Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:37 pm So: it's all about relative scale, not that some scale is more 'real' than the others.

No, its not about scale. Of course certain events will only be perceptible by the human organism as long as these events match with our sensory apparatus, but this is not the point.
Scale is an idea/concept that makes sense in the mind, not in reality. There is no scale in some"thing" that has no boundaries, no limits - that is infinite/eternal. Yes, its a crazy miracle how thought is able to convince itself that the limitations that it draws up in its own playground are real, even more real than the underlying, infinite reality itself, but once the realisation happens that its all just a charade, that all thoughts are essentially unreal (they are only "real" within the realm of concepts thought itself has created - within the map you have drawn up) then there is the chance that thought looses some power over you, that you can actually experience reality directly - knowingly - without being sidetracked by constant thinking. And no, I am not saying that thought is all bad, its a great tool, but like anything, if you use it too much, all the time, an addiction forms. People don't even know they are addicted to constant thinking - what would they be without thought constantly confirming their individual existence?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:37 pm No, we talk about the largely accurate models we each naturally make of the world, and of all the 'things' in the world.

Not too long ago the earth was flat... now it is a sphere rotating around the sun in a vast galaxy... who knows what idea we might subscribe to in another 1000 years... you sure your latest map is a "largely accurate model"? Can you ever be sure?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:37 pm Yes, and that model of the apple is, incomplete and narrow as it, accurate enough for me to successfully use that apple to fuel myself or bean the guy across the street in the head with (if my throw is true).

I am not saying that the interpretation of the sensory input is all useless crap. Its quite useful to recognise and utilise the apple accordingly (even if its for beaning someone).
Being able to identify and use the apple doesn't mean that you really, ever know and experience "apple" - the "apple" is the mental construct, the concept. The physicality that works under the bonnet, the sensual reality of it, has no real connectivity to what we later on refer to as "apple" - its only acquired/conditioned patterns of conceptual thought that seem to create a link to the experience, but in reality all that is ever "there" is the sensory, direct experience and a barrage of thoughts that follow the initial experience. There is no real link to be found between them (besides more and more thoughts that state that there is one).

I'll be honest, Alex: your post reads as jibber-jabber hokum to me, but the hour is gettin' later for me, my primitive head is tired, and I may unfairly assess your position cuz of that tired noggin. So: tomorrow, with a fresh head, I'll read your post again and mebbe see it differently.

I'll post my thinkin' then.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:37 pm

Consider: Earth, seen from orbit, gives no indication of the seven billion people and innumerable non-human life scramblin' around. Does all that life cease to be, or lose its distinctive 'separateness' cuz none of it is noticeable?

Of course not.

At various scales, certain details are always perceivable and others aren't. On our scale reality 'is' indeed independently existing, and interacting, objects. And this scale, our scale, is no more or less valid or 'true' than the nuclear scale of electrons/neutrons/protons or the galactic scale of stellar pinwheels spiralin' in to be gobbled up by singularities. At these three scales (and all the others between and beyond) certain details are obvious, others are invisible.

So: it's all about relative scale, not that some scale is more 'real' than the others.

There is no "our scale" [level, range, etc.] on the absolute basis.
The point is there are two main scales to 'our scale' i.e.

• 1. objects/things independent of the human conditions - Philosophical Realism
  2. object/things interdependent with the human conditions - Ph Anti-Realism.

Both are valid views and has their respective utilities for the individual[s] and the collective.

My point is,
"Object/things interdependent with the human conditions" as the major premise [main set] overrides the independent object/things [subset].

There are no things or objects that are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Note Kant's no absolute thing-in-itself.

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:18 pm I don't know what there is - there is this presence, being-ness, existence, awareness... whatever we might call it.
But: As soon as we describe and conceptualise it we introduce separation - thing-ness - which is only an abstraction but not reality itself.

Normally yes, but I already went through the whole process of realizing that there are no separations, that's the underlying assumption in everything I write. I've merely re-adopted "dualistic writing/thinking" on a surface level. Because how else could we function in or discuss reality.

I think without thing-ness. So I'm perfectly fine with saying: there is a Moon "out there" and there is a perception/conception of the Moon "in my head" (that's what I experience). The two are non-separable, everything is non-separable in the observable universe. (At least that's my assumption.)

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:29 am Normally yes, but I already went through the whole process of realizing that there are no separations, that's the underlying assumption in everything I write. I've merely re-adopted "dualistic writing/thinking" on a surface level. Because how else could we function in or discuss reality.

I think without thing-ness. So I'm perfectly fine with saying: there is a Moon "out there" and there is a perception/conception of the Moon "in my head" (that's what I experience). The two are non-separable, everything is non-separable in the observable universe. (At least that's my assumption.)

The moment you utter the phrase "I" you contradict everything you've said above.

Remember our other discussions re: 1 distinction = 1 bit of information? The individuation of "self" from "The Universe" is your 1st distinction. The 1st category in your taxonomy. And while everything is "part of the universe" is (obviously) explicit, whether any particular thing is "part of that which you CALL Atla" is not.

Is ANY particular quark/atom/molecule/protein/cell/organ/experience/emotion/feeling/memory part of this subset you call Atla?"

Yes/no answer = 1 bit

P.S I too "contradict" myself by talking about "things". If The Universe is one then what are "things"?

Analytically - there are 10^86 particles. EVERYTHING emerges from their interaction. You, me, The Universe.
Holistically - there is one Universe.

Dualism is inescapable.

Veritas,

"My point is, "Object/things interdependent with the human conditions" as the major premise [main set] overrides the independent object/things [subset]."

Yeah, I know that's your point (one you haven't supported) and I know 'why' that's your point (cuz you wanna exterminate god parasites).

Me: I say reality (on the particular scale you and me inhabit) is nuthin' but independent entities that interact. I've explained my reasoning as clearly as my non-philosophical head allows. I think my reasoning is solid.

I'm still waitin' to hear yours.

#

Alex,

"Scale is an idea/concept that makes sense in the mind, not in reality"

No. An absence of an intentioned observer doesn't change the fact the squirrel still has to climb the tree to get at the nuts (the tree 'is' bigger the squirrel), doesn't change the fact a rain-dislodged pebble still tumbles down the mountain-side (the mountain is larger than the pebble). The absence of the intentioned observer only means there is no mind on scene to 'talk' about, 'think' about the scale of things, but the scale is there, is real, and -- like the various entities -- is independent of 'us'. We 'measure' scale, we don't create it.

#

Here's where things go jibber-jabber hokum for me...

"There is no scale in some"thing" that has no boundaries, no limits - that is infinite/eternal."

You're talkin' about reality/the universe, yeah?

I don't know that reality/the universe is infinite/eternal.

How do you know?

#

"all thoughts are essentially unreal"

The hell you say!

My thinking is 'me', 'mind' is a verb ('mind' is what a particular and peculiar arrangement of matter 'does'), I'm real.

#

"the "apple" is the mental construct"

The 'thing' I call 'apple'is real and independent of me. I apprehend it by way of my senses, I interact with it by way of my hands, I name it 'apple'. The construct is largely faithful to the reality (taking into account my focus on a particular scale and my limits in apprehending and processing information).

-1- wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:24 am There is virtually no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This negates the truth of one of your premises, therefore your argument is invalid, despite the logic it used was good.

FSM is evidenced in the same manner as Dark Matter, namely, by witnessing the existence of inexplicable effects.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:38 pm FSM is evidenced in the same manner as Dark Matter, namely, by witnessing the existence of inexplicable effects.

The Universe is an inexplicable effect. Or at least - so claims every creationist.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:29 am So I'm perfectly fine with saying: there is a Moon "out there" and there is a perception/conception of the Moon "in my head" (that's what I experience). The two are non-separable, everything is non-separable in the observable universe. (At least that's my assumption.)

Yes, agree, its perfectly fine to say "there is the moon up there, its beautiful, isn't it..." - how else should we communicate?
But when discussing topics like "reality" and whatever else falls into the non-dual category things become a little tricky... maybe non-dual concepts shouldn't even be discussed using language as it makes no sense using tools shaped for duality to describe the non-dual... its like changing a light bulb with a hammer...

By the way:
You never perceive the "moon", you only conceptualise an experience as "moon" - the direct experience is never of an object. Objects are created when conceptual thought gets hold of the flow of experience - which is non-dual - and then introduces duality where initially there is none.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:01 am The moment you utter the phrase "I" you contradict everything you've said above.

Yes, agree! But the same is true for every (pro)noun.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:01 am Dualism is inescapable.

I disagree.
Dualism is created once you, maybe at the age of 2-3, realise "I am", this "I am" soon grows to "I am such and such" etc etc
Before (and also after) the emergence of conceptual thought the non-dual is primary - duality is simply a conceptual overlay, but the non-dual never leaves or vanishes. Its always there, it only becomes "invisible" to you, because you now see everything from a skewed perspective, the perspective of the mind (and the mind only knows duality). Step out of the mind - and I assure you this is possible - and you are immediately back where you started - in non-dual reality.

No. Objects exist outside of me, independent of me. I percieve these objects, I interact with these objects.

No, offense, but: this sounds suspiciously like 'lobotomization'.

No thanks.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:19 pm No. An absence of an intentioned observer doesn't change the fact the squirrel still has to climb the tree to get at the nuts (the tree 'is' bigger the squirrel), doesn't change the fact a rain-dislodged pebble still tumbles down the mountain-side (the mountain is larger than the pebble). The absence of the intentioned observer only means there is no mind on scene to 'talk' about, 'think' about the scale of things, but the scale is there, is real, and -- like the various entities -- is independent of 'us'. We 'measure' scale, we don't create it.

How do you know all this is true? Did thought tell you that? How do you know that in the "absence of the intentioned observer" there is still a tree and a squirrel?
Sure, conventional logic/thinking tells us its obvious that things will still be there even when there is no observation ongoing... modern science (quantum mechanics etc) already moves in the opposite direction... the observer plays an essential role in the workings of the universe...

In a nighttime dream: your dream character enters a room, sees a table with an apple on it, takes a bite and leaves the room. Does the room still exist? Does the apple still exist? The dream character again enters the room - the apple is still there... did it exist between your two visits to the room?

In a dream scenario we find it fairly easy to accept that the room as well as the apple is a mental construct, that it doesn't exist when the character leaves the room and that it is re-created when we again enter the room.
What if not only the dream but also reality works just like that? Can you prove that it doesn't?
No! You can't, because there is no information about whatever is not observed... maybe this is a hint...?
No observation = No information ... => doesn't exist!
Next step: If "observation" is the one and only key ingredient to being able to confirm "existence" then maybe: "observation" = "reality"?
Anyway, it's pure speculation that anything exists without being observed (and yes, also the opposite is pure speculation - we simply don't know, we only believe we do).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:19 pm My thinking is 'me', 'mind' is a verb ('mind' is what a particular and peculiar arrangement of matter 'does'), I'm real.

Yes, agree, your thinking is "you". "You" are made up, "you" are thought into existence.
But there is also a real you, the one that is prior to thought. Thats the "one" that is real - the thought up "me" is not - its only an ever changing flow of ideas and beliefs, of likes and dislikes, it comes and goes, but the real I is always present, always the same, never changing.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:27 am No, offense, but: this sounds suspiciously like 'lobotomization'.

A quiet mind is an efficient mind - you can't win a race when you are already exhausted from constantly running.
Constant thinking is not a sign of intelligence - rather the opposite - it exhausts your system and makes you a victim to the stories and beliefs thought comes up with. The results are mental health issues like depression, anxiety etc etc... look at the world - a world full of thinkers... how happy they are...

It is my direct experience of things.

How do you know it's 'not' true?

#

"Does the room still exist?"

A dream is a kind of natural, normal hallucination, an event entirely internal to me. The world is real, is substance, is external to me.

One, I conjure as self-maintenance; the other, I move through, interact with.

#

"Can you prove that it doesn't?"

Can you prove that it does?"

#

"there is also a real you, the one that is prior to thought"

No. Before thinking, I was a bundle of instinct. In thinking I 'became' and 'am'.

#

"A quiet mind is an efficient mind"

No. A quiet mind is a dull mind.

#

"you can't win a race when you are already exhausted from constantly running"

I don't find thinkin' exhausting, quite the opposite.

#

"it exhausts your system and makes you a victim to the stories and beliefs thought comes up with."

No. What exhausts a mind is an onslaught of bullshit. Fortunately there's a remedy.

#

"look at the world - a world full of thinkers... how happy they are..."

No. The world is full of timid, eager to be led, 'feelers'. There's remarkably little thinkin' goin' on.