On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[Little Idiot]

For 'absolute reality' there are no numbers because 'absolute reality' is non-dual. It is singular, in the sense of 'one without a second,' there are no things, no space no time, no form, no change. There are no laws of logic because in your example there is no A or B such that we can not even begin with A =B to consider, if

A = B    =/=>    B = A

in absolute reality. There are no words, thoughts or emotions, no goals or motives. No inside or outside of 'absolute reality'.

I did describe it in additional detail, then decided to snip it, for the sake of woo limitation damage

That is the ultimate self-refuting argument. You are trying to employ logic and math to reason about reality, where logic and math don;t exist. You are arguing that our experience is not any part of reality, since logic and math work here.

What you are arguing, in summary, is that there is no absolute reality (reality = nothing).

Note that I am making an axiom here in space and time, regarding what we can say or think about absolute reality from here in space and time, if there is such a thing.
The axiom is not 'in reality' where there is no logic, its here, where there is.

Actually, I am saying reality is not any thing. Reality is not a thing. Reality is beyond beginnings and ends, therefore beyond all things or any thing.
This is not the same as saying 'reality exists' is untrue.
It is saying that 'reality is a thing' is untrue.
I am saying 'if reality exists, then it does not exist as a thing' is true.

do you see the difference I am trying to point out?

[GrahamH]

Whether such logic is any good, is open to debate - but we cannot label that logic 'an illusion'.

Why?

Why is your experience of thinking logically more reliable than your experience of moving?
Why is your knowledge of logic more reliable than your knowledge of motion?

I haven't said that the experience [of motion] is an illusion. I've said that we don't know whether motion can really occur beyond its apparancy within the mind. An illusion would still be a real event happening to the mind, but the reality of that event happening beyond the mind is what is in doubt.
Likewise, the formulation of an argument is still a real event happening within the mind, so it cannot be classed as an illusion. At most, it can only be classed as an erroneous argument. Ideas cannot be illusions - they can only be right or wrong.

Again, the questionable reality of motion beyond its apparency prevents 'observation' from refuting Zeno's argument. What remains, is a capacity to utilise reason alone against Zeno's own reasoning. And that is all we can employ to refute Zeno's argument. And since reason can be used to formulate (and refute) such arguments, the conclusion is that [some] reasoning transcends observation - that some reasoning can be formulated that is not dependent upon, nor verifiable using, observation.

I feel certain that you are wrong.

Zeonos paradox is about motion. If motion is illusory there is no paradox. If motion has any meaning then observing the arrow refutes the paradox.

Thinking can be illusory. You are not aware of your own thought processes. You only perceive them somewhat after the fact, in summary. Consider how you thought about that last post of yours. Did you consciously construct each concept and form each word? Words come to mind as part of what I like to call thinking through an argument, but I don't consciously perform the tasks that must be necessary to assemble concepts, access memories, evaluate propositions etc, etc.

Thought happens, and I am aware of the results.

I suggest that when you wrote your post you had a sense of certainty that it was right, and it seemed that is was what you thought. You probably felt it was logical and felt that I was mistaken. The whole thing is laden with impressions and feelings that might be illusory.

Consider Zeno. An idea came to him while thinking about motion (I suppose). He must have felt that his argument was wrong (because arrows do hit targets), yet felt that the logic was sound. He had two conflicting qualia from his thought processes. His thinking did not give him access to reality.

What we call 'Thinking' is also 'an apparancy'. The actual thought processes go on unknown to the thinker.

[Little Idiot]

Not an expert on Tarski either but my read of it has him proving logically that no system can be created without reference to a superset of that system. Nor can any system prove anything outside of itself.

SO. What we have here is the claim that if we make shit up it is a new way of knowing. Somehow I'm not surprised that we would have a couple of posters around here buying into that.

What I have done is not make a new way of knowing.
I have simply established that we have already at least one other way of knowing beyond the empirical.
Peano's first 4 axioms are 'self evident' (all axioms are) and 'pure logic' without reference to the empirircal. I have demonstrated that knowledge can be gained without reference to the empirical.
But this is not 'a new way of knowing'.

The introduction of the word 'new' is a straw man I for one am not talking about here.

[GrahamH]

For 'absolute reality' there are no numbers because 'absolute reality' is non-dual. It is singular, in the sense of 'one without a second,' there are no things, no space no time, no form, no change. There are no laws of logic because in your example there is no A or B such that we can not even begin with A =B to consider, if

A = B    =/=>    B = A

in absolute reality. There are no words, thoughts or emotions, no goals or motives. No inside or outside of 'absolute reality'.

I did describe it in additional detail, then decided to snip it, for the sake of woo limitation damage

That is the ultimate self-refuting argument. You are trying to employ logic and math to reason about reality, where logic and math don't exist. You are arguing that our experience is not any part of reality, since logic and math work here.

What you are arguing, in summary, is that there is no absolute reality (reality = nothing).

Note that I am making an axiom here in space and time, regarding what we can say or think about absolute reality from here in space and time, if there is such a thing.
The axiom is not 'in reality' where there is no logic, its here, where there is.

Actually, I am saying reality is not any thing. Reality is not a thing. Reality is beyond beginnings and ends, therefore beyond things.
This is not the same as saying 'reality exists' is untrue.
It is saying the 'reality is a thing' is untrue.
I am saying 'if reality exists it does not exist as a thing' is true.

do you see the difference I am trying to point out?

I see that you are being obscurantist in your word-play. By claiming that reality is no thing you avoid having to say anything meaningful about it. This is odd for a man who wants to talk metaphysics.

What is your foundational position? Is it not cogito ergo sum? The one statement your feel confident to make is that your subjective experience occurs. From that you reason that you are observer of experience.

But, logic is not real, reason is not distinct from unreason, there is no distinction between observer and observed, self and not self, being and not being. Logic and maths do not exist in absolute reality, so you are not real, in any sense. Awareness is of nothing and is no different to un-awareness. All is null and void.

[GrahamH]

Not an expert on Tarski either but my read of it has him proving logically that no system can be created without reference to a superset of that system. Nor can any system prove anything outside of itself.

SO. What we have here is the claim that if we make shit up it is a new way of knowing. Somehow I'm not surprised that we would have a couple of posters around here buying into that.

What I have done is not make a new way of knowing.
I have simply established that we have already at least one other way of knowing beyond the empirical.
Peano's first 4 axioms are 'self evident' (all axioms are) and 'pure logic' without reference to the empirircal. I have demonstrated that knowledge can be gained without reference to the empirical.
But this is not 'a new way of knowing'.

The introduction of the word 'new' is a straw man I for one am not talking about here.

Have you thought much about what is 'self evident' about those axioms? Is there, perhaps, some experience from which we apprehend them to be so?

[Little Idiot]

I see that you are being obscurantist in your word-play. By claiming that reality is no thing you avoid having to say anything meaningful about it. This is odd for a man who wants to talk metaphysics.

Thats both untrue and unfair.
I am not being obscurantist. I am being as precise and accurate, as error free as I can.
I am NOT avoiding saying things about reality; I am avoiding saying misleading things about it, and avoiding allowing errors about reality.
My purpose here is the eact opposite of obscurantism.

What is your foundational position? Is it not cogito ergo sum? The one statement your feel confident to make is that your subjective experience occurs. From that you reason that you are observer of experience.

My foundation is; there is experience of something.
The nature of what is experienced, and the apparent individual experiencer are open to doubt. but the fact of some experience is not.

But, logic is not real, reason is not distinct from unreason, there is no distinction between observer and observed, self and not self, being and not being. Logic and maths do not exist in absolute reality, so you are not real, in any sense. Awareness is of nothing and is no different to un-awareness. All is null and void.

Reality is a void, I used to call it void. But its a void which is a potential for all things, so now I call it source.
I am in existence, not reality. I exist, I change, and I am not absolute reality.

[GrahamH]

For general interest (I haven;t watched it yet):
Google TechTalk by Roger Penrose
Conscious Understanding: What is its Physical Basis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=f477FnTe1M0 (1hr 57m)

[GrahamH]

I see that you are being obscurantist in your word-play. By claiming that reality is no thing you avoid having to say anything meaningful about it. This is odd for a man who wants to talk metaphysics.

Thats both untrue and unfair.
I am not being obscurantist. I am being as precise and accurate, as error free as I can.
I am NOT avoiding saying things about reality; I am avoiding saying misleading things about it, and avoiding allowing errors about reality.
My purpose here is the eact opposite of obscurantism.

What is your foundational position? Is it not cogito ergo sum? The one statement your feel confident to make is that your subjective experience occurs. From that you reason that you are observer of experience.

My foundation is; there is experience of something.
The nature of what is experienced, and the apparent individual experiencer are open to doubt. but the fact of some experience is not.

But, logic is not real, reason is not distinct from unreason, there is no distinction between observer and observed, self and not self, being and not being. Logic and maths do not exist in absolute reality, so you are not real, in any sense. Awareness is of nothing and is no different to un-awareness. All is null and void.

Reality is a void, I used to call it void. But its a void which is a potential for all things, so now I call it source.
I am in existence, not reality. I exist, I change, and I am not absolute reality.

Are you saying existence is not part of reality?

[GrahamH]

I see that you are being obscurantist in your word-play. By claiming that reality is no thing you avoid having to say anything meaningful about it. This is odd for a man who wants to talk metaphysics.

Thats both untrue and unfair.
I am not being obscurantist. I am being as precise and accurate, as error free as I can.
I am NOT avoiding saying things about reality; I am avoiding saying misleading things about it, and avoiding allowing errors about reality.
My purpose here is the eact opposite of obscurantism.

Actually I think what you say here vindicates your opponents on the issue of metaphysics. Given your definition of what reality is not, nothing can be said about it. If you wish to avoid saying misleading things about it then say nothing. Metaphysics is an error.

[jamest]

I haven't said that the experience [of motion] is an illusion. I've said that we don't know whether motion can really occur beyond its apparancy within the mind. An illusion would still be a real event happening to the mind, but the reality of that event happening beyond the mind is what is in doubt.
Likewise, the formulation of an argument is still a real event happening within the mind, so it cannot be classed as an illusion. At most, it can only be classed as an erroneous argument. Ideas cannot be illusions - they can only be right or wrong.

Again, the questionable reality of motion beyond its apparency prevents 'observation' from refuting Zeno's argument. What remains, is a capacity to utilise reason alone against Zeno's own reasoning. And that is all we can employ to refute Zeno's argument. And since reason can be used to formulate (and refute) such arguments, the conclusion is that [some] reasoning transcends observation - that some reasoning can be formulated that is not dependent upon, nor verifiable using, observation.

I feel certain that you are wrong.

Of course you do, which is why you are arguing your point. But I also "feel certain" that my opposing view is correct. What this means, is that one of us correct and the other is wrong. What it doesn't mean, is that one of us isn't really having a particular idea about something specific - i.e., both of us are formulating particular ideas.
Again, you are conflating the notion of an idea being wrong with it being an illusion, which means that the idea would not be a real event happening within the mind.

Zeonos paradox is about motion. If motion is illusory there is no paradox. If motion has any meaning then observing the arrow refutes the paradox.

Zeno's argument - if correct - would explain 'the paradox', so that it no longer is a paradox - that is correct. Basically, Zeno saw motion as a paradox because he didn't think that it should be mathematically possible, and yet he 'observed' it to be happening. If his reasoning was sound, then the conclusion must be that motion is something beheld by the mind alone - paradox explained.

Thinking can be illusory. You are not aware of your own thought processes. You only perceive them somewhat after the fact, in summary. Consider how you thought about that last post of yours. Did you consciously construct each concept and form each word? Words come to mind as part of what I like to call thinking through an argument, but I don't consciously perform the tasks that must be necessary to assemble concepts, access memories, evaluate propositions etc, etc.

And what has any of that got to do with my thoughts being illusions? Whatever 'processes' are occuring in the formulation of my ideas, is irrelevant - they are still happening, as is the product of those processes.

Thought happens, and I am aware of the results.

And therefore, those results are illusions?

I suggest that when you wrote your post you had a sense of certainty that it was right, and it seemed that is was what you thought. You probably felt it was logical and felt that I was mistaken. The whole thing is laden with impressions and feelings that might be illusory.

No, the whole thing is laden with impressions and feelings that might be wrong, not illusory.

Consider Zeno. An idea came to him while thinking about motion (I suppose). He must have felt that his argument was wrong (because arrows do hit targets)

Exactly, hence the notion of a paradox.

, yet felt that the logic was sound. He had two conflicting qualia from his thought processes. His thinking did not give him access to reality.

Incorrect. He had two conflicting ideas. The conflicting idea was that what he was observing was actually real - that arrows REALLY do hit targets. But if he had understood that 'arrows hitting targets' just might be an event confined to the mind, then there would not have been any confliction.

What we call 'Thinking' is also 'an apparancy'. The actual thought processes go on unknown to the thinker.

So? That doesn't mean that they are not happening, nor neither that the product of those processes hasn't happened.

[GrahamH]

I haven't said that the experience [of motion] is an illusion. I've said that we don't know whether motion can really occur beyond its apparancy within the mind. An illusion would still be a real event happening to the mind, but the reality of that event happening beyond the mind is what is in doubt.
Likewise, the formulation of an argument is still a real event happening within the mind, so it cannot be classed as an illusion. At most, it can only be classed as an erroneous argument. Ideas cannot be illusions - they can only be right or wrong.

Again, the questionable reality of motion beyond its apparency prevents 'observation' from refuting Zeno's argument. What remains, is a capacity to utilise reason alone against Zeno's own reasoning. And that is all we can employ to refute Zeno's argument. And since reason can be used to formulate (and refute) such arguments, the conclusion is that [some] reasoning transcends observation - that some reasoning can be formulated that is not dependent upon, nor verifiable using, observation.

I feel certain that you are wrong.

Of course you do, which is why you are arguing your point. But I also "feel certain" that my opposing view is correct. What this means, is that one of us correct and the other is wrong. What it doesn't mean, is that one of us isn't really having a particular idea about something specific - i.e., both of us are formulating particular ideas.
Again, you are conflating the notion of an idea being wrong with it being an illusion, which means that the idea would not be a real event happening within the mind.

Zeonos paradox is about motion. If motion is illusory there is no paradox. If motion has any meaning then observing the arrow refutes the paradox.

Zeno's argument - if correct - would explain 'the paradox', so that it no longer is a paradox - that is correct. Basically, Zeno saw motion as a paradox because he didn't think that it should be mathematically possible, and yet he 'observed' it to be happening. If his reasoning was sound, then the conclusion must be that motion is something beheld by the mind alone - paradox explained.

But, as we now know, his reasoning was unsound. His perception was that his reason was sound, but that was only a perception. The perception was real, but it was a false perception. The thing perceived (a valid logical argument) was not as it appeared. That is the definition of an illusion. The logic was illusory.

Your certainty that you are right, and thinking rationally, might also be an illusion.

The sense you have of knowing a subject might also be illusory unless you can test your knowledge.

Thinking can be illusory. You are not aware of your own thought processes. You only perceive them somewhat after the fact, in summary. Consider how you thought about that last post of yours. Did you consciously construct each concept and form each word? Words come to mind as part of what I like to call thinking through an argument, but I don't consciously perform the tasks that must be necessary to assemble concepts, access memories, evaluate propositions etc, etc.

And what has any of that got to do with my thoughts being illusions? Whatever 'processes' are occuring in the formulation of my ideas, is irrelevant - they are still happening, as is the product of those processes.

It is the same with your perception of a tree. The processes are happening, whatever they may be. You experience, but the object of that experience, be it a tree or an idea, may be quite different to the way it appears.

Thought happens, and I am aware of the results.

And therefore, those results are illusions?

Not at all. The results are the results, but what they appear to reference (what you are thinking about) might be illusory. Your thoughts about the nature of experience are 'real' but the apparent nature of experience might be entirely wrong. The apprent validity (as it seems to you) or your argument is a 'real experience' but there may be no actual meaning. A statement that seems true to you might be false. 'trueness' is just another perception.

I suggest that when you wrote your post you had a sense of certainty that it was right, and it seemed that is was what you thought. You probably felt it was logical and felt that I was mistaken. The whole thing is laden with impressions and feelings that might be illusory.

No, the whole thing is laden with impressions and feelings that might be wrong, not illusory.

We might agree that the feelings are not themselves illusions. However, what they are feelings about may be illusions.

Consider Zeno. An idea came to him while thinking about motion (I suppose). He must have felt that his argument was wrong (because arrows do hit targets)

Exactly, hence the notion of a paradox.

, yet felt that the logic was sound. He had two conflicting qualia from his thought processes. His thinking did not give him access to reality.

Incorrect. He had two conflicting ideas. The conflicting idea was that what he was observing was actually real - that arrows REALLY do hit targets. But if he had understood that 'arrows hitting targets' just might be an event confined to the mind, then there would not have been any confliction.

The two qualia are the two feelings that each idea must be true. His logic appeared sound to him. Logic does not make its truth self evident. Apparent truth is a perception.

What we call 'Thinking' is also 'an apparancy'. The actual thought processes go on unknown to the thinker.

So? That doesn't mean that they are not happening, nor neither that the product of those processes hasn't happened.

If you perceive a thought as you perceive a tree then the subject of the thought can be no more reliable than the existence of the tree.
I would say both are reasonably reliable because they have the same physical basis. If you discount the reliability of the perception of the tree you should also discount the reliability of the thought that there are no trees.

[Little Idiot]

I see that you are being obscurantist in your word-play. By claiming that reality is no thing you avoid having to say anything meaningful about it. This is odd for a man who wants to talk metaphysics.

Thats both untrue and unfair.
I am not being obscurantist. I am being as precise and accurate, as error free as I can.
I am NOT avoiding saying things about reality; I am avoiding saying misleading things about it, and avoiding allowing errors about reality.
My purpose here is the eact opposite of obscurantism.

What is your foundational position? Is it not cogito ergo sum? The one statement your feel confident to make is that your subjective experience occurs. From that you reason that you are observer of experience.

My foundation is; there is experience of something.
The nature of what is experienced, and the apparent individual experiencer are open to doubt. but the fact of some experience is not.

But, logic is not real, reason is not distinct from unreason, there is no distinction between observer and observed, self and not self, being and not being. Logic and maths do not exist in absolute reality, so you are not real, in any sense. Awareness is of nothing and is no different to un-awareness. All is null and void.

Reality is a void, I used to call it void. But its a void which is a potential for all things, so now I call it source.
I am in existence, not reality. I exist, I change, and I am not absolute reality.

Are you saying existence is not part of reality?

I am saying existence, either a part of it or the totality of it can not be the absolute reality.
This is a conclusion form axiom 1.
Therefore, to say "absolute reality is the totality of the physical cosmos" is untrue, it is an error.
To say "existence is the totality of the physical cosmos" is different, its arguably true.

So I am saying absolute reality is different to existence.

The discussion of 'is existence part of reality?' is too complex to discuss without 'unsupported woo' at this point, as I have only one established axiom as yet.
For example, there are no 'parts' in reality, but I have not logically proven that yet.

[GrahamH]

Alternative axiom 1. Absolute truth is that everything, including absolute truth, changes
Alternative axiom 2. Existence is change

[Little Idiot]

I see that you are being obscurantist in your word-play. By claiming that reality is no thing you avoid having to say anything meaningful about it. This is odd for a man who wants to talk metaphysics.

Thats both untrue and unfair.
I am not being obscurantist. I am being as precise and accurate, as error free as I can.
I am NOT avoiding saying things about reality; I am avoiding saying misleading things about it, and avoiding allowing errors about reality.
My purpose here is the eact opposite of obscurantism.

Actually I think what you say here vindicates your opponents on the issue of metaphysics. Given your definition of what reality is not, nothing can be said about it. If you wish to avoid saying misleading things about it then say nothing. Metaphysics is an error.

That is an error on two grounds.
First I can say what it is not. "Absolute reality is not my laptop" for example is a statement of the obvious.
"Absolute reality is not the total of all that exists", is more complex but is a logical conclusion from axiom 1.
This is because 'all that exists' changes, since by axiom 1, absolute reality can not change, then "all that exists is absolute reality" is false.

[Little Idiot]

Alternative axiom 1. Absolute truth is that everything, including absolute truth, changes
Alternative axiom 2. Existence is change

My axiom concerns absolute reality, not truth.
What do we mean by absolute truth?

I agree with axiom 2, all that exists must change, therefore by (my) axiom 1 all that exists is not reality