|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: Neither means that we are in a paradigm where the dichotomy of true and false does not apply.
Another example would be the statement: "This sentence is wrong." If it is true, it follows that it is wrong. If it is wrong, it follows that it is true. Since both alternatives lead to a contradiction, this sentence is neither.
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
I don't see any violation of excluded middle here, just confusion about it.
It's not necessarily true or false, its something can't be the negation of itself. The definitions are important, as is the structure of the proposition.
Quote:
Both true and false means that there is more than one truth contained in something, that it depends on the perspective
I would say this is because questions can be more complicated than "true or false" but that doesn't disprove the logic.
You just need to simplify the question.
For example your free will example; free will is typically so ill-defined that theres really no telling whether we have it or not, depends who you ask and what they mean by it.
Or whether a bodhicitta is pleasant or unpleasant; this is a subjective assessment, not a true/false question. Most people are both pleasant and unpleasant at times, this doesn't violate the law of excluded middle.
The proposition "the Buddha is in nirvana" is either true or false. If hes not in nirvana, then it's false, this isn't a fifth option. Our lack of knowledge doesn't dismantle the law of excluded middle, it just means we may not know the answer.
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27731396 - 04/12/22 12:55 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
well i'll chalk my posts up as true and false. true that they needed to be just as they are. false that they were the product of a correct view. As long as both those conditions were present, it was both true and false. Once false view is removed, I think it settles and continues on.

I'm overjoyed to have been welcomed here
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Kickle]
#27731427 - 04/12/22 01:21 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
That's two separate propositions.
Prop 1: the posts needed to be just as they are
Prop 2: the posts were the product of a correct view
Your posts may have been collectively both true and false, but each proposition can only be one or the other.
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27731434 - 04/12/22 01:24 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah I think so too. It's their appearance in time that makes them linked. If you remove time, they do not have the same relationship.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: For some time, scientists would ridicule the Dhamma, because the Buddha did not make use of binary logic. Binary logic, also known as the principle of the excluded middle, entails the notion that something can be true or false, and nothing else. It is the foundation of mathematical logic, going back to Aristotle, and also of computer technology. Instead, the Buddha would employ a four-valued logic, where something can be true, false, both, or neither.
Then, in the 1960s, there emerged a new theory called relevant logic (non- classical logic). Suddenly, the Buddha's approach became entirely mathematically sound. Both true and false means that there is more than one truth contained in something, that it depends on the perspective. An example would be the problem of free will. We are living in a deterministic universe, that means there is no free will. On the other hand, even in a deterministic universe, you can do whatever you want to do. Therefore, the existence of free will is both true and false.
Neither means that we are in a paradigm where the dichotomy of true and false does not apply. For example, there is the question whether a bodhicitta is pleasant or unpleasant. The answer is: It is neither. Let me tell you: The bodhicitta is about suffering, which is utterly terrible. There are beings who get their eyes gouged out and their tongue and ears cut off. There are beings who are getting raped. It is stupid tp consider the bodhicitta as pleasant or unpleasant. That is entirely not what it's about. The way of the bodhisattva is neither. True means that one and one equals two. False means that three and four equals five. Though I guess these two are a little bit obvious.
There is actually a fifth option, where something is none of the four. That means the truth is not to be revealed (or cannot be spoken about). For example, there is the question whether the Buddha entered Nirvana at physical death. He didn't tell, he kept it a secret.
Here's a spoiler: The Buddha did not enter Nirvana. He hangs around among supernatural beings somewhere. Buddhas usually do not enter Nirvana, because it is too damn pleasant to be powerful. Besides, they have put a considerable amount of work into their consciousness. As it says at the Mars University in Futurama: "A Giant Pulsating Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste".
Thank you for this. Very strange experience but the clarity emerging is invaluable. Namaste
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27732172 - 04/13/22 12:44 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: I would say this is because questions can be more complicated than "true or false" but that doesn't disprove the logic.
I didn't want to disprove it. I was more going into the direction that the four-valued logic is also valid. The two logics stand side by side, none being superior to the other.
Quote:
For example your free will example; free will is typically so ill-defined that theres really no telling whether we have it or not, depends who you ask and what they mean by it.
Let me try another one. Another solution to the problem of free will is the so-called solipsistic approach. It says that you are the only one with free will. This explains both determinism and the fact that you can do what you want.
Quote:
The proposition "the Buddha is in nirvana" is either true or false.
It is. It's just that he didn't tell. That is what is meant by the fifth option.
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: I didn't want to disprove it. I was more going into the direction that the four-valued logic is also valid. The two logics stand side by side, none being superior to the other.
Perhaps I don't understand. What is four-valued logic? How is it applicable in a real world example?
Quote:
Let me try another one. Another solution to the problem of free will is the so-called solipsistic approach. It says that you are the only one with free will. This explains both determinism and the fact that you can do what you want.
Oh no, are we getting into free will? I thought it was just an example 
Anyway, doesn't this only make sense if you're a solipsist? Even then, I'm not sure this solves the problem of determinism. Also you still haven't really concretely defined what free will actually is.
Is it a fact that I can do what I want? Was I free to choose my wants in the first place? How "free" are we talking here.
Quote:
It is. It's just that he didn't tell. That is what is meant by the fifth option.
I don't get how this makes a fifth option. There's still only 2, either he is in nirvana or he is not in nirvana. Our inability to know for certain doesn't change the available options.
Maybe a different analogy would be more clear.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27735488 - 04/15/22 06:55 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: Perhaps I don't understand. What is four-valued logic
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/beyond-true-and-false?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Quote:
How is it applicable in a real world example?
I guess "Neither true. nor false" means that the statement is meaningless. I think it's funny how the internet is crawling with sites about the four- valued logic, yet there are very few real world examples.
Quote:
Oh no, are we getting into free will?
Nope. We're just exchanging ideas .
Quote:
Also you still haven't really concretely defined what free will actually is.
Yes, because I think it's obvious. Free will means that you can do whatever you want to do.
Quote:
I don't get how this makes a fifth option. There's still only 2, either he is in nirvana or he is not in nirvana. Our inability to know for certain doesn't change the available options.
The dichotomy lies in the hands of the person making the statement, I guess.
"I say Nirvana is green. I say Nirvana is not green. I say Nirvana is both, I say Nirvana is neither."
If all of the above are wrong, we will have the fifth option. When we have the fifth option, you cannot claim that "I say Nirvana is green" is true, because it would violate the first negated statement.
Anyway, this is getting complicated.
Edited by AnattaAtman (04/15/22 11:38 AM)
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27735503 - 04/15/22 07:14 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: Most people are both pleasant and unpleasant at times, this doesn't violate the law of excluded middle.
Ah, but humans are not so much different from each other. When something is pleasant for me, it is most likely pleasant for you, too. Unless you are a masochist, of course. Then it's both pleasant and unpleasant.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27735819 - 04/15/22 11:21 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: I don't get how this makes a fifth option. There's still only 2, either he is in nirvana or he is not in nirvana. Our inability to know for certain doesn't change the available options.
This is really tricky. When the Buddha says "Nirvana is green", "Nirvana is not green", "Nirvana is both", and "Nirvana is neither", it is still only possible that it is green or not green, you are right about that. Yet, if you make the assertion "Nirvana is green", whether in two or in four-valued logic, you are calling the Buddha a liar. If we trust the Buddha on that, the available options change.
That stuff gets me thinking, it's really tricky. Please go ahead and disprove me .
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: I guess "Neither true. nor false" means that the statement is meaningless. I think it's funny how the internet is crawling with sites about the four- valued logic, yet there are very few real world examples.
If there are no real world examples, I don't really see what the value in this logic could be.
How can you verify that it makes sense without being able to test it?
Quote:
Yes, because I think it's obvious. Free will means that you can do whatever you want to do.
Okay, but if this is how you define it then we demonstrably don't have it. I want to go to the moon tomorrow, I can't. I want to eat lobster tonight, I won't be able to. I want to overcome my built-in survival needs, I'm unable to. Our will is not entirely free.
Quote:
The dichotomy lies in the hands of the person making the statement, I guess.
"I say Nirvana is green. I say Nirvana is not green. I say nirvana is both, I say Nirvana is neither."
If all of the above are wrong, we will have the fifth option. When we have the fifth option, you cannot claim that "I say Nirvana is green" is true, because it would violate the first negated statement.
But this is a true dichotomy; nirvana is either green, or not green. It can't be neither or both, unless logic and physics breaks down in nirvana, but now that's just an assertion that I see no way of verifying, and reguarldess it wouldn't really be useful to us in the here and now.
I don't know how we could determine that all of the above are wrong, especially when we have nothing to investigate.
Quote:
Anyway, this is getting complicated. 
I'm hoping I can simplify it 
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: This is really tricky. When the Buddha says "Nirvana is green", "Nirvana is not green", "Nirvana is both", and "Nirvana is neither", it is still only possible that it is green or not green, you are right about that. Yet, if you make the assertion "Nirvana is green", whether in two or in four-valued logic, you are calling the Buddha a liar. If we trust the Buddha on that, the available options change.
I don't trust the Buddha at his word; if he said something that doesn't make any sense, he's obligated to demonstrate it or explain it just like everyone else.
Like he could just be saying nirvana is made of many colors, or perhaps it frequently changes colors. I don't think being cryptic about it is helpful for understanding, it leaves us to speculate.
If my time on this rock has taught me anything, it's that no one really knows anything, yet just about everyone loves to pretend that they know everything. It's dangerous to take people at their word.
Quote:
That stuff gets me thinking, it's really tricky. Please go ahead and disprove me .
If it's true or usable I'd love to understand it, but it seems like confusing propositions with statements. All propositions are statements, but not all statements are propositions. A statement could be neither true or false I suppose, like an opinion for example. But propositions are either true or false, and it can't be both, unless your purposely trying to make a meaningless proposition like "this statement is false", though I really don't see how that's useful.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: This is really tricky. When the Buddha says "Nirvana is green", "Nirvana is not green", "Nirvana is both", and "Nirvana is neither", it is still only possible that it is green or not green, you are right about that. Yet, if you make the assertion "Nirvana is green", whether in two or in four-valued logic, you are calling the Buddha a liar.
Of course, I meant when he's using the negation of the four.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27735932 - 04/15/22 12:48 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said:
I don't trust the Buddha at his word; if he said something that doesn't make any sense, he's obligated to demonstrate it or explain it just like everyone else.
That's all very nice, but where is the problem with not saying something? The Buddha could have said: "I don't tell ya if I enter Nirvana." Then it wouldn't be an issue for you, would it? Instead, he framed it in the words of his most favorite logic, which I think is perfectly alright. The question if it is a fifth option is not of importance. One may add it to the binary logic as follows: "There are true things and there are false things, and some freakin' things I won't tell you". That's fine with me.
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
I suppose, but I don't see where the four values come in, it's still either true or false, not both or neither.
His most favorite logic seems less like logic and more like a way to obfuscate.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu] 1
#27736026 - 04/15/22 02:01 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: Okay, but if this is how you define it then we demonstrably don't have it.
Why not? Fuck determinism, I can do whatever I want.
And, of course, fuck the mind: It is all determined, everything happening according to cause and effect.
Believe me, there is more than one truth to the question of free will. That is where the four-valued logic comes into play.
Quote:
I want to go to the moon tomorrow, I can't. I want to eat lobster tonight, I won't be able to. I want to overcome my built-in survival needs, I'm unable to. Our will is not entirely free.
No one said that everything in the universe is governed by free will. Even my heartbeat is not free. Yet an experienced yogi may control his heartbeat, at which point it becomes subject to free will. Same goes for thoughts: Not free for the normal person, but under control for an advanced practitioner.
Yet, as long as I can move my hand, there is something in the universe governed by free will.
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: Why not? Fuck determinism, I can do whatever I want.
Can you? Furthermore, where did your wants come from? Did you get to choose them?
Quote:
And, of course, fuck the mind: It is all determined, everything happening according to cause and effect.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. It seems to contradict your previous statement.
Quote:
Believe me, there is more than one truth to the question of free will. That is where the four-valued logic comes into play.
I don't believe you. Can you demonstrate it? Or explain it?
Quote:
No one said that everything in the universe is governed by free will. Even my heartbeat is not free. Yet an experienced yogi may control his heartbeat, at which point it becomes subject to free will. Same goes for thoughts: Not free for the normal person, but under control for an advanced practitioner.
Sure, but we aren't free to do anything there are limitations. Some physical, some mental. Moreover it's rather hard to distinguish between a willed action and a built-in reflex; some would say there is no distinction.
Quote:
Yet, as long as I can move my hand, there is something in the universe governed by free will.
I knew it, another discussion absorbed by the free-will debate
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27736186 - 04/15/22 04:04 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Okay, going around in circles here. Let's agree that we disagree. But just out of curiosity (and to finish this stupid thread ): What is your definition of free will, and does it exist or not?
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
I enjoyed the thread, hope I didn't come across offensive 
So generally the way I put it is like this;
I define free will as the perception of choice. As in, the feeling that I can choose what I do, like whether I wear green or blue today.
In this sense, I do have free will, and my free will could be taken from me; for example if I were put in a cage.
I think this is what most people mean when they talk about free will colloquially, and what I mean when I say I believe I currently have free will; I'm not under anyone else's control.
That being said, it's only a perception/feeling. Determinism sort of comes to crash the party. Every identifiable part of my decision making isn't really up to me; I like blue because my brain reacts a certain way to that color. I didn't "choose" to like blue. I "chose" to get dressed today because of habit, how I was raised, the society I live in ect. Not getting dressed wasn't an option my brain even considered.
That's kind of the crux of it. My desires, my thoughts, my feelings; I don't choose any of that. They are things that happen to me and I react to them. Even my reaction isn't entirely up to me; it's based on the personality I was born with, my upbringing, my previous experiences, ect. Could I choose to be not me? I don't think I could.
Basically, I think free will is an illusion; one that is important for a properly functioning human. It's uncomfortable to consider that we are not in total control of our actions, but if you truly understand determinism and really dig into free will - it kind of implodes into a chain of cause and effect.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27736481 - 04/15/22 09:05 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This true or false thing is a koan meant to free your mind..
|
|