The Whole Story

[Age]

There's no general why. There's no reason we're here as a species

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

The original contention is that this set of understandings best answers all philosophical questions, not that it's the only answer.

Why are you under the illusion that "this set of understandings" best answers all philosophical questions?

Have you heard ALL the answers to all philosophical questions?

From my perspective, there are FAR BETTER answers to ALL philosophical questions. In fact there are a 'set of answers' to ALL philosophical questions, which fit PERFECTLY TOGETHER to form a crystal clear view of the 'big picture', and reveals a picture perfect vision of Everything.

If you understand meaning to exist beyond minds, we're not talking the same language, Meaning, as i understand it, is mind-bound.

And what does 'mind' mean, to you?

It cannot be otherwise because it's a mind-created concept.

This does not logically necessitate that meaning is, so called, 'mind-bound'.

This conception might just be the thinking or believing within that body only, and therefore not what is actually True, Right, nor Correct, correct?

Or, can you NOT be wrong?

The universe doesn't have a mind in any way relevant to our discussion here, nor does Gaia, nor the internet, nor imaginary alien species, To attribute meaning to them is to extend the meaning of the word beyond what we can verify or justify.

Have you verified and justified what this, so called, "mind" thing is YET?

If yes, then WHEN and HOW?

(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) clarifies that distinction. That which is beyond our current logic and instruments is beyond our knowing. That's called Actuality. What is understandable to us is Reality, and that's the bubble within which meaning has meaning.

This is the 'thinking' within that particular head, and therefore is NOT necessarily true nor correct at all, right?

Since meaning is a mind-bound concept

What actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF do you have for this claim, of yours here?

(and how can it be otherwise?)

Very easily AND very simply.

and humans are the only beings to have minds capable of that level of complexity (as far as we know), meaning can only be individual or average. There is no group mind.

What do you call 'that', which is in 'agreement'?

The incredible improbability of human existence pre-supposes external meaning. If we're happenstance, any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other. Only if some mind intended us to turn out this way could it be meaningful that it did. It is not meaningful that the dots on your ceiling are in that particular pattern because no one cares. To the dots it might be an unimaginably complex arrangement but to us, even if it was that, it wouldn't matter. In other words, the kind of being that exists on a scale so much different than ours must also have a vastly different avoid/approach mechanism relative to ours and the word meaning wouldn't apply in any recognisable manner anyway.

Well this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Everything all around us is unimaginably complex.

To me, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, even including the, labeled, 'us' is completely and utterly SIMPLE and EASY to comprehend AND understand.

The full answer to the fine-tuning question is that we are fine-tuned to the universe, not the reverse, and it's a ridiculously ego-centric position to think otherwise. If we weren't exactly as the universe requires, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. That's not magical.

So, some times you insist that there is not some external meaning outside of thinking within the human body, but at other times you express that the Universe, Itself, REQUIRES 'you', human beings, be a very specific and particular way.

This appears to be VERY CONTRADICTORY. Are you able to clear up and explain these seemingly 'contradictory' statements here?

[Age]

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

The original contention is that this set of understandings best answers all philosophical questions, not that it's the only answer. If you understand meaning to exist beyond minds, we're not talking the same language, Meaning, as i understand it, is mind-bound. It cannot be otherwise because it's a mind-created concept. The universe doesn't have a mind in any way relevant to our discussion here, nor does Gaia, nor the internet, nor imaginary alien species, To attribute meaning to them is to extend the meaning of the word beyond what we can verify or justify. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) clarifies that distinction. That which is beyond our current logic and instruments is beyond our knowing. That's called Actuality. What is understandable to us is Reality, and that's the bubble within which meaning has meaning.

Since meaning is a mind-bound concept (and how can it be otherwise?) and humans are the only beings to have minds capable of that level of complexity (as far as we know), meaning can only be individual or average. There is no group mind.

The incredible improbability of human existence pre-supposes external meaning. If we're happenstance, any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other. Only if some mind intended us to turn out this way could it be meaningful that it did. It is not meaningful that the dots on your ceiling are in that particular pattern because no one cares. To the dots it might be an unimaginably complex arrangement but to us, even if it was that, it wouldn't matter. In other words, the kind of being that exists on a scale so much different than ours must also have a vastly different avoid/approach mechanism relative to ours and the word meaning wouldn't apply in any recognisable manner anyway.

Everything all around us is unimaginably complex. The full answer to the fine-tuning question is that we are fine-tuned to the universe, not the reverse, and it's a ridiculously ego-centric position to think otherwise. If we weren't exactly as the universe requires, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. That's not magical.

Of course meaning is mind-bound, I meant the general "why are we here" beyond that.
Of course we can only talk to each other in a universe fined-tuned for human life.

Is thinking the Universe is "fine-tuned for human life" (which is what some of 'you', human beings, have), something like what you were referring to "advocate" when you talked about a "ridiculously ego-centric position'?

any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other

Then it's near-infinitely unlikely that we happen to be humans right here right now.

You still haven't addressed the philosophical elephant in the room.

[PeteJ]

If you ask yourself whether the world began with Something or Nothing,

But I would NEVER ask thy self such an absurd and illogical question as this. This is because of what thee Truth actually IS.

Okay. So you've already asked the question and answered it. It doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked.

ALL "one or the other" questions are NEVER something I would ask. This is because of what thee actual Truth IS.

Yes. In other words, all positive metaphysical position are logically absurd. The truth clearly lies elsewhere.

or is one or the other, then you'll find the question is undecidable, Neither answer survives analysis.

They are undecidable, and do not survive analysis, because both are ludicrous. The falsehoods in BOTH of them PROVES this.

You cannot prove they are false, only that they are absurd. One has to infer their falsity from their absurdity. (Unless one learns it in practice).

Thee actual Truth of things is found in the truths, and from the falsehoods, in both "sides" of ALL of these "one or the other" questions.

I'd say the truth is found by transcending them.

Maybe so. But what you call "metaphysics" has ALREADY been answered and solved, by some. The "studying" is over for those, and now just what the solution and actual answers are, are ready to be explained.

Yes. It was solved long ago, most notably by Nagarjuna in the second century, but not many people are aware of this so I generally assume the person I'm talking to doesn't. It seems though that you know and endorse the non-dual metaphysics of Nagarjuna so pardon me for assuming otherwise.

Nice to meet another here who endorses a neutral metaphysical position.

[Atla]

>Okay then you don't understand that probabilities are essential to philosophy. You are saying that any explanation is just as likely.

Probabilities are part of actionable certainty, but they're a measurement of uncertainty, not certainty, and are not necessary for metaphysics or epistemology, where logical necessity applies. I'm not saying any explanation is just as likely and i find it hard to understand how you could think so in good faith. As long as a story is compatible with this one, it is true. How useful it is remains a different question. This story doesn't attempt to tell people how to lead good lives, for example, or expound much on the relative values of evidence, or explain how to balance the contingencies it introduces. This isn't the end of philosophy, it's the beginning, in every way that matters. Previous attempts have been good but have all been incomplete. This is the glue that holds it all together.

Whatever, you are simply not talking about philosophy, just a part of it. Anyone can redefine words but that won't get us far.

[Atla]

Yes. It was solved long ago, most notably by Nagarjuna in the second century, but not many people are aware of this so I generally assume the person I'm talking to doesn't. It seems though that you know and endorse the non-dual metaphysics of Nagarjuna so pardon me for assuming otherwise.

Nice to meet another here who endorses a neutral metaphysical position.

Age has a literal God-complex, he doesn't really understand nondualism. And Advocate's 'full story' is based on the Cogito which as you know, is also inferior to nondualism. Not that nondualism has all the answers either, but it's the true basis for any further inquiry.

[PeteJ]

Yes. It was solved long ago, most notably by Nagarjuna in the second century, but not many people are aware of this so I generally assume the person I'm talking to doesn't. It seems though that you know and endorse the non-dual metaphysics of Nagarjuna so pardon me for assuming otherwise.

Nice to meet another here who endorses a neutral metaphysical position.

Age has a literal God-complex, he doesn't really understand nondualism. And Advocate's 'full story' is based on the Cogito which as you know, is also inferior to nondualism. Not that nondualism has all the answers either, but it's the true basis for any further inquiry.

Thanks for the background info. It's difficult to chat when one has no idea who one's talking to.

I'd say non-dualism has all the answers, and demonstrably so, but that would be another discussion.

[Atla]

Yes. It was solved long ago, most notably by Nagarjuna in the second century, but not many people are aware of this so I generally assume the person I'm talking to doesn't. It seems though that you know and endorse the non-dual metaphysics of Nagarjuna so pardon me for assuming otherwise.

Nice to meet another here who endorses a neutral metaphysical position.

Age has a literal God-complex, he doesn't really understand nondualism. And Advocate's 'full story' is based on the Cogito which as you know, is also inferior to nondualism. Not that nondualism has all the answers either, but it's the true basis for any further inquiry.

Thanks for the background info. It's difficult to chat when one has no idea who one's talking to.

I'd say non-dualism has all the answers, and demonstrably so, but that would be another discussion.

It doesn't fully answer the "why are we here" question either, only partially (solves the nature of consciousness etc.):

The question is why, out of the infinite possibilities, did it so happen that we are here and now, that we are humans, what is this world all about? There is probably something going on here, something 'rare' or 'special' or 'extraordinary'. What's going on on this planet stands in stark contrast to what's going on in the rest of the universe, plus the infinities of other possibilities which are even less suited for intelligent life than our universe.

It's the age old question: why are we here, what's going on? A (perhaps the) big question of philosophy.

[Advocate]

How do you know that? To me, and I'm far from alone on this one, attempting to find this general why (if there is one) is what 'philosophy' is mainly about. That's why last time I tried to get you into the fine-tuned universe problem, into the mindblowing improbability of human existence in general, and yet here we are.

The original contention is that this set of understandings best answers all philosophical questions, not that it's the only answer.

Why are you under the illusion that "this set of understandings" best answers all philosophical questions?

Have you heard ALL the answers to all philosophical questions?

From my perspective, there are FAR BETTER answers to ALL philosophical questions. In fact there are a 'set of answers' to ALL philosophical questions, which fit PERFECTLY TOGETHER to form a crystal clear view of the 'big picture', and reveals a picture perfect vision of Everything.

If you understand meaning to exist beyond minds, we're not talking the same language, Meaning, as i understand it, is mind-bound.

And what does 'mind' mean, to you?

It cannot be otherwise because it's a mind-created concept.

This does not logically necessitate that meaning is, so called, 'mind-bound'.

This conception might just be the thinking or believing within that body only, and therefore not what is actually True, Right, nor Correct, correct?

Or, can you NOT be wrong?

The universe doesn't have a mind in any way relevant to our discussion here, nor does Gaia, nor the internet, nor imaginary alien species, To attribute meaning to them is to extend the meaning of the word beyond what we can verify or justify.

Have you verified and justified what this, so called, "mind" thing is YET?

If yes, then WHEN and HOW?

(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) clarifies that distinction. That which is beyond our current logic and instruments is beyond our knowing. That's called Actuality. What is understandable to us is Reality, and that's the bubble within which meaning has meaning.

This is the 'thinking' within that particular head, and therefore is NOT necessarily true nor correct at all, right?

Since meaning is a mind-bound concept

What actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF do you have for this claim, of yours here?

(and how can it be otherwise?)

Very easily AND very simply.

and humans are the only beings to have minds capable of that level of complexity (as far as we know), meaning can only be individual or average. There is no group mind.

What do you call 'that', which is in 'agreement'?

The incredible improbability of human existence pre-supposes external meaning. If we're happenstance, any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other. Only if some mind intended us to turn out this way could it be meaningful that it did. It is not meaningful that the dots on your ceiling are in that particular pattern because no one cares. To the dots it might be an unimaginably complex arrangement but to us, even if it was that, it wouldn't matter. In other words, the kind of being that exists on a scale so much different than ours must also have a vastly different avoid/approach mechanism relative to ours and the word meaning wouldn't apply in any recognisable manner anyway.

Well this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW human beings will 'try' absolutely ANY thing to "justify" their ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Everything all around us is unimaginably complex.

To me, ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, even including the, labeled, 'us' is completely and utterly SIMPLE and EASY to comprehend AND understand.

The full answer to the fine-tuning question is that we are fine-tuned to the universe, not the reverse, and it's a ridiculously ego-centric position to think otherwise. If we weren't exactly as the universe requires, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. That's not magical.

So, some times you insist that there is not some external meaning outside of thinking within the human body, but at other times you express that the Universe, Itself, REQUIRES 'you', human beings, be a very specific and particular way.

This appears to be VERY CONTRADICTORY. Are you able to clear up and explain these seemingly 'contradictory' statements here?

No thanks. It's all an illusion to you anyway so the rules of the game may as well be arbitrary.

[Age]

>Of course meaning is mind-bound, I meant the general "why are we here" beyond that.
>Of course we can only talk to each other in a universe fined-tuned for human life.

I guess i need more details. I don't understand the context of your why. What should we be trying to accomplish as a species? Would it matter if all of humanity and everything it ever did disappeared tomorrow? The Whole Story answers any but not all questions of this nature, because of me not wanting to spend that much time elaborating on one element (the time caveat). But if i can distinguish particular categories of answer, maybe i will.

any random occurrence is equally as likely as any other

>Then it's near-infinitely unlikely that we happen to be humans right here right now.

It's also infinitely unlikely for anything else to be the case. It's not special that we're here any more than that the rock outside is here. If it was that way for a reason, it matters. If it just happened to be that way, it doesn't matter. Meaning is a combination of salience (which is entirely beyond our control, and is the typical "meaning" of the word since most people are emotion-based creatures), perspective (which we can manipulate to an extent depending on resources), and priority (which is entirely self-guided but useless in most cases because people don't have their priorities figured out).

Prior to our existence, we had no salience, no perspective, and no priorities, so there is no use of the word meaning that can do any work there. Within our existence we have to choose our own meaning because no one else understands our salience, perspective, or priorities as we do. Relative to our collective existence, our perspectives all differ so that which is generally salient according to general priorities creates a generic sort of meaning. Where in this framework does your understanding of meaning lie? Is it different or compatible?

>You still haven't addressed the philosophical elephant in the room.

I see a room full of elephants and am standing by.

I'm not saying that our species should accomplish something. I'm not assuming that any of this matters. I'm not assuming any meaning at all. And of course there is no 'Whole Story' that can answer this one with certainty. (I'm not redefining the word 'philosophy' like you to suit my needs.)

The question is why, out of the infinite possibilities, did it so happen that we are here and now, that we are humans, what is this world all about? There is probably something going on here, something 'rare' or 'special' or 'extraordinary'. What's going on on this planet stands in stark contrast to what's going on in the rest of the universe, plus the infinities of other possibilities which are even less suited for intelligent life than our universe.

It's the age old question: why are we here, what's going on? A (perhaps the) big question of philosophy.

What is going on is we are Creating.

'We' are here to bear witness to this beauty we are Creating.

[Age]

>Okay then you don't understand that probabilities are essential to philosophy. You are saying that any explanation is just as likely.

Probabilities are part of actionable certainty, but they're a measurement of uncertainty, not certainty, and are not necessary for metaphysics or epistemology, where logical necessity applies. I'm not saying any explanation is just as likely and i find it hard to understand how you could think so in good faith. As long as a story is compatible with this one, it is true.

Relative to 'what' exactly?

And WHY do you BELIEVE that for some thing to be true, then it HAS TO BE compatible with YOUR story?

What, exactly, makes YOUR story thee True and/or Whole one?

How useful it is remains a different question. This story doesn't attempt to tell people how to lead good lives, for example, or expound much on the relative values of evidence, or explain how to balance the contingencies it introduces. This isn't the end of philosophy, it's the beginning, in every way that matters. Previous attempts have been good but have all been incomplete. This is the glue that holds it all together.

What is 'this' here, and what is 'it' here?

In other words what, exactly, is the 'glue' and what, exactly, is the 'it' which, supposedly, this glue is holding all of together?

[surreptitious57]

so what is the meaning of Life ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called meaning of life could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

What came first the chicken or the egg ?
All life on Earth evolved from single cell bacteria so eggs came before chickens

But this does NOT answer the question
The answer is still the same : the egg came before the chicken

Who am I ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called I could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

What is God ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called God could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

And how did It create the Universe ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

By the way why do you answer more questions I ask other people then you answer the questions that I ask you directly ?
As I said the last time you asked me this question I answer those I think are interesting even if they are not asked of me
I dont answer all your questions either because they are not that interesting or because I dont have the mental energy to answer them

[Age]

If you ask yourself whether the world began with Something or Nothing,

But I would NEVER ask thy self such an absurd and illogical question as this. This is because of what thee Truth actually IS.

Okay. So you've already asked the question and answered it. It doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked.

Contrary to what you say, I have NEVER asked the question. AND, since I ALREADY KNOW what the answer to the question is, I would, as explained, NEVER ask the question.

ALL "one or the other" questions are NEVER something I would ask. This is because of what thee actual Truth IS.

Yes. In other words, all positive metaphysical position are logically absurd. The truth clearly lies elsewhere.

or is one or the other, then you'll find the question is undecidable, Neither answer survives analysis.

They are undecidable, and do not survive analysis, because both are ludicrous. The falsehoods in BOTH of them PROVES this.

You cannot prove they are false, only that they are absurd.

But I NEVER thought "they are false", let alone wrote that "they are false". So, I have NO intention at all of proving this.

But I CAN prove other things, other than just they are absurd, like; I can PROVE the falsehoods AND the truths in BOTH of them.

One has to infer their falsity from their absurdity. (Unless one learns it in practice).

But what is false, and what is true, in BOTH of them can just be CLEARLY SEEN anyway.

Thee actual Truth of things is found in the truths, and from the falsehoods, in both "sides" of ALL of these "one or the other" questions.

I'd say the truth is found by transcending them.

And what exactly does 'by transcending them' actually mean, to you?

Maybe so. But what you call "metaphysics" has ALREADY been answered and solved, by some. The "studying" is over for those, and now just what the solution and actual answers are, are ready to be explained.

Yes. It was solved long ago, most notably by Nagarjuna in the second century, but not many people are aware of this so I generally assume the person I'm talking to doesn't.

You are FREE to, and so CAN, 'assume' whatever you like. But assumptions can be WRONG, so I much prefer to NEVER assume ANY thing.

It seems though that you know and endorse the non-dual metaphysics of Nagarjuna so pardon me for assuming otherwise.

Nice to meet another here who endorses a neutral metaphysical position.

You appear to be making just ANOTHER 'assumption' here.

[Age]

Yes. It was solved long ago, most notably by Nagarjuna in the second century, but not many people are aware of this so I generally assume the person I'm talking to doesn't. It seems though that you know and endorse the non-dual metaphysics of Nagarjuna so pardon me for assuming otherwise.

Nice to meet another here who endorses a neutral metaphysical position.

Age has a literal God-complex, he doesn't really understand nondualism.

You can CLAIM whatever you like. But without ANY actual EVIDENCE nor PROOF, then this is just what you BELIEVE and CLAIM is true.

So, what is YOUR understanding of nondualism, and what, supposedly, is MY understanding?

THEN, we will be ABLE TO SEE who actually does and/or does NOT really understand nondualism.

And Advocate's 'full story' is based on the Cogito which as you know, is also inferior to nondualism. Not that nondualism has all the answers either, but it's the true basis for any further inquiry.

But what is there to inquire about any further?

Once thee actual Truth has ALREADY been uncovered, which It has, then what do you propose there is to further inquire about, exactly?

[Age]

Yes. It was solved long ago, most notably by Nagarjuna in the second century, but not many people are aware of this so I generally assume the person I'm talking to doesn't. It seems though that you know and endorse the non-dual metaphysics of Nagarjuna so pardon me for assuming otherwise.

Nice to meet another here who endorses a neutral metaphysical position.

Age has a literal God-complex, he doesn't really understand nondualism. And Advocate's 'full story' is based on the Cogito which as you know, is also inferior to nondualism. Not that nondualism has all the answers either, but it's the true basis for any further inquiry.

Thanks for the background info. It's difficult to chat when one has no idea who one's talking to.

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how EASILY led people can be.

One unknown person just has to say one thing, then "others" can BELIEVE it to be absolutely true.

I'd say non-dualism has all the answers, and demonstrably so, but that would be another discussion.

How could two words have ALL the answers.

What is 'non-dualism', to you?

[Age]

so what is the meaning of Life ?

Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called meaning of life could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

Living, being alive.

Because EVERY one could agree with it.

What came first the chicken or the egg ?
All life on Earth evolved from single cell bacteria so eggs came before chickens

But this does NOT answer the question
The answer is still the same : the egg came before the chicken

But 'what' created the egg?

Who am I ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called I could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

'I', in the physical sense, is absolutely EVERY physical thing.

'I', in the spiritual or non visible sense, is the Mind.

Because EVERY one could agree with this.

What is God ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless
As the so called God could be absolutely anything that anyone wanted it to be - including nothing at all

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

'God', in the physical sense, is the Universe, Itself.

'God', in the spiritual or non visible sense, is the Mind, Itself.

Because EVERY one could agree with this.

And how did It create the Universe ?
Is there an objective answer to this question because if there isnt then the question is meaningless

Yes there is
What is the answer and how do you know it is objective ?

The physical Universe is creating Its Self, and what human beings create, which is still part of the Universe, is through the Truly OPEN Mind.

Because EVERY one could agree with this.

By the way why do you answer more questions I ask other people then you answer the questions that I ask you directly ?
As I said the last time you asked me this question I answer those I think are interesting even if they are not asked of me

But this is NOT what I asked you.

I dont answer all your questions either because they are not that interesting or because I dont have the mental energy to answer them

Did you mean that they are not that interesting, 'to you'?