Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:44 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
And the human experience begins with emptymind/blank slate, thus is grounded in point space.
Except or all the instincts and functionality that your nervous system takes care of.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
Still a single point.
Precisely the problem. You use a point to represent the universe, and a point to represent an electron.
The entire concept of descriptive complexity is lost on you.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
I dont have any system, I am merely observing what is.
You aren't merely observing. You are participating in reality. And you are using all those things that you vehemently reject.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
work is inevitable, one moves even in a state of luxury.
Absolutely! That's what I tell all my employees.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:52 pm
the answer is sophistry.
If it's stupid and it works it isn't stupid.

But what's far worse, is you are incapable of telling the difference between sophistry and science.

Hint: Positive and negative feedback loops.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:52 pm
And if it does, all your numbers disappear.
As long as my head is on my shoulders and I am breathing - I'll invent them again.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:52 pm
Philosophy, ie knowledge and the application of knowledge, is what allows you to "work less". It is all ideas, even how the public consumes is formed through ideas.
Unfortunately, all that I've learned about Philosophy (by actually reading philosophers) happened in the last few years.

I did science long before I did philosophy. Now that I've done both - I can tell you that one of the two disciplines is bullshit.

And it's not science.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:24 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
Yes but numbers do not exist according to you.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
So what does a world without philosophy exist like?
Trivial question. Define the function which determines whether any particular objects "exists", will you?
The function takes ANY input and returns True or False.

True and false represent an assumed beginning point by the application of a dualistic quantity and quality. Take true and false and replace it with 1 and 0 or existence and void...and the computation still remains the same.

Truth and falsity are strictly variables.

What determines them is form and function.


This in turn creates a reciprocal loop where true and falsity exist as form and function. Truth is form...computation is strictly a replication of platonism in the fact it deals with the convergence and divergence of forms.

Input = •
Output = ••
Input = (••)•
Output = (••••)•(••••)•

The output is a divergence of the original form resulting in the input as a convergence of the output. The black box is strictly a recycling of forms where the function is the means of isomorphism. This isomorphism is one (original) and many (variation).



True if the object exists.
False if the object doens't exist.

Let me help you get started. https://repl.it/repls/WildAquaBraces

Code: Select all

def exists?(object)
  if [some condition] then
    return # true or false
  elsif [some other condition] then
    return # True or false
end
Once you've written this simple function I expect it to return things like

exists?(Unicorn) -> False
exist?(Universe) -> True

Once you've written this function then we can ask it if numbers exist. OK?

False premise. Unicorns exist as imaginary entities. This sounds like a word game, but it actually isn't.

Second, existence, according to you is an undefinable problem in philosophy...you are using false premises.

Third and most important, all the variables you plug in are assumed, as well as how they are individuated. Assumption is localization, and the beginning of all precision and analysis....as such it always maintains a dualistic nature of ambiguity.

Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:24 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
Yes but numbers do not exist according to you.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
So what does a world without philosophy exist like?
Trivial question. Define the function which determines whether any particular objects "exists", will you?
The function takes ANY input and returns True or False.

True and false represent an assumed beginning point by the application of a dualistic quantity and quality. Take true and false and replace it with 1 and 0 or existence and void...and the computation still remains the same.

Truth and falsity are strictly variables.

What determines them is form and function.


This in turn creates a reciprocal loop where true and falsity exist as form and function. Truth is form...computation is strictly a replication of platonism in the fact it deals with the convergence and divergence of forms.

Input = •
Output = ••
Input = (••)•
Output = (••••)•(••••)•

The output is a divergence of the original form resulting in the input as a convergence of the output. The black box is strictly a recycling of forms where the function is the means of isomorphism. This isomorphism is one (original) and many (variation).



True if the object exists.
False if the object doens't exist.

Let me help you get started. https://repl.it/repls/WildAquaBraces

Code: Select all

def exists?(object)
  if [some condition] then
    return # true or false
  elsif [some other condition] then
    return # True or false
end
Once you've written this simple function I expect it to return things like

exists?(Unicorn) -> False
exist?(Universe) -> True

Once you've written this function then we can ask it if numbers exist. OK?

False premise. Unicorns exist as imaginary entities. This sounds like a word game, but it actually isn't.

Second, existence, according to you is an undefinable problem in philosophy...you are using false premises.

Third and most important, all the variables you plug in are assumed, as well as how they are individuated. Assumption is localization, and the beginning of all precision and analysis....as such it always maintains a dualistic nature of ambiguity.
You don't even know what a decision problem is.

You are welcome to make the function output • if an object exists, and •• if it doesn't.

exists?(Unicorn) -> ••
exist?(Universe) -> •
exists?(5) -> ( •• OR • )

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:41 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
And the human experience begins with emptymind/blank slate, thus is grounded in point space.
Except or all the instincts and functionality that your nervous system takes care of.

and the nervous system exists through multiple variables, including electromagnetism, that forms all the environment around the nervous system.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
Still a single point.
Precisely the problem. You use a point to represent the universe, and a point to represent an electron.
The entire concept of descriptive complexity is lost on you.

Yes, no contradiction as an axiom is an axiom, where the universe operates according to the same laws of the trillema as does the electron.

The electron is a variation of the universe and as a variation can be marked through multiple dots.
This is assuming the proton, electron, etc. distinction is accurate enough.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
I dont have any system, I am merely observing what is.
You aren't merely observing. You are participating in reality. And you are using all those things that you vehemently reject.

I already stated this, we are all extensions of the original source existing through itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:13 pm
work is inevitable, one moves even in a state of luxury.
Absolutely! That's what I tell all my employees.

Yeah, I know. No point in laziness...still have to work to find a comfortable position on the couch. No movement (work) is an illusion.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:52 pm
the answer is sophistry.
If it's stupid and it works it isn't stupid.

But what's far worse, is you are incapable of telling the difference between sophistry and science.

Hint: Positive and negative feedback loops.

Relative to context. With the increase in science as come an increase in material goods while a decrease in the ability to find common grounds of perception or how to distribute the resources in a balanced manner.

Science deals with probabilities and as such has failed in providing a defined state of the internal nature of man. This is considering science is a perceptual state grounded in certain forms.

Science is a loop grounded in the Munchauseen trillema:

It begins with an assumption.
It seeks to define that assumption further through a framework of testing.
If the assumption is able to maintain itself through the framework it is considering true....if not it is false.

The problem occurs is that the proof of the assumption being true is dependent upon an assumed context...hence is still assumed.

Arguing that a plane has a 99.999 percent chance of landing does not take into account that .0001 it will crash...it leaves an undefined state.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:52 pm
And if it does, all your numbers disappear.
As long as my head is on my shoulders and I am breathing - I'll invent them again.

According to the probability theory and entropy...eventually you won't. The progressive nature of axioms replicates the same entropy found in nature...thus entropy is a law grounded in a very basic platonic form.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:52 pm
Philosophy, ie knowledge and the application of knowledge, is what allows you to "work less". It is all ideas, even how the public consumes is formed through ideas.
Unfortunately, all that I've learned about Philosophy (by actually reading philosophers) happened in the last few years.

I did science long before I did philosophy. Now that I've done both - I can tell you that one of the two disciplines is bullshit.

And it's not science.

Actually I can say the exact same thing. I keep hearing how science is suppose to make the world a better place, yet all I see are factories that polluted my area and caused cancer, broken economic systems where men and women barely know there place, broken homes, general confusion about what to believe or what not to believe, people in poor health who live long lives as zombies, people whom barely know there neighbor because they spend all day on Facebook, better more efficient weapons to kill ourselves over scientifically promoted causes grounded in statistics, etc.

Science promised us a better world...and it is all bullshit.


User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:43 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:25 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:24 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pm


Trivial question. Define the function which determines whether any particular objects "exists", will you?
The function takes ANY input and returns True or False.

True and false represent an assumed beginning point by the application of a dualistic quantity and quality. Take true and false and replace it with 1 and 0 or existence and void...and the computation still remains the same.

Truth and falsity are strictly variables.

What determines them is form and function.


This in turn creates a reciprocal loop where true and falsity exist as form and function. Truth is form...computation is strictly a replication of platonism in the fact it deals with the convergence and divergence of forms.

Input = •
Output = ••
Input = (••)•
Output = (••••)•(••••)•

The output is a divergence of the original form resulting in the input as a convergence of the output. The black box is strictly a recycling of forms where the function is the means of isomorphism. This isomorphism is one (original) and many (variation).



True if the object exists.
False if the object doens't exist.

Let me help you get started. https://repl.it/repls/WildAquaBraces

Code: Select all

def exists?(object)
  if [some condition] then
    return # true or false
  elsif [some other condition] then
    return # True or false
end
Once you've written this simple function I expect it to return things like

exists?(Unicorn) -> False
exist?(Universe) -> True

Once you've written this function then we can ask it if numbers exist. OK?

False premise. Unicorns exist as imaginary entities. This sounds like a word game, but it actually isn't.

Second, existence, according to you is an undefinable problem in philosophy...you are using false premises.

Third and most important, all the variables you plug in are assumed, as well as how they are individuated. Assumption is localization, and the beginning of all precision and analysis....as such it always maintains a dualistic nature of ambiguity.
You don't even know what a decision problem is.

You are welcome to make the function output • if an object exists, and •• if it doesn't.

exists?(Unicorn) -> ••
exist?(Universe) -> •
exists?(5) -> ( •• OR • )
I dont think you do either, what you know is a theory and that theory is a ghost story modern people believe in because they are afraid of the dark.

Decision theory, does not have to be followed if one decides as such...it is a regressive loop.

You are still avoiding the fact that not only are the variables assumed, but how they are processed is also assumed.

Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:50 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:43 pm
I dont think you do either, what you know is a theory and that theory is a ghost story modern people believe in because they are afraid of the dark.

Decision theory, does not have to be followed if one decides as such...it is a regressive loop.

You are still avoiding the fact that not only are the variables assumed, but how they are processed is also assumed.
OK, but by virtue of making choices of what does and doesn't exist you are following decision theory.

You are deciding that unicorns don't exist.
And you are deciding that oranges do exist.

How?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:53 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:43 pm
I dont think you do either, what you know is a theory and that theory is a ghost story modern people believe in because they are afraid of the dark.

Decision theory, does not have to be followed if one decides as such...it is a regressive loop.

You are still avoiding the fact that not only are the variables assumed, but how they are processed is also assumed.
OK, but by virtue of making choices of what does and doesn't exist you are following decision theory.

You are deciding that unicorns don't exist.
And you are deciding that oranges do exist.

How?
False, I am saying both exist and do not exist simultaneously because of context...it is an objective statement.

Skepdick
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Skepdick » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:54 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:53 pm
False, I am saying both exist and do not exist simultaneously because of context...it is an objective statement.
OK. How many contexts are there?

How many meanings does the word "exist" have?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:03 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:54 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:53 pm
False, I am saying both exist and do not exist simultaneously because of context...it is an objective statement.
OK. How many contexts are there?

How many meanings does the word "exist" have?
One and many contexts, as context is assumed as a localization of a phenomenon:

1. One phenomenon out of one phenomena, through analysis as divergence, thus resulting in many assumptions. One to many.

2. One phenomenon is assumed out many phenomena, through synthesis as convergence, thus resulting in one assumption. Many to one.

3. Context is a point of origin to where we assume a given one/ many assumptions given a form of interpretation grounded in one/many assumptions. As such context exists as a point of inversion resulting in the point 1 and 2 stated above.

4. Existence is both a context and determined by context, thus is grounded in the above points 1,2,3 and is self referencing in point 4.


Trillema is unavoidable and context is grounded in the same platonic point, line and circular forms that determine it.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:04 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:21 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pm



The majority of this was ad hominems.

The examples you gave where assumptions.

I can write the statement: "this statement is not assumed".

1. The statement is already composed of symbols and words which are assumed.
2. The statement as unassumed will only exist as such because of its self refentiality.
3. However this self refentiality is composed of assumptions and as such needs to continue in defintion.
4. All statements are simultaneously assumed and unassumed, with the lack of assumption meaning a disconnect. For example if I never assume something, I always seek further definition.

For example I might never assume my car is always running well, therefore I am always looking to define potential problems by checking it. If I assume something, I take it for what it is...ie the car is running well.
But that is NOT 'what it is'. The car, from your perspective, is only ASSUMED to be running well. From your perspective, you, obviously, do not know if the car is running well. As you will obviously have to admit. So, it is NOT 'what it is'. You only assume or think it is 'what it is'.

And if I hear a rumbling, I also assume something is wrong. Both functions, good and bad, of the car are determined by the assumption of certain definitions of what a good and bad running car are.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pm
The problem occurs in the respect that even if I assume the car is running well, it is still based upon a specific continuum of definitions (ie no scratches, good tires, new oil, etc.) that are taken for what is.
Being 'taken for what is', obviously does not mean that it is 'what is'.

Still an assumption. If the car is good or bad based upon definitions. The most we can observe is the connection of assumptions.

You will NEVER know what IS, because you choose to assume every thing.

Choice, is an assumption. The continual connection and seperation of assumption observes choice is not always applicable under certain contexts. The linear projection of one assumption to another is inevitable. Same with the cycling. Same with each assumption as grounded in a point of awareness.

These forms are inevitable, thus assumption is inseperable from form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:53 pm
So even with a continuum of definitions these definitions are always assumed. However if I never assumed anything, and seek further definition, it is still requiring the definitions to be assumed.
This is obviously false. "it" does NOT require the definitions to be assumed. You only CHOOSE the definitions to be assumed, as I have already pointed out to you.

False. X is composed of y requires y to be assumed. Y is composed of a requires Z to be assumed....etc. X is assumed because Z is assumed. What we observe is a connection of x,y,a but this is an assumption.

Assumption and form are inseperable and the form "just is".


Making assumptions is a CHOOSE you make. You CHOOSE to make assumptions because if you did not, then that would refute your own beliefs, and coincidentally also your own assumptions, which obviously can be completely and utterly WRONG.

For you to do absolutely any thing other than to ASSUME absolutely every thing, then would refute your own distorted beliefs and assumptions.

You are assuming free will alone.
I am NOT assuming free will alone at all. "Free will alone" NEVER even entered this head before your reply.

To me, this assuming absolutely EVERY thing, which you always do, is WHY you are just about always WRONG here.

To me, if you stopped making assumptions, which can very easily be done, then you would obviously stop being so wrong so often.

Correct me if I am wrong here. 1. You assume that you are trying to formulate an argument, which assumly concludes that you.assume absolutely EVERY thing.

Now, if this correct, then please understand that I agree wholeheartedly with you that absolutely EVERY you say is just an assumption, which obviously can be false and wrong. Do you understand that I AGREE with you?

But if that number 1. is not correct, then what is the that that you do not assume?

I have already provided an example of 'What is not assumed', and why you have to assume this is absolutely true and correct. If you assume this is wrong then point out the exact example I provide for 'What is not assumed'.

Also, assuming "Trillema is unavoidable" is just another one of your assumptions, which obviously could be completely WRONG. Just because you BELIEVE to be true does not make it so. And, you have absolutely no way of proving it true or not false, so why even mention it here?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:45 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:21 am


But that is NOT 'what it is'. The car, from your perspective, is only ASSUMED to be running well. From your perspective, you, obviously, do not know if the car is running well. As you will obviously have to admit. So, it is NOT 'what it is'. You only assume or think it is 'what it is'.

And if I hear a rumbling, I also assume something is wrong. Both functions, good and bad, of the car are determined by the assumption of certain definitions of what a good and bad running car are.



Being 'taken for what is', obviously does not mean that it is 'what is'.

Still an assumption. If the car is good or bad based upon definitions. The most we can observe is the connection of assumptions.

You will NEVER know what IS, because you choose to assume every thing.

Choice, is an assumption. The continual connection and seperation of assumption observes choice is not always applicable under certain contexts. The linear projection of one assumption to another is inevitable. Same with the cycling. Same with each assumption as grounded in a point of awareness.

These forms are inevitable, thus assumption is inseperable from form.




This is obviously false. "it" does NOT require the definitions to be assumed. You only CHOOSE the definitions to be assumed, as I have already pointed out to you.

False. X is composed of y requires y to be assumed. Y is composed of a requires Z to be assumed....etc. X is assumed because Z is assumed. What we observe is a connection of x,y,a but this is an assumption.

Assumption and form are inseperable and the form "just is".


Making assumptions is a CHOOSE you make. You CHOOSE to make assumptions because if you did not, then that would refute your own beliefs, and coincidentally also your own assumptions, which obviously can be completely and utterly WRONG.

For you to do absolutely any thing other than to ASSUME absolutely every thing, then would refute your own distorted beliefs and assumptions.

You are assuming free will alone.
I am NOT assuming free will alone at all. "Free will alone" NEVER even entered this head before your reply.

To me, this assuming absolutely EVERY thing, which you always do, is WHY you are just about always WRONG here.

You where assuming I chose "assumption" as the premised for the argument and this is the primary reason why I (we) believe as we do.

Assumption is inevitable, in all facets of being and as such is an absolute truth statement.


Assumption and truth are one and the same. With wrongness and assumption one and the same.
What determines them is forms or patterns. The connection of assumptions inevitable results in a correct statement within a specific context. The fragmentation of the contexts, ie assumptions, results in falsity. Assumptions are true and false, but truth and falsity are connected. Form determines this.

For example "A purple unicorn exists in the park" is a false assumption because of an absence of connection in the assumptions "a purple unicorn exists" and "park".

Change the assumed context: "A purple unicorn exists in the park because I am imagining one in my head." (The purple unicorn exists as an imaginary thought, with the thought taking place in the park.)

And now the statement is true.

Certain assumptions act as connectors to other assumptions by reason of definition alone. This definition is form.

color]

To me, if you stopped making assumptions, which can very easily be done, then you would obviously stop being so wrong so often.

Correct me if I am wrong here. 1. You assume that you are trying to formulate an argument, which assumly concludes that you.assume absolutely EVERY thing.

False, all is assumed, I am not limited to it.

Now, if this correct, then please understand that I agree wholeheartedly with you that absolutely EVERY you say is just an assumption, which obviously can be false and wrong. Do you understand that I AGREE with you?

But if that number 1. is not correct, then what is the that that you do not assume?

I have already provided an example of 'What is not assumed', and why you have to assume this is absolutely true and correct. If you assume this is wrong then point out the exact example I provide for 'What is not assumed'.

I already pointed out that those examples rest on prior assumptions and as such are assumed. What you effectively produced was just patterns or forms. Truth is grounded in patterns and forms strictly because assumption in inseperable because of its geometric nature in space axioms.


Also, assuming "Trillema is unavoidable" is just another one of your assumptions, which obviously could be completely WRONG. Just because you BELIEVE to be true does not make it so. And, you have absolutely no way of proving it true or not false, so why even mention it here?

Prove your stance as correct, and not limited to belief. You are failing to take into account sensory data is interpreted and defined according to abstract and intuitive input, and as such even what you sense is assumed.




Give me an example of something that is not assumed without connecting assumed variables together.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:45 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:30 pm
I am NOT assuming free will alone at all. "Free will alone" NEVER even entered this head before your reply.

To me, this assuming absolutely EVERY thing, which you always do, is WHY you are just about always WRONG here.

You where assuming I chose "assumption" as the premised for the argument and this is the primary reason why I (we) believe as we do.

Assumption is inevitable, in all facets of being and as such is an absolute truth statement.


Assumption and truth are one and the same. With wrongness and assumption one and the same.
What determines them is forms or patterns. The connection of assumptions inevitable results in a correct statement within a specific context. The fragmentation of the contexts, ie assumptions, results in falsity. Assumptions are true and false, but truth and falsity are connected. Form determines this.

For example "A purple unicorn exists in the park" is a false assumption because of an absence of connection in the assumptions "a purple unicorn exists" and "park".

Change the assumed context: "A purple unicorn exists in the park because I am imagining one in my head." (The purple unicorn exists as an imaginary thought, with the thought taking place in the park.)

And now the statement is true.

Certain assumptions act as connectors to other assumptions by reason of definition alone. This definition is form.

color]

To me, if you stopped making assumptions, which can very easily be done, then you would obviously stop being so wrong so often.

Correct me if I am wrong here. 1. You assume that you are trying to formulate an argument, which assumly concludes that you.assume absolutely EVERY thing.

False, all is assumed, I am not limited to it.

Now, if this correct, then please understand that I agree wholeheartedly with you that absolutely EVERY you say is just an assumption, which obviously can be false and wrong. Do you understand that I AGREE with you?

But if that number 1. is not correct, then what is the that that you do not assume?

I have already provided an example of 'What is not assumed', and why you have to assume this is absolutely true and correct. If you assume this is wrong then point out the exact example I provide for 'What is not assumed'.

I already pointed out that those examples rest on prior assumptions and as such are assumed. What you effectively produced was just patterns or forms. Truth is grounded in patterns and forms strictly because assumption in inseperable because of its geometric nature in space axioms.


Also, assuming "Trillema is unavoidable" is just another one of your assumptions, which obviously could be completely WRONG. Just because you BELIEVE to be true does not make it so. And, you have absolutely no way of proving it true or not false, so why even mention it here?

Prove your stance as correct, and not limited to belief. You are failing to take into account sensory data is interpreted and defined according to abstract and intuitive input, and as such even what you sense is assumed.




Give me an example of something that is not assumed without connecting assumed variables together.


I already have. You assume every thing.

You obviously missed it, this is because that brain believes it is an impossibility. Therefore, that brain is blocked from seeing and understanding it.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:01 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:45 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:04 pm


I am NOT assuming free will alone at all. "Free will alone" NEVER even entered this head before your reply.

To me, this assuming absolutely EVERY thing, which you always do, is WHY you are just about always WRONG here.

You where assuming I chose "assumption" as the premised for the argument and this is the primary reason why I (we) believe as we do.

Assumption is inevitable, in all facets of being and as such is an absolute truth statement.


Assumption and truth are one and the same. With wrongness and assumption one and the same.
What determines them is forms or patterns. The connection of assumptions inevitable results in a correct statement within a specific context. The fragmentation of the contexts, ie assumptions, results in falsity. Assumptions are true and false, but truth and falsity are connected. Form determines this.

For example "A purple unicorn exists in the park" is a false assumption because of an absence of connection in the assumptions "a purple unicorn exists" and "park".

Change the assumed context: "A purple unicorn exists in the park because I am imagining one in my head." (The purple unicorn exists as an imaginary thought, with the thought taking place in the park.)

And now the statement is true.

Certain assumptions act as connectors to other assumptions by reason of definition alone. This definition is form.

color]

To me, if you stopped making assumptions, which can very easily be done, then you would obviously stop being so wrong so often.

Correct me if I am wrong here. 1. You assume that you are trying to formulate an argument, which assumly concludes that you.assume absolutely EVERY thing.

False, all is assumed, I am not limited to it.

Now, if this correct, then please understand that I agree wholeheartedly with you that absolutely EVERY you say is just an assumption, which obviously can be false and wrong. Do you understand that I AGREE with you?

But if that number 1. is not correct, then what is the that that you do not assume?

I have already provided an example of 'What is not assumed', and why you have to assume this is absolutely true and correct. If you assume this is wrong then point out the exact example I provide for 'What is not assumed'.

I already pointed out that those examples rest on prior assumptions and as such are assumed. What you effectively produced was just patterns or forms. Truth is grounded in patterns and forms strictly because assumption in inseperable because of its geometric nature in space axioms.


Also, assuming "Trillema is unavoidable" is just another one of your assumptions, which obviously could be completely WRONG. Just because you BELIEVE to be true does not make it so. And, you have absolutely no way of proving it true or not false, so why even mention it here?

Prove your stance as correct, and not limited to belief. You are failing to take into account sensory data is interpreted and defined according to abstract and intuitive input, and as such even what you sense is assumed.




Give me an example of something that is not assumed without connecting assumed variables together.


I already have. You assume every thing.

You obviously missed it, this is because that brain believes it is an impossibility. Therefore, that brain is blocked from seeing and understanding it.


Nice assumption, evidence? Or will the brain be considered the origin source of all problems? Not Genetics, environment, emotional temperament, etc.?

Youn pick a portion of a phenomenon, brain in man, and assume that as the starting point.

Second...brain...why? Assumption because of no definition.

Third, brains causes the problems of the brain...it is circular.

Trillema.

Age
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Age » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:01 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:45 pm


Give me an example of something that is not assumed without connecting assumed variables together.
I already have. You assume every thing.

You obviously missed it, this is because that brain believes it is an impossibility. Therefore, that brain is blocked from seeing and understanding it.
Nice assumption, evidence? Or will the brain be considered the origin source of all problems? Not Genetics, environment, emotional temperament, etc.?

Youn pick a portion of a phenomenon, brain in man, and assume that as the starting point.

Second...brain...why? Assumption because of no definition.

Third, brains causes the problems of the brain...it is circular.

Trillema.
You have STILL missed my example of some thing that is not assumed. Or, it is impossible for you to refute, and so instead you just try to deflect away from my example and try to move on to some thing else.

Until you do refute my example, it stands as NOT being some thing assumed. Therefore, until then, your assumption about some "trillema be unavoidable" IS WRONG.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11929
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:33 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: False, I am saying both exist and do not exist simultaneously because of context...it is an objective statement.
Not really it's a contradiction and as such is always false.

I thought you claimed there is no "objectivity"?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests