The Paradox of Understanding

[Age]

The I is fully consciously aware of it’s own nonexistence.

That's a contradiction, pseudo-nondualism. Instead the I is fully consciously aware of its illusory nature. A rainbow too is illusory, but not entirely made of nothing, just like the human I and the "universal" existence aren't nothing.

Nonexistence and existence are identical abstract mental constructs.

'This' may well be ABSOLUTELY TRUE. However, UNTIL you EXPLAIN HOW 'this' COULD BE TRUE, then 'I', for One, can NOT YET POSSIBLY SEE HOW 'this' COULD BE TRUE, AT ALL.

IN what PART OF the 'mental construct' WITHIN 'that head' could there be an 'IDENTICAL ABSTRACT' that 'nonexistence', itself, AND, 'existence', itself, are the EXACT SAME, EXACTLY?

WHEN, and IF, you (and "eodnhoj7"), START EXPLAINING HOW 'existing things' can ALSO BE 'non existing', EXACTLY, then others, here, MIGHT START 'SEEING' what you two CLEARLY ARE. But, UNTIL THEN, OBVIOUSLY MOST WILL NOT.

TO MOST, here, 'nonexistence' MEANS and IS REFERRING TO some 'thing' DIFFERENT FROM 'existence'.

Now, although OBVIOUSLY 'nonexistence', itself, is A 'thing' that could NEVER EVER 'Be', an ACTUAL 'thing', the word and term IS USED to just LAY or PUT 'A CONTRAST' FOR or IN RELATION TO 'existence', itself.

They do not describe physical reality.

Okay, if you say so. But, 'what', EXACTLY, does DESCRIBE 'physical reality', itself?

Nothing is made.

If this is true, then HOW do 'things' come-to-be, EXACTLY?

The word 'made', here, is in REFERENCE TO 'things' that are PRODUCED, or CREATED, through the CONTINUAL EVOLUTION PROCESS.

So, what do you MEAN, EXACTLY, when you SAY and CLAIM, 'Nothing is made'?

And, PLEASE NEVER FORGET that 'I' am just trying to UNDERSTAND what 'you' are SAYING, and MEANING FULLY.

[Age]

Nonexistence and existence are identical abstract mental constructs. They do not describe physical reality.

Nothing is made.

I suppose the things you say make sense to you.

Now you are aware of the inherent dilemma of axioms as "self-evidence". Self-evidence is not universal and the universality of a "truth" is not widely agreed upon as to what that means.

What you seem to NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND is that what you human beings think or BELIEVE is 'true' does NOT necessarily HAVE TO ALIGN WITH what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY, or universally, 'True'.

And, that EXPRESSING what is just 'true' to a FEW or a MAJORITY OF you is, REALLY, JUST A COMPLETE WASTE.

I WILL, AGAIN, suggest that you JUST EXPRESS ONLY what IS IRREFUTABLY, or universally, 'True', ONLY. That way ALL of the PRE/ASSUMPTIONS, GUESSES, BELIEFS, THEORIES, and HYPOTHESIZES ARE REMOVED, and ONLY what IS ACTUALLY, and universally, 'True' GETS EXPRESSED.

And, I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED you people, here, in this forum of HOW, EXACTLY, TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY and universally 'True', FROM what are just your OWN personal 'truths', which are NOT the ACTUAL 'Truths', in Life.

AGAIN, if ANY one has NOT YET LEARNT and UNDERSTOOD, FULLY, HOW 'this' IS REACHED and/or ACHIEVED, then let 'us' JUST have A DISCUSSION.

What IS 'Self-evident' can be VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM what IS 'self-evident'. Just like what IS 'True' can be VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM what IS 'true'. one just NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE 'two' TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD and CARRY ON, here.

[Age]

Now you are aware of the inherent dilemma of axioms as "self-evidence". Self-evidence is not universal and the universality of a "truth" is not widely agreed upon as to what that means.

What dilemma? Axioms aren't self-evident.

axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... nt=gws-wiz

1. you were ASKED, 'What dilemma?

'We', STILL, AWAIT.

2. you were TOLD that 'axioms', themselves, are NOT 'self-evident'.

you RESPONDING that, A 'statement or proposition', which is REGARDED as being established, accepted, or 'self-evidently true' DOES NOT MEAN that an 'axiom', itself, is 'self-evident'. And, this IS BECAUSE a 'statement or proposition', which is REGARDED as 'self-evident', BY SOME, is NOT necessarily 'Self-evident' AT ALL. Which LEADS TO the VERY Fact that what is REGARDED as 'established, accepted, and/or self-evidently true', BY SOME, is NEVER necessarily what IS ACTUALLY 'True', in Life, Itself.

What IS ACTUALLY 'True' is ONLY ACTUALLY 'KNOWN', and NOT JUST 'REGARDED', ONLY WHEN PROOF HAS BEEN OBTAINED, and/or A SOUND AND VALID ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

'Axioms', which are ONLY REGARDED as being 'established, accepted, and/or self-evidently true', BY SOME ONLY, are as UNWORTHY AS 'evidence' AND 'arguments', which are NOT sound AND valid, ARE. BOTH 'evidence' AND those 'arguments' are NOT worth repeating. Especially considering the Fact that 'they' WILL ALWAYS BE OVER RIDDEN and/or OUT SHONE BY, WITH, and THROUGH 'proof' AND 'sound AND valid arguments'.

So, I WILL, AGAIN, SUGGEST HAVING, FIRST, the ACTUAL 'proof' AND/OR the ACTUAL 'sound AND valid argument', BEFORE making absolutely ANY CLAIM AT ALL, here.

'Axioms', as you just, VERY CLEARLY, POINTED OUT and SHOWED are NOT worth REPEATING, AT ALL, here, UNLESS 'they' are ALREADY REGARDED AS 'being established, accepted, or Self-evidently True, (with a capital 'S' and capital 'T') BY and TO ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, OR, you can SHOW and PROVE HOW they COULD BE or ARE 'Self-evidently True' TO and FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERY one.

And, OBVIOUSLY, if the former ALREADY EXISTS, then 'those axioms' do NOT even NEED TO BE REPEATED. Unless, OF COURSE, one FEELS A NEED that 'they' NEED TO BE REMINDED, TO SOME.

[Age]

What dilemma? Axioms aren't self-evident.

axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Yes and anyone with a brain discards the third option.

Is 'this' REALLY True?

Is, or WAS, 'this' 'self-evidently true', TO you "atla"?

[Atla]

That is self-evident to you...but given the nature of of acceptance being a second option for truth I find you hypocritical as you seem to limit the occurrence of other peoples experiences and perceptions as untrue and yet the occurrence of your experiences and perceptions becomes a standard you accept. It appears you do not accept quite a bit and yet what you do not accept provides the synthetic tension that gives resolution to your own state of being in how you experience and perceive things. You seem to be in a state of contradiction over the vast occurrence of existence.

Ok look, my worldview is a universal coherent system that is probability and Occam's razor based. There are no self-evident things to me. I don't just accept my experiences and reject other people's experiences either.

Is it possible that your Platonic abstract points and lines are as real as physical things, and they actively do all these things you think they do? Yes, anything is possible.

Do I think it's likely to be true? No. Do I think it's a rational, reasonable possibility? No.

What do I think? That you seem to conflate abstracta with concreta, like I said like 6 years ago. And that you might be missing the forest for the trees, you figure out the self-referentiality of X and then of Y and then of Z and so on and every time you make a big deal out of it, but all human cognition is more or less self-referential, so these aren't big discoveries to me.

Then probabilism is not self-evident to you, as there are no self-evident things to you, and you seem to have a system not universally coherent even though you claim you do.

Probabilism isn't self-evident to me, like I just said. Why isn't it universally coherent?

[Eodnhoj7]

Ok look, my worldview is a universal coherent system that is probability and Occam's razor based. There are no self-evident things to me. I don't just accept my experiences and reject other people's experiences either.

Is it possible that your Platonic abstract points and lines are as real as physical things, and they actively do all these things you think they do? Yes, anything is possible.

Do I think it's likely to be true? No. Do I think it's a rational, reasonable possibility? No.

What do I think? That you seem to conflate abstracta with concreta, like I said like 6 years ago. And that you might be missing the forest for the trees, you figure out the self-referentiality of X and then of Y and then of Z and so on and every time you make a big deal out of it, but all human cognition is more or less self-referential, so these aren't big discoveries to me.

Then probabilism is not self-evident to you, as there are no self-evident things to you, and you seem to have a system not universally coherent even though you claim you do.

Probabilism isn't self-evident to me, like I just said. Why isn't it universally coherent?

Because it is not universally self-evident, coherence requires self-evidence for it is self-evident that something is coherent for that is what makes it coherent.

If all is probablistic than probalism is subject to its own nature.

[Atla]

Then probabilism is not self-evident to you, as there are no self-evident things to you, and you seem to have a system not universally coherent even though you claim you do.

Probabilism isn't self-evident to me, like I just said. Why isn't it universally coherent?

Because it is not universally self-evident, coherence requires self-evidence for it is self-evident that something is coherent for that is what makes it coherent.

If all is probablistic than probalism is subject to its own nature.

English please. Yes probabilism is subject to its own nature. Coherence doesn't ultimately require self-evidence, coherence has to do with basic laws of thought and it's not self-evident that nature follows these laws.

[Eodnhoj7]

Probabilism isn't self-evident to me, like I just said. Why isn't it universally coherent?

Because it is not universally self-evident, coherence requires self-evidence for it is self-evident that something is coherent for that is what makes it coherent.

If all is probablistic than probalism is subject to its own nature.

English please. Yes probabilism is subject to its own nature. Coherence doesn't ultimately require self-evidence, coherence has to do with basic laws of thought and it's not self-evident that nature follows these laws.

But nature evolved us and our thought processes, these thought processes have a natural biological base...the brain. Nature resulted in these laws.

If "coherence has to do with basic laws of thought" and thought creates coherence as a thought, then thought is self evident to itself by its creations as thought thinks of thought.

You contradict yourself.

[Atla]

But nature evolved us and our thought processes, these thought processes have a natural biological base...the brain. Nature resulted in these laws.

So what, nature could be infinitely larger than what we see with infinitely many "laws", or with just sheer randomness.

If "coherence has to do with basic laws of thought" and thought creates coherence as a thought, then thought is self evident to itself by its creations as thought thinks of thought.

You contradict yourself.

You seem to confuse the inherent circularity within human thinking for absolute self-evidence, but I find that it's usually near-impossible to decipher what you're trying to say.

[Eodnhoj7]

But nature evolved us and our thought processes, these thought processes have a natural biological base...the brain. Nature resulted in these laws.

So what, nature could be infinitely larger than what we see with infinitely many "laws", or with just sheer randomness.

If "coherence has to do with basic laws of thought" and thought creates coherence as a thought, then thought is self evident to itself by its creations as thought thinks of thought.

You contradict yourself.

You seem to confuse the inherent circularity within human thinking for absolute self-evidence, but I find that it's usually near-impossible to decipher what you're trying to say.

But laws are the application of the mind, they are abstract interpretations, and randomness is also an abstract, if abstractions are not real than neither are these laws.

Anyhow, I said "self-evidence" not "absolute self-evidence", you are distorting words as usual. What is self-evidence other than a circularity between the observed and the observer? The circularity of a thought about thought is self-evident as this circularity is justified by the nature of it occurring to the observer.

You are not coherent, why should I expect you to understand much with a contradictory mind like yours?

[Atla]

But laws are the application of the mind, they are abstract interpretations, and randomness is also an abstract, if abstractions are not real than neither are these laws.

You were the one talking about nature, not just about mental stuff. And that's not what "abstract" means anyway.

Anyhow, I said "self-evidence" not "absolute self-evidence", you are distorting words as usual. What is self-evidence other than a circularity between the observed and the observer? The circularity of a thought about thought is self-evident as this circularity is justified by the nature of it occurring to the observer.

You are not coherent, why should I expect you to understand much with a contradictory mind like yours?

That's not what "self-evidence" means. Like you could tell if I'm coherent or not lol.

[Eodnhoj7]

But laws are the application of the mind, they are abstract interpretations, and randomness is also an abstract, if abstractions are not real than neither are these laws.

You were the one talking about nature, not just about mental stuff. And that's not what "abstract" means anyway.

Anyhow, I said "self-evidence" not "absolute self-evidence", you are distorting words as usual. What is self-evidence other than a circularity between the observed and the observer? The circularity of a thought about thought is self-evident as this circularity is justified by the nature of it occurring to the observer.

You are not coherent, why should I expect you to understand much with a contradictory mind like yours?

That's not what "self-evidence" means. Like you could tell if I'm coherent or not lol.

Given you cannot give a coherent account of your views, I see little weight to your words other than folly to alleviate boredom.

Anyhow:

So is occurence universally self-evident?

[Atla]

But laws are the application of the mind, they are abstract interpretations, and randomness is also an abstract, if abstractions are not real than neither are these laws.

You were the one talking about nature, not just about mental stuff. And that's not what "abstract" means anyway.

Anyhow, I said "self-evidence" not "absolute self-evidence", you are distorting words as usual. What is self-evidence other than a circularity between the observed and the observer? The circularity of a thought about thought is self-evident as this circularity is justified by the nature of it occurring to the observer.

You are not coherent, why should I expect you to understand much with a contradictory mind like yours?

That's not what "self-evidence" means. Like you could tell if I'm coherent or not lol.

Given you cannot give a coherent account of your views, I see little weight to your words other than folly to alleviate boredom.

Anyhow:

So is occurence universally self-evident?

You mean: I can't give a coherent account of my views in your version of English that you alone speak.

Also, you started the expression "universally self-evident", not me.

[Eodnhoj7]

You were the one talking about nature, not just about mental stuff. And that's not what "abstract" means anyway.


That's not what "self-evidence" means. Like you could tell if I'm coherent or not lol.

Given you cannot give a coherent account of your views, I see little weight to your words other than folly to alleviate boredom.

Anyhow:

So is occurence universally self-evident?

You mean: I can't give a coherent account of my views in your version of English that you alone speak.

No Atla, you are just convinced of your own intelligence. I have had many clear and concise conversations with people more reputable than you and there was mutual understanding.

I expect you to understand little to nothing of what I say as I argue paradoxes that point to the irrational side of reason.

Your coherence is strictly a subjective experience that gives you a sense of security for life's uncertainty. Alot of people do this, tell a story of how the world is, in their minds.

The question can be reworded, since you are not articulate:

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?

[Atla]

Given you cannot give a coherent account of your views, I see little weight to your words other than folly to alleviate boredom.

Anyhow:

So is occurence universally self-evident?

You mean: I can't give a coherent account of my views in your version of English that you alone speak.

No Atla, you are just convinced of your own intelligence. I have had many clear and concise conversations with people more reputable than you and there was mutual understanding.

I expect you to understand little to nothing of what I say as I argue paradoxes that point to the irrational side of reason.

Your coherence is strictly a subjective experience that gives you a sense of security for life's uncertainty. Alot of people do this, tell a story of how the world is, in their minds.

The question can be reworded, since you are not articulate:

Is the occurence of experience universally self-evident?

Yes I'm convinced of my intelligence, as are you. Well you have yet to point out any actual contradiction on my part. Good luck with that.

Now you are asking me whether something is "universally self-evident". I never used that expression, "universally self-evident" suggests some dumb objectivist philosophy where there are things that should be self-evident to everyone. Also, you might want to look up what self-evidence actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence