Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

Yes you can have it both ways..because you are the one in which the other one arises.

That is the unanswerable objection to rationalism. I.e. that I am a consciousness floating around disembodied which can be totally objective.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:57 am Dontaskme wrote:

Yes you can have it both ways..because you are the one in which the other one arises.

That is the unanswerable objection to rationalism. I.e. that I am a consciousness floating around disembodied which can be totally objective.

Where else do you happen?

Look around and see if you can locate your actual self?

Are you not embodied empty space?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:57 am Dontaskme wrote:

Yes you can have it both ways..because you are the one in which the other one arises.

That is the unanswerable objection to rationalism. I.e. that I am a consciousness floating around disembodied which can be totally objective.

Where else do you happen?

Look around and see if you can locate your actual self?

Are you not embodied empty space?

Belinda self and Dontaskme self are concepts which correlate with specific changes in the brain/minds known as Belinda or Dontaskme. The location of those particular concepts is the brain/mind of either Belinda or Dontaskme. In the case of Belinda the location of the Belinda self concept is correlated with privileged access to Belinda-type memories.If Belinda brain-mind became severely diseased then Belinda self concept might no longer exist, and what remained of the Belinda brain-mind probably could no longer maintain a concept of Dontaskme or any other brain-mind.

The self concept is one of many concepts some of which correlate to changes in the brain/mind, and others of which correlate to brain/mind changes plus sensory phenomena.

Nick_A wrote:Yes, your reasoning is based on the logic of the EXCLUDED middle. You have yet to experience that it is a partial truth. You are unaware of the law of the INCLUDED middle which is essential to acquire a human perspective. ...

I'm well aware of Trivalent Logic thanks but all that says is that things or states of affairs can hold the values True, False or Unknown which does not change the Laws of Logic once things are known. If you are talking about his idea that something can exist and not exist at the same time from some other level of reality then this is just logical nonsense upon stilts and if you decide to bring up QM then I'll point out that the preferred logical model here is Modal not Trivalent and if you want to talk about boxed cats the unknown is the best value to call the cat state and not 'alive and dead' as this is again logical nonsense.

I know you reason by the law of the excluded middle with questionable premises. ...

All premises are questionable in Logic that's the point and by and large the best way we have found so far to prove them so we can reason with them has been Empiricism. The thing you seem to avoid quite strenuously is the questioning of your premises.

What else is necessary to know

Hopefully the above might help.

You misunderstood. I am not against conscious perception. I have become aware how powerful our collective resistance is to the experience. We don’t consciously experience. Instead we interpret and prejudge. If humanity as a whole were capable of conscious perception, everything would be different.

You need to write more clearly then but I didn't ask you what you thought about 'conscious perception' but what you mean by it? As I think we'd have different meanings with respect to such an action.

Dontaskme wrote:IS-Ness is knowing...it's a knowing known by no one.

What on earth do you think 'knowing' means as you appear to be using it in a nonsensical and contradictory way?

Dontaskme wrote:Death is not seen, it's only known.. as a concept by life...all concepts including life are appearances, death is unseen, life is seen..but only apparently as it appears. to no one...as seeing cannot see itself.

Just too garbled for me to bother unpacking.

You cannot experience death or life.

We agree as 'death' and 'life' are reifications you can only experience dying and living. However what you can experience are other dead or living things and as such one has an experience of death and life.

Dontaskme wrote:Seeing cannot see itself..which is death....or it's life according to it's appearance.

What are you talking about?

They don't teach you this in school do they?

Thank goodness.

All concepts are KNOWN....NO CONCEPT HAS EVER BEEN SEEN.

Of course you can see a concept, just write it down. You can also hear them. Of course another way would be to pay attention to the sequence of images, sound and emotions when seeing or hearing about one.

All our words about what is...are ideas known....no one has ever seen an idea...the world is a dream dreamt by no one.

Believed to be real.

How do you know this?

Arising

I'm well aware of Trivalent Logic thanks but all that says is that things or states of affairs can hold the values True, False or Unknown which does not change the Laws of Logic once things are known. If you are talking about his idea that something can exist and not exist at the same time from some other level of reality then this is just logical nonsense upon stilts and if you decide to bring up QM then I'll point out that the preferred logical model here is Modal not Trivalent and if you want to talk about boxed cats the unknown is the best value to call the cat state and not 'alive and dead' as this is again logical nonsense.

Can hot and cold exist simultaneously? You may believe it is hot outside and another believes it is cold. You are insulted that he questions your sensitivities so you hit him on the head. He retaliates and hits you on the head. The world is like this. It is the struggle to find meaning in meaningless duality For example, only a few can reconcile hot and cold together as “limits.” They do so from a higher level of conscious reality in which the limits exist as one.

You need to write more clearly then but I didn't ask you what you thought about 'conscious perception' but what you mean by it? As I think we'd have different meanings with respect to such an action.

Conscious perception is the objective experience of the external world without pre-conditioned imagination. It requires the capacity for conscious attention which takes years to develop. We cannot live realistically in accordance with eternal values primarily because we lack conscious attention. As a result we live with the eternal struggle between the pre-conditioned duality of partial truths.

Dontaskme wrote:So according to the logic of A_uk..which is just an idea by the way...

Why the 'just', you think there is something better?

You have seen death.

I stand corrected as I agree 'death' is a reification so I have seen dead things, you?

And that death exists because you've seen it.

Well being dead exists because I have seen it.

And you say there can't be anything known about death because there is no one there in a dead body to know it had died.

Not quite, I say you can't know about being dead if you are dead because by definition you are dead.

So who is the one knowing there is no one in a dead body?

The living one looking and touching it.

...if there is no one in a dead body..who is the one in a live body that knows there is no one in a dead body? ..and can that one that knows ever die if there is no one in a dead body to know it had died?

I thought we agreed that Dualism with respect to the mind/body is false?

So there is just a living body looking, smelling and touching a dead one and that is how one knows what is dead and what is living.

Surely that knower has to be eternally knowing?

It'd be nice to think so but who knows? So personally I'll stick with what I can know and that is when a body dies a knower dies too.

Otherwise what have we got here....

Somehow there is someone here alive...and before they were alive they were dead, and somehow this dead thing was suddenly alive and then this alive thing then died.

Yes, A_uk..that makes perfect nonsense doesn't it?

It does and where you err I think is in thinking that they were dead before they were alive. The sequence is birth, living, reproduction, death or born, live, reproduce, die if you prefer and you can skip the reproduction if you like.

Can you think about this more accurately and deeply? ...what is it that is actually alive or dead?

A body.

Nick_A wrote:Can hot and cold exist simultaneously? ...

Not in the same thing no.

You may believe it is hot outside and another believes it is cold. ...

Which goes to show that "hot" and "cold" are relative subjective terms for feelings but neither of them can think themselves hot and not hot or cold and not cold. The weather itself just has an attribute that we can call temperature and which we can measure but it can't be 37 degrees and not 37 degrees.

You are insulted that he questions your sensitivities so you hit him on the head. He retaliates and hits you on the head. The world is like this. ...

Well maybe in your world but in mine we both read the thermometer and realise that subjective feelings about such things can differ but we both agree that it is 37 degrees.

It is the struggle to find meaning in meaningless duality. ...

Which is achieved by intersubjective agreement about the external world. No idea what 'duality' has to do with it?

For example, only a few can reconcile hot and cold together as “limits.” They do so from a higher level of conscious reality in which the limits exist as one.

Sounds like waffle to me.

Conscious perception is the objective experience of the external world without pre-conditioned imagination. ...

What do you mean by "pre-conditioned imagination"?

It requires the capacity for conscious attention which takes years to develop. ...

Does it, how does one go about this?

Although I have a pretty easy way for one to experience the world with what I call 'conscious attention' and it take a few hours to learn and a couple of weeks to get into the flow of things. So learn to turn off the inner voice and to pay attention or use peripheral and not foveal vision when strolling about and you'll get quite an interesting experience of the world.

We cannot live realistically in accordance with eternal values primarily because we lack conscious attention. ...

And yet the Hindus you used as an example appear to live in accordance to the external values you raised? Do you have any others you could use as an example as that was a pretty bad one.

As a result we live with the eternal struggle between the pre-conditioned duality of partial truths.

Well you might but that is because your religious metaphysic is flawed.

So who is the one knowing there is no one in a dead body?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:01 pmThe living one looking and touching it.

If there is no knower in a dead body to know it is dead, then how does the knower in the live body know it is alive?

Death is not an experience and life is not an experience either for who would know they are alive ...with nothing to relate aliveness to..?

..the concept ''being alive'' would be totally meaningless.

This is why concepts are based upon fiction only.

Did you know you were alive when you were inside your mothers womb? ..and yet there you were on the scan picture...but you personally didn't know you existed.

So now you are born and you are 5 years old for example....who is this knower that now knows it exists, but also did not know it existed ?

Are there two of you..do you have two selves....one that doesn't know...and one that does?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:01 pm

Can you think about this more accurately and deeply? ...what is it that is actually alive or dead?

A body.

What knows the body is dead or alive?

Does the body know it's dead or alive?

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:02 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:57 am Dontaskme wrote:



That is the unanswerable objection to rationalism. I.e. that I am a consciousness floating around disembodied which can be totally objective.

Where else do you happen?

Look around and see if you can locate your actual self?

Are you not embodied empty space?

Belinda self and Dontaskme self are concepts which correlate with specific changes in the brain/minds known as Belinda or Dontaskme. The location of those particular concepts is the brain/mind of either Belinda or Dontaskme. In the case of Belinda the location of the Belinda self concept is correlated with privileged access to Belinda-type memories.If Belinda brain-mind became severely diseased then Belinda self concept might no longer exist, and what remained of the Belinda brain-mind probably could no longer maintain a concept of Dontaskme or any other brain-mind.

The self concept is one of many concepts some of which correlate to changes in the brain/mind, and others of which correlate to brain/mind changes plus sensory phenomena.

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 16&t=23601
Belinda I cordially invite you over to the thread here to discuss this topic further.

Since I think there has been some going off topic here for some time, and I think Nick has stopped talking to me for going off topic, which I respect.

Thanks, and look forward to chatting with you.. if there is the desire in you to engage with me further.

And that invitation applies to Arising_uk as well, if s/he wants to continue on with this subject topic.

.

DAM:
All our words about what is...are ideas known....no one has ever seen an idea...the world is a dream dreamt by no one.

Believed to be real.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:42 pmHow do you know this?

Same way you know this....

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:42 pmOf course you can see a concept, just write it down. You can also hear them. Of course another way would be to pay attention to the sequence of images, sound and emotions when seeing or hearing about one.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:06 amThe weather itself just has an attribute that we can call temperature and which we can measure but it can't be 37 degrees and not 37 degrees.

37 degrees must have already be the case before any reading could have been recorded, measured) else no such measurement of 37 degrees could ever have shown up on your screen of consciousness.

The event that it is 37 degrees has already happened before there is an awareness of such a reading.

What this points to is the illusory nature of the knower....the knower is just the recorded superimposition over what's already happened and is just now realising ...after the event.

Every permutation that could possibly exist as knowledge aka (''concepts'') which are infinite in their appearance...have already come into being all at once in the exact same moment, at the moment of the big bang...the knowing of which is this ever unfolding recording playing to itself frame by frame sequence by sequence in constant unitary seamless flux all alone all-one where there is no such thing as an accident or a mistake.

The event horizon is called spacetime duality..it's a fictional story ..time is what stops everything from happening at once.

.

How about that for some flawed meta-minded physics..what do you think of me now?

Bye the way..the consciousness that burst open at the moment of the big bang was not religious, that was just a fictional idea, try not to get too hung up on fantasy.

.