The Essence of Mind

"Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing: either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: to me it is a prison."

Why does everybody want to underestimate Hamlet?

His "to be or not to be" is indifference, not despair: "get thee to a nunnery"; go fuck yourself; have it your way; see if I care.

--- Ron.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You obviously have no idea how your own mind works. If you don't perceive the objects as distinct, you obviously cannot identify them! And you do it by a comparison. Your brain perceives the environment and breaks it down by comparing different parts of the environment. What you are saying is the same as saying that words came before language existed. It's silly and absurd.

It seems that you are too retarded to notice that your perception of the world comes before any conscious identification.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TruthSeeker:

"You obviously have no idea how your own mind works. If you don't perceive the objects as distinct, you obviously cannot identify them! And you do it by a comparison. Your brain perceives the environment and breaks it down by comparing different parts of the environment. What you are saying is the same as saying that words came before language existed. It's silly and absurd. "

Okay, shortbus, let's go over this on a remedial level.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is one undivided whole? Say, you see a room, and do not identify any individual parts, but just one single thing. Well, is not this identification? You are identifying the "one undivided whole".

Thus you begin with "an identification of an undivided whole".

But lo and behold, you see differences! Now, these differences are indeed seen in part by comparison, but to be aware of difference, is to -identify-. If you cannot identify, you cannot -differentiate-, hence, you cannot -compare-. This is why we call them "codependent".

"It seems that you are too retarded to notice that your perception of the world comes before any conscious identification."

Listen mindmush, you are saying we have no "conscious perception of the world"? Then how is it perception? When you do not have a consciousness directed towards something (intention/ality) you do not have perception. Never had a daydream?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Plebian imbecile.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

perplexity:

"His "to be or not to be" is indifference, not despair: "get thee to a nunnery"; go fuck yourself; have it your way; see if I care."

Indifference? He is contemplating whether or not it is better to live than to die. Similarly, he is viciously mad at Ophelia at the time, and obviously greatly upset and disturbed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sort of. When you perceive the differences in your brain you are already identifying those differences. My claim is that you cannot identify something without making a comparison. I cannot look at my computer and identify it as a computer without identifying what is a "not-computer".

"It seems that you are too retarded to notice that your perception of the world comes before any conscious identification."

No. I'm saying perception comes before you can consciously identify. You really think a baby can consciously identify everything? But would you say a baby can perceive?

You always have perception, regardless of your intention.

 

I understand. My only point of contention in the first place is that I think a valid argument could be made, from a certain perspective – that “wood” is the essence of chair. Of course, I don’t think everyone would accept it, as everyone has at least a slightly different perspective of the word.

Actually that’s a pretty interesting question. My first instinct is to rebut thistle: How is a chair defined? Is it defined by its function? Would all occurrences of the alien version of the term be equal to the earthly term? I would say that though there may be places for alien asses to rest under the weight of their bodies, “chairs” only exist on earth. On an alien world they’d be “beezleflogs” or something. Now, just because the word changes in this case, hmm… yeah we get into object/class/group analysis, maybe “sets” and stuff. Didn’t you start an interesting thread on that once?

The physical chair in front of you is not, but the reflection of it in the mind of its craftsman may well be. As such to him, what comprises a chair in a meaningful way, rather that the shallowness of the particular materials of the particular chair…

I do not think that to be true at all. Honest people may do so, but not all people are so. I think we could say however that we necessarily look for what is most utilitarian to our perceived circumstance at the time of the looking, and that the looking itself is also obscuring.

"That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get you. Wouldn’t that one’s determination of an object can change, well isn’t that subjectivity? Have you misspoken or have I misunderstood?"

If that determination is based on the object's properties, or of the truth-value of the statement, then no, it is not subjective.

I see. Okay first – an object’s properties are part of the object. We can only know of our impression of those properties. We may even agree on them. IMO, it’s absolutely imperative to remember this at all times in a conversation on the topic at hand. Of course you may disagree…

It would show that one's former opinion was subjective and that one now at least believes one's new viewpoint to be objective. That it could still be subjective is, of course, a possibility.

If one’s former opinion was subjective, that one now believes one new viewpoint to be objective does not maybe it so in the slightest. It’s not that it “could still be subjective” – it’s that it is necessarily always subjective by the nature of its existence. There is no objective standard by which to compare one’s perspective such that they may tout “my perspective is objective”. IMO, it is necessary by the relationship of a perspective to its environment that the opportunity cost of having a perspective (being a point of view) is that you cannot be objective. Objectivity is like absolute zero in the sense that you can never attain it. Well, death is pretty objective I’d think – but I cannot know, as I am not dead. There is naught good or bad, but thinking makes it so? No?

Of course I’m not speaking exactly of Einstein – just his notion of keeping track of reference frames, which for all I know my not have even been his notion. A “reference frame” as I referred to it above was simply mean to infer ‘perspective’, the relativity of perspectives, and their importance in analyzing the problem at hand.

That still does not imply an objective standard, or an objective perspective. As there is no means by which to not be within one’s perspective, an “objective perspective” is forever elusive. No such thing is necessary or possible. We just imagine it to be so, and gain a lot for doing so – it’s also abused when we forget we were imagining it.

- Nothing perceived -> nothing known -> existence indeterminate.

- Simply. We have things in common. What you think of as 4 is ever-so-slightly different or a LOT different depending upon the framework in which we discuss it. We both understand “a number system” and its placeholders. When I say “there were four of these”, you know what I mean because of your understanding of the number system. I know what I meant because of my understanding of the number system. These are not the same understanding, but something similar that exists in either of our perspectives. That similarity is enough to allow us to manipulate each other’s stimulus in a way that allows communication. There is ultimately no way to know exactly what was communicated. Though the words may be constant, the meaning exists independently in minds.

- Words are placeholders in our minds – framed in the structure of our subjective experiences, and the resultant conceptual inter-relationships.

The more basic the notion and the more common the stimulus, the more likely we can agree. Knowledge is subjective because it exists independently in either of the two minds.

If for instance, you were to rotate one of the two observers in question above, 180 degrees to the opposite side of the tree, the likelihood of agreement diminishes at least a smidge. Blah blah.

What do you mean by “demand”? There is no “demand” without someone “demanding”. Nothing is “demanded” without that. To a caveman surely not. To a physicist surely so.

And may I ask, by what other means can something exist in a meaningful way – besides “subjectively”

Any discussion of what “exists” from an objective perspective is necessarily subjective, as there is on means to escape a perspective from which to discuss it.

Sure, and from such analysis, we may say “assuming this, we garner this is how things seem to be”. Perhaps we can even provide a confidence level, but should note that the confidence level is wholly and utterly dependent upon the accuracy and completeness of our assumptions and the analytical tools used.

Apparently you don’t watch TV, or know anything about computer graphics? I’ve seen a lot of trees that didn’t exist.

I’ll save that for some other time.

- Necessary by what means? What exactly establishes necessity? Can it be established outside “someone deducing it to be so”? Necessity, necessarily begs the question: “to what end” – and “to what end” implies irrefutably that an end was conceived. That an end was conceived implies that it was thought. That it was thought implies that a mind was utilized. That a mind was utilized infers a fundamentally subjective premise, which of course can be rejected or agreed upon as contrasted with other minds.

Sticking with it. It’s all a big sticky ball of intellectual wax, or some other sticky something. Again the reference frame thing is just an analogy, but IMO – fundamentally important to the analysis of the essence of mind.

But as to the whole notion of "one, seamless whole" as a "default". Well, actually, no, this would not be a default. For indeterminacy of unknown empirical facts does not imply that the object is, by default, a "seamless whole" and that objects are "fictious" because of this. Rather, there'd be no default status whatsoever to unseen empirical facts, just a simple, "I do not know, I have not yet observed, nor has another."

Can you see a similarity in the notion of a “seamless whole” and indeterminacy? Please look for it and tell me what you find.

Right but it’s just an analogy and light is not particularly relevant to the analysis at hand. Relativity, subjectivity, and keeping track of what is actually happening and where, is. Further, to each his own relation to the universe “a frame” if you will. When things happen in reference frames (in either context), they can be related to other frames but you have to keep track of how things seem from each. To me this is exactly how minds are in relation to one another. Close enough anyway.

You say you’re certain of something you’ve already stated above must be indeterminate. Isn’t that contradictory? Faced with “unknown” you say “there must be”. While I admire the assertion as a very wonderfully human tendency “I know the model and as such, this must be” – it seems to me that this is indeed ego exposed. It’s a baseless assertion by the very definition thereof, is it not?

Not a problem. Miscommunication is difficult to avoid.

Yup. It’s apparently a condition that occurs naturally in the universe. When for instance we see an object of three dimension occupying space, we infer “the universe apparently allows these three degrees of freedom”. IMO, the essence of mind is the space in which is projected: “idea space”.

Always a long strange trip.

I take exception to the idea that “idea space” is created. It must exist as a degree of freedom to be occupied, no? “space” is not created. Space is the structure of the universe that can be occupied by matter. Apparently brains are a structure of matter that can occupy idea space.

It’s a semantics thing with me, I wouldn’t say it had “mind”. I’d say it had “awareness” though. I’d imagine we could find agreement if we straightened out the semantics.

Ultimately, I think there is some propensity towards awareness that is a facet of the geometry of the universe. I call that propensity “the life force”, for lack of a better term. It’s behind “the survival instinct” and evolution. It’s a missing piece of the physics puzzle. Or I’m completely full of shit. It’s all models I guess.

 

Truthseeker:

"Sort of. When you perceive the differences in your brain you are already identifying those differences. My claim is that you cannot identify something without making a comparison. I cannot look at my computer and identify it as a computer without identifying what is a "not-computer"."

In general, you are quite right. But you cannot compare differences without identification of the objects. It is a codependent phenomena. Neither exists without the other.

"No. I'm saying perception comes before you can consciously identify. You really think a baby can consciously identify everything? But would you say a baby can perceive?"

If he can perceive, he is consciously perceiving. If he does not consciously perceive, then he is not perceiving at all. To perceive demands conscious attention.

"You always have perception, regardless of your intention. "

If that were the case, we'd be aware of our sensory input 24/7. How do you make take into account day dreams, regular dreams, not listening to someone, being "lost in thought", et cetera, et cetera?

perplexity:

You failed to mention that the full quote from King Cladius stated:

Love! his affections do not that way tend;
Nor what he spake, though it lack'd form a little,
Was not like madness. There's something in his soul,
O'er which his melancholy sits on brood;
And I do doubt the hatch and the disclose
Will be some danger: which for to prevent,
I have in quick determination
Thus set it down: he shall with speed to England,
For the demand of our neglected tribute
Haply the seas and countries different
With variable objects shall expel
This something-settled matter in his heart,
Whereon his brains still beating puts him thus
From fashion of himself. What think you on't?

In essence: His mind is troubled by the settled-matter in his heart. His meloncholy - and note the language declaring it such - is to be found, though he is not mad. That is to say, he is not a lunatic, but his sadness and disturbance is profound.

Similarly, what greater insult - indicating anger rooted in sadness - can be found then his quip to Ophelia that we've referenced? This is surely a vicious statement, "for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them."

wesmorris:

"I understand. My only point of contention in the first place is that I think a valid argument could be made, from a certain perspective – that “wood” is the essence of chair. Of course, I don’t think everyone would accept it, as everyone has at least a slightly different perspective of the word."

Considering it has all ready established flaws, I would not share this conviction. That is to say, a conception of essence would have to encapsulate all things regarding the chair, and clearly wood does not. Wood would only be the "prime historical material".

"Actually that’s a pretty interesting question. My first instinct is to rebut thistle: How is a chair defined? Is it defined by its function? Would all occurrences of the alien version of the term be equal to the earthly term? I would say that though there may be places for alien asses to rest under the weight of their bodies, “chairs” only exist on earth. On an alien world they’d be “beezleflogs” or something. Now, just because the word changes in this case, hmm… yeah we get into object/class/group analysis, maybe “sets” and stuff. Didn’t you start an interesting thread on that once?"

On universals? Yes. The discussion didn't pan out that well, though. That is to say, it was short lived and only had minor input, mostly from myself and Quantum Quack exchanging a few ideas and the like.

But hmmm. Maybe this is time for another discussion?

Yeah, I think I'll start a thread on that after I respond to this...

"The physical chair in front of you is not, but the reflection of it in the mind of its craftsman may well be. As such to him, what comprises a chair in a meaningful way, rather that the shallowness of the particular materials of the particular chair…"

Yet even the history of a chair would have to speak of the objects in question, that is ,chairs themselves. That is, the characteristics which make them chair, which consist in chairhood, would have to be taken into account, in order that it might have a history.

"I do not think that to be true at all. Honest people may do so, but not all people are so. I think we could say however that we necessarily look for what is most utilitarian to our perceived circumstance at the time of the looking, and that the looking itself is also obscuring."

If someone recognizes falsehood, yet still goes on that course, this is only a rejection, not a denial, of the truth. In fact, in order for him to be so "dishonestly deceived", he must recognize the truth and simply choose other courses of action for other reasons - pragmatism, utilitarianism, or what have you - and thus disregard the truth in the process. However, even he would know the truth of the matter, and in fact, it is necessary for his denial.

It is a curious aspect of liars that they are always in possession of the truth.

It is also worthy to note that if we can be convinced of the "greater utilitarian and pragmatic aspects of another belief" that our beliefs aren't subjective fully, for in evaluating them on an over-reaching principle of utility and pragmatic courses of action, we are mimicing a truly objective system and, even if it is not objective in a strong sense, it shares the universal applicability of objective analysis.

"I see. Okay first – an object’s properties are part of the object. We can only know of our impression of those properties. We may even agree on them. IMO, it’s absolutely imperative to remember this at all times in a conversation on the topic at hand. Of course you may disagree…"

A bit of clarification is in order: Are you implying that our impressions are necessarily different in part from the actual object's properties?

"If one’s former opinion was subjective, that one now believes one new viewpoint to be objective does not maybe it so in the slightest. It’s not that it “could still be subjective” – it’s that it is necessarily always subjective by the nature of its existence. There is no objective standard by which to compare one’s perspective such that they may tout “my perspective is objective”. IMO, it is necessary by the relationship of a perspective to its environment that the opportunity cost of having a perspective (being a point of view) is that you cannot be objective. Objectivity is like absolute zero in the sense that you can never attain it. Well, death is pretty objective I’d think – but I cannot know, as I am not dead. There is naught good or bad, but thinking makes it so? No?"

I would disagree.

That we are privy to privy perception as individual beings and thus gifted with a viewpoint, does not imply a necessary subjectivity to all things. Objectivity is to be found most assuredly in truths which cannot be denied - various first principles such as the Law of Identity and various other philosophical/logical laws - and also in unprejudiced evaluation and investigation. Let us contrast two examples of the latter form of investigation. One subjective and one objective:

Subjective: I gander up to the sky and see a flat, white disk, pock-marked by patches of grey. This disk is a monthly phenomena, whereas on successive nights it narrows down by slivers until it leaves but a hole in the sky where it ought to be, only to be renewed from out from its shadow. It is not as big as my thumb, but its light blankets the totality of the land when full, and less so when not.

I also fancy it is made of cheese.

Objective: An object much as described in the previous paragraph is seen in the night's sky, but in contrast to it, the moon is in fact a spheroid object more than a hundred thousand miles distant, about the third of the diametre of the Earth, and is one of many celestial objects in the solar system, and one of dozens of moons, though it is one of the greatest examples of such. It moves according to gravitation, causes the tides, and was likely formed not soon after the Earth was. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It is assuredly made of rocks.

In essence: One moves out of one's conjectures and instead attempts to look at the object and figure it out from there, one is on the road to objectivity. However, even subjectivity is somewhat related on this, as one must first be aware of the object, and even when one conjectures, one is attempting to match it with the observed data. That is to say, nothing fully subjective is to be found, but in total disregard to the object, and in fact, that is hardly possible at all.

One will also note that objective statements transcend individuals. That is to say, an objective statement will be agreed, with little controversy, betwixt more than one individual. Repeatability is very important in science, which attempts to make declarations of objective empirial analysis, and it is when such is found to be the case that we know we have at least approached the truth.

Protagoras proclaimed that "man is the measure of all things". I disagree. Man is but the measurer.

"Of course I’m not speaking exactly of Einstein – just his notion of keeping track of reference frames, which for all I know my not have even been his notion. A “reference frame” as I referred to it above was simply mean to infer ‘perspective’, the relativity of perspectives, and their importance in analyzing the problem at hand."

See above, then. And thanks for the clarification.

"That still does not imply an objective standard, or an objective perspective. As there is no means by which to not be within one’s perspective, an “objective perspective” is forever elusive. No such thing is necessary or possible. We just imagine it to be so, and gain a lot for doing so – it’s also abused when we forget we were imagining it."

An objective standard is not to be found in an evaluation of the thing itself? An attempt to seek out what the thing is by making recourse to it and not oneself?

"- Nothing perceived -> nothing known -> existence indeterminate."

But this is an epistemological not an ontological property, yes? You are not claiming that the unperceived tree has caught "Schrodinger's Disease", yes?

"- Simply. We have things in common. What you think of as 4 is ever-so-slightly different or a LOT different depending upon the framework in which we discuss it. We both understand “a number system” and its placeholders. When I say “there were four of these”, you know what I mean because of your understanding of the number system. I know what I meant because of my understanding of the number system. These are not the same understanding, but something similar that exists in either of our perspectives. That similarity is enough to allow us to manipulate each other’s stimulus in a way that allows communication. There is ultimately no way to know exactly what was communicated. Though the words may be constant, the meaning exists independently in minds.

- Words are placeholders in our minds – framed in the structure of our subjective experiences, and the resultant conceptual inter-relationships."

You are correct in saying that the meaning of every word, every concept, et cetera, exists in distinct minds, but the fact that language both demands mutual intelligibility, that language is more than simply a personal phenomena, but a social one, and that meaning is indeed conveyed, and meaning can even be sharpened if there is a degree of ambiguity, all demand not only a similarity, but a virtual sameness of comprehension. When we speak of something such as "four", neither you, nor I, can possibly think of anything different but "four". Even if we speak different languages, our "four" and our "shi" (Japanese for four) correspond to one another in content. It is only where language is ambigious, that different meanings for the same word are found.

"The more basic the notion and the more common the stimulus, the more likely we can agree. Knowledge is subjective because it exists independently in either of the two minds.

If for instance, you were to rotate one of the two observers in question above, 180 degrees to the opposite side of the tree, the likelihood of agreement diminishes at least a smidge. Blah blah."

Indeed, one would have to take into consideration the distinctness of perception, but that itself could be remedied, by switching the observers and allowing them to evaluate it from opposite angles.

"What do you mean by “demand”? There is no “demand” without someone “demanding”. Nothing is “demanded” without that. To a caveman surely not. To a physicist surely so."

So you are proclaiming that a caveman's ignorance is on par with a scientist's knowledge? And by demand, I meant "it is necessitated by the physical object that it should be composed by its constituent parts so arranged in the established patterns of natural laws regarding atomic, molecular, and compound structures". That is to say, a rock demands the existence of carbon and silicon atoms, by virtue the this is the way it is made up.

"And may I ask, by what other means can something exist in a meaningful way – besides “subjectively”"

Meaningfully to an agent? No way. Meaningfully to itself? By simply being. That is to say, an object need not exist in any perceiver's mind, in order to be and to exist just as real as something found in many observer's minds.

"Sure, and from such analysis, we may say “assuming this, we garner this is how things seem to be”. Perhaps we can even provide a confidence level, but should note that the confidence level is wholly and utterly dependent upon the accuracy and completeness of our assumptions and the analytical tools used."

There are certain tools without limitation. Rational analysis is one such thing. Rational analysis demonstrates and proves that things must have causes, in one way or another. Therefore, sensory-objects have causes and these causes, no matter what they are, exist apart from the sensing in a real way.

"Apparently you don’t watch TV, or know anything about computer graphics? I’ve seen a lot of trees that didn’t exist."

No, you've seen simulations of trees which "do not exist". A simulation is an image in the likeness of such a thing.

"- Necessary by what means? What exactly establishes necessity? Can it be established outside “someone deducing it to be so”? Necessity, necessarily begs the question: “to what end” – and “to what end” implies irrefutably that an end was conceived. That an end was conceived implies that it was thought. That it was thought implies that a mind was utilized. That a mind was utilized infers a fundamentally subjective premise, which of course can be rejected or agreed upon as contrasted with other minds."

Necessity is established by a two tier process: 1. The determination that its opposite affirms its own absurdity and the necessity of the necessary-truth in question. 2. That the necessary-truth stands on its own as non-absurd and necessary.

And can it be established without "someone deducing it to be so"? No. One could not speak of it without first figuring it out. That being said, the process of figuring it out first demands its existence. That it is the necessity of the truth -before- evaluation, -before- establishment, -before- consideration, is what is being found. Found and not created. That is another crucial aspect of necessary truth: All necessary truth is found and not created.

"Can you see a similarity in the notion of a “seamless whole” and indeterminacy? Please look for it and tell me what you find."

Only in the sense that indeterminacy would prevail without distinction. "Here be dragons" would be in that sense, all where "terra incognita" prevails. But even to speak of "indeterminacy" implies something beyond "ignorance". Ignorance of all things would be the best determination of such.

"Right but it’s just an analogy and light is not particularly relevant to the analysis at hand. Relativity, subjectivity, and keeping track of what is actually happening and where, is. Further, to each his own relation to the universe “a frame” if you will. When things happen in reference frames (in either context), they can be related to other frames but you have to keep track of how things seem from each. To me this is exactly how minds are in relation to one another. Close enough anyway."

As we're discussing this above, I won't respond to this exactly.

"You say you’re certain of something you’ve already stated above must be indeterminate. Isn’t that contradictory? Faced with “unknown” you say “there must be”. While I admire the assertion as a very wonderfully human tendency “I know the model and as such, this must be” – it seems to me that this is indeed ego exposed. It’s a baseless assertion by the very definition thereof, is it not?"

I only proclaimed that the particulars are unknown to us when not experienced, not that there'd be particulars. That is to say, whereas I cannot tell you the features of Mars, I can tell you that they exist. In fact, to be aware of indeterminacy, is to be aware of an existence, just not the precise details of such. Moreover, I can tell you of necessary truths, which demand that things would be precisely the same as they are, excluding all instances of conscious beings, which would mean yes, a different world, but not so different.

In essence: Quite contrary to being baseless, it is the most "baseful" of all things.

"Yup. It’s apparently a condition that occurs naturally in the universe. When for instance we see an object of three dimension occupying space, we infer “the universe apparently allows these three degrees of freedom”. IMO, the essence of mind is the space in which is projected: “idea space”."

I agree: Conscousness, like any phenomena, is a natural condition that occurs in the universe.

"I take exception to the idea that “idea space” is created. It must exist as a degree of freedom to be occupied, no? “space” is not created. Space is the structure of the universe that can be occupied by matter. Apparently brains are a structure of matter that can occupy idea space."

An interesting viewpoint. So you think that in some ways, brains are, let us say, "gateways" to a fourth dimension of consciousness, for lack of better phrasing?

"It’s a semantics thing with me, I wouldn’t say it had “mind”. I’d say it had “awareness” though. I’d imagine we could find agreement if we straightened out the semantics."

Where would you draw the distinction betwixt "awareness" and "mind"?

"Ultimately, I think there is some propensity towards awareness that is a facet of the geometry of the universe. I call that propensity “the life force”, for lack of a better term. It’s behind “the survival instinct” and evolution. It’s a missing piece of the physics puzzle. Or I’m completely full of shit. It’s all models I guess. "

So you think life may be mroe than simply a relation of lifeless matter?

 

By the arguments provided above, lifeless matter is by definitition, utterly meaingless. It has no inherent meaning of its own unless it is self-aware.

Therefore, since meaning exists, life is more than "the relation of lifeless matter".

I do tend to think of it as a "gateway to a fourth dimension" sometimes, but I don't like how crackpottish it sounds when it occurs to me. It actually annoys me to some degree, but I cannot escape that it is apparent to me that it is analagous to that. I think of it as "the internal degree of freedom". "self reference", "meanng", "the abstract", "idea space" - all different ways of referring to the same universal potential.

 

Perplexity:

"The play is a study of demoralisation, not despair."

Such a descent into nihilism is generally a symptom of despair. Few happy people become bitterly nihilistic.

"I have read that babies begin with everything confused: They see sounds and hear light, and then they gradually learn to sort it all out, and the phenomenon of adult synaesthesia is the result of an incomplete process of perceptual maturity."

Though I was actually quoting TimeTraveller in what this was a response with, thank you for sharing that. That is quite interesting, really.

 

Wesmorris:

"By the arguments provided above, lifeless matter is by definitition, utterly meaingless. It has no inherent meaning of its own unless it is self-aware.

Therefore, since meaning exists, life is more than "the relation of lifeless matter"."

Yet are you saying that everything has this life force, or only that things which are alive do? That is, is this a property that manifests in certain situations, or something waiting in all things?

"I do tend to think of it as a "gateway to a fourth dimension" sometimes, but I don't like how crackpottish it sounds when it occurs to me. It actually annoys me to some degree, but I cannot escape that it is apparent to me that it is analagous to that. I think of it as "the internal degree of freedom". "self reference", "meanng", "the abstract", "idea space" - all different ways of referring to the same universal potential. "

Question: In this idea space, do the minds of people comprise entities? That is to say, is the "self" essentially a phenomena of this idea space interacting in "physical space" through the medium of the brain? Or is idea space the tablet upon which the mind writes and we perceive inwardly?

 

I think of it like "branes". "life" is the condition where a "3 brane" becomes a "4 brane" so to speak. Humans are the most developed of this condition of which I'm aware, assuming of course that my analysis is at all relevant to reality.

I'm not sure how those are different.

 

Wesmorris:

"I think of it like "branes". "life" is the condition where a "3 brane" becomes a "4 brane" so to speak. Humans are the most developed of this condition of which I'm aware, assuming of course that my analysis is at all relevant to reality."

So that lifeforms have an extra dimension of movement - interior to itself - when compared to matter containing no life, such as rocks and such, which are purely three dimensional?

"I'm not sure how those are different."

Here is how I would see the difference:

Entity in Idea Space: Similar to the concept of the soul. The mind is an object existent in a space - differentiated from others or not - which, owing to its construction from idea space, is capable of thought, action, and other such things. The brain and nervous system represent a connection to this palne within which this idea-space entity interacts with the body. Theoretically, this could also allow for reincarnation, as it is possible that new dimension would not cease to exist if the constituent parts of its third dimensional body died.

Idea space as a Tablet: The mind and the body are one, only that the brain specifically has access to idea space, which allows its capacities for information processing, imagination, an internal viewpoint, et cetera, by all such things occuring in idea space and then being "translated" for usage in the third dimension.

 

That's sounds close enough I guess. Well, there's 3 dimensions and time, which I think of really as "the backbone" or "hub" of whatever degrees of freedom exist in space-time (time that is).

Oh and now I'm really unsure as to my usage of the term "brane". I think that might be right. Need to look it up. What I meant by a "3-brane" would be like "an object that is confined/defined in 3 degrees of freedom, in a system of like n of those or something.

I would say that the other dimension exists in the same space-time as a rock and such, but the rock doesn't utilize it in a meaningful way.

I've theorized that this is also the "dimension" in which position hides while velocity is measured, or whicher two count in that indeterninacy thing. Not sure if any of it really makes sense though.

Well see that's just it. I've had an experience that conveys personal evidence to me that there can exist entities of only 'idea space'. Technically I'd say this would mean memes are facets of that space. My experience there (completely in my mind, mind you) was entities of intelligence though. So it seems to me that the idea of the soul is pertinent, and would be "an intelligent entity in idea space". "intelligence" doesn't really cut it though, as every single human term is bourne of "time" from the way we tend to model it. Intelligence is timed based. While idea space, like all other aspects of the universe, requires time - the view of it from there would necessarily be so different as to be extremely difficult if not impossible to envision. Perhaps if we look to dreams and the way time seems there for a vague reference. Dunno.

Generally though I tend to think of it as the latter of your offerings.

 

I forgot I owe a post up there. I'll get to it.

 

You are stuck with consideration of “the chair” as in the ontological thing. IMO, the ontological thing is not a chair at all, but just part of the Tao. We construct ideas about the things we encounter or build, but they have no ideas of themselves. A chair does not scream “I’m a chair! Appreciate that!”. A chair is just some blob of stuff that happens or was designed to be a place to rest thine ass. The idea of chair is applicable and utilitarian, the ontological something of the chair exists – but they are not the same. One is a reference to something of utility, and the other is the object itself which – of itself, has no name.

I’m talking about “chair” the idea. Many different things comprise ideas in minds. That of a craftsman would be particularly robust, but perhaps “heavy” on a particular aspect like “wood”, which is impressed upon his psyche more so than most due to his huge volume of direct experience with it. Thus, in his body of experience… in his frame of relation to his environment, “wood” could indeed be “the essence of chair”. There can be no flaw in that, as to say so is to invalidate a body of experience you do not share. Still you may not agree and as such, from your frame of relation you’d also be without flaw. I might even agree that your analysis is superior, but neither our agreement nor independent considerations “trump” any of the others unless we can pursuade one another.

This is likely to be in line of the argument we’ll have over universals (please post a link btw if you started that thread). “a chair” is a sample. Could be the individual in question has seen not but wooden chairs his whole life and has not really conceived of anything beyond that scope. 1000 years ago, “wood” might have been the most popular answer, perhaps. I’m just saying, you’re demanding something that is impossible, IMO… that is consideration of the set of all chairs, which in and of themselves are a convention -

Hmm. The one I was thinking about had to do with a car. Maybe it wasn’t the same thing.

Linkage?

But this scope is necessarily limited by the body of experience of whom is answering the question. Of course that can change at any time. You could even perhaps convince him his consideration is too limited. Then again maybe you couldn’t.

But again chairhood is a very abstract thing, varying in inclusiveness from mind to mind. Most of the time it’s not even defined until questioned.

I don’t think I agree, but that’s another topic altogether. I think that may be truth for the first departure thereof, but in indulging such a lie – one creates filters through which they are supported and becomes insulated from facing whatever it is they avoid.

If you would be so kind as to attempt a rephrasing there, I’d appreciate it. I do not understand how “mimicking objective systems” is objective, or how there can be a “strong sense” or “weak sense” of objectivity. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “over-reaching” either. IMO, it’s simpler. If you choose a course of action that allows survival as you see it, utility is validated. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say.

No not at all. I’m just saying there’s no way to objectively know of they weren’t… and perhaps more importantly, I’m accounting for perspective. Two people standing and viewing the same object garner independent, though likely overlapping experiences – each from a slightly different angle.

Imagine the mind is a lens of sorts. Experience and propensity shape the lens. Data from the senses is “lensed” upon entry, twisting and contorting it to fit within the ongoing schema. No two lenses are exactly the same shapes. We can hypothesize that some of these “lenses” are more “objective” than others, but it cannot be verified, as we cannot escape our minds to verify that our minds certainly aren’t playing tricks. All we can really do is say “hey I’m still here so something’s working-ish, kind of, at least, maybe”. Blah.

Of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We probably wouldn’t have much to talk about had you not.

We are not “gifted with a viewpoint” per se; we are the viewpoint.

Subjectivity is in the “angle from which we see”, as it is necessarily shaped by the lens through which it passes. It’s in the body of experience and initial propensity shaping the lens of mind.

You didn’t read that short story by Lewis Carol about Archimedes and the tortoise? Any “truth” can be denied. Stating otherwise is pure ego. It’s as much so as one who would reject such a “law” based purely on the principle that they can. Identity is a matter of acceptance, of faith. If you accept A for A, then it can be a true statement. If you do not, then all bets are off – there is no “truth” to be found. A does not exist. I’m just saying. Generally speaking I accept the “law of identity”, however – it’s only such because we empower it. Depending on how you look at it, logic doesn’t really exist anyway. I enjoy the utility and puzzlement of logic, so I allow its existence. Another long conversation for another thread I suspect.

Rather than go on and on here, I’ll cut to the chase, as this may well answer the question without having to spew thousands of words… we’ll see:

Indeed you are correct, as my entire argument and all arguments ever produced are IMO, purely epistemological. Discussions of the ontological are necessarily epistemological, as they discuss models from data. It’s all ideas. We talk in and about ideas. There is no recourse. We can “project” as if we are not, but “projection” is still ideas. It’s “fake”. It’s a pattern in one’s mind. Note that I do not scoff at such things and find them of high personal and social value, but to me it’s important to keep it straight if we’re to truly understand the secrets of mind. In discussion of a thing, ideas are all we have. Of course we can resource to making things physical, like bashing in each other’s skulls to stop the ideas in one of the other all-together, but I’d rather not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Note you had to qualify “virtual”. That’s all I’m saying really. It’s “virtual”. It is not the same. I said “ever so slightly” damnit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Regardless of all that, the lens thing still applies, which changes things more drastically the “more abstract” it is.

Hehe, but minds are generally ambiguous. “four” does not exist in a vacuum in one’s mind. It’s not alone. It leads places. It is contextual, like the rest of mind. My youngest is four. I have four members of my family. Blah blah. “four” in my mind means something slightly different than in any one else’s mind, and the same for each instance of mind.

It could never be exactly remedied, as the mind itself shapes the stimulus to suit its preconception, however slight we might consciously thing it is.

The answer to that would depend on who you asked. To a caveman, his “knowledge” however apparently limited by the scientist’s standard – works for him. Vice – versa and such. I see no objective standard to gauge either as any more valuable than the other, as value is a subjective thing.

Go back in time 5 centuries and see if a rock “demands” the existence of carbon and silicon atoms. Get back with me on that one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As far as I can tell, there is no “self” for which a rock may mean something to “itself”. As such, implicit to the term “meaning” is “to whom”.

But there is nothing “real” about something found in many observers’ minds. There are just ideas about things that might or might not be real. I do not dispute the existence of say, the sun, prior to the existence of my birth. I would say however, that until that event – from my frame of relation it was utterly meaningless, as I had no frame of reference by which to grant it meaning.

So your assertion is that “rational analysis” has absolutely no limitation? That seems like a patently false and silly thing to say. What might be the bane of rational analysis, any ideas? I can’t seem to think of one. Hmm. Damn I guess my analysis is through. I wonder if I forgot something.

I thought I saw a tree. A good enough simulation leaves me ignorant as to what I really saw.

And you see no room for objection in any case of necessity? Remember we can really only talk of models, and quite often we’re contrasting the merits of multiple models. What is necessary in one model may be ridiculous or superfluous in another.

Actually it really only demands the perception of its existence – just to keep the record straight. What if for instance, it was just a simulation?

Truth is a statement as to the status of ideas. All ideas are created by minds.

So it isn’t fair to say, “that of which we are wholly ignorant cannot possibly be determined”?

Surely you can see how that appears highly contradictory to me? Ignorance of all things determines jack squat, and says nothing at all of the “status of all things”.

Fair enough. Regardless as to whether we end up “Seeing Eye to eye” I enjoy the exchange here. It’s interesting to contrast perspectives.

But if we’re speaking of “that which is known” and its complement, we can label the complement as “indeterminate” by your explanation above right? I know there are trees I’ve never seen…

You’re just telling me your model, which may or may not be correct. I could tell you mine too. It might be correct. We might both be wrong. We can’t ever really know for sure. Well, you seem to think differently.

Hmm. I do suppose ego is the basis of all ideas, so yeah maybe you’re onto something there.

Couldn’t be otherwise as far as I see it.

I think I covered this in a post above. Lemme know if you need clarification.

Well as I see it, awareness is the raw deal. It’s the raw resultant of an instance of a point of view. It is the raw potential for “self”. Mind on the other hand, is “self realized” at least to some degree, and is the result of some form of self-awareness – even if ever so slight. I don’t think we are the only species with minds, but only a few others seem (as far as I know) to qualify in general. Chimps, Apes, and Dolphins come to mind. I dunno, just giving you the gist.

 

wesmorris:

Woo, big reply up ahead.

"That's sounds close enough I guess. Well, there's 3 dimensions and time, which I think of really as "the backbone" or "hub" of whatever degrees of freedom exist in space-time (time that is)."

Yes, as even the "idea-space" dimension, must act (outside of activity internal to it) within the normal 3+1 dimensions.

"Oh and now I'm really unsure as to my usage of the term "brane". I think that might be right. Need to look it up. What I meant by a "3-brane" would be like "an object that is confined/defined in 3 degrees of freedom, in a system of like n of those or something."

I grasped what you meant, even though yes, brane is a bit different than what you were going for.

"I would say that the other dimension exists in the same space-time as a rock and such, but the rock doesn't utilize it in a meaningful way."

Oh? So this idea-space is common to all things, just only living things can access it meaningfully?

"I've theorized that this is also the "dimension" in which position hides while velocity is measured, or whicher two count in that indeterninacy thing. Not sure if any of it really makes sense though. "

So you explain the Uncertainty Principle through that?

"Well see that's just it. I've had an experience that conveys personal evidence to me that there can exist entities of only 'idea space'."

Ghosts?

"Technically I'd say this would mean memes are facets of that space."

In what way? In that they are "information viruses" that spread?

"My experience there (completely in my mind, mind you) was entities of intelligence though. So it seems to me that the idea of the soul is pertinent, and would be "an intelligent entity in idea space". "

So an incorporeal essence of intelligence? Yeah, that does indeed sound like a soul. Tell me more?

""intelligence" doesn't really cut it though, as every single human term is bourne of "time" from the way we tend to model it. Intelligence is timed based. While idea space, like all other aspects of the universe, requires time - the view of it from there would necessarily be so different as to be extremely difficult if not impossible to envision. Perhaps if we look to dreams and the way time seems there for a vague reference. Dunno."

How do you imagine time is different there?

"You are stuck with consideration of “the chair” as in the ontological thing. IMO, the ontological thing is not a chair at all, but just part of the Tao. We construct ideas about the things we encounter or build, but they have no ideas of themselves. A chair does not scream “I’m a chair! Appreciate that!”. A chair is just some blob of stuff that happens or was designed to be a place to rest thine ass. The idea of chair is applicable and utilitarian, the ontological something of the chair exists – but they are not the same. One is a reference to something of utility, and the other is the object itself which – of itself, has no name."

Even if we take the chair, a "blob of matter", we also have to consider not just its building material, but also its relational form. That is to say, if "wood" would be the essence of a wooden chair, if we cut up the wood and used it to build something else, would we still have a chair? Certainly not, no? Therefore, even in such consideration of nominal v. universal, we'd have to concede that the building material could not be considered the essence.

That being said, I would also challenge the idea of nominal things being distinct from their universals and such definitions being only arbitrary. See my thread a few weeks ago about universals. I think it is still on the main page.

"I’m talking about “chair” the idea. Many different things comprise ideas in minds. That of a craftsman would be particularly robust, but perhaps “heavy” on a particular aspect like “wood”, which is impressed upon his psyche more so than most due to his huge volume of direct experience with it. Thus, in his body of experience… in his frame of relation to his environment, “wood” could indeed be “the essence of chair”. There can be no flaw in that, as to say so is to invalidate a body of experience you do not share. Still you may not agree and as such, from your frame of relation you’d also be without flaw. I might even agree that your analysis is superior, but neither our agreement nor independent considerations “trump” any of the others unless we can pursuade one another."

Does persuasion, however, equate to truth?

Needless to say, one cannot shovel the truth down someone's throat, but if we accept certain degrees of philosophical rigour to make a greater definition, then it would stand to reason that one's viewpoint isn't necessarily right because of "it's one's viewpoint", and in fact, can often be wrong.

"This is likely to be in line of the argument we’ll have over universals (please post a link btw if you started that thread). “a chair” is a sample. Could be the individual in question has seen not but wooden chairs his whole life and has not really conceived of anything beyond that scope. 1000 years ago, “wood” might have been the most popular answer, perhaps. I’m just saying, you’re demanding something that is impossible, IMO… that is consideration of the set of all chairs, which in and of themselves are a convention - "

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57477 - New conversation I started, in regards to the aliens and chairs and such.

Old conversation on certain considerations of universals from a metaphysical foundation in possibility: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56503

And is it really necessary to look over all chairs in order to determine some, or a partial aspect of, what makes a "chair a chair"? For it stands to reason that if we can have a universal, we might not need to know all members of said universal in order to understand the universal as itself. What one would need is only an investigation into said universal. Detailing it, considering it, et cetera, et cetera. Why do we draw conclusions that two objects share a larger category?

"Hmm. The one I was thinking about had to do with a car. Maybe it wasn’t the same thing."

I'm trying to think of that one. I seem to recall it.

Wait: Was it the one with identity? If you replaced all aspects of a ship with another part over time, would it be the same ship?

"But this scope is necessarily limited by the body of experience of whom is answering the question. Of course that can change at any time. You could even perhaps convince him his consideration is too limited. Then again maybe you couldn’t."

Even if one could not, would this necessarily prove anything?

"But again chairhood is a very abstract thing, varying in inclusiveness from mind to mind. Most of the time it’s not even defined until questioned.

You are correct in stating it is not really defined. Universals tend to have an intuitive character that is frustratingly difficult to overcome in order to have a philosophic and rational perspective on things.

"I don’t think I agree, but that’s another topic altogether. I think that may be truth for the first departure thereof, but in indulging such a lie – one creates filters through which they are supported and becomes insulated from facing whatever it is they avoid."

The "Gollum Syndrome" as it were?

"My birthday present!"

"If you would be so kind as to attempt a rephrasing there, I’d appreciate it. I do not understand how “mimicking objective systems” is objective, or how there can be a “strong sense” or “weak sense” of objectivity. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “over-reaching” either. IMO, it’s simpler. If you choose a course of action that allows survival as you see it, utility is validated. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say."

Gladly.

What I mean is this:

Organizing one's evaluations according to a principle is "a step away from the subjective", because one is enshrining a benchmark that is not one's personal evaluation in an arbitrary way. For instance, instead of eating the strawberry icecream before one's supper because one likes strawberry icecream, a pragmatist might see how impractical this is in regards to the meal that is to follow, and thus regulates his passions according to the principle of "indulge later" as discerned from his pragmatic focus. This can be construed as "objective in the weak sense", in that the decisions are not fully subjective, as they are according to something else. Objective in a strong sense is when one conforms a belief or, potentially, an action with reality as it can be discerned, either empirically or logically.

"No not at all. I’m just saying there’s no way to objectively know of they weren’t… and perhaps more importantly, I’m accounting for perspective. Two people standing and viewing the same object garner independent, though likely overlapping experiences – each from a slightly different angle."

If we switched the angle, would not they agree upon the object then? Similarly, if our representations are not accurate within an extreme level of accuracy, how can we interact with such things?

"Imagine the mind is a lens of sorts. Experience and propensity shape the lens. Data from the senses is “lensed” upon entry, twisting and contorting it to fit within the ongoing schema. No two lenses are exactly the same shapes. We can hypothesize that some of these “lenses” are more “objective” than others, but it cannot be verified, as we cannot escape our minds to verify that our minds certainly aren’t playing tricks. All we can really do is say “hey I’m still here so something’s working-ish, kind of, at least, maybe”. Blah."

If the accuracy was anything less than 99 percent, it is hard to envision how life could even work. Would we not even have an evolutionary advantage in having extremely accurate, reality-connecting, senses?

"We are not “gifted with a viewpoint” per se; we are the viewpoint."

Well my argument hinges on other beliefs, thus I shall obviously disagree when we get to such things.

"Subjectivity is in the “angle from which we see”, as it is necessarily shaped by the lens through which it passes. It’s in the body of experience and initial propensity shaping the lens of mind."

I will grant that we have a subjective viewpoint in part. The other part is the ability to "transcend this".

"You didn’t read that short story by Lewis Carol about Archimedes and the tortoise? Any “truth” can be denied."

...

This is getting far too freaky. This is at least the dozenth time that I read or think of something, and it comes up hours or days later.

But actually, Lewis Carroll's story about Achilles and the Tortoise was fatally flawed as it did not take into consideration that the third portion of the Euclid's axiom is indeed dependent on the first two and if evaluated from the truth of the first, -must- be met.

To more simply put it:

1. If A = B.
2. And B = C.
3. Then A = C.

Now the tortoise would say "but why can't I deny the third"?

Well quite precisely: Because in denying the third, you deny the second, which the tortoise had all ready conceded such. That is to say, in order for B = C, one has to take into consideration the equality of A = B, for thus is the nature of B. Therefore, A = C is necessitated, if A = B. B and A thus being the same. Moreover, to deny that equality exists, demands that one abandon even objection to what is being said, as one's foundation of the sentence being untruthful depends upon its equality with the truth.

"Identity is a matter of acceptance, of faith. If you accept A for A, then it can be a true statement. If you do not, then all bets are off – there is no “truth” to be found."

The fact is: You really can't deny identity. You can attempt to, but the denial hinges upon identity itself. That is another prime aspect of the first principles: Denial of them demands denial of one's denial, or acceptance.

"A does not exist. I’m just saying. Generally speaking I accept the “law of identity”, however – it’s only such because we empower it. Depending on how you look at it, logic doesn’t really exist anyway. I enjoy the utility and puzzlement of logic, so I allow its existence. Another long conversation for another thread I suspect."

We could have a long. Long. LONGGG discussion on that, yes.

We should one time, but not now.

"Rather than go on and on here, I’ll cut to the chase, as this may well answer the question without having to spew thousands of words… we’ll see:"

Sure thing.

"Indeed you are correct, as my entire argument and all arguments ever produced are IMO, purely epistemological. Discussions of the ontological are necessarily epistemological, as they discuss models from data. It’s all ideas. We talk in and about ideas. There is no recourse. We can “project” as if we are not, but “projection” is still ideas. It’s “fake”. It’s a pattern in one’s mind. Note that I do not scoff at such things and find them of high personal and social value, but to me it’s important to keep it straight if we’re to truly understand the secrets of mind. In discussion of a thing, ideas are all we have. Of course we can resource to making things physical, like bashing in each other’s skulls to stop the ideas in one of the other all-together, but I’d rather not."

So you then do not see a distinction betwixt epistemological and ontological entities, as it were? That is to say, because we're always dealing with them in the mind, fundamentally all ontological things are actually epistemological?

"Note you had to qualify “virtual”. That’s all I’m saying really. It’s “virtual”. It is not the same. I said “ever so slightly” damnit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Regardless of all that, the lens thing still applies, which changes things more drastically the “more abstract” it is."

I only say virtual, as I cannot commit to 100 percent correlation, as people can be mistaken on eachother's meanings. However, when people are not mistaken on eachother's meanings, the idea is completely and 100 percent connected. If I say "John Doe is a nice guy", and you and I know who John Doe is, then you and I have 100 percent the same idea. That is to say, the person whom we are referencing, no matter how we feel about him, is known to us as to whom we are discussing.

"Hehe, but minds are generally ambiguous. “four” does not exist in a vacuum in one’s mind. It’s not alone. It leads places. It is contextual, like the rest of mind. My youngest is four. I have four members of my family. Blah blah. “four” in my mind means something slightly different than in any one else’s mind, and the same for each instance of mind."

It is indeed not alone, but consider that the very notion of four demands a singular definition. If your youngst member is four years of age, and you have four members of your family, both concepts, despite being real examples of "things which are four", respond back to the concept of "four". If one says "4", no matter if one's connections to "4" are different, one must agree that it is "4".

"It could never be exactly remedied, as the mind itself shapes the stimulus to suit its preconception, however slight we might consciously thing it is. "

In what way does the mind do this? Also, if the mind is capable of this, is it not capable of objectivity? If it is capable of warping things subjectively, then if one's subjective wish is objectivity, it seems to imply that the mind can reach that.

"The answer to that would depend on who you asked. To a caveman, his “knowledge” however apparently limited by the scientist’s standard – works for him. Vice – versa and such. I see no objective standard to gauge either as any more valuable than the other, as value is a subjective thing. "

If knowledge can be quantified, surely one can claim a superiority of one over the other, no?

"Go back in time 5 centuries and see if a rock “demands” the existence of carbon and silicon atoms. Get back with me on that one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"

A rock was always made of such, even if we did not know so. I am not here saying that "demand" means "we demand it to be so", but that if the object were not composed of such, it would not exist.

It does not stand to reason that a rock was made of something else when we said it was made of something else.

"As far as I can tell, there is no “self” for which a rock may mean something to “itself”. As such, implicit to the term “meaning” is “to whom”."

What I had meant is that if the rock were sentient, it had meaning to "itself". Or rather, that if we were to devorce our meaning to it, the thing would not have to have meaning in our sense to exist. In fact, to simply exist is to do that: Simply exist.

Or meaning is irrelevant to reality. Things are.

"But there is nothing “real” about something found in many observers’ minds. There are just ideas about things that might or might not be real. I do not dispute the existence of say, the sun, prior to the existence of my birth. I would say however, that until that event – from my frame of relation it was utterly meaningless, as I had no frame of reference by which to grant it meaning."

It was indeed utterly meaningless to you in a direct sense (though without it you would never have come to be to be able to have meaning whatsoever) and indeed, anything outside our experience is meaningless to us before it is found. I agree with you there.

Moreover, you are correct. The things in our mind are just ideas. They do not necessarily correspond to outside realities. However, objectie things do.

"So your assertion is that “rational analysis” has absolutely no limitation? That seems like a patently false and silly thing to say. What might be the bane of rational analysis, any ideas? I can’t seem to think of one. Hmm. Damn I guess my analysis is through. I wonder if I forgot something."

Ha ha! I love that response. Very good, Wes. That was funny.

But back to seriousness:

Rational analysis can have false premises. I do not disregard this. But the only way to discern proper premises is reasoning, and when one is being objective, one can indeed reach all premises.

"I thought I saw a tree. A good enough simulation leaves me ignorant as to what I really saw."

This is another interesting thing we can discuss in regards to universals. Do facsimilies count as part of the universals?

But you would agree that a visual image on a screen of a tree is a bit different a tree present before one's eyes in a real field?

"And you see no room for objection in any case of necessity? Remember we can really only talk of models, and quite often we’re contrasting the merits of multiple models. What is necessary in one model may be ridiculous or superfluous in another."

An example? As I am not so sure I grasp what you are saying?

"Actually it really only demands the perception of its existence – just to keep the record straight. What if for instance, it was just a simulation?"

The simulation would have to exist in order to judge it. The simulation would "stand in place for a real reality", as it were.

"Truth is a statement as to the status of ideas. All ideas are created by minds."

Yet minds can lead us to statements which cannot be denied and which are implied as right even in their opposites.

"So it isn’t fair to say, “that of which we are wholly ignorant cannot possibly be determined”?"

In particulars, yes. In necessities, no. I can tell you that something exists, but I cannot tell you what exists. But until we have sensation of what is existent, we will not know.

"Surely you can see how that appears highly contradictory to me? Ignorance of all things determines jack squat, and says nothing at all of the “status of all things”."

It most definitely would show the epistemological status of those things in relation to oneself. That is to say, one would have "no damn clue" of what is there. Indeterminacy implies something more.

"Fair enough. Regardless as to whether we end up “Seeing Eye to eye” I enjoy the exchange here. It’s interesting to contrast perspectives."

Most definitely. I am extremely enjoying this conversation, like I usually do when we speak. You're a pretty cool chap, my good man.

"But if we’re speaking of “that which is known” and its complement, we can label the complement as “indeterminate” by your explanation above right? I know there are trees I’ve never seen…"

I would not say indeterminate, because this implies an "either/or" aspect. In an area where we have legitimately no idea what is there, to say it is "indeterminate" is to imply there is "indeterminacy there", which is not substantiated by ignorance. It is rather that we are ignorant and have no idea if there are indeterminate things there.

"You’re just telling me your model, which may or may not be correct. I could tell you mine too. It might be correct. We might both be wrong. We can’t ever really know for sure. Well, you seem to think differently."

Well let me ask you this: In what way, excluding the lack of conscious beings, would the universe be different? Are you implying, for instance, that graivty would be stronger? That electromagnetism wouldn't work?

"Hmm. I do suppose ego is the basis of all ideas, so yeah maybe you’re onto something there."

I had more meant that necessary things are more certain than anything else, as they are in someways representational of an almost "Platonic perfection", as it were.

"I think I covered this in a post above. Lemme know if you need clarification."

You covered it.

"Well as I see it, awareness is the raw deal. It’s the raw resultant of an instance of a point of view. It is the raw potential for “self”. Mind on the other hand, is “self realized” at least to some degree, and is the result of some form of self-awareness – even if ever so slight. I don’t think we are the only species with minds, but only a few others seem (as far as I know) to qualify in general. Chimps, Apes, and Dolphins come to mind. I dunno, just giving you the gist. "

If we have a viewpoint, does not this imply self-awareness, even if it never dawns upon us to think in terms of "wow, I am looking out of self!" because it is so obvious?

 

Nice post, I'll get to is ASAP, my time is somewhat limited, but I had a random thought I thought you might enjoy:

A=A presumes A is static.

A is subject to time and must therefore change over time.

It's also subject to changing space.

Space-time is always changing and does not stop doing so.

Therefore, since A is always changing - A is not equal to A.

Unless of course, A is outside of space-time.

Then A cannot be said to exist.

Cheap trick, not thought through very well, just off the cuff probably poor attempt.

 

Sub conscious plays a large role in a lot of truth out there spreading.
I think.
Do I think right? *confused*

 

How do you suppose it does that?

 

Wesmorris:

I would answer your A != A due to space-time shifting thus:

Even if A = A changes overtime in regards to how the object equals itself and what this entails (I.E. what this thing -is-), at any moment, the object will equal itself. That A might change into what we'd have called B is only a symptom of its change over time, but not its identity as itself every step of the way.

This also points out that the Law of Identity does not imply that things must be changeless, only that they must be themselves in that very moment, whatever that entails.

 

From where would you say that pong originates?