|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
|
-------------------- 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]
#27779817 - 05/16/22 04:45 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Hey Svetaketu, care to continue? I'm ready. It is okay if you don't want to, though. It just means I have won the discussion .
Let me summarize: I believe you can describe the entire universe using binary logic, and there will not be a contradiction anywhere. That includes traffic lights. For example, let's take the statement: "Nirvana is both green and not green." It can be true or false using four-valued logic. In binary logic, it is false, since nothing can be both green and not green. The law of the excluded middle isn't violated. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That still leaves the question what you do with meaningless statements. You said earlier:
Quote:
It's easy to make something meaningless, but what's the point? Seems like a good way to deliberately avoid a difficult question like, is nirvana green?
So what if I chose to make something meaningless, with no point whatsoever, just because I can do it for the hell of it? And what if I do it to avoid a difficult question? Could you just answer, is it true or false?
It seems you have to use a threefold logic, at the very least: True, False, and Meaningless. Or are meaningless statements simply wrong? I'm not sure, but I'm interested in your opinion.
One may ask: If you can describe the full universe using binary logic, why introduce another logic? Well, I can ask the very same question: If I can explain everything with four-valued logic, why use binary logic?
So why should one use four-valued logic? It may be easier to apply in certain circumstances, and make more sense. For example, my idea that the existence of free will depends on your perspective is clear and easy to get, while your argument that free will is an illusion is lengthy and complicated and hard to understand. (I don't argue if it is true or false, I'm just discerning the complexity of the argument). Most importantly, however, it may empower your mind. You can do things which would otherwise cause massive cognitive dissonance - see my solipsism example.
Speaking of solipsism, there is something I forgot to mention. About my favorite free will paradigm (that you are the only one with free will):
Quote:
Anyway, doesn't this only make sense if you're a solipsist?
You don't have to be a solipsist to do this. Other consciousnesses still exist, they just do not have 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: Hey Svetaketu, care to continue? I'm ready. It is okay if you don't want to, though. It just means I have won the discussion .
How could I refuse with my pride on the line hahaha.
In all seriousness, I hope you don't view this as a battle; I have no intention of attacking or winning, my goal is understanding 
Quote:
Let me summarize: I believe you can describe the entire universe using binary logic, and there will not be a contradiction anywhere. That includes traffic lights. For example, let's take the statement: "Nirvana is both green and not green." It can be true or false using four-valued logic. In binary logic, it is false, since nothing can be both green and not green. The law of the excluded middle isn't violated. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I find this confusing. If binary logic can describe everything, then of what use is four-valued logic? The way I see it, any use of four-valued logic is inherently a violation of binary logic; it is founded upon ignoring laws of binary logic and suggests that contradictory positions could simultaneously be true.
I don't see how this could coexist with binary logic.
Quote:
That still leaves the question what you do with meaningless statements. You said earlier:
Quote:
It's easy to make something meaningless, but what's the point? Seems like a good way to deliberately avoid a difficult question like, is nirvana green?
So what if I chose to make something meaningless, with no point whatsoever, just because I can do it for the hell of it? And what if I do it to avoid a difficult question? Could you just answer, is it true or false?
Well so what if you do? Of course you can, but it's rather pointless.
I don't think difficult questions should be avoided, otherwise they may never be answered.
Confusing other people can be very useful for personal gain, so I tend to be skeptical of meaningless statements that are dressed up and pretending to be profound.
Quote:
It seems you have to use a threefold logic, at the very least: True, False, and Meaningless. Or are meaningless statements simply wrong? I'm not sure, but I'm interested in your opinion.
I guess you could say they're wrong. I don't really consider meaningless to be an option. Meaninglessness is the result of a flaw in understanding, either the statement has been structured with a flaw, or there's a flaw in my ability to fully understand the context of the statement.
Quote:
One may ask: If you can describe the full universe using binary logic, why introduce another logic? Well, I can ask the very same question: If I can explain everything with four-valued logic, why use binary logic?
Well, I don't think you can use four-valued logic to explain everything. So far I don't feel like we've gotten to anything that is explained by four-valued logic. Binary logic on the other hand, has proven time and time again to be reliable.
Quote:
So why should one use four-valued logic? It may be easier to apply in certain circumstances, and make more sense. For example, my idea that the existence of free will depends on your perspective is clear and easy to get, while your argument that free will is an illusion is lengthy and complicated and hard to understand. (I don't argue if it is true or false, I'm just discerning the complexity of the argument). Most importantly, however, it may empower your mind. You can do things which would otherwise cause massive cognitive dissonance - see my solipsism example.
Personally I don't feel like your explanation is clearer. I'm still unclear whether you believe we do have free will or not.
Why would you want to incorporate things that generally cause cognitive dissonance?
Quote:
Speaking of solipsism, there is something I forgot to mention. About my favorite free will paradigm (that you are the only one with free will):
Quote:
Anyway, doesn't this only make sense if you're a solipsist?
You don't have to be a solipsist to do this. Other consciousnesses still exist, they just do not have free will.
Hmm. But why would that be the case? Why would I be the only one with free will? What makes me different from everyone else?
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27781033 - 05/17/22 02:16 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: In all seriousness, I hope you don't view this as a battle; I have no intention of attacking or winning, my goal is understanding 
I agree, sir.
Quote:
I guess you could say they're wrong. I don't really consider meaningless to be an option.
Well, what about tautologies? "A is A". It is obviously true. The problem is that there is no conceivable universe where it is wrong. Thus, it does not make sense to say that it is true.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27781039 - 05/17/22 02:29 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: Personally I don't feel like your explanation is clearer.
Let the community decide.
The four-valued logic:
Quote:
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.
Versus the binary logic:
Quote:
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.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 21 minutes, 55 seconds
|
|
For anything practical, I agree that four-valued logic is a convenience that can be reduced to binary. So nonbinary logic in that sense is less complicated, but less correct. But it is also a presumption I think that anything is finally yes or no, as it is perspective dependent, contextual.
A probability in itself is nonbinary. Solidity maybe comes from a conviction that our guess is correct, but still, what is not a guess?
Yes, this is a koan. The tired mind is restful. And in that rest opens new avenues of energy. So there is a nonbinary conclusion built binarily.
Yes, it is like the finger trap, or the monkey not being able to remove his paw from the jar unless he lets go. These are conveniently nonbinary but not when reduced.
This thought process is unsatisfying, yet augments satisfaction. Opposites emphasize one another. Is this nonbinary? Yes and no.
Edited by syncro (05/17/22 05:52 AM)
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said:
Well, what about tautologies? "A is A". It is obviously true. The problem is that there is no conceivable universe where it is wrong. Thus, it does not make sense to say that it is true.
I don't understand. If there's no conceivable universe where it is wrong, then why wouldn't it be true?
Quote:
AnattaAtman said:
Quote:
Svetaketu said: Personally I don't feel like your explanation is clearer.
Let the community decide.
The four-valued logic:
Quote:
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.
Versus the binary logic:
Quote:
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.
I mean, at least give me a chance to summarize 
Really all I'm saying is free will is an illusion that we experience, but really it doesn't exist.
So if you want the honest answer to "do we have free will?" My answer is no; we feel like we do but it's an illusion.
On the other hand, your answer doesn't really answer the question. Do we have free will or don't we? You say no because determinism but then yes because you feel free. But which is it really? Is free will just an illusion? Or can we really do whatever we want to do?
Edited by Svetaketu (05/17/22 11:13 AM)
|
Malin
*whir*--click--*woof!* (not dog)



Registered: 05/17/22
Posts: 130
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27781454 - 05/17/22 11:03 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm so happy to see this thread I will come back soon sorry wasn't here. but -- I read Kenneth K. Innada write about this.
-------------------- [quote]Buster_Brown said: Word game: "Walking on the waves she came" I guess we will see if Malin can walk on these troubled waters.[/quote] [quote]Malin said: Yea I'm with you Buster and thank you so much. When I was 13, 21 years ago I heard it as- "Walking on the waves Chicane." Of course that's not a word. Staring as she my na-ame. Oh I can't get it out of my head... It was definitely one of my favorites. I had a good 10 albums or so (by that band) Though I was poor, my friend gave them to me.[/quote]
|
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: syncro]
#27781459 - 05/17/22 11:08 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
syncro said: For anything practical, I agree that four-valued logic is a convenience that can be reduced to binary. So nonbinary logic in that sense is less complicated, but less correct. But it is also a presumption I think that anything is finally yes or no, as it is perspective dependent, contextual.
Binary logic isn't saying everything must be yes or no, it's about avoiding obvious contradictions.
Put simply;
Everything is what it is Isn't what it isn't And can't be neither or both.
Saying everything must be yes or no/true or false is a bit of a misunderstanding. It's more like a guide to being able to nail down exactly what you mean and keep things demonstrable.
Edited by Svetaketu (05/17/22 11:15 AM)
|
Malin
*whir*--click--*woof!* (not dog)



Registered: 05/17/22
Posts: 130
|
|
[edit:] Most of the way through writing my reply. I am along said AnattaAtman..I mean that I agree with him, and also I like the main points expressed and they seem helpful and good; I don't see much or anything wrong with them. In support of the four-fold logic, I mostly wrote the following. (The quotes -- are almost all AnattaAtman, but I didn't correct i -- [edit: I think I have the quotes correct.]
Quote:
AnattaAtman said:
Let me summarize: I believe you can describe the entire universe using binary logic, and there will not be a contradiction anywhere. That includes traffic lights. For example, let's take the statement: "Nirvana is both green and not green." It can be true or false using four-valued logic. In binary logic, it is false, since nothing can be both green and not green. The law of the excluded middle isn't violated. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That still leaves the question what you do with meaningless statements.
The first thing I learned was that infinite meaning and 0 meaning have a similar, somewhat result.
Someone once said the two ways to reach the absolute are the infinite and the nothing... (Watts I think), he said they're both a way to reach the absolute.
Quote:
Svetaketu said:
It's easy to make something meaningless, but what's the point? Seems like a good way to deliberately avoid a difficult question like, is nirvana green?
Meaninglessness is never good for the most part, if you ask me; but it seems to be like Watts said, becoming nothing so you reach the absolute in that way.
Quote:
So what if I chose to make something meaningless, with no point whatsoever, just because I can do it for the hell of it? And what if I do it to avoid a difficult question? Could you just answer, is it true or false?
It seems you have to use a threefold logic, at the very least: True, False, and Meaningless. Or are meaningless statements simply wrong? I'm not sure, but I'm interested in your opinion.
[edit:] Interestingly, in discourse, Buddha said there are three ways to properly answer a question: with a statement, with a question, or with silence. Just an interesting aside. . . I'm not sure if it's very much relevant but kind of perhaps. 
[edit#2:] I would say that four-fold logic is necessary but also simple. I know I am a third party, but I am not intending to ever confuse the issue, only here to bring or share what I've got if it's helpful.
Interesting, I've never thought about this. The P.D. calls it 7 possible ways, "true in some sense, false in some sense, true and false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, (all 3 in some sense), etc..." I don't have it memorized.
Quote:
One may ask: If you can describe the full universe using binary logic, why introduce another logic? Well, I can ask the very same question: If I can explain everything with four-valued logic, why use binary logic?
[edit:] I do not think it is possible to describe the universe only using bi-nary logic; I would actually state this fairly strongly, as we have quantum mechanics and so forth which illuminate this. Or essentially force this on us if we want to understand the universe.
I think four-value is very important and useful or good.
Quote:
So why should one use four-valued logic? It may be easier to apply in certain circumstances, and make more sense.
The example I recall or like (or both recall and like) is "You are the same person as you were when you were a baby, and yet you are not the same person." So in other words, you both are and are not the same person as when you were a baby. Both are true.
Quote:
For example, my idea that the existence of free will depends on your perspective is clear and easy to get, while your argument that free will is an illusion is lengthy and complicated and hard to understand.
I agree.
Quote:
(I don't argue if it is true or false, I'm just discerning the complexity of the argument). Most importantly, however, it may empower your mind. You can do things which would otherwise cause massive cognitive dissonance - see my solipsism example.
It could be that the idea there is no free will is both true and false.
Quote:
Speaking of solipsism, there is something I forgot to mention. About my favorite free will paradigm (that you are the only one with free will):
Interesting. Here are you referring to Svetaketu?
Quote:
Svetaketu
Anyway, doesn't this only make sense if you're a solipsist?
Quote:
You don't have to be a solipsist to do this. Other consciousnesses still exist, they just do not have free will.
Very interesting. I'm thinking of a few things that align with this. Non-duality, oneness, and so forth. David Bohm's work, and other stuff. Non-duality is a part of the whole discussion.
-------------------- [quote]Buster_Brown said: Word game: "Walking on the waves she came" I guess we will see if Malin can walk on these troubled waters.[/quote] [quote]Malin said: Yea I'm with you Buster and thank you so much. When I was 13, 21 years ago I heard it as- "Walking on the waves Chicane." Of course that's not a word. Staring as she my na-ame. Oh I can't get it out of my head... It was definitely one of my favorites. I had a good 10 albums or so (by that band) Though I was poor, my friend gave them to me.[/quote]
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu] 2
#27782310 - 05/17/22 11:36 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: I don't understand. If there's no conceivable universe where it is wrong, then why wouldn't it be true?
I just think that a proposition must be true or false. Since it cannot be false, it is not a valid proposition. It is like my former example: "23QRTZYC5". That, too, is not a proposition in the end. That makes it meaningless.
Quote:
I mean, at least give me a chance to summarize 
You are right. I'm sorry. Anyway: The result from the poll is crystal clear. No one votes.
|
Malin
*whir*--click--*woof!* (not dog)



Registered: 05/17/22
Posts: 130
|
|
I'm sorry to be a weird one, but what was the proposition again?
-------------------- [quote]Buster_Brown said: Word game: "Walking on the waves she came" I guess we will see if Malin can walk on these troubled waters.[/quote] [quote]Malin said: Yea I'm with you Buster and thank you so much. When I was 13, 21 years ago I heard it as- "Walking on the waves Chicane." Of course that's not a word. Staring as she my na-ame. Oh I can't get it out of my head... It was definitely one of my favorites. I had a good 10 albums or so (by that band) Though I was poor, my friend gave them to me.[/quote]
|
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 just think that a proposition must be true or false. Since it cannot be false, it is not a valid proposition. It is like my former example: "23QRTZYC5". That, too, is not a proposition in the end. That makes it meaningless.
Hmm. The way I think about it, tautologies are a category of propositions. It's just part of the definition of the category that they are obviously true, otherwise they wouldn't be tautologies.
But they are not meaningless. The meaning is just usually rather mundane; basically just real world examples of the law of identity.
Quote:
You are right. I'm sorry. Anyway: The result from the poll is crystal clear. No one votes. 

Quote:
Malin said: I'm sorry to be a weird one, but what was the proposition again?
As I understand it, he was referring to tautologies in general, and suggested that because tautologies are always true, then they do not count as propositions and are therefore meaningless.
Hopefully Anatta will correct me here if I'm misunderstanding his point.
|
Malin
*whir*--click--*woof!* (not dog)



Registered: 05/17/22
Posts: 130
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27783519 - 05/18/22 08:20 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Oh ok. Well yea Tautologies if I understand it are quite helpful in speaking. A=A and therefore a lot of things can be said. True is true, and on that a great amount can be built. A true statement is true, and on and on -- I'm not good at it.... I do think there is some work done on it though.
-------------------- [quote]Buster_Brown said: Word game: "Walking on the waves she came" I guess we will see if Malin can walk on these troubled waters.[/quote] [quote]Malin said: Yea I'm with you Buster and thank you so much. When I was 13, 21 years ago I heard it as- "Walking on the waves Chicane." Of course that's not a word. Staring as she my na-ame. Oh I can't get it out of my head... It was definitely one of my favorites. I had a good 10 albums or so (by that band) Though I was poor, my friend gave them to me.[/quote]
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,793
|
Re: Buddhist Colonoscopy [Re: Malin]
#27784140 - 05/19/22 11:00 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I didnt know you were a Buddhist!
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Rotnpins
🤮 Rotten-Pins 🍄



Registered: 01/11/22
Posts: 4,738
Loc: in (front of) the hood
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Buddhist Colonoscopy [Re: Asante]
#27784194 - 05/19/22 11:44 AM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Asante said: I didnt know you were a Buddhist!
you changed the subject to "Buddhist Colonoscopy" and it confused the hell out of me. I read the whole thing twice to try and figure out why the subject line said that. The second time reading it I noticed that you changed it.
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: Buddhist Colonoscopy [Re: Rotnpins]
#27784337 - 05/19/22 01:47 PM (1 year, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It’s an appropriate choice for the ongoing discussion , imho.
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Kickle]
#28417260 - 08/02/23 09:30 AM (5 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Buddhas have done no work. That is an illusion. Buddhas have paid attention to what is happening and woken up.
Just wondering: What is the difference between a Buddha and a monk who gains enlightenment?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
|
The monk is a real person, and if he works at enlightenment today, this minute, he must do it again tomorrow and every minute thereafter, it's light work easy work, but he or she has to begin to do it, and begin again and again.
Every breakthrough falls apart, one naturally gets distracted, enlightenment is not persisting, but the opening through relaxed awareness can lead to other relaxed aware openings, to re-acquaintance with clarity about how things are as they are, to appreciation of the perfectly imperfect. It can seem to appear to be steady, or that can just be another delusion, one will easily relax and begin again.
The Buddha is like Moses, or Christ, they are mythical figures, they are not really people, so neither really enlightened nor not enlightened, but they are good stories; maybe you can learn from them, maybe, some stories are possibly even true; but what is your story? that is the one that matters, all of it all together on all channels - you must relax and be open to it as it was and as it is.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: The Buddha is like Moses, or Christ, they are mythical figures, they are not really people, so neither really enlightened nor not enlightened, but they are good stories; maybe you can learn from them, maybe, some stories are possibly even true; but what is your story? that is the one that matters, all of it all together on all channels - you must relax and be open to it as it was and as it is.
If the Buddha wasn't a real historical figure, then who founded the religion? Was it just a highly enlightened monk? If so, why don't we call that monk "Buddha"? After all, "Buddha" simply translates as "The Awakened One".
|
|