For Gustav - Metaphysics of Consciousness and Universe

alright
lets try again.

* Existence—the fact that something is. Whatever we perceive, we know it exists, otherwise we would not perceive it. We also exist, otherwise we could not perceive anything. To deny the axiom of existence demands a disproof that exists and to ground that disproof on existing facts.

* Identity—the fact that existants has a specific nature, which can be defined as a set of attributes. This is a corollary of existence. Whatever we perceive that exists out there, we know that it has a specific nature, otherwise we could not perceive it. Likewise, we perceive that our own consciousness has a specific nature. To deny the axiom of identity demands a disproof with a specific nature.

* Consciousness—the fact that we perceive. Whatever we perceive, our own existence or the existence of things around us, we know that we perceive it. To deny the axiom of consciousness demands that the individual perceive it and formulate a disproof based on perceived facts. (Francois Tremblay)

/bewildered about meat, poison and other unwarranted extrapolations

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I addressed what I wanted to address Myles.
I found out you meant by 'these people'

I'm still not sure how many people you think that applies to here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ISness. I can't really argue against it, nope. However, I think were one to refuse any sort of assumption whatsoever, which I think is a fair approach (though I find it pointless) then this axiom is avoided although quite badly I'd say.

Other retarded shit could be argued IMO that could bypass this, like for instance the notion of "is" not really being wholly applicable to anything "actually objective". This one actually has merit to me and is symptomatic of why I find "seems" to be a necessarily underlying theme. Maybe there is only "is/isn't" in coexistence, or a multiverse or something.

All I can confidently report is that from my vantage point this axiom seems sure fire. It's full of win for practical purposes, but must be tempered IMO by the realizing the ramifications of being human are that you can only relate to the objective via a human perspective, which "objectively" may not mean shit except that it's what it has to seem like from a human perspective.

Well I used to buy this argument hook line and sinker... but I stopped because I think perspective undermines it. This mostly came from years of contemplating flatland type stuff, and the time I spent contemplating 4 dimensional shapes. A four dimensional object might appear 3 dimensional to us, but because we can only see 3 dimensions... we have no ability to know there is more than one point at what appears to be the same point to us. Thus, A = A = B perhaps. I think it's hard to argue the uniqueness and specificity of that which cannot be percieved. Again, for practical purposes and to allow for communication I generally adopt this axiom of identity, but I can fathom scenarios that to me seem to escape it. Not sure if my reasoning is 100% there. *shrug*

Well IMO, this thingy right here is basically the cornerstone by which the other two might be grounded. To be fair though, IMO this is only necessary for us to be able to communicate, which I think most people tend to desire to some minimum at least. Again though, if you have no interest in sharing your perspective with others or vice-versa (which actually I'm not sure could be done but perhaps isolation or something), then no foundation is truly necessary and you can be silent, unthinking and one with the tao. There's no requisite for proving even existence if one simply has no interest in doing so. Bah I'm too bored with my own argument to continue at the moment.

Sometimes what I feel compelled to say in being honest sort of sickens me, as often I'd really rather wash all it all aside. I do so for daily function, but when faced with it head on, all these questions and tangets seem fair to me. *sigh*

wish I had a clue what you're on about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The requirements for these disproofs are impossible to meet, as to meet them would require that the statements be accepted as true in the first place.

It's like saying

Prove that not-p. But do so by allowing only for p.

It can't be done.

 

The simplest explanation

Why does the universe exist?
Because it does.

How does it exist?
Because the conditions allowed it.

The exact nature of the prevailing conditions for universe creation are being revealed as technology allows and our minds grasp at the implications.

Until all is known and uncovered we can only predict.

Humans are but a speck on the tip of a needle. Isn't the assumption that the universe exists because we are here to observe it at best egotistical? Or delusional?

 

right
a starting point
fundamental axioms
establishes a basis for us
ignorance will result in illogic in any further extrapolation (i think)

now
logic is ontologically neutral while semantics can favor one or another. whaddhya think?. any discernible value?

 

i am sure you can move beyond that
however...occam is for dullards and simpletons. my pet saying. it isnt, but is of great utility in sci

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hmm
do you find utility in these axioms?

 

no worries, wes
we all putter along in one way or another
changing nappies is what we are truly about
this shit makes not a whit of difference

 

reiku

christian? church on sundays?

 

But what need is there to go beyond? Why is it dull or dumb to believe that the universe started simply because the conditions were right at the time. There may well have been something before it, another universe collapsing perhaps. It may well that there are multiple universes existing side by side. Or layered on top of each other or whatever. But,

Life in all the universe starts simply and becomes more complex, if necessary.
Why should the same not be true of the origin of the universe in which we currently find ourselves?

 

hey yeah this. except that all can't be known.

 

sniffy

dunno
pass the time? keep sci alive?

 

ok, but like did you understand what I said besides that, or why I would say it? stupid? off target? unrelatable?

 

You must be a rather happy and worriless person.

 

Really?

If nothing else, another hour has passed ...

 

You mean these -

-?

Surely, superficially, they are fine, and the impossibility to refute them directly adds to them appearing true and inavoidable.
Moreover, they are extremely useful as retrospective -and are even actually treated as retroactive- explanations of what is going on. Using such axioms as a foundation can make a person feel safe and confident. Whatever I perceive out there is out there. Whatever I don't perceive out there, isn't out there.

But otherwise, I think an immense amount of assuming needs to go into accepting those axioms. One has to have unshakable faith that one's perception is flawless. One has to have unshakable faith that one's perception is not guided by belief. - While this might be the case once a person is enlightened, to believe so prior to enlightenment is a recipe for perpetual bewilderment.

 

I know you were speaking to another, but please bear with me. Do you consider yourself enlightened?

How do you know?

Sorry but it's sort of that chain of reason that makes me think an enlightened person could only answer "no" to the question "are you enlightened" and still be consistent.

 

No.

Because I am still subject to suffering, bewilderment in particular.

Why do you think so?

 

Why must I?
Because you ordered it?