Home | Community | Message Board


Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Microscope

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
*cough* EXISTENCE *hack*
    #2268080 - 01/24/04 01:27 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

So...all things (or objects) are,

1. impermanent, temporary, in flux, constantly changing
2. relative in the sense that we can only know what a thing is relative to what it is not (a solid object relative to the background of ?non-that object?, space for example)
3. dependent on a countless number of conditions to be what they are (me- air, money, my mom?s intention to have me, evolution of homosapiens, phsysical laws)


So when you say that something exists, what are you really saying about that thing?


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2268292 - 01/24/04 03:11 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

When we say something exists, we are expressing that our mind has apprehended an object and, by basis of imputation, has assigned inherent existence to that object. Conventionally, the apprehension of an object such as a table is perfectly valid. A table performs a function that other validly cognized objects do not. Seeing this, valid distinctions can be made. However, it is ultimately a mistaken awareness.

I'm reminded of the thread regarding Land Ownership. (Here)

The way we mistake our view of reality and the way things exist can be clearly expressed by illustrating the way we mistake our view of our territorial world. It is easy to relate to the illusions of borders. I intend to suggest that the illusion of boundries between conventional objects -- the illusion that objects exist independently and from their own side -- is not different from the illusion that borders truly exist between two nations. I also intend to suggest how these illusory views are the root of all our suffering.

Land ownership and the division of nation states is not necessarily mistaken or dangerous. The way the world is structured, it is necessary to assign priority to certain plots of land and designate certain individuals to preside over that land. In a better world, land ownership would require an individual to care for that land as though he were it's protector, and not it's exploiter. We do not behave this way because we have arrogance. We have arrogance because we, the human race, have assumed ourselves to be the owners of the earth. Having cultivated this view for countless generations, it follows that we would perceive it as natural for certain human individuals to dominate certain sections of the earth.

One of the major points that sets humanity apart from other living beings who populate this earth is our arrogance. We have made assumptions about what means "superior" and, based on those assumptions, have concluded ourselves as supreme. How foolish, to be the ones who establish the parameters that define our own position! If we assign significance to raw intellect and innovative capacity, humans clearly set the bar. But if we assign significance to mobility and beauty, we must bow to dolphins or parrots. Neither dolphins nor parrots as a whole have left such a scar on this earth. Should humanity ever depart this planet, its impact would remain detectable for centuries. Our arrogance has allowed us to fill the atmosphere with poisonous gasses, to flood the oceans with toxic chemicals, and to destroy the habitat of countless species, even creating a graphable rate of extincion.

Clearly, our arrogant assumptions have had disasterous results, and must be erred in some way. But how have we made such assumptions? Why do we have such arrogance?

When we are travelling, the boundries that have been put in place by the geopolitical structure seem very real. If we are in Canada, and cross into the United States, we feel as though we have left a place that truly exists and entered another totally distinct place that also truly exists. If we check carefully -- and we rarely do -- we'll quickly discover that the border does not exist, the laws of either side do not exist to any tangible effect, and any distinctions to be made from where we were and where we have arrived are completely dependent upon mind, upon view.

We don't experience border crossings in this way, however. We tend to assign great importance to the fact that we have "left Canada" and "entered the USA", as though we had left a movie theater and arrived in the parking lot. We even insist upon capitalizing the names of countries and territories. Immediately upon crossing the line, we assign feelings and imputations upon our new location. We look around and think "This is America". "This is Washington State." None of these exist. A deer migrating from Northern Washington State a to Southern British Columbia would experience no such radical change in view. To us, the experience is quite vivid and quite real, but has no valid basis.

By analyzing our experience, we can see that the boundries that divide our planet exist and function only in dependence upon our mind. By furthering our investigation, we can extend this analysis into every aspect of our lives.

Observing our experience, we find that we assign significance to departing our house and entering our garage. We view these as two totally seperate places. We might assign favour to our house because it is warm and comfortable, but disfavour to our garage because it is cold and dusty. Where do "warm", "comfortable", "cold", and "dusty" exist? Only in our mind.

You might say: "Well, there are walls between myself and the garage. Those walls keep in heat, light, and sound energy, because they are solid. Therefore, it is valid to say that the garage is truly seperate from the house." But investigate carefully! The variance in temperature between the house and the garage is only as glaring as our experience informs us. The wall is merely an energetic gradient between the house and the garage. The same is also true for light and sound. A loud enough sound can be heard on the opposite side. A bright enough light can be seen on the opposite side. Where do "loud", and "bright" exist? Only in our mind.

The distinction between our house and garage is experienced as though it was very real -- but if we look closely, we will see that we cannot find the exact point where the garage begins and the house ends. Therefore, it follows that they are the same entity, and are only nominally distinct (seperable only by name).

Discrimination is empty of inherent existence. It is only because we are ignorant of this truth that we are capable of assigning importance to ourselves, boundries to our land, and owership and exploitation of that land. If through simple logical investigation we can dissolve all boundries between ourself and other objects, it does not make sense to say "I am important, that is less important." It does not make sense to say "I will destroy the inhabiting animals of this place, because they are less important." Profoundly understanding this, we would find ourselves incapable of behaving toward the earth and eachother in the way that we do now.

It would be foolish to swing to the other extreme and attempt to behave as though we were all one formless continuum of visible and invisble energy. It may have it's truth, but it is a subtle truth that we have not realized. The boundries to be drawn between our bedroom and our bathroom are valid in conventional terms.

We are capable of interacting with the world as physical beings because we have realized conventional truth. We are capable of our technolgocial and sociological innovations and advances because we have a direct realzation of conventional truth. Though, because we lack direct realization of ultimate truth -- one aspect of that truth being that all things are only nominally distinct -- we are capable of holding the incorrect view that we are superior to others, that our wishes are more significant than that of others, thereby using our conventional understanding to bring harm to ourselves and others, to initiate wars, to be blind to an impoverished lack over huge sections of the globe, or simply to become angry with others in traffic on our way to work.

Our constant habit is to become attached to those people and things that we find attractive, averted to those we find unattractive, and indifferent toward those we find neither attractive nor unattractive. We perpetuate this habit because we have another mental habit which spontaneously apprehends the conventional distinctions between objects as existing seperate from mind. Ultimate truth tells us that nothing exists independent of mind. We lack equanimity, and therefore have the ongoing potential to suffer.



All beings suffer.
Suffering has a cause.
Because it has a cause, suffering can be ended.
Mindfulness and awareness bring an end to suffering.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,849
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 7 days, 9 hours
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2268401 - 01/24/04 04:02 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

:eek:

Always an experience reading your posts, man. Your words are not going wasted, that is for sure; my mind soaks them in like Miracle Grow and utilizes them. Always love taking in your perspective.  :thumbup:

Much love!  :heart:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleraytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2269341 - 01/24/04 10:28 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system.

(1) Constant change implies that there is a never-ending action, because if action would cease to exist, then change would be at some point impossible and therefore it will not be constant. Thus infinity is an inevitability.

(2) The concept of a thing is distinguished by the concepts of other things through the concept of not that thing. Thus, discreteness can exist, so that all experience does not merge into a single point, which allows dimensions to exist.

(3) The fact that a thing is defined by a set of conditions, reflects the state of the conscious system, which further determines the next state of the system but also forces it to never be in (experience) the same state twice, because that would put the system in a loop which contradicts buttonion's first proposition as it would cause a stable organization in the system (that is all that is) and therefore no more change.

Thus far I have asserted that all that exists is an infinite non repeatable experience.

So when we say that a thing exists, we are really saying that the experience of everything that can exist, has existed or will exist if it does not now. Which sucks.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2269569 - 01/24/04 11:35 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Nice post by buttonion, and nice response by Ped.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2269651 - 01/24/04 11:59 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: ]
    #2271194 - 01/25/04 11:58 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

I would love to engage you in debate, Mr_Mushrooms. It's not an opportunity I've had very often. Debate is one of the foremost activies of any serious idea explorer, and is a powerful excercise in humility, listening, and correct seeing. Without continual debate, my perspective on Nagarjuna's view is prone to degenerate.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2271267 - 01/25/04 12:37 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2271287 - 01/25/04 12:43 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

"What does it mean to exist?"

One of the more difficult questions to answer...but I'll venture a reply even so :wink:

Classically, I would say that "to exist" means to exist physically within the confines of spacetime. The coffee mug I am drinking out of exists, because it can be described as a collection of physical matter.

This, however, does not touch upon the question of imagination and thought. Also, with the invention of computers arises another problem - does "software" exist? It is not a physical entity...nor is thought/imagination!

So then, I would say that "to exist" means to be a clearly defined entity within the confines of a specified system.

Software does not "exist" within the confines of our everyday human "physical" existence...but software does exist within the confines of a computer system. Likewise, imagination may not exist as a physical entity in spacetime ("may" being the important word there) but it surely does exist within the confines of the human mind system.

Now something should be said about systems within systems. Software exists within the computer system...and the computer exists within the spacetime system. The same can be said for thought/imagination.

All for now...maybe some more thoughts later :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2271340 - 01/25/04 01:02 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
    #2272059 - 01/25/04 05:28 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

>> The coffee mug I am drinking out of exists

Let's investigate and see if we can pinpoint the exact location of the existence of a cup of coffee. Where does the cup of coffee exist? It's function is to contain coffee which can then be carried to the mouth for consumption. What if we removed the handle? Well, now it may be a bowl of coffee. What has changed in the nature of the existence of the cup of coffee after removing the handle?

What if, instead of removing the handle, we slid the coffee cup off the table and onto the floor. What has become of the existence of the cup of coffee? While we are pondering, our startled roomate comes into the room and asks "Is everything alright? I heard a loud noise!". She does not encounter what sits on the floor and think "there is a cup of coffee on the floor." She thinks "there is an awful mess on the floor."

Our friend dismisses herself and asks us not to be so clumsy. Now we've got the task of cleaning up this awful mess. Let's get down onto the floor and examine what's there closely. We can see the broken fragments lying amidst the coffee. We should pick those up and put them in a safe place where they won't hurt anybody. One by one, we pick up the pieces and place them into a bucket. Once finished, we can look inside. What is inside the bucket? Certainly we would not think "there is a coffee cup inside the bucket." We would think "there is a pile of broken china in the bucket." What happened to the existence of our coffee cup? All the components that made up the coffee cup remain, but our coffee cup no longer exists. Where did it go?

Now let's sop up this puddle before somebody slips and breaks their arm. A cloth should do the job. We can set the cloth on the puddle and let it absorb the liquid. Lifting the cloth after a few moments and wiping up any remainder, we've cleaned up the mess and are ready to get back to relaxing. We can open the cupboard and place the cloth inside a new cup. Let's bring it to our roomate as an apology for startling her. She will be delighted!

But she was insulted! "This is not a cup of coffee!" she says. But why? All the elements of the contents of our cup before the accident occured remain, and are inside this new cup. Is it not a cup of coffee? How has the introduction of the cloth destroyed the existence of a cup of coffee?

The answer I am eluding to is, of course, that the coffee cup and it's contents never really existed at all. The appearance of a coffee cup, as well as the appearance of the cloth, bucket, cupboard, table, chair, kitchen sink, window, even our roomate all exist in dependence upon the presence of an apprehending conciousness. The existence of a coffee cup, or any phenomena of this sort, is a phenomenona existent in dependence upon name and basis of imputation.

You might say "Yes well that's fine Ped, but the only reason we make this mistake is because we can't immediately experience the presence of the molecules and atoms which comprise the coffee cup and it's contents, which do in fact exist." But if we disassemble the coffee cup and place it under a powerful microscope that can actually show us chemical bonds, we must observe molecules.



This is ortho-terphenyl (C18 H14), a molecular consituent of glass. Assuming this representation to be the actual molecule, we can explore it in much the same way we explored the coffee cup. Focus your attention on the lower right-hand ring. Is that ortho-terphenyl? No, it is not. If it is not ortho-terphenyl, we can discard it as unnecessary. Suddenly our molecule is behaving differently! In removing the lower right-hand ring, our molecule is no longer ortho-terphenyl. That must mean that the the lower right-hand ring actually is ortho-terphenyl, which means we have many ortho-terphenyl molecules here. This is clearly absurd.

What if we removed just one carbon bond? Is this atom ortho-terphenyl? Of course it is not. It must follow then, that we can remove the rest of the carbon atoms, because none of them are themselves ortho-terphenyl. But before we even remove half of them, our molecule has disintegrated! Why is this happening? Because the existence of a molecule is a phenomona existing in dependence upon parts.

If a molecule, or any object were inherently existent, it must exist independently of it's parts. An object that exists in dependence upon parts can only exist inherently with the presence of an apprehending conciousness to assign it inherent existence. If we divide all the parts upon which an object is dependent, we find that there is no object remaining at all. This means that even the molecules, atoms, and energies which comprise our universe are not themselves inherently existent.

Homage to Shariputra; "Emptiness is not other than form; form also is not other than emptiness."
Homage to Shariputra; "Likewise, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and conciousness are empty."


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2272095 - 01/25/04 05:39 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Well all you are really talking about here is reductionism and the idea of Meaning as employed by human consciousness.

My computer screen is only a "computer screen" as long as I am here to think of it as a "computer screen".

Without anyone here to make such a distinction, it would probably be best to just describe the monitor as a collection of fundamental particles. What those fundamental particles are is still up for discussion...but some examples would be quarks, electrons, strings, ect.

I had used the coffee cup example as an example of physical existence. The cup of coffee exists as a physical object (or collection of objects, whichever you please) independantly of my personal consciousness. It may not be a "coffee cup" without my consciousness...but it would still exist as a physical object (I think).

Also, your idea of mopping up the coffee with a cloth, then placing the wet cloth in a cup and calling it "a cup of coffee" does have a flaw to it. A "cloth soaked with coffee" is not "coffee". It is a cloth soaked with coffee :wink:

I see no need to argue over semantics on this one :smirk:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
    #2272108 - 01/25/04 05:43 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: ]
    #2272112 - 01/25/04 05:45 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Tren, did it ever occur to you that semantics are all we have?

Well...good point :smirk:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePedM
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/31/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: trendal]
    #2272179 - 01/25/04 06:18 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

>> It may not be a "coffee cup" without my consciousness...but it would still exist as a physical object (I think).

Based on this comment, it seems that we agree that objects are subject to the imputation of an apprehending conciousness, and therefore any conventional discrimination between two objects is dependent upon the presence of an apprehending conciousness. If it is understood that "coffee cup" is a mere imputation upon a physical object, then it must follow that all physical objects are only nominally distinct.

If we were to depart the room and encounter somebody on the bus who had an interest in electronics, we may wish to discuss our computer monitor with them. During the discussion, our mind may recall the appearance of our monitor, and, if asked, we would say "It is at home sitting on a desk." But the discrimination between monitor and desk, and all other discriminations, are non-physical and exist only in dependence upon mind.

Based on your comments, it seems that we would agree conventional discrmination between two objects as being a mental phenomena dependent upon the presence of an apprehending conciousness. In the absence of an apprehending conciousness, then, it must follow that our monitor and our desk are not unique objects. Therefore, the monitor has no inherent physical existence. It is merely an indivsible part of all physical existence.

Being that discrimination exists in dependence upon mind, any object that is to have inherent physical existence must remain staticly independent and discretely existing apart from all other phenomena. This is clearly not the case. Since all things everywhere are in a constant state of molecular, atomic, and energetic flux, it must follow that no object apprehended by mind can have it's own inherent physical existence.

Understanding this, we can recognize that no physical objects can exist inherently, independently of mind.

>>It is a cloth soaked with coffee

The illustration of a cloth soaked with coffee was meant as a reversal to the illustration of a broken coffee cup. Just as the destruction of the cup obliterates the conceptualization of a coffee cup, so does the introduction of an increasing element such as a cloth destroy the conceptualization of coffee. The intent of these illustrations was to demonstrate that objects such as "cup" and "coffee" exist only in dependence upon basis of imputation. We do not typically experience our reality as though the objects we encounter are mere imputations of our mind.

I extended this demonstration into the realm of fundamental particles, including quarks, electrons and so forth. These supposed elementary particles exist in the same way as the conventional objects that we interact with: in dependence upon other phenomenon. For an object or elementary partical to have inherent physical existence, it must exist discretely and totally seperate of all other phenomena.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Ped]
    #2272186 - 01/25/04 06:21 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Ok, now I see exactly where you were going!

Yes, we are of the same mind on this :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2273061 - 01/26/04 12:16 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

All righty, WOW, great responses. I?m not going to be able to give a detailed response for everyone.

Ped: Holy crap you are prolific. Completely anticipated where I was going. So I will have to move on!

Raytrace: Deep, I think we are in agreement? and watch out for that nihilism, take your vitamin C and drink lots of water.

Trendal: It sounds like you and Ped were ultimately on the same page, and I am on the boat with Ped.

Mr. Mushrooms: Ahoy dastardly nave! Your time has come! *raises flag on quickly approaching pirate ship*  :grin:You haven?t gotten over that Platonism bug yet? I think I have what you need. And because my position questions a premise of your existence nomenclature (yeah, that objective reality thing) I?m going to hold off on tackling that for now.



So after some inquiry (thank you Ped), we begin to see that existence doesn?t seem to include the qualities we usually assume. I think the three points I laid out help to appreciate this. 1) Things are constantly changing, 2) they have to be understood relative to some background, and 3) they are utterly dependent on other conditions for their ?existence.? When we normally say something exists, it implies some sort of autonomy and consistency for that thing- but the things that we imbue with existence actually have none. So we arrive at the idea of conventional truth- these things we acknowledge as existing exist only by convention rather than in actuality. Denoting ?things? is an act of the mind.

Now you might be saying,

?Yes, yes of course. We don?t directly perceive reality- the mental models we create of reality are not perfect. But our models do somehow correspond to the underlying objective reality though. Objective reality in some way is different here and there- it goes in and out, something here but not over there- this underlying reality is what our perceptions are somehow tied to.?

BUT, the implication of conventional existence is that it applies not just to these individual objects that we acknowledge, but also to the idea of reality itself, an object. Objective reality is just a convention as well.

The correspondence (or realist) theory of truth is deeply ingrained in most humans. It basically says that a belief is true if it corresponds with a fact. This idea is definitely part of our folk psychology and probably innately programmed in us. A drawback of this view is that there is no way to show that our beliefs do actually correspond with reality. Of course, just because there is no way to prove that a belief is consistent with reality does not mean that there is no objective reality. True. And so we could just go on and think that these theories that have stood the test of rational thought and empirical criticism, that we hold to be true, are at least ?moving toward? reality. OK. But still there is no way to reasonably argue for this reality (except for what appears below).

On the other hand, the pragmatic theory of truth basically says that what is true is what works and what is consistent with the wider system of beliefs. There is not necessarily a real reality behind things according to this view. Whereas a realist might say ?this theory is or is getting us closer to what is actually going on? the pragmatist would say ?this theory is useful as means to our goals and consistent with other experience.? Buddhism is a pragmatic view.

Guess how we validate correspondence theory or realism?! Not through correspondence theory. Pragmatism!  How else could we? Realism does work- it helps us achieve our goals, it?s consistent with what just about everyone else believes, and it appears to be easily adopted by the human organism. We use it because it is pragmatic, not because it corresponds with reality. So the whole idea of an objective reality is simply a convention.



SOOOO? now it seems that an analysis of whether realism or a pragmatic view (like Buddhism) is the most pragmatic should be undertaken (he, he). I?m going to stop here for now though because I don?t want to risk losing readers. Thoughts or comments?


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2273409 - 01/26/04 02:21 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

"So when you say that something exists, what are you really saying about that thing?"

If I were to make the claim that something actually "exists," I would probably be implying that it is not just an idea in the mind, but an "external" object/process/phenomenon.

This only makes sense if one doesn't believe that "my mind creates all"


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: buttonion]
    #2273872 - 01/26/04 07:03 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: *cough* EXISTENCE *hack* [Re: Strumpling]
    #2273876 - 01/26/04 07:06 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Microscope

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Are certain things unknowable?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 4,317 102 01/24/06 12:28 PM
by BlueCoyote
* Pragmatic SpecialEd 513 3 05/30/04 04:47 AM
by Positronius
* Pragmatism Noteworthy 678 11 01/10/09 02:49 PM
by Silversoul
* I have philosophical evidence for the existence of God!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 7,589 109 02/14/04 01:28 AM
by SpecialEd
* What philosophies are related/connected to Pragmatism? HoleSnype 405 2 08/16/08 09:11 AM
by Gabbro
* Lets Have Another Go at Existence, shall we?
( 1 2 all )
PedM 1,941 27 08/06/05 11:34 AM
by deff
* Spirituality and Pragmatism Swami 669 13 11/10/04 01:38 PM
by Moonshoe
* The existence of Free Will is far from certain
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
BrainChemicals
10,720 182 04/26/07 03:34 PM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
14,143 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
The Spore Depot
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.114 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.