Philosophy Now Forum

Now for something extremely speculative. I am just throwing it out here. I am not saying I believe it or that I don't believe it. I am just saying that it presents an interesting topic.
"Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with pure realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it."
Tractatus 5;64 Wittgenstein
Brahman = Atman? Since consciousness is a predicateless subject, one can say that it doesn't exist. If I imagine a triangle, there is no physical location for that triangle. My neurons are not firing in a triangular shape for example. Does that mean that there is no triangle, that I do not "see" a triangle? Of course not. I know that I can visualize a triangle.
So as Witt implied an extensionless consciousness corresponds to the vast reality that surrounds it.

In an infinite space every location is at the center.

raw_thought wrote:Hobbes, I agree. the signifier "red" is a convention. However, would you say that we do not experience pain until we know the word for it?

We suffer a sensation we later learn to identify with pain.
So we do, in effect experience pain before we learn what to call it. I think this is a no-brainer, as there is much evidence that pain is also suffered by creatures with no formal language.

What none of us can say for sure is if our "pain" is equal or even similar to another's. Often pain can be ambiguous or even pleasurable.

raw_thought wrote:"Thoughts are always changing. There can be a thought about 1+1=2, but I am pretty sure that thought changes to something else when the question is asked, "who are you?"
Ken
Are you implying that when my thoughts change I become another person? If that is the case I die every minute and am replaced by someone that resembles me.

We are all in a constant state of evolution, so you are never the same person.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Hobbes, I agree. the signifier "red" is a convention. However, would you say that we do not experience pain until we know the word for it?

We suffer a sensation we later learn to identify with pain.
So we do, in effect experience pain before we learn what to call it. I think this is a no-brainer, as there is much evidence that pain is also suffered by creatures with no formal language.

What none of us can say for sure is if our "pain" is equal or even similar to another's. Often pain can be ambiguous or even pleasurable.

It was a rhetorical question. Of course we can know what pain feels like before we have a word for it. Therefore, it is a case of ineffable knowledge.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:"Thoughts are always changing. There can be a thought about 1+1=2, but I am pretty sure that thought changes to something else when the question is asked, "who are you?"
Ken
Are you implying that when my thoughts change I become another person? If that is the case I die every minute and am replaced by someone that resembles me.

We are all in a constant state of evolution, so you are never the same person.

Are you a Buddhist? Do you believe that there is no self that endures for even a minute? According to the Buddhists that knowledge frees you from the fear of death. Buddhists believe that there is no self. Therefore fearing its demise is absurd.

To be exact, we can have knowledge even tho that knowledge does not have any words attached to it.

raw_thought wrote:"Thoughts are always changing. There can be a thought about 1+1=2, but I am pretty sure that thought changes to something else when the question is asked, "who are you?"
Ken
Are you implying that when my thoughts change I become another person?

No. To Me, looking at the question "who/what is a 'person'?" as objectively as I can, I see a 'person' as the set of thoughts, and internal feelings, existing within a body. To Me, the physical parts of the human body are not the person. A person is the invisible parts. So, a 'person' is the always changing thoughts, and emotions. Although thoughts change, a person itself does not change and become another person. A person always remains the same, that is the set of thoughts, and internal feelings, existing within a body. This may seem contradictory now, but when looked at in relation with everything else, the apparent contradiction disappears.

raw_thought wrote: If that is the case I die every minute and am replaced by someone that resembles me.

Depending on what the definitions are that we are going to give to 'I', 'someone', and 'me', this will influence if your statement here is right, wrong, or partly wrong.

For example if 'me' is fixed and non-changing, then obviously 'me' can not be replaced by someone that resembles 'me'. But, if 'me' is changeable, like how 'me' at two years of age is different than 'me' at thirty years of age, then it could be right, or partly right. Again, it will depend on how you view the 'me', that is what is your definition of 'me'.

How I view your statement here is, and just to add more confusion, whereas a human 'body' becomes older with age, a 'person' can actually become newer with age. I see it this way because thoughts are always changing. If there is openness and there is a lot of learning and discovering happening, then there is new thoughts constantly appearing. If there are new thoughts, and a 'person' is thoughts (and emotions), then a person can and does become newer with age, not older.

raw_thought wrote:Of course we can know what pain feels like before we have a word for it. Therefore, it is a case of ineffable knowledge.

I like this as it shows Me a way to better express what I want to say about how we can know what the knowledge of right and wrong is before we even have the words and the understanding of what it actually is yet.

If 'ineffable knowledge' means something that can be felt or experienced before we have the words/terms for it, then that is the perfect terminology that I am looking for to explain what is already unconsciously known by all people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvyazwHQajQ
Ignore the poster's ( on youtube) comments! Alan Watts has nothing to do with NWO. In particular see "I" in the video at 4:56. Is that what you meant when you implied that we are the totality"?
I realize that this next paragraph is way off topic. But I want to share it. I want this video at my funeral. No eulogy, no speeches, only
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opn5iVaRyDU

raw_thought wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Hobbes, I agree. the signifier "red" is a convention. However, would you say that we do not experience pain until we know the word for it?

We suffer a sensation we later learn to identify with pain.
So we do, in effect experience pain before we learn what to call it. I think this is a no-brainer, as there is much evidence that pain is also suffered by creatures with no formal language.

What none of us can say for sure is if our "pain" is equal or even similar to another's. Often pain can be ambiguous or even pleasurable.

It was a rhetorical question. Of course we can know what pain feels like before we have a word for it. Therefore, it is a case of ineffable knowledge.

That might depend on what you mean by "Ineffable knowledge". Sure it's ineffable to accurately describe, but I'm not sure why you think this is knowledge. And the fact that other people know exactly what you mean when you say my arm hurts would mean that the fact of the pain is communicable, like all other knowledge the presentation of it is not the same as the fact of it.
When I know that Mars has two moons, I cannot present the moons myself, yet the knowledge of those moons can be transmitted to another person. What's the difference here? Between my pain and you knowing it and knoweldge of the moons of mars and knowledge of them?
Knowledge is always presented at a distance from the object.

raw_thought wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:"Thoughts are always changing. There can be a thought about 1+1=2, but I am pretty sure that thought changes to something else when the question is asked, "who are you?"
Ken
Are you implying that when my thoughts change I become another person? If that is the case I die every minute and am replaced by someone that resembles me.

We are all in a constant state of evolution, so you are never the same person.

Are you a Buddhist? Do you believe that there is no self that endures for even a minute? According to the Buddhists that knowledge frees you from the fear of death. Buddhists believe that there is no self. Therefore fearing its demise is absurd.

No. But as soon as you read this, it causes a small adaptation to your brain, whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not.
You do not have a single molecule in your body that you had seven years ago. We are in a state of continual change. Like the Ship of Theseus we maintain an identity, but are not the same we as we were before.

Does a dog know to avoid pain? Does a dog think with language? In other words ( pun) knowledge without words attached to it is still knowledge.

Yes, I am familiar with the fact that the atoms in our body constantly change. I was once a Buddhist. I still admire many of their insights. I realize that neurons cannot be replaced ( actually that is even in dispute now) ,however, neurons have the highest metabolism and so therefore like that philosophical ship are replaced and even more rapidly then normal cells. Also, since "NOW" is only an infinitesimal slice of space-time we do not exist for any finite duration.
Basically you are a Buddhist. No self=no death. Buddhism is not a religion in the sense that it is not theist or atheist. Car mechanics for example are not by definition atheists or theists. When my wife and I were in Thailand we spoke with many Buddhist monks ( My wife was in the Peace Corp and speaks fluent Thai) they all said that the Gods and such that you see at the Watts ( Buddhist churches, huh I just realized that Alan's last name is the same) are local culture and have nothing to do with Buddhism. Kind of like Swedish Jesus ( Blond and blue eyed ).

I suppose in a certain sense a water fountain maintains its identity. But I would say that it maintains its form, not its identity. If they made an exact duplicate of you ( the precise exact form but all the atoms are different) and you stood next to that person, would you say to him , " Hi I am you"