Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 21, 2008.

  1. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Because I can take a hammer and rap it on my skull until the sensory mechanisms which perceive the universe begin to function abnormally. If I do it enough, I can even make some of the modules in my brain stop functioning completely. A little more, and I will no longer be around to perceive anything at all.

    I suppose your claim is that there is a slight chance that I am making up the hammer, inventing the pain of its blows, and then re-arranging my brain internally to simulate the physical damage that such blows would create? And it is a coincidence that all neural and chemical activity ceases in others, because they are also things that I have created internally?

    Sorry, I grant not even a fraction of a percentage of credence to loony ideas like this. The idea that the Earth could be hollow, or a purple whale could be living in an inter-dimensional pocket within my closet, all such nonsense does not warrant discussion. If you want to debate whether or not a "sound" is something our brain interprets internally, or if it is compressed waves, I will have that discussion. But solipsistic nonsense such as the crap you are spewing in this thread is a complete waste of time. You seem more interested in feigning ignorance in order to appear smart than in having a fruitful discussion that increases all of our knowledge.

    (What number am I thinking about all day today? The reason you do not know is because that number exists in my brain, which is outside of you. And the reason I do not know what number you will guess later (or if you will refuse to) is because that experience is outside of me, and beyond my knowing)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Good post !
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    So do you know what the difference is? Between I presume objective and subjective? Two words?
    Notice, if you will, that these two words are definitely not spelt the same...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Troll.
     
  8. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    See?

    This doesn't explain what an external object is, does it. It looks more hopeless than your last effort.
    It's a description. It's a bunch of words that appears on a screen. I have to assume some other agent produced them, because I'm sure it wasn't me.

    All it tells me is: "I can deduce there are other agencies who can write in English, and they must be able to understand that language similarly to the way I understand it"

    The rest is decoration.
    Loony ideas that you "suppose" someone has, because you also understand a language?
     
  9. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Troll

    Notice, how these two are spelt the same?
     
  10. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Troll.
     
  11. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    The reason I don't know, is because I only have ideas in my mind, there are no independent agencies "in there", thinking of numbers (last time I checked).

    Or asking me what they're thinking. The number you have told me about, isn't outside of "me", because I know what "number" means. I have to form an internal representation = "some number".

    Then I have to form a representation of "thinking of a number", then "an independent agent thinking of a number". I still have zero of "an external mind". (But I suppose I could be bothered to represent that internally as well)

    Note: an independent agent is not something external either, except as a, well, as a representation in my mind.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  12. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Wow ! I didn't notice that. How observant of you..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    You're getting the hang of this, aren't you?
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not really. You ?
     
  15. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Look, troll, you keep contradicting yourself. By admitting that there are other agencies who can write English, you are acknowledging the existence of things outside of yourself.

    What slays me is that you keep dismissing everyone's points as "hopeless" and yet you have not countered any of them, or offered one tittle of evidence for a lack of Objective Reality. In fact, you have abused the term and shown a general confusion regarding the difference between Objective Reality and Subjective Reality.

    With all of your back-peddling and childishness I can only assume you are trolling or wholly ignorant of these topics.

    Further proof that there is something outside of myself: I am incapable of producing your inanity from within.
     
  16. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Rubbish, my man, total rubbish.
    By deducing that the words I read weren't produced by me, since I know words have to be written, or spoken, I deduce the existence of another agent. This deduction is "in there" isn't it? I can write or speak words without producing something tangible - how do I manage that?
    These are the things you have no way to explain to any external agency, are they? Or aren't they?
    Is that because you're too childish?
     
  17. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    Fair enough disease, however: it's not a question of the locality of the deduction that's important here; the deduction is of course 'in' you (or your mind, etc...). What is important here is the existence of another agent (to which you admit).

    The mere fact that there is another agent ('an other', meaning 'not you') necessarily implies something beyond the scope of yourself. Yes, the information whereby you're made cognizant of this other agent is all 'in you', but its source cannot be such. The only way in which this foreign agent could have you as its source would be if you allow some sort of pervasive ontological schizophrenia.

    So it comes down to this: either you must grant that there are other agents, or, you must subscribe to a solipsistic position.

    (Either is fine with me; ultimately it's a question of whether or not you elect to begin from an ontological position, or an epistemological one...)
     
  18. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    It's deductive logic, within my individual mind, of the agreement it sees in other minds. My deduction (of the existence of other minds) is in my mind, as you say.
    That's agreement.
    Yep, but "where is the external agent" What do I deduce about their existence?
    I deduce this, since I also see words I didn't "cause to exist" - I didn't think them up.
    This implies something independent of my individual mind, but what can I deduce about it? I only have my experience of "other people exist, who make noises like I do", to go by, right?
    What do you mean with: "its source"? The only source is what I see and think.
     
  19. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    Correct. But unless you're prepared to assert that these things that 'make noises like you do' are caused by you (that is, the agent involved is you..) then you must conclude that there is something other than you.

    True, all you have to go on, from an evidenciary POV, is what you experience, and you can therefore never be certain that anything beyond your mind can possibly affect that experience, but there are cases where it's more reasonable to conclude that a foreign agent is responsible for that experience (i.e., where your experience is affected, as opposed to being an effect).

    If you truly believe this, then you are indeed a solipsist (or, at the very least, a strict phenomenoligist).

    Which opens up a whole new bag of problems....
    [again, not that I disagree with this position (at least, from an epistemological position..)]
     
  20. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Yes, well. If you want to discuss experiential phenomena, subjective and objective, what an agent is etc. it pays to deviate from everyday language.
    Of course I don't believe I'm the only mind on the planet (but there is no epistemological reason for this belief).

    I suppose you have to watch out for the cookie monster (the dreaded vortex of abstraction). That you will abstract your own mind out of the epistemological frame altogether.
    The computer would then have no idea it was computing anything...

    Yep, I generally conclude that what I can see "comes in" from outside me, but again, how can I know this? Where does the phenomenon of vision, change from "out there", to "in here"?

    P.S. have you read any of the SciAm recent ishes, on 'The Mind'? There's a bit of a stack these days.
     
  21. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    what if I asked you to knock down the CN Tower

    and I asked you do so with hockey-stick

    it is an impossible task


    is this not an example of objective truth ?
     
  22. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    A buddhist view:
    Subjectively, we see an objective world (this is true for a subjective "experiencer"). Objectively, we are just "one mind" among many.

    We see truth or agreement when we deny subjectivity; we also see agreement when we deny objectivity.
    "Truth" is then the (parallel) denial of both, alongside the assertion of both, you assert your existence (experientially) by denying it (epistemologically).

    We do this every time we inhale, and then exhale - we assert that "air exists", then, "air does not exist". Simple...
     
  23. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    so is a buddhist immune to the affects to himself of running into a tree ?
     

Share This Page