|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2014 2:02:00 GMT -5
(** quickly grabs blanket to cover posterior **)
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Apr 12, 2014 2:02:02 GMT -5
Topology:
You mean to say that logic isn't the end, but in effect you're saying that it's the polar opposite from the end, which is a gross mischaracterization. The evidence is that you just linked me to a dense encyclopedia entry to 'prove' your point.
I said that it's false to say that nothing can be known for certain. Do you really disagree with this? If you're trying to tack on something beyond certainty of knowing, that's not what I'm talking about.
Now ask me to give you an example of something that can be known for certain and I'll shoot myself in the head. Haha
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Apr 12, 2014 2:14:22 GMT -5
Laughter: This forum is beginning to scare me. Just kidding, it's to be expected. But "nothing can be known for certain" isn't justifiable as a logical conclusion. It defines an infinite series in the form of a square wave: if nothing can be known for certain is true (1) then it can't be known for certain that nothing can be known for certain (0), so of course then the conclusion is that nothing can be known for certain (1) ... and so on There's a glaring flaw in your argument. The notion that "nothing can be known for certain" is a mere hypothesis with precisely 0% evidence to back it up unless followed by a corresponding treatise or whatever. On the other hand, the notion that that hypothesis does itself imply a certainty were it true is a blatant statement of fact. Therefore it can be concluded with 100% certain evidence that the initial hypothesis is impossible. That's all I'm saying, but I realize that logic is the big devil these days so no hard feelings.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2014 2:16:42 GMT -5
Topology: You mean to say that logic isn't the end, but in effect you're saying that it's the polar opposite from the end, which is a gross mischaracterization. The evidence is that you just linked me to a dense encyclopedia entry to 'prove' your point. I said that it's false to say that nothing can be known for certain. Do you really disagree with this? If you're trying to tack on something beyond certainty of knowing, that's not what I'm talking about. Now ask me to give you an example of something that can be known for certain and I'll shoot myself in the head. Haha You keep adding interpretation to what I've said. I said nothing about logic being a polar opposite of the end. There are more valuable facilities than logic. Logic can be a gateway to those faculties, but it can also be a crutch and hindrance. The irrational is where life is lived. Trying to tame the irrational with rationality can be revealing, but also soul crushing. Certainty is easy to find once the knower knows itself. Certainty is not found in the "objective" world. That is building your house upon the shifting sands.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2014 2:46:19 GMT -5
I realize that logic is the big devil these days so no hard feelings. Logic a devil? no, not at all. There's no need to resort to emotion, just think it through. APPLY logic to the statement to see where it leads. The notion that "nothing can be known for certain" is a mere hypothesis with precisely 0% evidence to back it up unless followed by a corresponding treatise or whatever. Yup. In describing the infinite series embodied by the statement we start the self-test of the statement: var stmt = "nothing can be known for certain"; if ( stmt is true ) by, as you say: the notion that that hypothesis does itself imply a certainty were it true is a blatant statement of fact. testing it by assuming it to be true ... see how that works? if ( stmt ) then value On the other hand, the notion that that hypothesis does itself imply a certainty were it true is a blatant statement of fact. So this "blatant fact" is that by assuming stmt as true, the value is a certainty, which leads you to state: Therefore it can be concluded with 100% certain evidence that the initial hypothesis is impossible. IOW: value == not (stmt); But your "certain evidence" is only your own self-sourced contradictory reasoning, which is inherent in the statement to begin with. You see, your conclusion that the statement negates itself, and is therefore false is stated as: stmtP = "nothing can be known for certain is false"; [IOW "statement prime", stmtP = not( stmt)] Surely we can subject stmtP to the same scrutiny as stmt, can't we? If we do, what is the result? Clearly, the statement embodies the following structure: Functionally: boolean stmtVal( boolean arg ) { ___signal( arg ); ___stmtVal( not( arg ) ); } T' the statement is self-referential. It's recursive.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2014 2:49:15 GMT -5
Laughter: This forum is beginning to scare me. Just kidding, it's to be expected. But "nothing can be known for certain" isn't justifiable as a logical conclusion. It defines an infinite series in the form of a square wave: if nothing can be known for certain is true (1) then it can't be known for certain that nothing can be known for certain (0), so of course then the conclusion is that nothing can be known for certain (1) ... and so on There's a glaring flaw in your argument. The notion that "nothing can be known for certain" is a mere hypothesis with precisely 0% evidence to back it up unless followed by a corresponding treatise or whatever. On the other hand, the notion that that hypothesis does itself imply a certainty were it true is a blatant statement of fact. Therefore it can be concluded with 100% certain evidence that the initial hypothesis is impossible. That's all I'm saying, but I realize that logic is the big devil these days so no hard feelings. The mind likes to pat itself on the back for arriving at a concluded certainty. Is certainty a product of conclusion? Or was certainty there prior to conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Apr 12, 2014 4:30:19 GMT -5
If faith implies absence of knowledge about something coupled with a conviction about that something's nature or outcome, then what is the point of faith? Admittedly in face of legitimately arduous circumstances it's merciful to have some emotional lifeline, but why would simple hope (rather than faith) not be sufficient? Isn't it dangerous to find foundation in not knowing, doesn't this run counter to exploration, open-mindedness and self-awareness? Does faith perhaps have a different meaning for you, in which it's not contrary to logic but perfectly compatible with it? If so, how comfortable are you in employing the word "faith" to describe it? faith is simply trust. trust means a surrendering. the full measure of faith is an absolute and total self-surrender. faith in its full measure reveals grace.
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Apr 12, 2014 4:54:19 GMT -5
events unfold. prior to its unfolding, it is uncertain. the same way particles don't exist before its measurement. there is nothing to know before its measurement. things only becomes certain after the events transpired. therrfore we predict using logic. so when in doubt use statistics or the law of averages. . . . or you can trust the higher power (in you).
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2014 8:49:44 GMT -5
events unfold. prior to its unfolding, it is uncertain. the same way particles don't exist before its measurement. there is nothing to know before its measurement. things only becomes certain after the events transpired.therrfore we predict using logic. so when in doubt use statistics or the law of averages. . . . or you can trust the higher power (in you). Heir Heisenberg and a whole lot of psychological research into eye witness testimony might have something to say towards that.... ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Apr 12, 2014 14:48:28 GMT -5
Laughter: I like how you compared and contrasted science and philosophy earlier, it speaks to some of the reasons I chose to investigate reality in my life from a philosophical bent first and foremost, because philosophy and metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc, DOES allow for reaching a sort of blank slate, casting every single iota of what you thought you knew into the abyss, throwing nuts at a wall and seeing what sticks, looking for funny patterns in coagulated milk long ago spilled on a rotting floor or, as most people prefer to do, in cloud formations. There seems to be miscommunication of my use of the concept of hypothesis. Hypotheses by definition assume their premises to be true so that the theorized outcomes can be tested. When I talked about a blatant statement of fact, I only meant to illustrate that IF the premises are assumed to be true for the purposes of the hypotheses THEN the words in the statement are expressing a statement of fact (which I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with at this juncture): Both the word "nothing" and the word "certain" are absolute, so the hypothesis "nothing can be known for certain" is definitive in its hypothetical stance, as opposed to for example saying "nothing can be known for certain, probably". That's all I meant! I maintain that there is much value in adages such as that nothing can be known for certain is itself a certainty and must be false. It skirts the rim of necessity itself, pushes the envelope of thought towards the farthest limits of intellectual possibility, and provides a reference point in the ocean of information. Also for example I've had to deal with nihilists a fair bit in my time, so this type of adage really has its uses there. Sure you can replicate this sort of self-referential statement in countless forms, for example "I am from Canada" and "all Canadians are liars". And in each case it will prove a point, in this case that believing those two statements produces a limit about what we can know about Canadians in that context. Obviously it's a ridiculous context and an utterly moot point. But when this sort of paradox is applied to itself, when the 'semantics' if you must call them that are turned to the very underlying framework of reality that allows them to exist in the first place, then it provides an insight into this underlying framework. Traveling through the abyss, confronting the great existential dilemma, is truly a requisite passage towards enlightenment.. there are many ways to do it.. but when you do it my way and abandon everything, it's crucial to be able to discern the borders of reality itself. Were it not for this adage and the reality to which it speaks, I could have believed that nothing could be known for certain and my life would have been completely different.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2014 18:31:21 GMT -5
Laughter: I like how you compared and contrasted science and philosophy earlier, it speaks to some of the reasons I chose to investigate reality in my life from a philosophical bent first and foremost, because philosophy and metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc, DOES allow for reaching a sort of blank slate, casting every single iota of what you thought you knew into the abyss, throwing nuts at a wall and seeing what sticks, looking for funny patterns in coagulated milk long ago spilled on a rotting floor or, as most people prefer to do, in cloud formations. There seems to be miscommunication of my use of the concept of hypothesis. Hypotheses by definition assume their premises to be true so that the theorized outcomes can be tested. When I talked about a blatant statement of fact, I only meant to illustrate that IF the premises are assumed to be true for the purposes of the hypotheses THEN the words in the statement are expressing a statement of fact (which I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with at this juncture): Both the word "nothing" and the word "certain" are absolute, so the hypothesis "nothing can be known for certain" is definitive in its hypothetical stance, as opposed to for example saying "nothing can be known for certain, probably". That's all I meant! I maintain that there is much value in adages such as that nothing can be known for certain is itself a certainty and must be false. It skirts the rim of necessity itself, pushes the envelope of thought towards the farthest limits of intellectual possibility, and provides a reference point in the ocean of information. Also for example I've had to deal with nihilists a fair bit in my time, so this type of adage really has its uses there. Sure you can replicate this sort of self-referential statement in countless forms, for example "I am from Canada" and "all Canadians are liars". And in each case it will prove a point, in this case that believing those two statements produces a limit about what we can know about Canadians in that context. Obviously it's a ridiculous context and an utterly moot point. But when this sort of paradox is applied to itself, when the 'semantics' if you must call them that are turned to the very underlying framework of reality that allows them to exist in the first place, then it provides an insight into this underlying framework. Traveling through the abyss, confronting the great existential dilemma, is truly a requisite passage towards enlightenment.. there are many ways to do it.. but when you do it my way and abandon everything, it's crucial to be able to discern the borders of reality itself. Were it not for this adage and the reality to which it speaks, I could have believed that nothing could be known for certain and my life would have been completely different. We are no strangers here at st.org to the trap of the self referential ontology. In fact, we are so familiar with it that we've actually invented a whole vocabulary devoted to describing it, and that's what E' was introducing you to by calling your conclusion that the statement was "false" "Too Much Thinking". That we each arrive at the conclusion that the value in such statements is their lack of value, that the value is in the limitation of such statements and what that limitation reveals about the framework of conceptualization itself is enough. How we arrive there doesn't matter and this is a rare case where the destination trumps the way. It's an interesting challenge to pose -- can the mind, does the mind, quiet itself by either exhaustion or confronting it's own limitations? ha! ha! the thinker nor the feeler have any answer of any value, and only silence provides. I'll convey a recollection that I infer from your writing that you might share -- if someone had suggested this to me in the past when I was still seeking with the mind I just would have dismissed that idea out of hand. In stumbling toward silence in fits and starts I've hyperminded my way out to that limit more than a few times. Are you familiar with the representation of the liars paradox embodied by ?-1 ?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2014 19:16:05 GMT -5
Laughter: I like how you compared and contrasted science and philosophy earlier, it speaks to some of the reasons I chose to investigate reality in my life from a philosophical bent first and foremost, because philosophy and metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc, DOES allow for reaching a sort of blank slate, casting every single iota of what you thought you knew into the abyss, throwing nuts at a wall and seeing what sticks, looking for funny patterns in coagulated milk long ago spilled on a rotting floor or, as most people prefer to do, in cloud formations. There seems to be miscommunication of my use of the concept of hypothesis. Hypotheses by definition assume their premises to be true so that the theorized outcomes can be tested. When I talked about a blatant statement of fact, I only meant to illustrate that IF the premises are assumed to be true for the purposes of the hypotheses THEN the words in the statement are expressing a statement of fact (which I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with at this juncture): Both the word "nothing" and the word "certain" are absolute, so the hypothesis "nothing can be known for certain" is definitive in its hypothetical stance, as opposed to for example saying "nothing can be known for certain, probably". That's all I meant! I maintain that there is much value in adages such as that nothing can be known for certain is itself a certainty and must be false. It skirts the rim of necessity itself, pushes the envelope of thought towards the farthest limits of intellectual possibility, and provides a reference point in the ocean of information. Also for example I've had to deal with nihilists a fair bit in my time, so this type of adage really has its uses there. Sure you can replicate this sort of self-referential statement in countless forms, for example "I am from Canada" and "all Canadians are liars". And in each case it will prove a point, in this case that believing those two statements produces a limit about what we can know about Canadians in that context. Obviously it's a ridiculous context and an utterly moot point. But when this sort of paradox is applied to itself, when the 'semantics' if you must call them that are turned to the very underlying framework of reality that allows them to exist in the first place, then it provides an insight into this underlying framework. Traveling through the abyss, confronting the great existential dilemma, is truly a requisite passage towards enlightenment.. there are many ways to do it.. but when you do it my way and abandon everything, it's crucial to be able to discern the borders of reality itself. Were it not for this adage and the reality to which it speaks, I could have believed that nothing could be known for certain and my life would have been completely different. We are no strangers here at st.org to the trap of the self referential ontology. In fact, we are so familiar with it that we've actually invented a whole vocabulary devoted to describing it, and that's what E' was introducing you to by calling your conclusion that the statement was "false" "Too Much Thinking". That we each arrive at the conclusion that the value in such statements is their lack of value, that the value is in the limitation of such statements and what that limitation reveals about the framework of conceptualization itself is enough. How we arrive there doesn't matter and this is a rare case where the destination trumps the way. It's an interesting challenge to poseĀ -- can the mind, does the mind, quiet itself by either exhaustion or confronting it's own limitations? ha! ha! the thinker nor the feeler have any answer of any value, and only silence provides. I'll convey a recollection that I infer from your writing that you might share -- if someone had suggested this to me in the past when I was still seeking with the mind I just would have dismissed that idea out of hand. In stumbling toward silence in fits and starts I've hyperminded my way out to that limit more than a few times. Are you familiar with the representation of the liars paradox embodied by ?-1 ? www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/the-31-most-iconic-eye-rolls-of-all-time?s=mobile;-)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 13, 2014 2:08:27 GMT -5
We are no strangers here at st.org to the trap of the self referential ontology. In fact, we are so familiar with it that we've actually invented a whole vocabulary devoted to describing it, and that's what E' was introducing you to by calling your conclusion that the statement was "false" "Too Much Thinking". That we each arrive at the conclusion that the value in such statements is their lack of value, that the value is in the limitation of such statements and what that limitation reveals about the framework of conceptualization itself is enough. How we arrive there doesn't matter and this is a rare case where the destination trumps the way. It's an interesting challenge to pose -- can the mind, does the mind, quiet itself by either exhaustion or confronting it's own limitations? ha! ha! the thinker nor the feeler have any answer of any value, and only silence provides. I'll convey a recollection that I infer from your writing that you might share -- if someone had suggested this to me in the past when I was still seeking with the mind I just would have dismissed that idea out of hand. In stumbling toward silence in fits and starts I've hyperminded my way out to that limit more than a few times. Are you familiar with the representation of the liars paradox embodied by ?-1 ? www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/the-31-most-iconic-eye-rolls-of-all-time?s=mobile;-) awww man ... the "SNOOKI"!! ... I mean, ok .. yeah, eyeroll, I get it dude .. ok, ?-1 deserves an eyeroll, yeah, "thank you sir, may I have another?" .. allright I get that man I really do .. but the SNOOKI?? .. aw man ... I mean ... jeees ..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 13, 2014 2:51:17 GMT -5
If faith implies absence of knowledge about something coupled with a conviction about that something's nature or outcome, then what is the point of faith? Admittedly in face of legitimately arduous circumstances it's merciful to have some emotional lifeline, but why would simple hope (rather than faith) not be sufficient? Isn't it dangerous to find foundation in not knowing, doesn't this run counter to exploration, open-mindedness and self-awareness? Does faith perhaps have a different meaning for you, in which it's not contrary to logic but perfectly compatible with it? If so, how comfortable are you in employing the word "faith" to describe it? In the context of non-duality, faith is some kind of 5th wheel. And so is logic. Neither logic nor faith can deal with an absence.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 13, 2014 2:58:56 GMT -5
I just read an article by a Christian blogger, and some of the responses and as always, I've come up feeling confused as to the difference between hope and faith. My own mind pictures rungs on a mystical ladder or something like that. To me, they seem too darned similar to separate them very well. But, I think it's pretty clear that most if not all of us 'exercise' some hope and/or faith at various times in our lives. I guess it's emotion-related but that would tend to suggest that 'trust' is also one of those words that sort of defy a truly accurate definition. I'd say you cannot do or have trust/faith, and if it's meant in that way then it's just another Tool TM for TMT.
|
|