To be honest the work of Decartes is a new topic of interest for me as I have had no prior exposure to the depth of his works.
Without showing any disrespect I question the validity of this often quoted statement of identity and self existence.

From what I understand Buddhism would tend to refute such a position and show that thought is merely an expression of who we are and not in it self a declaration of who we are. I tend to agree with this contention.
There is no doubt that this has been the subject of hot arguement over the years and I would like to see discussion that may clarify this for me and other readers.

I hold the belief that thought is our most intimate of expressions premised on our desire to exist. That thought offers us by reflection an insight into who we are but not necessarilly that we are

To say "I think therefore I am" begs the question/conclusion:
If I don't think I don't exist.

I would argue that being non-thinking does not render a person as non-existent but merely a still and quiet person.

Deep meditation gives us a clue I guess.

It is further worth noting that the discursivity of our minds and our disability in quieting our desire for expression can lead to the contention that thought or the act of thinking and our existence are intrinsically linked, however is this just because Descrates had difficulty in stopping the expression of self and deemed it as impossible or is it for deeper reasons.

To sum up with a question :

When I talk to you am I talking to your thoughts or am I talking to the cause or source of your thoughts?

Well, I don't know if I agree that Descartes' statement also implies the inverse.

However, I will say that his statement does not shed much light on what "I" is.

You could not reason and attempt to conclude whether or not you exist if you did not exist.
The mere act of thinking, your ability to question your own existence, is proof of your existence.

I am also not very learned in his philosophy, but that's how I always took the statment on the surface.

Quantum Quack:

Excellent topic!

IT seems One_Raven and I mostly agree here, though allow me to essentially write my personal reply to you from scratch, as opposed to simply differing to Raven's, due to the fact that I have a few more things to add.

"Cogito ergo sum" is basically proof for belief in self. In order to think, there must be a thinker. It is an absurdity to think that thought could arise, be sensed internally, and then there is no thinker to create and witness the thought. The inverse, "I don't think, therefore I cannot be" COULD be valid, actually, as Descartes was the eternal skeptic of all that which could not be proven, which he asserted that anything aside from Self and God could not be. Since a non-animate thing has no basis whereby it can believe in itself (for it cannot believe) then it is only through others that its reality is known.

Now, you mention meditation as possibly disproving cogito ergo sum, but you must realize that consciousness and thought is not erradicated in meditation, only stilled. Is a still lake any less a lake?

I have pondered on this many times before, which is why I prefer the phrase 'I exist, therefore I am'. Anyone remember who coined that, for I sure don't?

Sativa Deva:

"I exist, therefore I am" has no basis. There is no reason to suspect that one "really does not exist", if one does not demonstrate that it is the only logical conclusion.

I see your point. I am curious, what does it mean 'to exist' in your opinion?

I recall reading that to the ancient Greeks, thoughts were not something they attributed to one's mind, but rather to the gods around you. This highlights the question I raised earlier: does the voice or image of thought tell us that there is "a" thinker, or merely that there is thinking occurring? What is the "self"? What is the "I"? Is there an "I," or is that only one model that explains "where" and "how" thinking "is"?

Well the slogan is right in a sense.
In order for X to think, X must exist.
In order for X to exist, X does not necessarily have to think.

In order for X to exist, X does not necessarily have to think.

I know entirely too many X's that can be described by this sentence.


:m:

Sativa_Deva:

To partake of the attribute of existence, to have attributes of space and time, to be composed ofe energy/matter. Whilst it ought to be evident to all people that they exist, the fact that the theory that all is an illusion is valid as a proposition, requires us to back up our statement through logical proof. In order for all things to be an illusion, there must be something to be deluded, and thus the object of the Evil Genius' (a Cartesian notion) delusion is oneself, even if the Evil Genius itself could be the self, as in order to delude something, that entity must first exist. This goes along the same lines as cogito ergo sum, in that thought requires a thinker, to too must delusion require something to be deluded.

Onefinity:

I recall reading that to the ancient Greeks, thoughts were not something they attributed to one's mind, but rather to the gods around you. This highlights the question I raised earlier: does the voice or image of thought tell us that there is "a" thinker, or merely that there is thinking occurring? What is the "self"? What is the "I"? Is there an "I," or is that only one model that explains "where" and "how" thinking "is"?

Your objection is a classical one to "cogito ergo sum", in that some postulate that it should really be "cogito ergo cogito", "I think, therefore I think". Now, I have a reply to this on a few levels:

1. Thought as Observance - Even if thought is not of our own (which seems a bit ridiculous) we still perceive thought and thus, in order to perceive though, we must exist. To observe there must be an observer. To feel there must be a feeler. To sense there must be a senser.

2. Occam's Razor - Postulating that the Gods place thought in our head, gives us the same result as we putting thoughts in our own head, and thus we can think it equal. But whilst we only have to deal with how we can put thought in our head, and not with how the Gods can put thought in their own and in ours, the idea that the thinker is the self becomes a simpler and still correct means of explaining though.

3. When one thinks of something, when one conjures up thought, this thought seems to stem from the self in response to something else. We shape the thought, alter the thought, et cetera, and so it would seem by observation that the self is the originator of thought.

Cool Skill:

Well put.

how I understood it was that "cogito ergo sum" was the only thing Descartes could reason as real.

he probably got it from Plato's The Allegory of the Cave, there is no way to prove that what you see is reality or an illusion you mistake as reality. taking that from Plato, he reasoned that anything and or everything could be an illusion in your mind. however, you have to have a mind for it to be fooled, so weather you are seeing reality or an illusion, you must exist either way and that is the one thing that is absolute, regardless anything else.

First reading of reponses:
Prince:
Now, you mention meditation as possibly disproving cogito ergo sum, but you must realize that consciousness and thought is not erradicated in meditation, only stilled. Is a still lake any less a lake?
This is surprisingly profound a question. {leading in another direction we might want to explore]
If no effort to still the mind is required is the mind stilled or is it just still.

To still the mind as opposed to being still...hmmmm.....

To recall the analogy of a bell that if resonating true to the ambience;
Can awareness exist with out thought?
Or to use the anology of a mirror that is reflecting an image with out animation or distortions of thought however changing always as time progresses forward?

If awareness can exist without thought then it could be postulated that the universe can be self aware and conscious even though it does not become animated by that awareness.....thus a person with a still mind who does not require great effort to do the stilling can become as aware as the universe is in an objective fashion.

The premise being that true objectivity can only be achieved with a still mind. As subjective projections are non-existant because of stillness and also non-existent because of their speclative nature [a fantazy of truth rather than a reality of truth]

Onefinity
Well, I don't know if I agree that Descartes' statement also implies the inverse.

However, I will say that his statement does not shed much light on what "I" is.
I agree, however as I have posted I do not feel that thinking it self is necessary for exitance, it is however i feel necessary to expression of that existance.....any thoughts?


One_raven:
You could not reason and attempt to conclude whether or not you exist if you did not exist.
The mere act of thinking, your ability to question your own existence, is proof of your existence.

I am also not very learned in his philosophy, but that's how I always took the statment on the surface.

I think this is a valid position to take.....however I wonder if just pure unthinking awareness also affords a sense of existance?


Prince:
Since a non-animate thing has no basis whereby it can believe in itself (for it cannot believe) then it is only through others that its reality is known.

the question comes to mind is :
Does existing require itself to be known as existing?
Could not existence be "known" by awareness only. [drawing the distinction between awareness and knowledge]

"I see you, I don't think you"

Sativadiva
I have pondered on this many times before, which is why I prefer the phrase 'I exist, therefore I am'. Anyone remember who coined that, for I sure don't?
Funnily enough I tend to agree with you however possibly for different reasons. [ as I have alluded to thus far in my post]

Onefinity:
I recall reading that to the ancient Greeks, thoughts were not something they attributed to one's mind, but rather to the gods around you. This highlights the question I raised earlier: does the voice or image of thought tell us that there is "a" thinker, or merely that there is thinking occurring? What is the "self"? What is the "I"? Is there an "I," or is that only one model that explains "where" and "how" thinking "is"?
Given the nature of my belief in reflective consciousness this is a very valid potential I feel.

Coolskill:
Well the slogan is right in a sense.
In order for X to think, X must exist.
In order for X to exist, X does not necessarily have to think.

my question in a nut shell... :)

Cato:
how I understood it was that "cogito ergo sum" was the only thing Descartes could reason as real.

he probably got it from Plato's The Allegory of the Cave, there is no way to prove that what you see is reality or an illusion you mistake as reality. taking that from Plato, he reasoned that anything and or everything could be an illusion in your mind. however, you have to have a mind for it to be fooled, so weather you are seeing reality or an illusion, you must exist either way and that is the one thing that is absolute, regardless anything else.
so in a way thinking is a "fools paradise." [ subjectivity being synonymous with fool] which suggests that all thought [ in absolutum] by nature must be a subjective expression.

so in summary:
I ask:
Can pure awareness without thought [ the act of thinking] still allow the source and ability to know it exists by default of that pure awareness only?

An extension to this is the contention and implied question:
If so, the universe may very well be aware of it's own existance. Not in to much a form of knowledge but pure awareness in cointinuum as time moves forward. The continuous change occuring universally being in some ways "an act of thinking" That whilst the universe does not think separate to that change the change itself is thought in continuuum?
To become aware of change without subjectivity would then afford a true awareness of that change free of thought thus thinking as the universe does by default of that continuous change
In other words your existence becomes one with that universe thus awareness of universal change affords the knowing of self existence because of the change that you are aware of.
Does any one see any value in the above?

To say "I think therefore I am" begs the question/conclusion:
If I don't think I don't exist.

I would argue that being non-thinking does not render a person as non-existent but merely a still and quiet person.

"I think, therefore I am" does not correlate to "I do not think, therefore i am not".
First of all, if you are able to even thing "I do not think" then you are still thinking.
Second, if you are unable to think, that does not necessarily negate your existence.
He wasn't assuming the negative. He didn't say, "rocks do not exist because they can't think".

One_raven:

I think this is a valid position to take.....however I wonder if just pure unthinking awareness also affords a sense of existance?

How can there be such think as "oure unthinking awareness"?
If you are aware, you have mental recognition, therefore you are thinking.
Even if you are not actively pursuing a specific thought train, you are still thinking.
Unless you are braindead and being kept alive by artificial respiration, you ARE thinking (sometimes even THEN).
Meditation does not cause the mind to stop running.
You simply can NOT stop thinking and still survive.

Does any one see any value in the above?
Honestly no, because I do not see how anything can have awareness without cognition.

How can there be such think as "oure unthinking awareness"?
If you are aware, you have mental recognition, therefore you are thinking.
Even if you are not actively pursuing a specific thought train, you are still thinking.
Unless you are braindead and being kept alive by artificial respiration, you ARE thinking (sometimes even THEN).
Meditation does not cause the mind to stop running.
You simply can NOT stop thinking and still survive.

I understand what you are saying One_raven and actually agree but I am suggesting that when your thinking is no more or less than that of universal change you are thinking as one with the universe.
However because you are now in continuum with that universe the definition of act of thinking changes from being an act of will to an innate unwilled thinking. So by definition an unthinking awareness could be a correct way of describing a universal act of thinking which is free of self will.

when your thinking is no more or less than that of universal change you are thinking as one with the universe.
What does that even mean?
What is universal change?

However because you are now in continuum with that universe the definition of act of thinking changes from being an act of will to an innate unwilled thinking.
:bugeye: As in a state of passive brain activity which is no greater than required to sustain basic life functions?

So by definition an unthinking awareness could be a correct way of describing a universal act of thinking which is free of self will.
What is a universal act of thinking?
Can I have some of your :m:?
Maybe I will understand better then. :p

Damn internet kicked me off. Down with dial-up! Anyway, I was in the middle of posting when that happened, and now I'm tired, so I am going to explain this to the best of my ability.
My opinion on existence is based on the physical attributes of the subject. Inanimate objects cannot self-actualize, that is true, but they do exist in the physical realm. Spiritually, they are dead, but my opinion on that is simply I do not define existence on spiritual terms. I rather associate essence with spiritual, life with personality and mind, and existence with the basic physical. I hope this is making sense. I just had to state my opinion, so everyone now knows where everyone else is coming from. Guten nacht! :m:

Quantum Quack:

This is surprisingly profound a question. {leading in another direction we might want to explore]
If no effort to still the mind is required is the mind stilled or is it just still.

I would state that if no effort, no effort at all is expelled to still the mind, then the mind itself stills itself, and is not stilled. Just as water will naturally seek the lowest level, so too would this "lake of thought" follow its liquid brethren in that case. But it is so often the moon of our thoughts tugs so greatly against the water, that the tides require great efforts to be quelled.

To recall the analogy of a bell that if resonating true to the ambience;
Can awareness exist with out thought?
Or to use the anology of a mirror that is reflecting an image with out animation or distortions of thought however changing always as time progresses forward?

I would argue that pure awareness would be like a pure pane of glass. Sense passes through it unobstructed (I know the analogy is not scientifically correct 100 percent) and leaves it without disturbing the glass itself. However, I would say at the same time, that this pure awareness would be utterly passive and very similar to how one can "blank out" during a day dream.

Would the mirror change, really?

If awareness can exist without thought then it could be postulated that the universe can be self aware and conscious even though it does not become animated by that awareness.....thus a person with a still mind who does not require great effort to do the stilling can become as aware as the universe is in an objective fashion.

Hmmm, I do not necessarily think this is so. Without intelligence, awareness means nothing. A state of pure awareness is essentially just a state of unfiltered beingness. Very similar to how a rock is. One would not even hvae a conception of self. It is only through the active intelligence that such a selfawareness arises, really.

The premise being that true objectivity can only be achieved with a still mind. As subjective projections are non-existant because of stillness and also non-existent because of their speclative nature [a fantazy of truth rather than a reality of truth]

But at the same time, one would gain no knowledge at all.

I think this is a valid position to take.....however I wonder if just pure unthinking awareness also affords a sense of existance?

No. Being non-self aware and intelligent, the thing could never prove itself. It would only be proven real, or unreal, by another.

the question comes to mind is :
Does existing require itself to be known as existing?
Could not existence be "known" by awareness only. [drawing the distinction between awareness and knowledge]

No, one can be existent and not conscious, if life is non-Idealistic and external reality exists.

Awareness could not produce that sense of existence.

Sativa Diva:

My opinion on existence is based on the physical attributes of the subject. Inanimate objects cannot self-actualize, that is true, but they do exist in the physical realm. Spiritually, they are dead, but my opinion on that is simply I do not define existence on spiritual terms. I rather associate essence with spiritual, life with personality and mind, and existence with the basic physical. I hope this is making sense. I just had to state my opinion, so everyone now knows where everyone else is coming from. Guten nacht!

Explain this theory when you come back.

Prince: Just a quick question:
Without intelligence, awareness means nothing. A state of pure awareness is essentially just a state of unfiltered beingness.
Do you believe Knowledge equates to intelligence?
Can one be intelligent with out knowledge?

Does a mirror change?

Is there anything that doesn't change?

If I look into a mirror for 10 minutes the mirror and I have both gained 10 minutes of change, the planet has rotated for 10 minutes, the universe has changed also for 10 minutes [ relative 10 minutes if you subscibe to Special relativity]

If I am able to relinquish my knowledge and most importantly my pursuit of knowledge and just be aware I will be aware of that change yes?

If that change is innate in everything could not that change be considered as passive thought. Could I reflect that passive thought and passively think with the universe as one?

Does "not thinking" beyond the "background" thought diminish my sense of identity or existance. Or for that manner my self awareness?

or
"I think therefore I am" could be reinterpreted to
"I passively think as one with the universe so therefore I exist as one with the universe. Therfore I am the universe"

So stilling the mind and becoming awareness only allows the unification of self and the truth of our existence as being one becomes evident.

So Buddhist ideals are met........

If that change is innate in everything could not that change be considered as passive thought. Could I reflect that passive thought and passively think with the universe as one?
Bingo!
This is where your train of thought loses me.

So stilling the mind and becoming awareness only allows the unification of self and the truth of our existence as being one becomes evident.

So Buddhist ideals are met........
Not to be nit-picking and pedantic, but The Buddha taught there is no self.

Quantum Quack:

Do you believe Knowledge equates to intelligence?
Can one be intelligent with out knowledge?

One cannot be intelligent without knowledge, as knowledge immediatly is gained via the activation of any of the five senses.

Bingo!
This is where your train of thought loses me.


Not to be nit-picking and pedantic, but The Buddha taught there is no self.
Not surprising actually, this is afterall exploritory thought....and true Buddha wasn't all that keen on the notion of self.....and if as I explained one acheives this oneness then the universe is self....or so the idea goes...

Quantum Quack:



One cannot be intelligent without knowledge, as knowledge immediatly is gained via the activation of any of the five senses.

ahh I woudl call this sort of knowledge, awareness or knowingness rather than knowledge. .....hmmmmmm

Not surprising actually, this is afterall exploritory thought....and true Buddha wasn't all that keen on the notion of self.....and if as I explained one acheives this oneness then the universe is self....or so the idea goes...
Before we start down that road, I will ask.
Do you want this to run down teh tangent of the Buddhist notion of "the self" being non-existent and why, or would you rather just run in your own direction?

ahh I woudl call this sort of knowledge, awareness or knowingness rather than knowledge. .....hmmmmmm
Isn't awareness simply another word for knowledge?
I know there is a tree there.
I am aware of that tree's existence.
I have knowledge of that tree's existence.
What's the difference?

Quantum Quack:

ahh I woudl call this sort of knowledge, awareness or knowingness rather than knowledge. .....hmmmmmm

My notion of awareness would be unconscious sensory preception, where it is would be as if there were no senses at all, just filtered information that is never conscously known, such as in the state of a daydream, or the near-state to this, where in meditation one begins to step away from the senses.

Isn't awareness simply another word for knowledge?
I know there is a tree there.
I am aware of that tree's existence.
I have knowledge of that tree's existence.
What's the difference?

You're walking down the street and you begin to day dream. You pass a tree. Your eyes get hit by the photons, but do you know the tree was there?

You're walking down the street and you begin to day dream. You pass a tree. Your eyes get hit by the photons, but do you know the tree was there?
If I am aware of the tree's existence, then I have knowledge of its existence.
If I did not notice it, then I do not have knowledge of it.

I think I understand what you are getting at.
We can have subconscious knowledge of things without being consciously aware of their existence.
Awareness, however, can not be subconscious knowledge.
If your knowledge of something is subconscious you are unaware of the knowedge, therefore unaware of the thing itself.

Quantum QUack:

Is there anything that doesn't change?

If I look into a mirror for 10 minutes the mirror and I have both gained 10 minutes of change, the planet has rotated for 10 minutes, the universe has changed also for 10 minutes [ relative 10 minutes if you subscibe to Special relativity]

If I am able to relinquish my knowledge and most importantly my pursuit of knowledge and just be aware I will be aware of that change yes?

I think we need to begin definining terms, as I believe I am using something for awareness a bit different than both of you.

Here's how I was defining awareness: The capacity to absorb information, but not the attirbute of processing it, which I rather ascribe to subconscious thought or even conscious thought.

Also, I somewhat misunderstood what you meant in the mirror thing, but have since understood, so yes, of course the mirror undergoes change, but yes, that attribute of reflectivity, so long as the surface remains unobstructed, does not cease.

If that change is innate in everything could not that change be considered as passive thought. Could I reflect that passive thought and passively think with the universe as one?

Hmmm. I don't see why it would be considered a passive thought, or if a passive thought can truly be seen as thought.

Does "not thinking" beyond the "background" thought diminish my sense of identity or existance. Or for that manner my self awareness?

Only if you start off as that entity which is omnipresent.

"I think therefore I am" could be reinterpreted to
"I passively think as one with the universe so therefore I exist as one with the universe. Therfore I am the universe"

I don't think it really follows.

One Raven:

See my thing about definitions and such to Quantum Quack.

Prince:
I agree obviously definition needs to be agreed upon, and this I realise will be no mean fete.
POssibly a definition has to be established arbitarilly so as to facilitate discussion beyond definitions/
Awareness
Knowledge
Passive
Thought
Knowing as distinct from knowledge.
any way to bed I go .....

a thought to leave with
"to recognise a tree requires only memory but to express what a tree is requires thinking. To mentaly manipulate the tree for the purposes of cogitation would be the act of thinking."
Just a quick poser.....

I hold the belief that thought is our most intimate of expressions premised on our desire to exist. That thought offers us by reflection an insight into who we are but not necessarilly that we are

To say "I think therefore I am" begs the question/conclusion:
If I don't think I don't exist.

I would argue that being non-thinking does not render a person as non-existent but merely a still and quiet person.


You've got it wrong. Descartes did not say that we <I>are</I> only because we <I>think</I>. He offers this merely as proof that we <I>do</I> exist. This is actually ridiculous, but many people seriously question the fact of our existence. And the conclusion you said is also invalid. It only implies that this particular proof of existence isn't applicable in this case. But it is not proof of non-existence.

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

This is much closer to the truth.

Cato:
“
how I understood it was that "cogito ergo sum" was the only thing Descartes could reason as real.

he probably got it from Plato's The Allegory of the Cave, there is no way to prove that what you see is reality or an illusion you mistake as reality. taking that from Plato, he reasoned that anything and or everything could be an illusion in your mind. however, you have to have a mind for it to be fooled, so weather you are seeing reality or an illusion, you must exist either way and that is the one thing that is absolute, regardless anything else.
”

so in a way thinking is a "fools paradise." [ subjectivity being synonymous with fool] which suggests that all thought [ in absolutum] by nature must be a subjective expression.
all I meant was that the only thing you could trust as real was that you existed, because, even if you are fooled, you have to exist to be fooled.

I guess it is fair enough to say that it is in the agreement to the definition of terms that the greatest challenge lies.

"I think therfore I am"
to me means that the act of thinking proves ones existance.

I find this as not being valid as an bottomline statement>
For example if I thow in a new contention:
it could be said "I point therefore I am"

Explanation:
AS a part of our mental function we point our wills or should I say our awareness at certain things THis it'self requires next to no thought to do.
For example I point my awarenss to the toes on my left foot.

My attention is now on my toes. Is this thinking?
It is true that what I am aware of may inspire thought about my toes or why I am pointing in that direction but does pointing our awarenss amount to thinking.

So "I think therfore I am" may not be the bottom line in the proof of self existence.

Possibly the bottom line rests in the statement:
I reflect therefore I am.
which again brings me back to the idea that a passive awareness with out thought is possible which is something we do every day, it's just that we take it for granted and not notice that that is what we do.
So whilst Descartes was not wrong he could have been more correct or concise.

Quantum Quack:

Actually, any action which one performs, be it pointing, thinking, reflecting, hitting, drawing, writing, et cetera, proves one's existence. All actions require an actor, hence that actor is real.

I'll give you my definitions for the things you offered a bit later.

I must be going soon, so I shall offer that definition tomorrow.

Definitions:

Awareness: Unconscious sensory preception.

Knowledge: Justfied true believe under true premises, or more mundanely, beliefs which are most likely true.

Passive: The opposite of active. To do without reaction.

Thought: The conscious focus of the ingelligence, composed of an imagined sensory stimuli and internalized in the individual's mind.

Knowing as distinct from knowledge: What do you mean by this?

Definitions:

Awareness: Unconscious sensory preception.

Knowledge: Justfied true believe under true premises, or more mundanely, beliefs which are most likely true.

Passive: The opposite of active. To do without reaction.

Thought: The conscious focus of the ingelligence, composed of an imagined sensory stimuli and internalized in the individual's mind.

Knowing as distinct from knowledge: What do you mean by this?

to tell you the truth I am stunned and amazed that your definitions are so contrary to my own and yet we can discuss things reasonably well.....ha...amaaazzzzzing...
Just to compare:
My normal or common definitions:
Awareness: Consciously knowing. Passive.

Knowledge: knowledge of truth or knowledge of a falsehood

Belief: Surrogate for knowledge, speculative and not founded in truth. Poor cousin of knowledge. Something we cling to to avoid not knowing anything.

Passive: Reactions free of violition. such as feeling temperature is a passive knowing or awareness.

Thought: The act of creation whether inspired from external sourse or from with in. Normally speculative in nature and in the form of worry [ fearful thinking]


Just thought I'd throw this list together quickly...of course it isn't at all complete....or thorough.
It is amazing though how different our definitions are.....hmmmm....


I see knowing as a passive awareness or recognition, knowledge however is more abstract or uses more abstraction. Maybe knowing is in continuum with the now [recognition of what you are passively aware of ]and knowledge is more a memory thing.

Knowingness is more intuitive and is immediate knowledge of what we are aware of. [ tough one to describe in brief]

I have a suggestion.....ha [ not another one]

Say we propose the following gendanken. And work out our definitions that way.

You are in a room and are sitting at a table.
You have your eyes shut. [ no peeking]
And someone comes into the room and places an object on the table that has virtually no relationship to anything you have seen before. [ except possibly colour and random form]

You are told nothing about the object and are asked to open your eyes.

What do you experinece in order of sequence?

the first thing should be confusion as your eyes adjust.
What's next do you think?

i would have thought a more acurate statement would have been "i am but i dont know about all you buggers"

Because im the only person i can be sure of, all of you could just be my imagination

Sativa Diva:

Explain this theory when you come back.

Okay, to me, existence is actual physical proof. It is something that at least one of the senses can detect. If you can see it, touch it, taste, smell, or hear it, then it exists. If it's even able to be sensed (like something on the other side of the world...right now you can't sense it, but you are able to) then it exists. If it's prooven, it exists. That's my 2 cents.

Okay, to me, existence is actual physical proof. It is something that at least one of the senses can detect. If you can see it, touch it, taste, smell, or hear it, then it exists. If it's even able to be sensed (like something on the other side of the world...right now you can't sense it, but you are able to) then it exists. If it's prooven, it exists. That's my 2 cents.

sensed, even if you don't know what it is...it still exists.....hmmmmm good point

how do you know that we are not in the matrix? Your senses can be fooled, hell THEY might not even exist, they might be just a figment of the mind. In the end you are all you can prove and nothing else may be real, how do you tell a dream from reality? how do you even know reality exists?

of corse if i dreamed all this up my mind is very wierd because i dont understand most of what i dreamed and i am oposed to a significate portion of the rest

You're right, how do we know? No one knows, nor will I doubt anyone ever will. Dreams, though have been prooven I think via cat scan tests. Cat scans were given to patients while asleep and while awake. The brain reacts differently when it hits R.E.M.

Quantum Quack:

to tell you the truth I am stunned and amazed that your definitions are so contrary to my own and yet we can discuss things reasonably well.....ha...amaaazzzzzing...
Just to compare:
My normal or common definitions:QUOTE]

It's probably due to the fact that we -mostly- agree on definitions, but just ended up disagreeing in this case.

[QUOTE]Awareness: Consciously knowing. Passive.

Example? Just looking at something and not thinking of it, but taking it in?

Knowledge: knowledge of truth or knowledge of a falsehood

Wouldn't you say knowledge of a falsehood would be an example of a justified true belief?

Belief: Surrogate for knowledge, speculative and not founded in truth. Poor cousin of knowledge. Something we cling to to avoid not knowing anything.

I agree.

Passive: Reactions free of violition. such as feeling temperature is a passive knowing or awareness.

I think this sounds reasonable. Things that do not require active participation on the part of the feeler seem to work, yes.

Thought: The act of creation whether inspired from external sourse or from with in. Normally speculative in nature and in the form of worry [ fearful thinking]

The act of creation in what sense?

I see knowing as a passive awareness or recognition, knowledge however is more abstract or uses more abstraction. Maybe knowing is in continuum with the now [recognition of what you are passively aware of ]and knowledge is more a memory thing.

To know is passive awareness or recognition? In what sense? I can know on the surface, perhaps, that the tree exists, but if I really awnt to be sure, do I not have to go through an intensive and heavy process of thought and experiment?

Knowingness is more intuitive and is immediate knowledge of what we are aware of. [ tough one to describe in brief]

Maybe give an example?

Asguard:

i would have thought a more acurate statement would have been "i am but i dont know about all you buggers"

Because im the only person i can be sure of, all of you could just be my imagination

Ha! I like.

Sativa Diva:

Okay, to me, existence is actual physical proof. It is something that at least one of the senses can detect. If you can see it, touch it, taste, smell, or hear it, then it exists. If it's even able to be sensed (like something on the other side of the world...right now you can't sense it, but you are able to) then it exists. If it's prooven, it exists. That's my 2 cents.

I agree with this as a valid theory of empirical knowledge. However, what about hallucinations? What level of proof do you need to really know something exists empirically?

Asguard:

how do you know that we are not in the matrix? Your senses can be fooled, hell THEY might not even exist, they might be just a figment of the mind. In the end you are all you can prove and nothing else may be real, how do you tell a dream from reality? how do you even know reality exists?

of corse if i dreamed all this up my mind is very wierd because i dont understand most of what i dreamed and i am oposed to a significate portion of the rest

See my "Refutation of Transcendental Idealism" for proof of sensory preception originating in the senses.

SativaDiva

I agree with this as a valid theory of empirical knowledge. However, what about hallucinations? What level of proof do you need to really know something exists empirically?

.

All the proof is physical. If it can't be prooven physically at all, it doesn't exist. During hallucinaions, your body reacts causing the brain to bleed (hence why one hallucinates), and the cornea's and retinas of the eyes widen and become glassy. So, hallucinations are like dreams in a sense.

SativaDiva

how can i trust the cat scans when i dont know that you all arnt coming from my mind?

Prince_James

you cant prove, ANYTHING because you dont exist

SativaDiva

how can i trust the cat scans when i don't know that you all arnt coming from my mind?

Prince_James

you cant prove, ANYTHING because you dont exist
he kinda has a point here SativaDiva, before that last sentence anyway.

Descartes was probably thinking that if you can test it physically, then it is real. however, he probably then realized that there is no way to prove that your test was real. so by a long chain of reasoning (and eliminating) the only thing you can know is that you can experience something (real or not) and thus you think, therefore you exist, but that is the only thing you can be sure of.

actually i ment that i dont KNOW that he exists, i only know I exist

i didnt nessarly mean that he dosnt exist but then how would i know?

Prince:
It's probably due to the fact that we -mostly- agree on definitions, but just ended up disagreeing in this case.

Absolutely, however if one wishes to extend discussion on this topic of self proof we do really have to agree on some definitions.

Passive awareness or passive reflected awareness I would contend is evidence of self and requires no thought [ cogitation]
But if the definition of awareness is: Unconscious perception then of course in your view my contention about the falacy of Descartes proof is way off the mark.

Example? Just looking at something and not thinking of it, but taking it in?

Yes that would be closer to my definition of awareness and knowingness.
Knowingness beig the knowledge component of awareness [ recognition of what you see.] Immediate and using passive memory of all you have learned.

Wouldn't you say knowledge of a falsehood would be an example of a justified true belief?
depending on perspective.

To the believer it is true knowledge to someone who knows the distinction between knowledge and belief it is a speculative knowledge that may be true but not known as true.

Knowledge therefore validates belief or invalidates belief.

A while ago I started a thread on : "What do you know, what do you believe you know"

I suggested that as an exercise we write down everything we know and everything we believe and I contended that the column under the knowledge heading woudl be markedly shorter than the column under the belief heading.

It is amazing how much belief we take for granted as being knowledge.

A good exercise in mental hygene....

Re:definition of thinking:
The act of creation in what sense?
In some circles it is held that thought is us creating the future. To think one must act. The act is an act of creatively dealing with what we are aware of. An improvisation of will that creates our futures. [ destiny]

So in this sense thinking is an act of creation.
"I create so I am"

leads to notions of self creation....yes?


To know is passive awareness or recognition? In what sense? I can know on the surface, perhaps, that the tree exists, but if I really awnt to be sure, do I not have to go through an intensive and heavy process of thought and experiment?

well I guess as C7 would say: If you have to do some heavy processing and experimentation you can't say that you know anything. After all that cogitation the tree now becomes a contruct of your subjective assessment.

The philosophy involved is that truth is self evident and that thinking by it's very nature attempts to qualify that truth relative to our understanding capability. In other words we qualify the truth to match our precarious knowledge. In doing so the truth is rendered subjectively finite. We have turned the truth into a lie because of our inability to understand the full truth.

By suspending thought and just being passively aware [ Buddhism ] one has the opportunity to be objective even if one does not comprehend in full what one is aware of. Comprehension requires the awareness to find relavance with currently held belief or knowledge, and in doing so renders the truth subjected to qualification based on prior knowledge and belief.

“ Knowingness is more intuitive and is immediate knowledge of what we are aware of. [ tough one to describe in brief] ”

Maybe give an example?

Uhmm....OK

ooop3^&%Sf//.......,....,,,.....,,'llk><><..<..<

"I know what these symbols look like but I do not know what they mean."

I inutively know that they have meaning but I fail to comprehend that meaning.
Because I don't know their meaning I start to speculate drawing on all I know about cryptology and codes. After much time I realise that it is impossible to understand the meaning so I give up and move on. When I return to this scipt once again I still know the symbols but I fail to know their meaning and remember the futility of my past attempts.
Imagine it is in Chinese using their form of script. I have no idea of any meaning in their scripts but I know what I see, squiggles and lines that sometimes look like houses...So I know what I see but not what it means.

The point is that we sense what we sense. What we sense has no obligation to being understood, but it is there to be sensed regardless.

So to sensory perception:
WE sense infinitely but we are unable to understand all that we sense it is only when we are able to understand that understanding comes. So therefore awareness requires no understanding. However knowledge does.

Knowing is possibly the sum total of all we know compared to what we sense in an instant of time.
For example if you look at a football.
All knowledge and beliefs are included in what you see. You know what you see but you also know what you have learned, all in that one moment of recognition. So knowingness could be considered the summation of all we hold as knowledge and belief with out the need for cogitation [ thought ]

Once knowledge and belief is discounted as being subjective and we are not to strongly attached to it. [our knowledge] our ability to know more about the football becomes available.

A while ago I started a thread on : "What do you know, what do you believe you know"

I suggested that as an exercise we write down everything we know and everything we believe and I contended that the column under the knowledge heading woudl be markedly shorter than the column under the belief heading.

It is amazing how much belief we take for granted as being knowledge.



The only thing that should go in the knowlage side is ME, the rest is just a belief

Sativa Diva:

All the proof is physical. If it can't be prooven physically at all, it doesn't exist. During hallucinaions, your body reacts causing the brain to bleed (hence why one hallucinates), and the cornea's and retinas of the eyes widen and become glassy. So, hallucinations are like dreams in a sense.

I would agree your notions that all proof is physical and if can't be proved physically, it does not exist empirically. However, since hallucinations do exist and impact us, must not we resort being minorly skeptical of the senses? That is to say, to resort to a method whereby we can determine if our senses have been beguiled? The scientific method, for instance?

Asguard:

you cant prove, ANYTHING because you dont exist

Yes I can. See said argument.

Quantum Quack:

Absolutely, however if one wishes to extend discussion on this topic of self proof we do really have to agree on some definitions.

Yes.

Passive awareness or passive reflected awareness I would contend is evidence of self and requires no thought [ cogitation]
But if the definition of awareness is: Unconscious perception then of course in your view my contention about the falacy of Descartes proof is way off the mark.

So basically, if you sense something, you are? "Sensorum ergo sum"?

Yes that would be closer to my definition of awareness and knowingness.
Knowingness beig the knowledge component of awareness [ recognition of what you see.] Immediate and using passive memory of all you have learned.

But let me ask you this: Would not the purest form of it be detached from the conscious process all together? A sound being processed by an ear which is not being focused upon by the mind which must necesarily taint the process? Or do you consider the awareness of what it is to be necessary for it to be awareness?

depending on perspective.

To the believer it is true knowledge to someone who knows the distinction between knowledge and belief it is a speculative knowledge that may be true but not known as true.

Yes, but that is why I am refering to justified true belief, knowing something in a manner which is epistemologically valid. If one were absolutely certain, such as say, through logical absurdity, that something was not so, to have a true knowledge of this falsehood, would not this simply be another aspect of "justified true belief" and thus our definitions are in accords with one another?

Knowledge therefore validates belief or invalidates belief.

This is so.

I suggested that as an exercise we write down everything we know and everything we believe and I contended that the column under the knowledge heading woudl be markedly shorter than the column under the belief heading.

It is amazing how much belief we take for granted as being knowledge.

A good exercise in mental hygene....

That is very true, yes. We find so many assumptions when we clear our our mental closet!

In some circles it is held that thought is us creating the future. To think one must act. The act is an act of creatively dealing with what we are aware of. An improvisation of will that creates our futures. [ destiny]

So in this sense thinking is an act of creation.
"I create so I am"

leads to notions of self creation....yes?

Interesting, interesting. Considering the nature of thought and its impact upon us, it does seem likely that this is so. Of course, barring discussions of determinism v. free-will.

well I guess as C7 would say: If you have to do some heavy processing and experimentation you can't say that you know anything. After all that cogitation the tree now becomes a contruct of your subjective assessment.

The philosophy involved is that truth is self evident and that thinking by it's very nature attempts to qualify that truth relative to our understanding capability. In other words we qualify the truth to match our precarious knowledge. In doing so the truth is rendered subjectively finite. We have turned the truth into a lie because of our inability to understand the full truth.

By suspending thought and just being passively aware [ Buddhism ] one has the opportunity to be objective even if one does not comprehend in full what one is aware of. Comprehension requires the awareness to find relavance with currently held belief or knowledge, and in doing so renders the truth subjected to qualification based on prior knowledge and belief.

Yet if we do not do any process of cogitation, we cannot really grasp a thing about this. The knowledge becomes, in essence, useless and really hardly "knowledge" at all, and makes this notion of "awareness" somewhat futile, no? And if we do nto think about it, how do we know it is real? How do we know that we aren't deceived? How do we go beyond the limits of our senses, or to truly encorporate more of our senses in the experience?

The point is that we sense what we sense. What we sense has no obligation to being understood, but it is there to be sensed regardless.

But does this avail us anything?

All knowledge and beliefs are included in what you see. You know what you see but you also know what you have learned, all in that one moment of recognition. So knowingness could be considered the summation of all we hold as knowledge and belief with out the need for cogitation [ thought ]

So basically, knowingness is instant recognition?

Once knowledge and belief is discounted as being subjective and we are not to strongly attached to it. [our knowledge] our ability to know more about the football becomes available.

How so?

Here's a counter argument of sorts, also: Could not the ultimate subjectivity actually be considered this non-thought awareness? Since we only sense within the limitation of our senses, and the limitation of the acuteness of our own senses, would not that mean that all we are aware of is hindered by the self without forcing the mind to discern more?

All the proof is physical. If it can't be prooven physically at all, it doesn't exist. During hallucinaions, your body reacts causing the brain to bleed (hence why one hallucinates), and the cornea's and retinas of the eyes widen and become glassy. So, hallucinations are like dreams in a sense.

So an idea doesn't exist? A dragon doesn't exist as an idea? A word doesn't exist?

PJ>QQ


“ Absolutely, however if one wishes to extend discussion on this topic of self proof we do really have to agree on some definitions. ”



Yes.


“ Passive awareness or passive reflected awareness I would contend is evidence of self and requires no thought [ cogitation]
But if the definition of awareness is: Unconscious perception then of course in your view my contention about the falacy of Descartes proof is way off the mark. ”



So basically, if you sense something, you are? "Sensorum ergo sum"?
"I sense so I am"


“ Yes that would be closer to my definition of awareness and knowingness.
Knowingness beig the knowledge component of awareness [ recognition of what you see.] Immediate and using passive memory of all you have learned. ”

But let me ask you this: Would not the purest form of it be detached from the conscious process all together? A sound being processed by an ear which is not being focused upon by the mind which must necesarily taint the process? Or do you consider the awareness of what it is to be necessary for it to be awareness?

I think if we take an absolute view one can not really detatch anything.
However if one is able to be aware with out cogitation and rely only on awareness with NO obligation of recognition, the awareness is objective. of course in absolute terms this is virtually impossible to achieve so most likely it is more a question of degree rather than yes or no.




“ depending on perspective.

To the believer it is true knowledge to someone who knows the distinction between knowledge and belief it is a speculative knowledge that may be true but not known as true. ”



Yes, but that is why I am refering to justified true belief, knowing something in a manner which is epistemologically valid. If one were absolutely certain, such as say, through logical absurdity, that something was not so, to have a true knowledge of this falsehood, would not this simply be another aspect of "justified true belief" and thus our definitions are in accords with one another?

Now this is an interesting area of concern..... if logically valid is not belief justified and valid? hmmmm...not so....

example:
I would agree your notions that all proof is physical and if can't be proved physically, it does not exist empirically. However, since hallucinations do exist and impact us, must not we resort being minorly skeptical of the senses? That is to say, to resort to a method whereby we can determine if our senses have been beguiled? The scientific method, for instance?
this makes many logical assumptions that certainly appear to be sensible.
But they forget the asssumed premise. of asumptions made.
For instance you suggest that hallucinations are not a sensory experience or have their genisis in the sensing. This is a logical position based on current belief and not knowledge.
You have also assumed that the senses are not to be trusted, when I would say almost with out exception that the senses are always valid but it is the interpretation of what we sense that is open to subjectivity.
It is possible that our subjectivity can distort our sensitivity but this is more an issue that effects interpretation and not validity of said sensing.

Btw this is not a criticism but simply using the words you have typed as an example and not you as per see.
Logical truths are fraught with problems is my main point. To be logically valid is only one step in the process of gaining knowledge and certainly not knowledge. We have logical truths but we also have illogical truths [ re:exnhillo creation]

This leads to another topic I guess and that is we may see logical sense in existence but this doesn't mean that existence is logical. It is only how our minds function that requires logic.

"And the God of creation looked down on his human subjects and laughed to himself when he noticed how the humans found logic in the nonsense he had created"
The motto is:
"Everything has a logic and there is a logic to everything"
In other words you want logic and you will find logic.
You desire patterns and form then that is what you will find.
Just ask John Nash in the film "A beautiful mind" about finding patterns and ask yourself the question about logical insanity and logical neccessity.

post continiued
PJ>QQ
“ The point is that we sense what we sense. What we sense has no obligation to being understood, but it is there to be sensed regardless. ”

But does this avail us anything?
absoloodley...it tells us of what we don't know.

“ All knowledge and beliefs are included in what you see. You know what you see but you also know what you have learned, all in that one moment of recognition. So knowingness could be considered the summation of all we hold as knowledge and belief with out the need for cogitation [ thought ] ”



So basically, knowingness is instant recognition?

sounds close. awareness is not necessarilly recognition or knowingnesss. however knowingness involves awareness.

“ Once knowledge and belief is discounted as being subjective and we are not to strongly attached to it. [our knowledge] our ability to know more about the football becomes available. ”



How so?
When one can hold truth and knowledge and beliefs with out attachment one is in the most open minded state. Attachment provides an obstacle to growth and new knowledge or truth because we just love what we know and hold dear. To non-attach to what we know allows for a greater objective assessment.
With out inadvertantly prejudicing our interpretations of what we sense.
Again Buddhist philosophy is very valid in this regard. To let go of any illusion of worth [re truth, knowledge] and declare "so what!! It's all transient any way" allows for less attachment and openmindedness to the truth.

This is also something that should be taught in schools. [as part of critical thinking] The knowledge they give the student has the unfortunate potential to block future learning. So all knowledge should be qualified as subject to change.
A bit like arguing Special relativity, is it valid....who cares....if it works great if it doesn't thow it out....no problems. but if we cling too hard, an error or false hood will sustain itself no matter how glaring it's falsity is.
It is i think a given that personal identity is very much rapt up in what we know. It is some thing that we are so reluctant to give up until we must.

Quantum Quack:

"I sense so I am"

That seems reasonable, as all actions which can be linked back to the self proves the self, although I think Descartes picked thought as it is -most definitely- oneself. No one can force a thought into one's head.

I think if we take an absolute view one can not really detatch anything.
However if one is able to be aware with out cogitation and rely only on awareness with NO obligation of recognition, the awareness is objective. of course in absolute terms this is virtually impossible to achieve so most likely it is more a question of degree rather than yes or no.

But would, in essence, a rock be more capable of a purer form of awareness than we?

this makes many logical assumptions that certainly appear to be sensible.
But they forget the asssumed premise. of asumptions made.
For instance you suggest that hallucinations are not a sensory experience or have their genisis in the sensing. This is a logical position based on current belief and not knowledge.
You have also assumed that the senses are not to be trusted, when I would say almost with out exception that the senses are always valid but it is the interpretation of what we sense that is open to subjectivity.
It is possible that our subjectivity can distort our sensitivity but this is more an issue that effects interpretation and not validity of said sensing.

What I meant by "not to be trusted" is the possibility of us being deceived through hallucination and other such things, as well as tricks of perspective that can get us to believe absurdity. Even some extremely intelligent men in the ancient world, thought the moon to be not too much larger (certainly not thousands of miles around) than it appeared to be in the sky, and this is due to the inadequacies of our sight. But yes, we always -do- see something, and it is always valid, just sometimes we do not know in -what way- it is valid, and thus we need someway to make sure, such as the scientific method.

But hallucinations not having their origin in the senses? We find things corresponding in the brain that sem to produce these, not objects outside of ourselves which do. Would not this mean that it isn't likely a "sensory preception" in the normal sense?

Btw this is not a criticism but simply using the words you have typed as an example and not you as per see.
Logical truths are fraught with problems is my main point. To be logically valid is only one step in the process of gaining knowledge and certainly not knowledge. We have logical truths but we also have illogical truths [ re:exnhillo creation]

Can something be true if it is illogical? By definition, that which is illogical is untrue. Ex nihilo would seem to be an example of that.

This leads to another topic I guess and that is we may see logical sense in existence but this doesn't mean that existence is logical. It is only how our minds function that requires logic.

How so? Do not these truths seem to be self-evidently so?

"And the God of creation looked down on his human subjects and laughed to himself when he noticed how the humans found logic in the nonsense he had created"
The motto is:
"Everything has a logic and there is a logic to everything"
In other words you want logic and you will find logic.
You desire patterns and form then that is what you will find.
Just ask John Nash in the film "A beautiful mind" about finding patterns and ask yourself the question about logical insanity and logical neccessity.

Pretty good film. However, finding patterns and linking them to a delusion he is being reenforced via hallucinatory schizophrenia is a bit different.

absoloodley...it tells us of what we don't know.

How so? By allowing us the opportunity to investigate?

sounds close. awareness is not necessarilly recognition or knowingnesss. however knowingness involves awareness.

So you can divorce the two?

When one can hold truth and knowledge and beliefs with out attachment one is in the most open minded state. Attachment provides an obstacle to growth and new knowledge or truth because we just love what we know and hold dear. To non-attach to what we know allows for a greater objective assessment.
With out inadvertantly prejudicing our interpretations of what we sense.
Again Buddhist philosophy is very valid in this regard. To let go of any illusion of worth [re truth, knowledge] and declare "so what!! It's all transient any way" allows for less attachment and openmindedness to the truth.

So you suggest we become very willing to accept which is, through non-attachment to prior things, and seeking what is real from as detached a point as possible, to allow for as little subjectivity into the process as necessary?

This is also something that should be taught in schools. [as part of critical thinking] The knowledge they give the student has the unfortunate potential to block future learning. So all knowledge should be qualified as subject to change.
A bit like arguing Special relativity, is it valid....who cares....if it works great if it doesn't thow it out....no problems. but if we cling too hard, an error or false hood will sustain itself no matter how glaring it's falsity is.
It is i think a given that personal identity is very much rapt up in what we know. It is some thing that we are so reluctant to give up until we must.

To stress the falliability of knowledge in order to allow for an objective standpoint, yes?

he kinda has a point here SativaDiva, before that last sentence anyway.

Descartes was probably thinking that if you can test it physically, then it is real. however, he probably then realized that there is no way to prove that your test was real. so by a long chain of reasoning (and eliminating) the only thing you can know is that you can experience something (real or not) and thus you think, therefore you exist, but that is the only thing you can be sure of.
I suppose what one finds to be sure proof is based on each individuals considers reality. If it's real to me, it may not be real to another. But, I still believe it to be real. Anothers reality, I guess, would be considered an opinion or belief in my reality.

Sativa Diva:



I would agree your notions that all proof is physical and if can't be proved physically, it does not exist empirically. However, since hallucinations do exist and impact us, must not we resort being minorly skeptical of the senses? That is to say, to resort to a method whereby we can determine if our senses have been beguiled? The scientific method, for instance?

I guess that is where chaos comes in to play.

Sativa Diva:

So you reject the scientific method?

And either your reality is right or another's. There isn't really an "opinion" on reality to be had.

“ absoloodley...it tells us of what we don't know. ”



How so? By allowing us the opportunity to investigate?
Prince:
Just as an aside:

Awareness and even knowledge must by their very nature afford the self of knowing what is known and what isn't known. What has become realised knowledge and what has yet to become realised knowledge.

This is suprisingly over looked when talking about knowledge and awareness.

How often have you looked up at the stars at night and asked the implied question:
I think I know so much and yet I know I know so little"
Knowledge is an infinite thing. You can spend an eternity finding it and even then you would have only scratched the surface. [ self contradictory metaphor - I know]

If you just think about it for a moment you can see that knowledge is truelly infinite. there is no end to it, Knowledge just of yourself as an individual is virtually infinite when you consider all the interactions one makes in a life time. The impacts on others the thoughts made and inspired. Endless amount of information.
To be omniscient would render the omni paralysed by detail.

So in face of all this we can only specialise our quest for knowledge. But at all times realise that the knowledge we have is such an infinitely small amount to the knowledge available to be realised.

Just imagining how many telephone numbers are in the world today, how many numbers have been in use since the invention of the telephone. and how many telephone numbers are yet to be used.....boggling, absolutely enourmous amounts of knowledge available if one wishes to specialise in just telephone numbers.....

So awareness also involves knowing what we don't know. And what we don't know is always infinitely more than we do.

Can something be true if it is illogical? By definition, that which is illogical is untrue. Ex nihilo would seem to be an example of that.

just briefly :
Most of the truth in the world today is illogically true.

To define illogical one can only relate to what one sees as logical. For example would you consider the situation in IraK to be completely logical?

And is it logcial that irrationality exists?

Therefore is the illgocal true or false?

Truth has no obigation to logic. Truth just is.

IT seems that the universe came from nothing. Illogical yes? True most likely.

When the logic of exnhilo becomes understood is it not then and only then deemed logical? So all these years we have been claiming exnhillo as illogical then one day someone bright and smart shows the logic and we have to kick ourselves for claiming exnhilo as illogical.
everything has a logic to it and that loigic is always true, it maybe wrong or incorrect but it is always true n itself.

So we have logical insanity and logical neccessity.
Insanity in this context is when the logic is accepted as wrong or right when in fact we have no way of determining either.

After all isn't The situation in Irak a logical outcome of paranoia?

Quantum Quack:

So awareness also involves knowing what we don't know. And what we don't know is always infinitely more than we do.

A well done and interesting set of points, but I ask you this: Do you think it possible one might come to the summa of logical knowledge, atleast? not empirical?

To define illogical one can only relate to what one sees as logical. For example would you consider the situation in IraK to be completely logical?

Yes, as it follows human nature and is rooted in the goals of each side and the individuals.

And is it logcial that irrationality exists?

Yes. For irrationality comes from a sense of denial, which is rooted generally in a massive emotional response.

IT seems that the universe came from nothing. Illogical yes? True most likely.

In another thread I give, in my view, a superior view of cosmology.

When the logic of exnhilo becomes understood is it not then and only then deemed logical? So all these years we have been claiming exnhillo as illogical then one day someone bright and smart shows the logic and we have to kick ourselves for claiming exnhilo as illogical.
everything has a logic to it and that loigic is always true, it maybe wrong or incorrect but it is always true n itself.

It would have to triumph over the eternal nature of energy, the fact that nothing should not be able to produce anything, et cetera. It'd be hard to imagine. But yes, you can have wrong logic from false premises that is logically consistant in and of itself.

So we have logical insanity and logical neccessity.
Insanity in this context is when the logic is accepted as wrong or right when in fact we have no way of determining either.

I would claim that most issues of logic can be tested in one way or another. Can you think of anything that might not?

After all isn't The situation in Irak a logical outcome of paranoia?

Partially

Prince_James>Quantum Quack:



A well done and interesting set of points, but I ask you this: Do you think it possible one might come to the summa of logical knowledge, at least? not empirical?
I think onefinity in another thread mentions the notion that truth can only be expereinced. In some ways I tend to agree. In that logical truths are mere metaphysical abstractions that "sound true". In the final wash they amount to just that, unless that logical truth leads to experience that confirms that it is more than just metaphysical in nature.

"It is not enough to logically conclude that the Earth is a sphere, one must actually sail around it"

The same of course is mentioned in Zen philosophy. It is not the logic of the philosophy that is important it is the living of the philosophy that is. I am sure Buddhism would agree generally.

For example I can describe exnhillo but I would fail in the conveyance of that description. Such is our attachment to logic as we currently know it.
There is an ancient riddle I came across of undetermined origion except to say that it would be atleast 3000 years old. From the nothern parts of India.
If you visualise a hollow sphere and place another inside it.
Can you visalise the inner sphere expanding outwards and the outer sphere contracting inwards to nothing simultaneously? [ one sphere would normally have to dissappear from view.]

The whole purpose of the riddle is actually quite simple. It is effectively impossible to visualise the two motions together as they immmediately form a paradox. you can ever only visualise one sphere contracting to zero or the other expanding. BUT and this is the important bit, it can certainly be imagined. but certainly not visualised.

so the point is there are limitations to how we can visualise but there are no limitations to how we can imagine.

So as a clue to exnhillo:
It can be imagined really easilly but it is damn hard to visualise the logic.
So how can we visualise something coming form nothing when the very act of visualisation is just that. Something from nothing. A blank piece of paper now has an image on it....and so on.....
This post is created by typing words onto a blank field......easy hey?

We create with out thoughts somehthing out of nothing every day. Sure we have some knowledge to use etc...but we still generate the out put. So in a way we are just doing what nothing does best and that is create something.

It would have to triumph over the eternal nature of energy, the fact that nothing should not be able to produce anything, et cetera. It'd be hard to imagine. But yes, you can have wrong logic from false premises that is logically consistant in and of itself.
remember once time was created everything is eternal...the time paradox will always be a part of the equation. Before everything was created is an oxymoron.....an illogical proposition.

I would claim that most issues of logic can be tested in one way or another. Can you think of anything that might not?

probably what is more important is to test the assumptions made that lead to the logic in teh first instance. For example teh assumption that energy can not be created or destroyed and only transformed. Obviously exnhillo will dispute this. In fact the very exoistence of reality diputes thh notion of energy conservation laws.

How can we claim these laws as fool proof when the mere ability to create a law depends on the falsity of that law?
So in my view the conservation laws are mere conveniences used as a way to support our growth to better knowledge and understanding. It certainly appears that they are true except for one important thing. that being exnhilo creation.
In a commonly held 4 dimensional sense conservation laws hold true but if we look deeper into 2 dimensions and even closer at zero dimensions the laws start to loose their credibility.
There simply is too many problems with current understanding to say with confidence that they are absolute. IMO

A good example is the issue of inertia.

In three dimesnional space time is relative but as we approach zero dimensional space time is absolute. inertia in my opinion requires zero dimensional space to be able to be understood.

Thus 4 dimensional space is an illusion of time and distance. There fore 4 dimensional space logic dissallows zero dimensional space however zero dimensional space logic allows for 4 dimensional space.
So the logic of 4 dimensional space resists the notion of zero dimensional space
you may recall the diagram I used in the Ship thread
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/one1.jpg>
the distance between the two conscious rectangles is zero via the unconscious. But finite valued consciously.

So IMO zero dimensional space is very pertinant to questions of metaphysical relationships between objects of mass [ including animated objects of mass.]
This theory is in dev. hopefully I will complete it and publish it. [ mind you ...don't hold your breath] A uniform theory of physics and metaphysics. Titled "The Physics of God"

Quantum Quack:

I think onefinity in another thread mentions the notion that truth can only be expereinced. In some ways I tend to agree. In that logical truths are mere metaphysical abstractions that "sound true". In the final wash they amount to just that, unless that logical truth leads to experience that confirms that it is more than just metaphysical in nature.

Since logic is inherent in the very reality around us, can not we say that which is logically valid and based in the proper premises, will always correspond to reality? That once the proper means are found to come to truth, that truth might be attained to?

"It is not enough to logically conclude that the Earth is a sphere, one must actually sail around it"

Whilst yes, experience is necessary, 'lest we fall into the hubris of improper reasoning, one needn't experience everything to be sure. There was a Greek mathematician - whose name escapes me at the moment - who had proved the Earth was round from a simple crosssection of a piece of it.

The same of course is mentioned in Zen philosophy. It is not the logic of the philosophy that is important it is the living of the philosophy that is. I am sure Buddhism would agree generally.

Hmmm, I would say only somne aspects of philosophy (Ethics, Politics, maybe Aesthetics, and the base truths of epistemology) really have any practical, every day usage.

For example I can describe exnhillo but I would fail in the conveyance of that description. Such is our attachment to logic as we currently know it.
There is an ancient riddle I came across of undetermined origion except to say that it would be atleast 3000 years old. From the nothern parts of India.
If you visualise a hollow sphere and place another inside it.
Can you visalise the inner sphere expanding outwards and the outer sphere contracting inwards to nothing simultaneously? [ one sphere would normally have to dissappear from view.

The whole purpose of the riddle is actually quite simple. It is effectively impossible to visualise the two motions together as they immmediately form a paradox. you can ever only visualise one sphere contracting to zero or the other expanding. BUT and this is the important bit, it can certainly be imagined. but certainly not visualised.

Are you sure? Because I can visualize it quite fine, so long as the spheres are transparent. If not, then of course not. Maybe I misunderstand the meaning?

so the point is there are limitations to how we can visualise but there are no limitations to how we can imagine.

How do you mean?

So as a clue to exnhillo:
It can be imagined really easilly but it is damn hard to visualise the logic.
So how can we visualise something coming form nothing when the very act of visualisation is just that. Something from nothing. A blank piece of paper now has an image on it....and so on.....
This post is created by typing words onto a blank field......easy hey?

I would disagree, actually. How can something emerge from nothing? All things we know emerge from something. Even the "nothing" we picture is usually "blan kspace" and not nothing. It seems to be an absurdity in and of itself.

We create with out thoughts somehthing out of nothing every day. Sure we have some knowledge to use etc...but we still generate the out put. So in a way we are just doing what nothing does best and that is create something.

I think this is a bit off. Consider what thought is: A reaction. All thought comes in reaction to something, be it internal or external, as well as being related to something. We only think of nothing when we are not thinking.

remember once time was created everything is eternal...the time paradox will always be a part of the equation. Before everything was created is an oxymoron.....an illogical proposition.

How do you figure with this time paradox?

probably what is more important is to test the assumptions made that lead to the logic in teh first instance. For example teh assumption that energy can not be created or destroyed and only transformed. Obviously exnhillo will dispute this. In fact the very exoistence of reality diputes thh notion of energy conservation laws.

Didn't you respond to my cosmological argument recently? I somewhat cover this notion of "reality disputing energy conservation laws".

How can we claim these laws as fool proof when the mere ability to create a law depends on the falsity of that law?
So in my view the conservation laws are mere conveniences used as a way to support our growth to better knowledge and understanding. It certainly appears that they are true except for one important thing. that being exnhilo creation.
In a commonly held 4 dimensional sense conservation laws hold true but if we look deeper into 2 dimensions and even closer at zero dimensions the laws start to loose their credibility.
There simply is too many problems with current understanding to say with confidence that they are absolute. IMO

It is somewhat difficult to speak of "the second dimension" or "zero dimension" as a real reality, as opposed to an abstraction, considering the fact that "infinite thinness" is essentially impossible to reach, hence a second dimension existing apart from a third and viewed on its own, is difficult to imagine being real.

In three dimesnional space time is relative but as we approach zero dimensional space time is absolute. inertia in my opinion requires zero dimensional space to be able to be understood.

Elaborate, please?

Thus 4 dimensional space is an illusion of time and distance. There fore 4 dimensional space logic dissallows zero dimensional space however zero dimensional space logic allows for 4 dimensional space.
So the logic of 4 dimensional space resists the notion of zero dimensional space
you may recall the diagram I used in the Ship thread

Elaborate on this notion, also?

the distance between the two conscious rectangles is zero via the unconscious. But finite valued consciously.

So IMO zero dimensional space is very pertinant to questions of metaphysical relationships between objects of mass [ including animated objects of mass.]
This theory is in dev. hopefully I will complete it and publish it. [ mind you ...don't hold your breath] A uniform theory of physics and metaphysics. Titled "The Physics of God"

I'd definitely love to read it, although I would love more explanation of it now, too.

Prince:
I am more than happy to elaborate in fact doing so furthers my developement of my thesis.

However as you are well aware it is easy to confuse things when discussing at this level, which actually is the greatest prohibition to publishing a thesis.
Ahh!!! so much to learn about communication!!!

MY previous post had 2 primary elements to it.
The first was that imagination alone is infinite but visualisation is limited.
I used an example of two spheres as an ancient riddle possibly a type of Zen riddle. Zen Buddhism evolving many years later.
The two spheres are opaque and not transperant. So we can agree that it is impossible to visualise the contraction and expansion of these spheres simultaneously. We can only see one in action and imagine the action of the other.
So in this exercise we use two aspects of mind. Visulaisation and imagination.
we see one sphere but can only imagine the other.

We cannot visualise a new colour but we can imagine that it exists. [ to use your colour sensing idea.] This new colour issue is exactly what my point is about how we are so trapped with in our logic and reasoning. And I must admit it is our most confronting, being so difficult to realise that limitation.

However the entire point was how this exercise is easy to construct and therefore easy to imagine, but impossible to do.
I bring this up as a way of describing the limitations of logic, thus leading on to exnhillo.

The same would apply to the famous Zen riddle about one hand clapping....to show the limitations of logic but not the limitations of imagination.
The other area of my post was also to support this issue and that being how 4 dimensional space theories dissallow zero dimensional space theories.

The best way of describing this is the postualte that nothing can travel faster than light. At all times science adheres to the illusion of 4 dimensions.
That distance can not be zero. That nothingness is unable to be a contention of serious scientific assessment. [ however QM is slowly proving the falacy of 4 dimesnional limitations.]

If you ask a scientist about absolute nothingness he is unable to reconcile it as a valid question.
Say I argue that gravity has it's premise in zero dimensionalism [ nothingness] and immediately I am confronted with not only a belief system that dissallows it but will infact ridicule the contention as absurd. Becasue nothign ness is a nul concpet in science.

However from a zero dimensional perspective 4 dimensional space can be contructed very easilly
but not the other way round.
So logic has created a barrier to understanding exnhillo.
IN fact from this zero domensional perpective there is a soution to issues of inertia and dimensional expansion thus dimensional collapse. A star gate is possible as with worm holes and hyper space travel.

But again the logic of an Einsteinian reality dissallows this understanding.

It is not intended to debate the merits of zero dimaensionalism but merely debate how logic in in it self is very limited in rendering truth about reality, in fact logic can and does actually falsify our attempt to understand reality.


A good question that can be posed to demonstrate nothing ness is:

If I use a microscope that keep maginfying the subject. Say I keep upping the magnification, what would be the limit of magnification that you could posssibly get to ? What would you see at maximum magnification?

I would contend that what you would see is nothing...absolutely nothing....

I think this is a bit off. Consider what thought is: A reaction. All thought comes in reaction to something, be it internal or external, as well as being related to something. We only think of nothing when we are not thinking.

keep in mind when in time we are thinking. A thought is generated towards the future from the past. The future has yet to be [ nothing] so merely thinking is filling in the future.

And another angle :
But most importantly if you consider the Now to be a zero duration constantly changing event then our thoughts are also a part of the zero duration event thus we are filling in that zero duration event with our thinking.....so therefore it can be legitimately contended that we are creating something of nothing...[zero duration constantly changing event]..and have to do so as part of the metaphysical /physical equation.

So why do you think if feel that time is absolute metaphysically? [ which I do BTW]

Also I am not trying to deny your view on how realty can be determined by logical truths, that reality is logical etc. It is after all quite logical. In fact I would say that it is essential that our beliefs are sustained by logical truth. I take the position that even if this means we shall never achieve ultimate truths then so be it. There is more to life and living than trying to solve the big questions and tearing other peoples belief systems down to do it.

All has to be accommodated somehow, if the truth is going to have any real value. This is why writing a book on the Physics of God is such a challenge, to place all these logical notions in a way that has value to others besides my self.

However to move on.
I posted this possible method to clarify our definitions earlier. It is possible that you missed it so I shall post it again. [to keep the thread topic developing]
I have a suggestion.....ha [ not another one]

Say we propose the following gendanken. And work out our definitions that way.

You are in a room and are sitting at a table.
You have your eyes shut. [ no peeking]
And someone comes into the room and places an object on the table that has virtually no relationship to anything you have seen before. [ except possibly colour and random form]

You are told nothing about the object and are asked to open your eyes.

What do you experinece in order of sequence?

the first thing should be confusion as your eyes adjust.
What's next do you think?

Quantum Quack:

MY previous post had 2 primary elements to it.
The first was that imagination alone is infinite but visualisation is limited.
I used an example of two spheres as an ancient riddle possibly a type of Zen riddle. Zen Buddhism evolving many years later.
The two spheres are opaque and not transperant. So we can agree that it is impossible to visualise the contraction and expansion of these spheres simultaneously. We can only see one in action and imagine the action of the other.
So in this exercise we use two aspects of mind. Visulaisation and imagination.
we see one sphere but can only imagine the other.

Agreed.

We cannot visualise a new colour but we can imagine that it exists. [ to use your colour sensing idea.] This new colour issue is exactly what my point is about how we are so trapped with in our logic and reasoning. And I must admit it is our most confronting, being so difficult to realise that limitation.

Interesting, interesting.

However the entire point was how this exercise is easy to construct and therefore easy to imagine, but impossible to do.
I bring this up as a way of describing the limitations of logic, thus leading on to exnhillo.

How is this a limitation of logic?

The same would apply to the famous Zen riddle about one hand clapping....to show the limitations of logic but not the limitations of imagination.

Or we can speak of it being an absurdity: One hand cannot clap. To clap is an action with two hands. The sound of one hand clapping is nothing, for it does not exist.

The best way of describing this is the postualte that nothing can travel faster than light. At all times science adheres to the illusion of 4 dimensions.
That distance can not be zero. That nothingness is unable to be a contention of serious scientific assessment. [ however QM is slowly proving the falacy of 4 dimesnional limitations.]

I would argue that nothingness cannot exist in somethingness, but yes, go on?

If you ask a scientist about absolute nothingness he is unable to reconcile it as a valid question.
Say I argue that gravity has it's premise in zero dimensionalism [ nothingness] and immediately I am confronted with not only a belief system that dissallows it but will infact ridicule the contention as absurd. Becasue nothign ness is a nul concpet in science.

Scientists can be -slightly- dogmatic at times, yes...

However from a zero dimensional perspective 4 dimensional space can be contructed very easilly
but not the other way round.
So logic has created a barrier to understanding exnhillo.
IN fact from this zero domensional perpective there is a soution to issues of inertia and dimensional expansion thus dimensional collapse. A star gate is possible as with worm holes and hyper space travel.

Might you tell me more about how zero-dimensions can produce four but four cannot produce zero?

It is not intended to debate the merits of zero dimaensionalism but merely debate how logic in in it self is very limited in rendering truth about reality, in fact logic can and does actually falsify our attempt to understand reality.

Logic falsfies our attempt to understand reality? This claim will require much substantiation!

If I use a microscope that keep maginfying the subject. Say I keep upping the magnification, what would be the limit of magnification that you could posssibly get to ? What would you see at maximum magnification?

My answer: There is no maximum magnification. The infinitely small is precisely that, infinitely small.

keep in mind when in time we are thinking. A thought is generated towards the future from the past. The future has yet to be [ nothing] so merely thinking is filling in the future.

Interesting reasoning, but I think it false, for is it proper to merge "imagination of future" with "true future" or what shall come to apss? Moreover, can not one think of the past solely?

And another angle :
But most importantly if you consider the Now to be a zero duration constantly changing event then our thoughts are also a part of the zero duration event thus we are filling in that zero duration event with our thinking.....so therefore it can be legitimately contended that we are creating something of nothing...[zero duration constantly changing event]..and have to do so as part of the metaphysical /physical equation.

Why do you claim the now would be "zero duration"?

So why do you think if feel that time is absolute metaphysically? [ which I do BTW]

Pardon?

Also I am not trying to deny your view on how realty can be determined by logical truths, that reality is logical etc. It is after all quite logical. In fact I would say that it is essential that our beliefs are sustained by logical truth. I take the position that even if this means we shall never achieve ultimate truths then so be it. There is more to life and living than trying to solve the big questions and tearing other peoples belief systems down to do it.

So even if you think it false, you think that such ignorance could be bliss?

What do you experinece in order of sequence?

I first recognize its shape and colour(s) and other obvious attributes (including other sensory preception if the stimuli is present) and simulteneously (or extremely close to such) recollect whether or not I have seen something similar in the past.

Ahhh I see I have failed in my attempt....I have made assumptions based on previous discussion with you and obviously I am incorrect.

Logic falsfies our attempt to understand reality? This claim will require much substantiation!
this clearly indicates I have lost you some where along the way.

You may recall an earlier post that stated that what seems logical today may be deemed illogical tomorrow. I also proposed that what seems illogical today may become logical tomorrow.

Thus what you percieve as illogical or logical has the potential of being only a temporal or transient condition.
Do you recall this discussion? I shall copy and paste if you like?

Possibly this needs more fleshing out?
[years ago it was held as quite logical that the earth was flat and that unicorns were real.]
I shall respond to your other questions later..... :)

don't get too hung up on the logical/illogical argument.

Quantum Quack:


You may recall an earlier post that stated that what seems logical today may be deemed illogical tomorrow. I also proposed that what seems illogical today may become logical tomorrow.

Thus what you percieve as illogical or logical has the potential of being only a temporal or transient condition.
Do you recall this discussion? I shall copy and paste if you like?

I recall it now. But hm, did I not contest that idea a bit? Something along the lines of "false premises"? That which is truly logical, such as the logical laws, are not something which is invalidated, essentially, ever. These "basic truths" are basically eternal laws, inherent in the very nature of reality themselves. The problem is that often logic is abused to answer empirical claims (such as some of the flaws of Aristotle's logic or those of flat earthers) which are -not-matters of logic. Until gravity and other laws of nature were discerned, there was no reason why the Earth could not possibly be a disk, a sphere, a square, or any other shape, but after that, once we have an empirical observation, we can make the logical deduction that all planets would have to be roughly-spherical, unless so oblate that they become essentially disk-like ovoids.

Quantum Quack:




I recall it now. But hm, did I not contest that idea a bit? Something along the lines of "false premises"? That which is truly logical, such as the logical laws, are not something which is invalidated, essentially, ever. These "basic truths" are basically eternal laws, inherent in the very nature of reality themselves. The problem is that often logic is abused to answer empirical claims (such as some of the flaws of Aristotle's logic or those of flat earthers) which are -not-matters of logic. Until gravity and other laws of nature were discerned, there was no reason why the Earth could not possibly be a disk, a sphere, a square, or any other shape, but after that, once we have an empirical observation, we can make the logical deduction that all planets would have to be roughly-spherical, unless so oblate that they become essentially disk-like ovoids.

Ok, I agree in the main. It is true that we can safely assume that the physics of the universe tend towards spherical bodies given usual gravitational influences, and if we discover bodies that are not so spherical we can conclude that gravitational or other effects are what is leading to that non-conformity. Fair enough.
However if we extend this logic to include the notion that If life exists through out the universe then at least half the universes animated life is asleep at any given moment due to the rotational aspects of those planets and bodies we are now extending the logic into tenuous and precarious territory.

Another example of scientific logical necessity.
In science there is a belief in an object called a photon. All evidence suggests to date that this is a truth. Yet no one can differentiate a photon from it's reflector. A photon has not been observed as the free ranging independant particle they have concluded it to be.
The photon is merely a model of what fits the observations so far but falls very short of being a proven object.

The premise of Einstienien / Minkowsky space is that light travels that it has both wavelike and particle like behaviour and that it always travels at 'c' and that 'c' is invariant to all observers regarless of relative velocity.
But it is the IT that is assumed and that asumption is not proven.
So our humble photon is a mental contract, a logical assumption that may one day need to be dropped.

What I think is the point about all this is that to apply critical thought one must always keep in mind the assumptions, presumptions, hypothetical premises one is working with. Never loosing sight that an entire scientific community is some how relying and dependant on the exstance of our humble photon that has yet to be observed directly. In fact over 100 years of scientific endevour by millions of physicsts, has been premised on this assumption.
Exactly the same could be said for religion.

QQ>PJ>QQ

“ We cannot visualise a new colour but we can imagine that it exists. [ to use your colour sensing idea.] This new colour issue is exactly what my point is about how we are so trapped with in our logic and reasoning. And I must admit it is our most confronting, being so difficult to realise that limitation. ”



Interesting, interesting.


“ However the entire point was how this exercise is easy to construct and therefore easy to imagine, but impossible to do.
I bring this up as a way of describing the limitations of logic, thus leading on to exnhillo. ”

How is this a limitation of logic?

Well it sort of like "When you can visualise another colour you can visulaise exnhillo creation"

“ The same would apply to the famous Zen riddle about one hand clapping....to show the limitations of logic but not the limitations of imagination. ”

Or we can speak of it being an absurdity: One hand cannot clap. To clap is an action with two hands. The sound of one hand clapping is nothing, for it does not exist.

Just my point. It doesn't exist as a visulalisable act, but it was certainly easy to imagine it. Like it is to imagine a flat earth where the sea drains of into an abys of nothignness surrouded by stars that set and rise at teh whim of Gods.


“ The best way of describing this is the postualte that nothing can travel faster than light. At all times science adheres to the illusion of 4 dimensions.
That distance can not be zero. That nothingness is unable to be a contention of serious scientific assessment. [ however QM is slowly proving the falacy of 4 dimesnional limitations.] ”



I would argue that nothingness cannot exist in somethingness, but yes, go on?

absolutely correct in this context. and that is why exnhillo is an impossible logic riddle.





“ However from a zero dimensional perspective 4 dimensional space can be contructed very easilly
but not the other way round.
So logic has created a barrier to understanding exnhillo.
IN fact from this zero domensional perpective there is a soution to issues of inertia and dimensional expansion thus dimensional collapse. A star gate is possible as with worm holes and hyper space travel. ”



Might you tell me more about how zero-dimensions can produce four but four cannot produce zero?

From a perspective of "nothing" all is possible but from a perspective of something "nothing" is an impossible concept.




“ If I use a microscope that keep maginfying the subject. Say I keep upping the magnification, what would be the limit of magnification that you could posssibly get to ? What would you see at maximum magnification? ”


My answer: There is no maximum magnification. The infinitely small is precisely that, infinitely small.

So tell me what do you believe exists as infinitely small?
What partcle of mass exists as infinitely small?

You look down and you see subatomic particles, you look into those subatomic particles and see what? Keep upping the magnification and eventually there will be nothing to see is my opinion.




“ keep in mind when in time we are thinking. A thought is generated towards the future from the past. The future has yet to be [ nothing] so merely thinking is filling in the future. ”



Interesting reasoning, but I think it false, for is it proper to merge "imagination of future" with "true future" or what shall come to apss? Moreover, can not one think of the past solely?

But you do so as a creation in the NOW.


“ And another angle :
But most importantly if you consider the Now to be a zero duration constantly changing event then our thoughts are also a part of the zero duration event thus we are filling in that zero duration event with our thinking.....so therefore it can be legitimately contended that we are creating something of nothing...[zero duration constantly changing event]..and have to do so as part of the metaphysical /physical equation. ”



Why do you claim the now would be "zero duration"?

In another thread about moving time and multi verses dimensions

In the interests of continuity in discussion I will copy and paste from another thread in Scott Myers, you and I were discussin the NOW
I posted:
so now has an event duration of zero therefore we see the now from the perspective of the past looking towards the future like as if we are two eyes on a 2 dimensional plane looking from one side to the other. But still the now is non-existent yet it exists as a continuum of change that never stops.

and you posted:

Quantum Quack:

I rather like your notion that now itself holds the essence of time: Change. That now itself, being a fluid present, alive with motion, is time manifest. An interesting concept and one worthwhile to adhere to.
for direct reference use this link:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47995&page=4&pp=20

One of Albert Einstiens greatest achivements was to indicate that light being our universal constant had an event duration of zero. His famous light cones idea shows this clearly.
The Now is but a mere infinitely small or zero duration event in a continuum of change.

Our thinking also changes like our ray of light, a continuum of change as a zero duration event.


“ So why do you think if feel that time is absolute metaphysically? [ which I do BTW] ”

Pardon?

Because we all think in the simultaneous zero event NOW. IN other words we are creating the NOW together simultaneously. So metaphysically time is absolute but in terms of our current understanding time in physics is relative. [ Special relativity Theory]

“ Also I am not trying to deny your view on how realty can be determined by logical truths, that reality is logical etc. It is after all quite logical. In fact I would say that it is essential that our beliefs are sustained by logical truth. I take the position that even if this means we shall never achieve ultimate truths then so be it. There is more to life and living than trying to solve the big questions and tearing other peoples belief systems down to do it. ”
So even if you think it false, you think that such ignorance could be bliss?

No I am saying that the effort to change other peoples perceptions has to be tempered with a heavy dose of wisdom. Change is subject to inertia. It take some people years to accept change. we cling to our beliefs to strongly especially if we see logic in those beliefs. And as I have contended logic today illogic tomorrow or vica versa.

I guess we can be so arriogant in our beliefs that we have the answer when in fact the answer we have can blind us to the real solution.

Quantum Quack:

Well it sort of like "When you can visualise another colour you can visulaise exnhillo creation"

Let me ask you this: Can nothing change?

Just my point. It doesn't exist as a visulalisable act, but it was certainly easy to imagine it. Like it is to imagine a flat earth where the sea drains of into an abys of nothignness surrouded by stars that set and rise at teh whim of Gods.

One can imagine such foolish things, yes. HOwever, one cannot visualize, truly, only one hand-clapping, as the action of clapping requires two hands. You only get one hand going through a motion similar to clapping and perhaps even syncing it up with an applause sound.

absolutely correct in this context. and that is why exnhillo is an impossible logic riddle.

Not really a "riddle" if it is absurd, is