Progress where? Beyond the limits of epistemology?
Good luck escaping the human condition.
Arbitrary progress is still better than no progress.
It's better than any ignorance mistaken for knowledge and results in below arbitrary/average performance.
Which is what I keep asking you. Where is Philosophy trying to go? How do you measure Philosophy's progress?
But there is NO 'other' 'I'. There is ONLY One 'I'. In saying that, however, OF COURSE there are many 'i's'. But 'you', thee individual one here, seem to be MISSING this FACT.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm1. "You" and "you" and "I" and "I" shows a distinction as multiple "you's" and "I's" where "you/I" exists in multiple time/space localities which define each "you/I" respectively.Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:17 amVery True. But 'you' and 'you' does NOT. Neither to does 'I' and 'I'.
But what can be CLEARLY SEEN is 'I' and 'i' shows a distinction, as well.
Look, this is just 'your' view. And, 'your' view could be wrong and/or incorrect, correct?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:21 pm2. Human consciousness exists as a subset of universal consciousness. Given human consciousness cannot observe the totality of universal consciousness, universal consciousness exists beyond human consciousness thus a distinction between the two occurs. "Our" references human consciousness given both you and me are human.
But, if you BELIEVE that 'your' view is absolutely irrefutably true, then just go ahead and prove 'it'.
When, and if, 'you' discover and/or learn the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then 'you' will KNOW 'WHO', and 'HOW', 'I' am able to judge, properly and correctly.
I suggest that if you can NOT explain in words what you are 'trying to' say and explain here, then you not use a philosophy forum.
Why would ANY think or believe otherwise?
If 'it', consciousness, can observe, then 'what', EXACTLY is 'consciousness'? 'Where', EXACTLY, is 'it'? 'How', EXACTLY does 'it' work? 'What', EXACTLY, is 'it' made of? And, 'when', EXACTLY, will 'it' reveal 'its' True Self?
'Who' and 'what', EXACTLY, is the 'I' here?
IF 'nature' IS Self Aware, then WHY does 'It' have so much trouble explaining this AWARENESS to 'you', human beings?
Prove to 'who'?
BUT, if you did NOT inform us of what the definition and the meaning of the symbol is, to you, then I have NO idea NOR clue what you are, literally, pointing at. If you are going to define 'point' as the symbol ".", then I am NOT going to know what you are on about.
Who cares?
Settling how much certain ty is 'too much' or 'too little' is precisely the problem of criterion.Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:02 pm The Truth is the end of the beginning. The next steps are to polish and disseminate it and advance consilience. The end is to finish Spiritual Math, which is the formalization of all knowledge, and to explicitly settle how much certainty is too much.
eh, well, that's the epistemology part.
What I am getting at is how the decision being made changes as more information becomes available, because Bayesian reasoning is about updating beliefs based on new information. Without arbitrary limits imposed on the process (termination criteria ala Turing's halting problem) this is an infinite process. Otherwise known as analysis paralysis.Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:15 pm The information gathering part of epistemology is a whole other question than what we SHOULD do because the context comes from without. We must account for our responsibility to gain more information, our desire to acquire more information, and our ability to gain more information long before the decision-making times usually come. The necessity of gathering information remains at least until decision-time, and someone's afterwards if you need closure or if you need to account for the results in a sequence of events... I'm not quite sure what your getting at here.
1. Multiple "I's" account for the multiple time and spaces of the "I". There is no same time and space for the "I", thus resulting in multiple "I's".Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:04 pmBut there is NO 'other' 'I'. There is ONLY One 'I'. In saying that, however, OF COURSE there are many 'i's'. But 'you', thee individual one here, seem to be MISSING this FACT.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 pm1. "You" and "you" and "I" and "I" shows a distinction as multiple "you's" and "I's" where "you/I" exists in multiple time/space localities which define each "you/I" respectively.Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:17 am
Very True. But 'you' and 'you' does NOT. Neither to does 'I' and 'I'.
But what can be CLEARLY SEEN is 'I' and 'i' shows a distinction, as well.
Look, this is just 'your' view. And, 'your' view could be wrong and/or incorrect, correct?
But, if you BELIEVE that 'your' view is absolutely irrefutably true, then just go ahead and prove 'it'.
When, and if, 'you' discover and/or learn the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then 'you' will KNOW 'WHO', and 'HOW', 'I' am able to judge, properly and correctly.
I suggest that if you can NOT explain in words what you are 'trying to' say and explain here, then you not use a philosophy forum.
Why would ANY think or believe otherwise?
'you', older human beings, do, however, seem to think that 'you', individually, are greater and more important than 'you' REALLY ARE. 'you' ALL do have a grandiose perspective of "yourselves". 'you' do see "yourselves" as the greater 'I', and as such do label "yourselves", and thus, literally, put "yourselves" as thee greater 'I'.
There are many of 'you', little individual 'i's, but, literally, without specific distinction made, 'you' are all the SAME.
If 'it', consciousness, can observe, then 'what', EXACTLY is 'consciousness'? 'Where', EXACTLY, is 'it'? 'How', EXACTLY does 'it' work? 'What', EXACTLY, is 'it' made of? And, 'when', EXACTLY, will 'it' reveal 'its' True Self?
When little old 'you' can express 'this' FULLY in a way that the rest of 'us' can FULLY understand, accept, and agree upon, then great.
But until then 'we' are ALL just trying to work ALL-OF-THIS out, in our OWN individual little ways.
'Who' and 'what', EXACTLY, is the 'I' here?
IF 'nature' IS Self Aware, then WHY does 'It' have so much trouble explaining this AWARENESS to 'you', human beings?
In other words, WHY is taking 'you', people, so long to catch up and KNOW Thy Self?
Prove to 'who'?
'I' have ALREADY proved 'this' to thy Self. BUT, of course, one can NOT prove ANY thing to ANY one who BELIEVES otherwise.
You, OBVIOUSLY, wrote what you did here from the perspective and BELIEF that 'this' could NOT be done, correct?
If this is NOT correct, then prove to 'me' that 'you' are Truly OPEN about HOW I could prove to 'you' that 'i' have ALREADY learned the, proper and correct, answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?'
In other words, 'what', EXACTLY, could I do to prove to 'you' that I have learned the answer to "who am I?"
BUT, if you did NOT inform us of what the definition and the meaning of the symbol is, to you, then I have NO idea NOR clue what you are, literally, pointing at. If you are going to define 'point' as the symbol ".", then I am NOT going to know what you are on about.
A '.', literally, does NOT 'point to ANY thing'. So, if you do NOT inform us of what the 'point' IS, exactly, then there is, literally, NO point, to the '.'.
Who cares?
AND, what is the actual 'point' in RE-REPEATING this same 'thing'?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:12 am The concept of the perfect circle continually repeats across multiple observers thereby making the perfect circle infinite.
It is the continual repetition of a phenomenon which makes it infinite.
For example a continually progressive function of the number line necessitates 1 existing in perpetual variation given each number is the number one repeating itself. Under this number line progression 1 exists as perpetually changing thus 1 is repeating in newer and newer variation through the numbers which follow from it.
1 as perpetually changing is 1 as an action. One as a continual action is 1 as infinite.
Infinity is perpetual change as action and can never be observed in its entirety except through the source which repeats itself under newer and newer variation. Infinity can be observed in the number 1 given 1 is infinite through perpetual change.
Infinity thus can be observed through the finite where the finite is the point of change from one phenomenon to another. Each finite object is infinite through its continual change with this change from one finite phenomenon to another being multiple infinities.
But there is NO multiple 'time' nor 'spaces' of the 'I'.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:10 pm1. Multiple "I's" account for the multiple time and spaces of the "I".Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:04 pmBut there is NO 'other' 'I'. There is ONLY One 'I'. In saying that, however, OF COURSE there are many 'i's'. But 'you', thee individual one here, seem to be MISSING this FACT.
'you', older human beings, do, however, seem to think that 'you', individually, are greater and more important than 'you' REALLY ARE. 'you' ALL do have a grandiose perspective of "yourselves". 'you' do see "yourselves" as the greater 'I', and as such do label "yourselves", and thus, literally, put "yourselves" as thee greater 'I'.
There are many of 'you', little individual 'i's, but, literally, without specific distinction made, 'you' are all the SAME.
If 'it', consciousness, can observe, then 'what', EXACTLY is 'consciousness'? 'Where', EXACTLY, is 'it'? 'How', EXACTLY does 'it' work? 'What', EXACTLY, is 'it' made of? And, 'when', EXACTLY, will 'it' reveal 'its' True Self?
When little old 'you' can express 'this' FULLY in a way that the rest of 'us' can FULLY understand, accept, and agree upon, then great.
But until then 'we' are ALL just trying to work ALL-OF-THIS out, in our OWN individual little ways.
'Who' and 'what', EXACTLY, is the 'I' here?
IF 'nature' IS Self Aware, then WHY does 'It' have so much trouble explaining this AWARENESS to 'you', human beings?
In other words, WHY is taking 'you', people, so long to catch up and KNOW Thy Self?
Prove to 'who'?
'I' have ALREADY proved 'this' to thy Self. BUT, of course, one can NOT prove ANY thing to ANY one who BELIEVES otherwise.
You, OBVIOUSLY, wrote what you did here from the perspective and BELIEF that 'this' could NOT be done, correct?
If this is NOT correct, then prove to 'me' that 'you' are Truly OPEN about HOW I could prove to 'you' that 'i' have ALREADY learned the, proper and correct, answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?'
In other words, 'what', EXACTLY, could I do to prove to 'you' that I have learned the answer to "who am I?"
BUT, if you did NOT inform us of what the definition and the meaning of the symbol is, to you, then I have NO idea NOR clue what you are, literally, pointing at. If you are going to define 'point' as the symbol ".", then I am NOT going to know what you are on about.
A '.', literally, does NOT 'point to ANY thing'. So, if you do NOT inform us of what the 'point' IS, exactly, then there is, literally, NO point, to the '.'.
Who cares?
AND, what is the actual 'point' in RE-REPEATING this same 'thing'?
I agree that there is no same 'time' and 'space for the 'I', but then 'you' would have to have enough curiosity to discover WHY there now appears to be a contradiction in what I have just said here.
But what is 'time' and 'space', to 'you?
'I', and NOT 'i', is thee Only and ONLY One. In visible form 'I' is, or am, thee Universe, Itself, and 'I' is, or am, thee Mind, Itself.
To the point of 'what', EXACTLY?
To 'me', this sounds like you really do NOT know what you are talking about but are trying your very hardest to sound like you actually do.
Wouldn't that be different if one believed in real (extramental) abstracts? In that case one might believe that quantitative sequences are a real abstract and that they're infinite. (Not that I believe there are real abstracts, but I'm just saying for someone who does.)