thinking them, but rather that the thoughts merely appear from nowhere. What is the connection that links thoughts with your "I"?
Keep_Relentless wrote:My mind defines existence.
Your solipsism at this point is not even able to handle your own existence, I'm afraid.
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by charon on March 21st, 2012, 2:11 pm
Keep_Relentless
You're missing the point and not reading what I said. We don't know everything, do we?
What is speculated isn't known. If you think of it, only what has already happened is known. The known is always the past, never the present or the future.
You can't base a theory of anything on speculation!
Yes, of course, knowing what everything is, is a theory of everything itself
You're missing the point and not reading what I said. We don't know everything, do we?
As in, this is what we know for sure, and cannot deny, the rest comes after as mere speculation, as I see it
What is speculated isn't known. If you think of it, only what has already happened is known. The known is always the past, never the present or the future.
You can't base a theory of anything on speculation!
- charon
- Active Member
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: 02 Mar 2011
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Positor on March 22nd, 2012, 8:18 am
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:I think, therefore I am; something exists, as nothing cannot.
Note that you should realize here that subsequent philosophers, notably Hume (and Kant) have found weaknesses in his proof. What is this "I" that Descartes claims he has proven to exist. What is this "something" that exists? Descartes has a particular model in which the "I" is some kind of substance, different from a material substance, and having no property of "extension." I suspect you haven't given it enough thought. Indeed, might it not be possible that the thoughts being claimed are not the result of you thinking them, but rather that the thoughts merely appear from nowhere. What is the connection that links thoughts with your "I"?
Would you at least agree that the belief "There is a first-personal thought now" is apodictically true?
- Positor
- Member
- Posts: 519
- Joined: 05 Feb 2010
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 22nd, 2012, 10:39 am
Positor wrote:owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:I think, therefore I am; something exists, as nothing cannot.
Note that you should realize here that subsequent philosophers, notably Hume (and Kant) have found weaknesses in his proof. What is this "I" that Descartes claims he has proven to exist. What is this "something" that exists? Descartes has a particular model in which the "I" is some kind of substance, different from a material substance, and having no property of "extension." I suspect you haven't given it enough thought. Indeed, might it not be possible that the thoughts being claimed are not the result of you thinking them, but rather that the thoughts merely appear from nowhere. What is the connection that links thoughts with your "I"?
Would you at least agree that the belief "There is a first-personal thought now" is apodictically true?
I tend to agree with Descartes' conclusion in a rough sense. However, this is not the same thing as saying that "Cogito ergo Sum" is the best representation of what it is that he encountered about consciousness. I put more reliance on how the idea has been worked on and refined over the years by later philosophers. The issue of the 'self' or the 'ego', coupled with some notion of existence, as represented by Descartes' 'Sum', remains to this day a bit of a mystery. Descartes himself had some reservations about his conclusion when he paused over the idea of expanding the doubter/thinker beyond its temporal association with his awareness of doubting/thinking. He required the intervention of some other argument (which I can't remember off the top of my head) to complete it.
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 24th, 2012, 5:06 am
owleye wrote:
This is where you go wrong. I'd previously criticized the first part on the basis of it confusing metaphysics with epistemology. On the second part, if you are going to tie proof to knowledge, you should realize that because knowledge is restricted to a knower, the alleged 'proof' would be what you use to justify your knowing it and because it would be an alleged proof, there is no necessity that it is true or even adequate to the justification needed. Moreover, even if there is a proof that is adequate to the task, this doesn't mean you know it and have found it adequate. This is why, in addition to justification, you also need the proposition to be true and to have a belief that it is true in order to qualify it as knowledge. Indeed, if you demand proof, you may find yourself on the horns of a dilemma, should you press it too far. For example, if you begin with a definition and a set of axioms you may be able to prove some proposition is true on the basis of them. One could say you provided a deductive proof. However, this isn't going to help much if the axioms are faulty or the definitions aren't true. And how are you going to prove the axioms are true and the definitions are true? Alternatively, your proof could be of the inductive kind as for example having observed something to be the case without exception you conclude that it must be true without exception. Unfortunately for you, such an induction doesn't guarantee its truth. The best you'll be able to say is that it hasn't yet failed. In other words, empirically based "proofs" don't work. For criminal proceedings, one uses the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (which doesn't imply "beyond all doubt" and essentially means you have to provide a good reason for doubting.) Despite this, however, in accordance with the law of large numbers, you might be able to develop a probable model that has some truth to it. (Though even here you have to take care that you would have to assume that the universe is ordered and subject to inviolable laws, such that, for example, what you think of as tomorrow will have some semblance with what you expect to be and the universe won't suddenly develop a schism in which the universe functions in a completely different way).
This is perfect James, and I have just posted to Part 2 that conceptual proofs are subjective and empirical observations, while perhaps undeniable, are always fallible indicators of the 'future'.
I agree with every word. As for confusing two different fields, well, unless you elaborate as you do on why this is a problem, I couldn't care (:
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:I think, therefore I am; something exists, as nothing cannot.
Note that you should realize here that subsequent philosophers, notably Hume (and Kant) have found weaknesses in his proof. What is this "I" that Descartes claims he has proven to exist. What is this "something" that exists? Descartes has a particular model in which the "I" is some kind of substance, different from a material substance, and having no property of "extension." I suspect you haven't given it enough thought. Indeed, might it not be possible that the thoughts being claimed are not the result of you thinking them, but rather that the thoughts merely appear from nowhere. What is the connection that links thoughts with your "I"?
I admire this; rather than not giving it enough thought, perhaps my conclusion is that if you are going to wonder at the connection between "I" and "thinking" you have transcended mere language and will never be able to speak a satisfactory conscious word again. (Basically, when it comes down to it, "I" is a rough symbol and rough auditory expression, indicating or rather drawing upon nothing defined in or by conception...)
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:My mind defines existence.
Your solipsism at this point is not even able to handle your own existence, I'm afraid.
James
Perhaps not, but this attempts to express the viewpoint that it is the mind that recognises existence for the individual. What is outside of the mind cannot exist for the individual..
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 24th, 2012, 12:01 pm
Keep_Relentless wrote:As for confusing two different fields, well, unless you elaborate as you do on why this is a problem, I couldn't care (:
It was elaborated at some length in my referral. Perhaps you didn't notice it. Here's one of my posts from this topic. Notwithstanding this, however, I'm pretty much convinced that you have no real interest in what exists at all, of even what it means to exist. Any ultimate explanation on your part will only be an empty gesture. Despite this, I am probably wrong. If so, I doubt I'll be able to assist in your project until you get past digging deeper inside what you believe is inside you. Many a great philosopher has spent a life time going down this path. Perhaps you will be equally as successful or unsuccessful as they have been.
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by Keep_Relentless on March 24th, 2012, 8:27 pm
owleye wrote:I think it would help if you spelled out the reference to 'it', because the use of 'it' requires me to read your mind. Notwithstanding, I suppose I'm at fault as well, because I intentionally left unspecified what my 'theory of existence' was, thinking you would realize that it didn't matter what that theory was because it was only that the theory didn't require it being due to my being aware of it, as in the example of air particles. I suppose I was too subtle.
Alrighty...
I am referring generally to that which you have not personally verified but nevertheless accept as true. Perhaps that the earth is round, perhaps that a certain continent exists. No matter how convinced we all may be of their validity, they still remain only as a possibility, yes? If you jump off a building, it is a possibility you will fall, not a fact. There are many hypothetical possibilities that may be imagined that would not entail the truth of these 'facts' but do entail the facts that have been experienced.
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:People are trained through experience to believe all sorts of seemingly crazy material. Many "normal" viewpoints seem to me far more absurd than many that are rejected immediately.
So? I fail to see your point here. Are you trying to come up with a proof that supernatural exists? Or doesn't?
Hahah... personally I fail to distinguish between natural supernatural and man/man-made, there is no clearly defined line, even for divine.. My point is that we are all biased by our experience including our forced conformity, and the ideas we conform to accept are often far more ludicrous than those we would reject on a whim, and hysterically. It's difficult to take scepticism too far.
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:I respect your theory, and it is the typical viewpoint of the world. However, I am attempting to work with truth, proofs, rather than possibilities, and to this end, while yes perhaps the objective exists, how may you say it does? Or does that part not matter? :P
Note that I'm trying to get you move away from confusing ontological questions with epistemological questions. I believe you are going about it the wrong way if you are trying to prove or disprove something exists by making use of arguments that deal with how one knows whether or not something exists. To get a feel for this, you might check out the proofs of the existence of god as well as their objections/refutations. When one offers up a proof of the existence of something, or its contrary, one is not engaging in an epistemological endeavor, which is to say in how we know that something exists, even if part of that proof includes statements such as "I've seen it." Rather one is engaging in an ontological examination. One examines the proof or refutation not from the perspective one's knowledge or belief of it, but rather to whether the proof or refutation is adequate to its task.
James
I added "as you do" to the reasoning that it is a bad thing, I recognised this... I might've stated before that I have 'analysed' many God arguments... tell me then, what I have to work with if not personal knowledge? Imagining the objective, what is not conceived of, is just another form of personal intuition, one cannot reach outside of the mind.
When you say that believing that all that is experienced is all that exists is illusory and riddled with fault, how do you through that ascertain the existence of something outside of your knowledge? You, James, expressed Kant's viewpoint as, for "too many reasons to list", such an argument is self-defeating for there must be a source of change outside of the awareness. I said supposing the source is the final one governing all, namely necessity, how all must be, then, as it pervades all, it need not exist outside of awareness and the argument holds for now... then what is the reply?
owleye wrote:Notwithstanding this, however, I'm pretty much convinced that you have no real interest in what exists at all, of even what it means to exist.
I... don't know what this is supposed to mean at all. Take no interest in existence? Is that even possible?
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Awareness is Existence
by charon on March 27th, 2012, 5:06 am
Keep_Relentless
I think you missed this one from March 21.
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=21400&p=204815#p204815
I think you missed this one from March 21.
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=21400&p=204815#p204815
- charon
- Active Member
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: 02 Mar 2011
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Ultimate Explanation Quest: Part 1
by owleye on March 27th, 2012, 12:35 pm
Keep_Relentless wrote:Alrighty...
I am referring generally to that which you have not personally verified but nevertheless accept as true. Perhaps that the earth is round, perhaps that a certain continent exists. No matter how convinced we all may be of their validity, they still remain only as a possibility, yes? If you jump off a building, it is a possibility you will fall, not a fact. There are many hypothetical possibilities that may be imagined that would not entail the truth of these 'facts' but do entail the facts that have been experienced.
This confirms your interest in knowledge, not existence.
Keep_Relentless wrote:I added "as you do" to the reasoning that it is a bad thing, I recognised this... I might've stated before that I have 'analysed' many God arguments... tell me then, what I have to work with if not personal knowledge? Imagining the objective, what is not conceived of, is just another form of personal intuition, one cannot reach outside of the mind.
This is your assumption. It is an assumption which is self-defeating.
Keep_Relentless wrote:When you say that believing that all that is experienced is all that exists is illusory and riddled with fault, how do you through that ascertain the existence of something outside of your knowledge? You, James, expressed Kant's viewpoint as, for "too many reasons to list", such an argument is self-defeating for there must be a source of change outside of the awareness. I said supposing the source is the final one governing all, namely necessity, how all must be, then, as it pervades all, it need not exist outside of awareness and the argument holds for now... then what is the reply?
The reasons have to do with Kant's need to resolve the question of making sense of the possibility of scientific knowledge (the determination of the laws of the universe) of a phenomenal world with moral laws within us, by recognizing the powers of reason, on the former through the critique of pure reason, while on the latter on critique of practical reason, these two operating in different realms. There can be no science of morals and there can be no morality to the world that science investigates. However, these ideas have since been weakened considerably what with the advent of Darwin's theory of evolution in one direction, and in the other direction by science's grasp of a world that isn't entirely Newtonian (coupled with the advances in mathematics, logic, and statistics. Specifically, however, what I was referring to, is the advances in information theory.
Keep_Relentless wrote:owleye wrote:Notwithstanding this, however, I'm pretty much convinced that you have no real interest in what exists at all, of even what it means to exist.
I... don't know what this is supposed to mean at all. Take no interest in existence? Is that even possible?
See the first part of my response above.
James
- owleye
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 3265
- Joined: 19 Sep 2009
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Awareness is Existence
by Keep_Relentless on March 27th, 2012, 8:01 pm
charon wrote:Keep_Relentless
I think you missed this one from March 21.
http://www.philosophychatforum.com/view ... 15#p204815
I saw... I did not really respond. I do not see far enough into the basis. Any response I would give to that alone has been given already.
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:Alrighty...
I am referring generally to that which you have not personally verified but nevertheless accept as true. Perhaps that the earth is round, perhaps that a certain continent exists. No matter how convinced we all may be of their validity, they still remain only as a possibility, yes? If you jump off a building, it is a possibility you will fall, not a fact. There are many hypothetical possibilities that may be imagined that would not entail the truth of these 'facts' but do entail the facts that have been experienced.
This confirms your interest in knowledge, not existence.
As you know I equate the two. And I also wonder how any interest may not be termed 'interest in existence'.
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:I added "as you do" to the reasoning that it is a bad thing, I recognised this... I might've stated before that I have 'analysed' many God arguments... tell me then, what I have to work with if not personal knowledge? Imagining the objective, what is not conceived of, is just another form of personal intuition, one cannot reach outside of the mind.
This is your assumption. It is an assumption which is self-defeating.
This.... is your assumption? :P
For what I am expressing, in the context I am expressing it, to be termed assumption, you must tell me how the inconceivable may be conceived of.
owleye wrote:Keep_Relentless wrote:When you say that believing that all that is experienced is all that exists is illusory and riddled with fault, how do you through that ascertain the existence of something outside of your knowledge? You, James, expressed Kant's viewpoint as, for "too many reasons to list", such an argument is self-defeating for there must be a source of change outside of the awareness. I said supposing the source is the final one governing all, namely necessity, how all must be, then, as it pervades all, it need not exist outside of awareness and the argument holds for now... then what is the reply?
The reasons have to do with Kant's need to resolve the question of making sense of the possibility of scientific knowledge (the determination of the laws of the universe) of a phenomenal world with moral laws within us, by recognizing the powers of reason, on the former through the critique of pure reason, while on the latter on critique of practical reason, these two operating in different realms. There can be no science of morals and there can be no morality to the world that science investigates. However, these ideas have since been weakened considerably what with the advent of Darwin's theory of evolution in one direction, and in the other direction by science's grasp of a world that isn't entirely Newtonian (coupled with the advances in mathematics, logic, and statistics. Specifically, however, what I was referring to, is the advances in information theory.
You are saying that Kant was required to speak with regards to the assumption of scientific knowlege? Doesn't reflect necessarily, as science involves assumption... I simply wish to know more of his views then, and clearly.
-
Keep_Relentless - Member
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 25 Feb 2012
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
|
|
Re: Awareness is Existence
by charon on March 27th, 2012, 8:35 pm
Keep_Relentless
Why not? It's simple enough.
I said you can't have a theory of everything unless you know what 'everything' is.
If you just take a bit of the picture here and there and then weave a theory involving speculation on the rest then it's just playing a game.
Why not try to find out whether it's possible to see wholly? It's the mind that breaks things up and perceives in a distorted way that has to guess. Instead, see if that distortion can't be resolved.
It's a problem of the mind and how we see things, not an external issue. The problem lies within ourselves, not out there.
I do not see far enough into the basis.
Why not? It's simple enough.
I said you can't have a theory of everything unless you know what 'everything' is.
If you just take a bit of the picture here and there and then weave a theory involving speculation on the rest then it's just playing a game.
Why not try to find out whether it's possible to see wholly? It's the mind that breaks things up and perceives in a distorted way that has to guess. Instead, see if that distortion can't be resolved.
It's a problem of the mind and how we see things, not an external issue. The problem lies within ourselves, not out there.
- charon
- Active Member
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: 02 Mar 2011
- Blog: View Blog (0)
|
|
77 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
The Science & Philosophy Forums are aimed at providing an open and effective online medium for
information exchange between professionals, academics, and amateurs.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group