Ultimate Reality

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

I Like Sushu
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by I Like Sushu » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:37 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:05 am
I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am
RC -
The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it?

Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and this is a general requirement regarding life I’d say!
Of course what cannot be known cannot be known, but what cannot be known does not exist. It does not mean we do know it yet, or know everything about it, but if it cannot be known it cannot have any relationship to anything that does exist, and everything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists. "Ontology Introduction," Corollary 3: The Necessity of Relationship
I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am
I seriously need to know what it is you oppose about Kant given that you seem to be stating the very same obviousness he does - although he is x10000 times more pedantic with his scheme of terminology and strict definitions.
I cannot imagine why you have such a need. I don't, "oppose," Kant, I reject his entire philosophy as nonsense. I also do not spend much effort in refuting all the wrong philosophies in the world, since almost all of them are wrong. I'm only interested in presenting what is true. So I'll just briefly mentions some things in Kant that are the most absurd.

There no such thing as a priori vs a posteriori knowlede, or analytic vs synthetic propositions. His entire epistemology is an abomination of made up concepts requiring an intuitive faculty. There is no mysterious knowledge prior to experience and no mystical intuitive faculty.

His idea that perception is a product of (or at least shaped by) reason and that there is a transcendent existence behind the one of consciousness (which of course cannot be known) leads to extreme skepticism, not to understanding of anything.
Ah! I see. You simply think ‘transcendent’ means mystical? Strange as it may seem he actually meant it in terms of your ‘non-material’ etc.,.:
It is obvious that material existence is not all that exists, but everything else that exists (the non-material) only exists as the product of the human mind, that is, psychologically or epistemologically. Reality includes everything that exists materially and non-materially. Knowledge, mathematics, science, history, philosophy, language, and literature all really exist, but not materially. The books or other physical ways these are recorded are material (physical), but any "meaning" they have is psychological (non-material).
If you can accept that your initial impression of what Kant meant by ‘transcendent’ is at fault you’ll find his work much more useful.

The very mention of this term in CoPR is here:

“I call all knowledge transcendental which deals not so much with objects as with our manner of knowing objects insofar as this matter is to be possible a priori.”

So he is referring to the innate faculties that allow for experience NOT ‘knowledge’ in the sense of conscious awareness. Your ‘non-material knowledge’ appears to be closely related to Kant’s ‘transcendental knowledge’.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by I Like Sushu » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:40 am

RC -

I never said this:
Of course what cannot be known cannot be known, but what cannot be known does not exist. It does not mean we do know it yet, or know everything about it, but if it cannot be known it cannot have any relationship to anything that does exist, and everything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists.
I said “whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know ...” - my bad, the use of double negatives should be avoided if possible.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by bahman » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:27 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:45 am
bahman wrote:
Reality cannot exist without mind . That is mind which experiences and causes reality
Reality is not mind dependent as indeed for most of known existence there were no minds
Reality has always existed whereas minds by comparison are a relatively new phenomenon
The mind is not a new phenomenon. It has always existed. Mind needed for any physical change. I have an argument for that.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3093
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am

bahman wrote:
The mind is not a new phenomenon . It has always existed . Mind needed for any physical change
Physical change was occurring for billions of years long before minds ever existed
Is your claim that they have always existed a scientific one or a philosophical one
If it is a scientific one then present the actual evidence and if it is a philosophical one then it is invalid
Because only scientific claims about physical reality that are supported by sufficient evidence are valid

Skepdick
Posts: 763
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:52 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:40 am
the use of double negatives should be avoided if possible.
Well, that says a lot about you ;)

What I have learned in that one simple sentence is that you don't subscribe to intuitionistic logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
systems of intuitionistic logic do not include ... double negation elimination,

I Like Sushu
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by I Like Sushu » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:06 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:52 am
I Like Sushu wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:40 am
the use of double negatives should be avoided if possible.
Well, that says a lot about you ;)

What I have learned in that one simple sentence is that you don't subscribe to intuitionistic logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
systems of intuitionistic logic do not include ... double negation elimination,
I was obviously talking about clarity of language. Did you not, not, not understand? ... clearly RC missed double negative and I’ve done the same thing myself often enough - it happens.

PeteJ
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by PeteJ » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:06 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am
Physical change was occurring for billions of years long before minds ever existed
How do you know this? If it is true then all religion and mysticism is nonsense. If you can demonstrate this everybody will be impressed.
Is your claim that they have always existed a scientific one or a philosophical one
If it is a scientific one then present the actual evidence and if it is a philosophical one then it is invalid
Because only scientific claims about physical reality that are supported by sufficient evidence are valid
Those who claim to know the true nature of Reality do so on the basis of their experience. This is not sensory data so is not what you'd call scientific, and it is not conjecture so is not philosophical. It is well understood that the physical sciences and discursive philosophy do not produce certain knowledge or a knowledge of Reality. His claim is therefore not scientific or philosophical (in the way you're using the words) and for this reason it is able to go beyond these forms of investigation.

Of course, he may be just speculating, in which one can again ask how he knows.

The proviso would be that if you agree that Patanjali's Yoga is a science then his claim could be called scientific. I would take this view but it is just a matter of terminology. Some people restrict 'scientific' and 'empirical' to mean to do with sensory data only, some do not, Both fit within Popper's definition so we have a free hand.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders » Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:13 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:40 am
RC -

I never said this:
Of course what cannot be known cannot be known, but what cannot be known does not exist. It does not mean we do know it yet, or know everything about it, but if it cannot be known it cannot have any relationship to anything that does exist, and everything that exists must have some relationship to everything else that exists.
What you said was, "Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know ..." Unless you think what we can never know can be known, "what cannot be known cannot be known," and, "what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know," mean the same thing. Perhaps it is not what you meant to say, but it is what you said.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by I Like Sushu » Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:51 pm

Nope:
I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am
RC -

The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it?

Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and this is a general requirement regarding life I’d say!

I seriously need to know what it is you oppose about Kant given that you seem to be stating the very same obviousness he does - although he is x10000 times more pedantic with his scheme of terminology and strict definitions.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:19 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:51 pm
Nope:
I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:10 am
RC -

The OP seems to be stating the obvious doesn’t it?

Essentially, what we cannot ever know we cannot ever know (doesn’t exist for us - has no ‘reality’ for us), whilst what we don’t know is not quite the same as what we cannot know as there is a possibility of knowing something new - and this is a general requirement regarding life I’d say!

I seriously need to know what it is you oppose about Kant given that you seem to be stating the very same obviousness he does - although he is x10000 times more pedantic with his scheme of terminology and strict definitions.
I quoted you. I didn't make it up. It's underlined above.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by I Like Sushu » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:44 am

I’m not here to teach you reading comprehension.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by bahman » Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:52 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am
bahman wrote:
The mind is not a new phenomenon. It has always existed. Mind needed for any physical change
Physical change was occurring for billions of years long before minds ever existed
That is not correct. Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot coexist therefore A has to vanishes before B is caused. There is however nothing when A vanishes and B cannot possibly be caused by nothing. Therefore there should exist a mind which experiences A and causes B.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3093
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:10 am

bahman wrote:
Consider a change in a system A to B. A and B cannot coexist therefore A has to vanish before B is caused. There is however nothing when
A vanishes and B cannot possibly be caused by nothing. Therefore there should exist a mind which experiences A and causes B
Physical systems pre date minds by ten billion years so can function perfectly well without them
The changes that occur within them are caused by inanimate matter that are entirely mind free
It was also inanimate matter that had to already be in existence before minds could be created

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6122
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:58 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am
bahman wrote:
The mind is not a new phenomenon . It has always existed . Mind needed for any physical change
Physical change was occurring for billions of years long before minds ever existed
Is your claim that they have always existed a scientific one or a philosophical one
If it is a scientific one then present the actual evidence and if it is a philosophical one then it is invalid
Because only scientific claims about physical reality that are supported by sufficient evidence are valid
You've made a claim that minds exist here. So what scientific sufficient valid evidence is there for a mind in your opinion?

What is a mind?

What KNOWS the concept ( mind) ?

.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3093
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:57 am

Dontaskme wrote:
You ve made a claim that minds exist here . So what scientific sufficient valid evidence is there for a mind in your opinion ?

What is a mind ?

What KNOWS the concept ( mind ) ?
I am a mind and I exist so minds exist as well. Mind is the function of the brain and so when the brain dies then the mind dies too. Minds might be complex but they are simply another point on the spectrum of existence just like everything else is. They have a time span and so they are finite That is because they are fundamentally physical. I do not see mind as a mere concept but an actual phenomenon and so nothing can know it as a concept because that is not what it is. Concepts are a function of the mind rather than the mind itself because it is much more complex than this

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sculptor and 3 guests