Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy
Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:46 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:32 amEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:41 amAge wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:55 am
The words "Give an example of something that is not assumed" are in front of these eyes when these words are written.
I am assuming my senses are correct.
Another example is:
There are thoughts existing.
Assumption as to what constitutes a thought. Is it something in the head? Or is it physical? Is thought and illusion and all is "void"? Or does only matter exist and thought is just a state of matter and as such is matter curbing?
How can we say thought exists when thought is undefined?
Another one is:
There is something.
Assumption of context. Something where? Everywhere? When? Was there always something?[
Also no definition as to what something is./color]
There is awareness.
Awareness is assumed as awareness is undefined.
'I' control 'you' through ...
"I" is a subjective statement, and as such is potential to change and ismundefined in the course of time. Same with you.
In very simple terms are your statements lack further definition and as such are assumed.
To say "this sentence exists" is still an assumption as it is composed of assumptions.
Why can you not quote correctly?
And why can you now not even color code correctly?
Are you purposely trying to make it harder for the readers to follow and keep up?
What you have said here is obviously only based on your own strongly held beliefs and assumptions.
Duh...I have been saying my argument is assumed. However this does not negate that it is a variation of the Munchauseen trillemma and as such is a variation of it.
Assuming those words have not been defined is clearly an assumption. ALL of these words have obviously already been defined. To assume otherwise is bordering on insanity.
Good the for the sake of argument, I will skip to the last point: what are "I" and "you"?
Basing my terms are assumed because they lack further definition means that by you not asking for further definition, then you are supporting your own assumptions and beliefs.
Actually they are assumed because they are not defined.
The brain is very tricky like that. The brain will not do anything that goes against its own assumptions and beliefs. The more a belief is believed to be true, then the stronger that belief will be held onto, and thus the more the brain is fooled into doing only those things that will support its own beliefs, and assumptions.
Proof please, and please define what proof is while you are at it otherwise both are assumptions.
What has and is still happening here readers with this test subject is a prime example of how the human brain can absolutely fool itself into believing that, which is obviously absurd and ridiculous. The brain tricks its own self by only doing that, which will back up and support its own already held beliefs, even though what it is doing is so obvious and completely stupid and ridiculous. By doing only that what supports its own already held beliefs, then it reinforcing those beliefs more and more, no matter how ludicrous and stupid the beliefs are.
So you are assuming your brain is not tricking you when you state such things?
For a brain to be here FIGHTING its hardest to prove that it KNOWS what is Right and True, but to also be insisting that that "Truth" is just an assumption, which obviously could be completely Wrong and False also, just shows how the human brain can be and IS. The brain will 'try' absolutely anything to back up and support its own already obtained beliefs and assumptions. The belief-system within the brain really did have far more power over those human beings, in the days of when this written, then they could ever have of imagined.
So I am wrong for assuming all is assumptions and stating this is an assumption in itself?
For the record...I did not make up the Munchausseen trillema...so younare assuming it is strictly my own beliefs.
Those brains back then just would not allow them to imagine any thing that went against what they believed and/or assumed was already true. The brain will not imagine anything other than what it believes is true.
The Mind however works completely different. The Mind can imagine any thing.
So what you are stating is that you believe your position to be true?
Also, just how easily and simply the Mind can see and KNOW ALL of this, even back when this was written, can also be easily observed here.
Thanks to these subjects, and these subjective brains, which work so predictively and accurately.
I know assumptions exist recursively and isomorphically...assumptions are predictable...assuming we know what predictability really is.