|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Buddhist Epistemology 2
#27730327 - 04/11/22 02:07 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
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".
Edited by AnattaAtman (04/11/22 04:35 PM)
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
|
Buddhas have done no work. That is an illusion. Buddhas have paid attention to what is happening and woken up. This whole thing stinks of a way to confuse.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 21 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Kickle]
#27730473 - 04/11/22 04:33 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Neither real nor unreal, but I think not the same, as well, with both real and unreal. Neither true nor false <> true and false. 
I was reminded of how it's phrased in the Vedic source as only in the negatives, or could be my selective memory.
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: syncro]
#27730477 - 04/11/22 04:36 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
rely less on the texts whenever possible. they hold truth but only to a degree. it must match with experience and if not, discard it. it will only mislead you. what is true now is immeasurably more important than any possible truth that could be. and if it's relevant later, you will experience it then.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
connectedcosmos
Neti Neti



Registered: 02/07/15
Posts: 7,426
Loc: The Pathless Path
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: syncro]
#27730479 - 04/11/22 04:37 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Everything is void without each other 
This was a good read
--------------------
 54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Kickle]
#27730493 - 04/11/22 04:48 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Buddhas have done no work. That is an illusion. Buddhas have paid attention to what is happening and woken up.
Okay, that's Zen. I like it, but there are some serious issues with it. There is a Mahayana Sutra where a bodhisattva becomes evil after having a satori experience. That's the problem with emptiness. So much for waking up.
Quote:
This whole thing stinks of a way to confuse.
I'm sorry.
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
|
You will not confuse me. You can not. You are welcome to be here. But do not confuse yourself.
-------------------- 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
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Kickle]
#27730521 - 04/11/22 05:06 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Please be aware of the edit on the OP following my post. I can counter the new writing, but I think that your awareness of this fact is far more important. Just look at what is. The truth does not backtrack.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 21 minutes, 56 seconds
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Kickle]
#27730523 - 04/11/22 05:08 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: rely less on the texts whenever possible. they hold truth but only to a degree. it must match with experience and if not, discard it. it will only mislead you. what is true now is more important than any possible truth that could be. and if it's relevant later, you will experience it then.
No like neither real nor unreal? The rest was my conjecture.
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: syncro]
#27730524 - 04/11/22 05:09 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think you are on a beautiful path. My comment was general advice to you
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 21 minutes, 56 seconds
|
|
'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". '
If Buddha were in Nirvana, could he answer? If he does answer, is he not? When I ask if he is, he just smiles and disappears. The question seems to quite amuse him.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
connectedcosmos said: This was a good read 
Thanks.
I added a line at the end which I think is quite neat .
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: syncro]
#27730537 - 04/11/22 05:25 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
just so syncro. it's a joke to think a Buddha is somewhere rather than eveywhere
-------------------- 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: syncro]
#27730546 - 04/11/22 05:33 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
syncro said: If Buddha were in Nirvana, could he answer? If he does answer, is he not? When I ask if he is, he just smiles and disappears. The question seems to quite amuse him.
Nirvana is the undifferentiated field of consciousness. Your subjective experience dissolves, like a drop returning to the ocean. Does the drop still exist when it has returned to the ocean? That's up for debate.
Something I have struggled with a little is the question if one can come back from Nirvana. According to the Buddha, Nirvana is permanent. I wasn't so sure about that. After all, consciousness has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? I've come to the conclusion that Nirvana is mystical. It defies rational thinking. There is very little which can be said about it.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Kickle]
#27730556 - 04/11/22 05:41 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: You will not confuse me. You can not.
I don't want to confuse you. I appreciate your opinion.
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
|
I will not say the same in return. Even if ultimately I very much love you. Value is in the eye of the beholder.
-------------------- 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: Kickle]
#27730645 - 04/11/22 06:57 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: I will not say the same in return.
I don't care, buddy. You're very much welcome in this thread.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
|
|
Buddhism and Buddhist literature.. is beatiful because it is precise and to the point.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
|
|
1/0
Off and on..
A phone handy?
Talking to God about Buddhist Zen!
A miracle of one container or another. Chesed.
The secret case is revealed in plain literature. Plain prose.
Metaphorically speaking. We see the butterfly that flaps its wings and creates a hurricane.
Like a roll of the dice.. 6 sided 6 dimensions..
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
|
|

I'm listening
and you're right. I'm only confusing myself.
-------------------- 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
|
|
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..
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
|
|
There is nothing wrong with something that is predetermined.. if it makes you happy..
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27736664 - 04/16/22 12:57 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: 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.
That's valid, I suppose. It's the advantage of the four-valued logic: I can accept multiple things as true in their own peculiar way, even if they would normally contradict each other.
Quote:
I enjoyed the thread, hope I didn't come across offensive 
Nah, this thread is rather stupid. I mean, how does the debate on free will help the common man from the streets? How does it pay for the bread on his table, or the shrooms? I like to take refuge in common sense occasionally, and there is very little of it in this thread. I like to exercise my mind, but this whole thing feels like masturbating on logic.
When it comes to overly contemplating things not related to suffering (I have the tendency to do so), I like the Buddha's arrow simile. It's in the Cūḷamālukya Sutta:
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me (...) until I know his home village, town, or city (...) until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow. (...)' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."
Case closed.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 21 minutes, 57 seconds
|
|
All is in flux but that which says it, but that is ineffable lest it fall in flux.
It is a hall of mirrors, but I give it to Plato for aesthetic.
'but I stoutly contend that by beauty all beautiful things become beautiful.'
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
|
How Dialethic.
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: That's valid, I suppose. It's the advantage of the four-valued logic: I can accept multiple things as true in their own peculiar way, even if they would normally contradict each other.
This has nothing to do with four valued logic. Convoluted? Perhaps. Contradictory? I don't see how.
Quote:
Quote:
I enjoyed the thread, hope I didn't come across offensive 
Nah, this thread is rather stupid. I mean, how does the debate on free will help the common man from the streets? How does it pay for the bread on his table, or the shrooms? I like to take refuge in common sense occasionally, and there is very little of it in this thread. I like to exercise my mind, but this whole thing feels like masturbating on logic.
It doesn't, which is why I was trying to avoid it 
You brought up free will as an example of four-valued logic.
You made a thread about buddhist logic; I'm just pointing out that four-valued logic is not really applicable to anything in the real world, except for confusing yourself in an apparent search for enlightenment.
I agree; case closed.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 21 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27737300 - 04/16/22 12:42 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It has been used in computing and can apply to such relations.
'Nuel Belnap considered the challenge of question answering by computer in 1975. Noting human fallibility, he was concerned with the case where two contradictory facts were loaded into memory, and then a query was made. "We all know about the fecundity of contradictions in two-valued logic: contradictions are never isolated, infecting as they do the whole system."[1] Belnap proposed a four-valued logic as a means of containing contradiction.[2][3]
He called the table of values A4: Its possible values are true, false, both (true and false), and neither (true nor false). Belnap's logic is designed to cope with multiple information sources such that if only true is found then true is assigned, if only false is found then false is assigned, if some sources say true and others say false then both is assigned, and if no information is given by any information source then neither is assigned.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-valued_logic
|
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]
#27737346 - 04/16/22 01:33 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Right, but this can't be carried over to propositions or reasoning in daily life.
This is about compiling and understanding potentially flawed information; for any proposition the answer is still either true or false.
I'm looking for a real example of four-valued logic in use: like I have a jar of jelly beans. The number of beans is either odd or even - an example of the excluded middle principle. To suggest it could be both or neither is on it face, ridiculous.
|
syncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 21 minutes, 57 seconds
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27737360 - 04/16/22 01:52 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
On the same page I quoted, it is also used in an electronics standard for digital circuitry. I never knew any of this.
This is also listed under applications. 'Split bit proposed gate Creation of carbon nanotubes for logical gates has used carbon nanotube field-effect transistors (CNFETs). An anticipated demand for data storage in the Internet of Things (IoT) provides a motivation. A proposal has been made for 32 nm process application using a split bit-gate: "By using CNFET technology in 32 nm node by the proposed SQI gate, two split bit-lines QSRAM architectures have been suggested to address the issue of increasing demand for storage capacity in IoT/IoVT applications. Peripheral circuits such as a novel quaternary to binary decoder for QSRAM have been offered."'
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27737416 - 04/16/22 02:30 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
for a world with such logically contradictory states of affairs to be possible, it would need to be a time traveling jar of jelly beans. time travel is an escape from the here and now and how. if the past, future, and present all exist at once, then the jar of jelly beans could exist with 365 jelly beans, and also 364 jelly beans, after you just ate one, and with no jelly beans, after you had eaten them all.
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
Quote:
syncro said: On the same page I quoted, it is also used in an electronics standard for digital circuitry. I never knew any of this.
Agreed, I didn't know any of that and it is interesting.
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: for a world with such logically contradictory states of affairs to be possible, it would need to be a time traveling jar of jelly beans. time travel is an escape from the here and now and how. if the past, future, and present all exist at once, then the jar of jelly beans could exist with 365 jelly beans, and also 364 jelly beans, after you just ate one, and with no jelly beans, after you had eaten them all.

Once the jelly beans break the speed of light, anything is possible.
At that point they probably are simultaneously both jelly beans and not-jelly beans
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27737609 - 04/16/22 05:31 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So freewill exists because of our perception.
Because of negative vs positive emotions.. people will likely seek out positive experiences..
That searching is free.. free to choose a better life.
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,642
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
Jesus spoke like a Buddhist.
in the Gospel of John, in Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, 7:53-8:1–11, those who were plotting against Jesus were trying to trap Him and discredit Him, either before the crowd of believers or their Roman overlords. a woman is dragged before a crowd and publicly accused of adultery, and if Jesus had agreed that the woman should be stoned or put to death He made himself an instant enemy of the occupying Roman army, as they forbade capital punishment. if He disagreed and offended the opinion that the woman should not be stoned then He made himself an enemy of Mosaic law. it was damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Jesus creates a third option, He neither agreed nor disagreed that the woman should be stoned or put to death. but instead said, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
the crowd disperses, and Jesus' answer turns the trap that they were trying to catch him with upon themselves, a fourth outcome. Jesus did not excuse the woman's sin, but also did not condemn her for it. the Lord offers His forgiveness to the woman, and challenges her to go and sin no more. knowing that we have free will, when we confront sin in our lives, God freely chooses through Christ not to condemn us, but to challenge us to go and sin no more.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27738125 - 04/17/22 05:04 AM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: I'm just pointing out that four-valued logic is not really applicable to anything in the real world.
What about this: A traffic light can be red, green, both (when it's broken) and neither (when it's yellow).
And meaningless statements (neither true nor false) are everywhere.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
|
Quote:
thealienthatategod said: Jesus spoke like a Buddhist.
Hellenic Buddhism was introduced to Judea a couple centuries before Jesus and was widespread in Egypt at the time when it is said he resided there. There is no coincidence there.
The story you mention is not in the early texts but was added later. It is allegorical reference to Jesus being born to a mother but not being the son of her husband, which according to the law of Judea meant that his pregnant mother was to be stoned to death, for that was the penalty having had a child that was not of her husband.
Merely having had Jesus, who was not of Josef, was proof under Judean law that she had committed adultery and could be stoned to death, thus Jesus was according to the law, proof of his mother's crime and should not have been born. In some versions it was this law that was used to condemn him to death, by stoning, but only after treating Lazarus and frightening the locals who then found out who his mother was.
However the version I know is not canonical and I hesitate to share it because I don't want to interfere with belief systems.
It does have Jesus learning Alexandrian Buddhism though. Just saying.
Edited by Nillion (04/17/22 06:00 AM)
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: And meaningless statements (neither true nor false) are everywhere.
My prime example being the statement: "This sentence is wrong". There is also the bodhicitta issue. But there are others. What about the statement "23QRTZYC5"? It is neither true nor wrong, it is meaningless. There obviously exists an infinite number of this type. But there are also statements which are grammatically correct, yet make no sense. Noam Chomsky brought up the famous proposition: "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously." That is wrong on so many levels that it becomes meaningless. Then there are tautologies: "A is A". It is too obviously true, it amkes no sense. Finally, there is the statement: "Caesar is a prime number." Some would argue that this is wrong, plain and easy. The philosopher Rudolf Carnap, however, argued that it is meaningless. The assertion "A is a prime number" is only meaningful if A is a number, at the very least.
|
Svetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑


Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 27 minutes
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: What about this: A traffic light can be red, green, both (when it's broken) and neither (when it's yellow).
And meaningless statements (neither true nor false) are everywhere.
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: My prime example being the statement: "This sentence is wrong". There is also the bodhicitta issue. But there are others. What about the statement "23QRTZYC5"? It is neither true nor wrong, it is meaningless. There obviously exists an infinite number of this type. But there are also statements which are grammatically correct, yet make no sense. Noam Chomsky brought up the famous proposition: "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously." That is wrong on so many levels that it becomes meaningless. Then there are tautologies: "A is A". It is too obviously true, it amkes no sense. Finally, there is the statement: "Caesar is a prime number." Some would argue that this is wrong, plain and easy. The philosopher Rudolf Carnap, however, argued that it is meaningless. The assertion "A is a prime number" is only meaningful if A is a number, at the very least.
I guess I don't consider "meaningless" to be one of the options. It implies something is defunct with the structure of the proposition or the machinery.
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? If you answer yes or no, more questions are sure to follow. If you instead befuddle the questioner, they stop prying.
We could make a program/machine that responds to a meaningless value in a specific way, but this doesn't violate logic, we made it that way; we could make it a million different ways if we wanted to, because we are making up the rules.
My main point is that the law of excluded middle is never violated; for example with the stoplight, you need to make a proposition about it to apply logic to.
Like if I propose the light is green. It either is or isn't. Even if it's green and red, it's still green (in part) it's not also not-green; it's just also red.
Quote:
"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously."
on another note, I like this. My brain wants to interpret it; green tends to represent good or go, so colourless green would mean something good; unrelated to the color. Therefore I take it to mean "good ideas sleep furiously" which has an interesting point to it.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: Svetaketu]
#27738989 - 04/17/22 04:25 PM (1 year, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Svetaketu said: Like if I propose the light is green. It either is or isn't. Even if it's green and red, it's still green (in part) it's not also not-green; it's just also red.
I think you still don't get the problem. I don't deny that binary logic is valid, and that you can apply it to traffic lights. Hell, I wouldn't even be able to write this post without it, since my computer depends on it.
All I'm saying is that the four-valued logic is also valid, both mathematically and philosophically, and that it is useful in describing the universe. Since there are some things where the truth depends on the perspective, and these things are both true and false.
Using four-valued logic, I can be a solipsist and not be a solipsist at the same time. I am a solipsist in the sense that every object in the universe which I can discern is part of my own consciousness. I am not a solipsist, because I assume that this is so for everyone. That is not possible in binary logic.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: Since there are some things where the truth depends on the perspective, and these things are both true and false.
More precisely, it is valid to consider them true and false. You have to switch your logic to four-valued logic to do this. There is nothing both true and false if you are thinking in binary logic. In that case, the principle of the excluded middle is never violated. It is a little like the chicken and egg problem. Which came first?
As the saying by Abraham Maslow goes: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: Your subjective experience dissolves, like a drop returning to the ocean.
There is actually a second way of entering Nirvana, where you keep existing. It is called: Doing it the jhana way. In that case, you meditate, and drop into it. You can exist forever in this state, it just gets more and more pleasant the deeper you go into meditation. It is only at the very bottom - after a long, long period of time - that your consciousness slowly dissolves.
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Anyway, I'll be on vacation for the next couple of weeks, and will not have access to the internet. So we have to end the debate, or continue later.
|
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, 57 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".
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: What is the difference between a Buddha and a monk who gains enlightenment?
Great setup for a joke, now for the punchline:
Another answer:
Buddha, "Awakened One" or "Enlightened One," is the masculine form of budh (बुध् ), "to wake, be awake, observe, heed, attend, learn, become aware of, to know, be conscious again," "to awaken" ""to open up" (as does a flower)," "one who has awakened from the deep sleep of ignorance and opened his consciousness to encompass all objects of knowledge." It is not a personal name, but a title for those who have attained bodhi (awakening, enlightenment). Buddhi, the power to "form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, understand," is the faculty which discerns truth (satya) from falsehood.

Quote:
redgreenvines said: 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.
Thanks for sharing a part of your personal inner workings and resulting views.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said:
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".
We seem to need people that evaluate the truthiness of stories about our heroes, but the purpose of having heroes like these is to learn the lessons that their life stories may impart. As for enlightenment, as with any meaning, it is personal.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
AnattaAtman
Mad Bodhisattva

Registered: 09/25/21
Posts: 377
Last seen: 16 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: We seem to need people that evaluate the truthiness of stories about our heroes, but the purpose of having heroes like these is to learn the lessons that their life stories may impart.
I see. Such as the middle path, which is the main lesson we learn from the Buddha's life. But what do we learn from the life of Christ? That people will kill you if you teach too much love?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
|
something about the pleasure in foot washing perhaps
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
|
Quote:
AnattaAtman said: But what do we learn from the life of Christ?
“I and my Father, We are One.”
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi


Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,657
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: Buddhist Epistemology [Re: spinvis]
#28421539 - 08/05/23 08:04 AM (5 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
The proto geneticist.
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
|
spinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
|
|
According to Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, yes!
|
|