What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, then Truth itself only really exists as a possibility.  Not a "real" or "actual" thing; but only a possible ideal which we can get close to, or more precise, without ever attaining the "real" thing.  Hmm...

 

Pretty much.  Taking into account human fallibility and the limitations of the tools that we can work with.

 

Even Christianity, which advertises itself as the "The Truth" isn't the absolute truth.  If we assume that biblical Christianity is real, then even saved and glorified Christians won't ever get to know the absolute truth.  That ideal is embodied only in god.  Christians can share in whatever parts of that absolute truth god chooses to share with them, but they can never know the entirety of it.  The entire and complete absolute truth.

 

For a human to know that they would have to be all-knowing, just as god is.  And in biblical Christianity that would be impossible.  Because humans are not eternal like god, they cannot know what this entails and so that portion of the absolute truth is forever closed off to them.  Just as it has always been closed off to the other order of created beings, the angels.  Even though they are immortal, they were created - so, like us, their lives are defined by the finite, not the infinite.

 

If we work backwards from this Prof we can then see why in monotheisms and polytheisms the Truth will only ever exist as a possibility for us.  If a god or gods are the perfect embodiment of the absolute truth, then any of their worshippers must BECOME a god to be able to know the absolute truth.  Any kind of other existence, separate in any way from godhood, must fall short of what's needed to know the absolute truth.

 

However...

 

What about Buddhism?  As I understand it there are no gods to be the embodiment of absolute truth in Buddhism.  Instead, isn't Nirvana a kind of dissolving of the self and the becoming one with everything?  (Please correct me here if I err.)  If everything equals absolute truth (and why not?) then those of us who attain Nirvana also become one with the absolute truth that is embodied in the everything-ness of everything.  

 

So, perhaps I need to modify what I wrote earlier about the Truth only ever being a possibility for us?

 

However, working on the assumption that my understanding of Buddhism might need correcting by those who know better, I'll wait and see what happens.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Buddhism, as I understand it, posits that we are already one with everything, we just don't realize it.  The goal of Enlightenment, then, would be to realize that we already are one with everything; and Nirvana is living as one with everything.  The religious side of Buddhism might define things differently; but this is the understanding I glean from the philosophical side.

[TABA]

“One with Everthing” is open to interpretation, or misinterpretation….

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

“One with Everthing” is open to interpretation, or misinterpretation….

 

 

Most everything in Buddhism is. 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/11/2023 at 7:32 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Then what would be the point of considering it if it doesn't get me closer to the truth?

 

My point about the line representing my threshold of belief is that things above that line are demonstrably closer to the truth than those below - because they are supported by evidence.  That is why I will consider plate tectonics, but I won't consider Islam.  The first is worth my consideration, the second is not.

 

Is the BBT true? If not, then what's the point for learning that model? 

 

Whatever you decided about the standard model, you have also decided about anything metaphysical supporting the standard model. There is materialist metaphysics supporting (underlying) the standard model, and there is also idealist metaphysics supporting the standard model. 

 

All is guess work, based on the experience of being aware and contemplating the preconditions of one's own experiential awareness. 

 

And the point is explanatory power. 

 

Materialist metaphysics or physics can't explain why I am experiencing awareness, with qualia. The qualia from quanta formula doesn't work. How many units of matter differentiate between one taste to another? Or smell, one from another? These are the Hard Questions of consciousness that idealist philosophers like Hoffman ask materialists every year. The lack of current explanation is the starting point for inquiry. 

 

 

On 3/11/2023 at 7:32 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Explanatory power on its own, unsupported by evidence, is where String Theory is at.  But show me something that has both explanatory and supporting evidence and then it will cross my threshold of credulity and I will give it due consideration.  As a sceptic, those are my terms.

 

The beauty of deep explanatory power on its own has taken many a theorist down a blind alley.  Blind, because evidence allied with explanatory power is the true measure of progress towards a better understanding of reality.

 

Alan Guth, the co-originator of inflation theory has said (and I paraphrase) that what inflationary theory predicts about what happens in other universes means nothing if what it predicts about this universe is not borne out by evidence in this universe.  And since we can never gain evidence of anything from other universes, inflation theory's explanatory power about them, for all of it's mathematical beauty... is worthless.  It has to work here first to be worth anything.  And we can only know if it works by evidence, not by the beauty of what it appears to explain.

 

Much better clarification! Thanks. I see your reasoning with String Theory. All fair for your skeptical approach.

 

My thing with the spiritual community is that poo pooing science, reason, logical mind, agnostic-atheism, and skepticism, represents weakness in their worldview. It's self contradiction on their part. The new ways have to include scouring ourselves looking for unnoticed self-contradiction. We can do better than the bronze age myth makers who contradicted themselves repeatedly. Anyone perceived as the "opposition," has to be loved and welcome unconditionally or else the so-called "spiritual" worldview in question has committed an egregious self-contradiction and internal inconsistency. 

 

Your view is internally consistent as far as I can tell. Logically applied skepticism. 

 

So, where to go from here?

 

Good point on explanatory on its own. Math on its own. Those are good objections. 

 

Does this put you into the 'reject all metaphysics camp' - which is reject materialist and all other forms of metaphysics?

 

That's my next question. 

 

On 3/11/2023 at 7:32 PM, walterpthefirst said:

But why would I need to contemplate the Standard Model when it is already above my credulity threshold?  I don't 'believe' it as I would believe in Christianity, because that is to compare apples with oranges.  Christianity requires religious belief without evidence.  Science asks for secular belief with evidence.

 

I think we're past that, but just briefly, I was responding to you asking why you believe. And pointing out that it's about models and explanatory power, not belief. It's no different with the Experiential Based Reality (EBR) modeling. Same thing.

 

It's just a way of explanation things that would have to precede what we are aware of right now within space-time. Ultimately, it represents currently existing experiential-based awareness (human beings) contemplating the pre-conditions of its own existence. 

 

We begin inquiry from the starting point of our best possible candidate for certainty, which is EBR. And includes the standard model of current experience. And all testing and evidence that also exist within the EBR. That should make the positioning clearer. 

 

On 3/11/2023 at 7:32 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Right now I cannot see how the items listed above are any different the events that Alan Guth talked about, the ones happening in other universes that we can never access and never gain any evidence about.

 

Perhaps that is the difference between us Josh?  I'm interested in physics, not metaphysics.  My natural scepticism requires me to look sceptically upon things that can never be investigated and for which there will never be any evidence.  Which is, of course, exactly the same line I take with the imponderables that Christian apologists want us to accept as real.  God's omnipotence can never be investigated and the examples described in the bible do not qualify as evidence for it.

 

Whereas, the items listed below can be investigated and are supported by evidence.   

 

After my last response, I sort of opened the door to what evidence do exist within our ability to know here in the experience of space-time. We start here and work our way backwards to the preconditions. We start with the standard model. At least that's how the Naturalist movement called "Analytic Idealism" starts out. Of course, there are countless new ager's and others in the mind area who go off in myriad directions. But this one is tempered with starting off with accepted science and then launching into inner core metaphysics thereafter. 

 

On 3/11/2023 at 7:32 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Sorry, but this above sentence is gobbledegook to me.  I do not write this disparagingly, but as a true description of my inability to understand what you meant.  If you had assumed that I understood what...

 

Naturalist oriented metaphysics of Mind

qualia from quanta

PSI issues via a Naturalist worldview

 

...meant, then I'm sorry again, but I don't.  I don't DO metaphysics Josh. I'm not well engaged with philosophy.  I don't understand philosophical buzzwords, soundbites and acronyms.  If you want me to follow you then it's best that you assume nothing and keep things as simple as possible.

 

Yes, that seems to be the issue of speaking to different things. I'm speaking balancing out physics and metaphysics and you're only catching parts and pieces along the way. Which is not your fault, if anything it's my fault because it's on me to try and explain myself in a way that what I'm trying to say may be understood. If I'm speaking in an unknow language that self-defeats my purpose of explaining at all. 

 

I'm taking this criticism of the bible writers thing very seriously. We've all talked about it for years. Discovering depths and depths of the ways they screwed up. And I'm now interested in testing out the possibility that it could be done better. That it's possible, literally possible, to a better job than the Gospel Writers did of bringing about mystical realization to the world. It can't fail at every turn! It has to be better than that. 

 

Intuitively, I believe that it's possible to do it. I believe that the natural human mind at this point in time and evolution is capable of walking a tight path and not self-contradicting at every turn. Remaining internally consistent. 

 

Hopefully that explains my frame of mind better. 

 

Walt, I want to good in the world. And I plan to. I want to be internally consistent. I want to see the bigger picture. I want to freely use creativity and imagination in life. I want to help others. There's an internal "Will" (see Schopenhauer) that I feel driving these feeling of want. There's introspection. Into inner subjectivity. That extends all the way down to it's logically deduced core. 

 

The Ontological Primitive, meaning the irreducible point where nothing can be reduced any further. Objective thinking, led me to identifying the core of inner subjectivity. What we're doing in this new Naturalism movement is a logical outcome. By modeling Consciousness, we are allowing the intellectual mind intellectual permission to allow this level of self-contemplation. 

 

We are not living in self-contradiction at that point. We are internally consistent with the logic that follows from the model. Some spiritual teachers are pissed at us for trying to model Consciousness. I have been debating with them. Because this community are largely scientific minded former materialists who decided that materialist metaphysics is less preferred. Having no real background in eastern philosophy or any of that. No religious baggage from growing up Buddhist, Taoist, or Hindu. The one's with the baggage, surprise, surprise, have had a lot of objections and opposition. Which I'm currently wading through. And trying to challenge myself to handle as fairly as possible. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, TABA said:

“One with Everthing” is open to interpretation, or misinterpretation….

 

 

So, the guy makes the pizza and says, "That'll be $16.95."  The Dalai Lama hands him a twenty; and the guy says, "Thank you."

 

Dalai Lama says, "Wait! Where's my change?"

 

Guy says, "Change comes from within."

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Buddhism, as I understand it, posits that we are already one with everything, we just don't realize it.  The goal of Enlightenment, then, would be to realize that we already are one with everything; and Nirvana is living as one with everything.  The religious side of Buddhism might define things differently; but this is the understanding I glean from the philosophical side.

 

Ok, lets rethink this.

 

Going back to the question, 'Is there Truth in Possibility?' and reframing in the light of your quote above, how about this?

 

If we are already one with everything, but don't yet realize it then I see two possible steps that can be made.  The first is to realize that we are already one with everything.  The second is to try and live as one with what we understand everything to be.

 

However, the second step cannot be knowledge dependent.  If that were the case then what the ancient masters knew about reality would be radically different to what you, a 21st century man, know about reality.  Their reality would the earth, the sky and the sea.  Your reality is a vast and possibly infinite universe populated by uncountable numbers of stars, galaxies and planets.  And you cannot be expected to unlearn this so that you can try and be as they were.

 

I therefore conclude that you and they must share a common understanding of everything.

 

Now, thanks to you recent post about Descartes I think I can guess what that common denominator must be.  If we accept that the only thing anyone can be truly sure is the existence of their own consciousness, then this must be the common denominator between you, the Prof and those ancient masters.  So, instead of being one with everything meaning being one with every part of the physical universe, it must mean being one with everything that you experience.  Because that is the only possible common denominator for everyone.

 

If this is so then our approach to the question, 'Is there Truth in Possibility?' changes radically.

 

The three factors that I raised earlier...

 

1.   All empirical science is necessarily tentative, always leaving room for future possibilities.

2.  Quantum mechanics seems to be telling us that absolute certainty is impossible, leaving only probabilities.

3.  It seems that the human condition is to necessarily be unsure of anything (except math?) to absolute precision.

 

...become irrelevant.  Because they are knowledge dependent.  They are dependent on where and when you live.  And so they cannot be something that everyone and anyone can share in, regardless of where and when they live.  I am therefore forced by my own line of argument to conclude that the answer to the question must be found within ourselves.  It must be internal, not external.

 

That is as far as I can currently take this without my head exploding, Prof.   

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Is the BBT true? If not, then what's the point for learning that model? 

 

That's not a question I ever ask, Josh.

 

I have already acknowledged that all empirical science data must by definition be tentative.  If something is tentative it can never rise to the status of truth.  It can only ever be a model of reality.  It cannot be a true understanding of reality itself.  

 

Science never promises that and many Christian apologists trip themselves up by mistakenly thinking that science delivers absolute truth.  How many times have we had to correct them about what science can and cannot do?  Too many to count.

 

But what I do know about the BBT is this.  That it must be closer to the truth than earlier models it supplanted.  No more than that.  Is it true?  Nobody can really say and if they do claim to know then they are either mistaken or lying.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Whatever you decided about the standard model, you have also decided about anything metaphysical supporting the standard model. There is materialist metaphysics supporting (underlying) the standard model, and there is also idealist metaphysics supporting the standard model. 

 

All is guess work, based on the experience of being aware and contemplating the preconditions of one's own experiential awareness. 

 

And the point is explanatory power. 

 

Materialist metaphysics or physics can't explain why I am experiencing awareness, with qualia. The qualia from quanta formula doesn't work. How many units of matter differentiate between one taste to another? Or smell, one from another? These are the Hard Questions of consciousness that idealist philosophers like Hoffman ask materialists every year. The lack of current explanation is the starting point for inquiry. 

 

Ok, I see that now.  I've never dug much into the philosophical underpinnings of science, except when it comes to debating Christian apologists.  So, when I have it's always been a mean to an end.  Nothing more.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

 

Much better clarification! Thanks. I see your reasoning with String Theory. All fair for your skeptical approach.

 

My thing with the spiritual community is that poo pooing science, reason, logical mind, agnostic-atheism, and skepticism, represents weakness in their worldview. It's self contradiction on their part. The new ways have to include scouring ourselves looking for unnoticed self-contradiction. We can do better than the bronze age myth makers who contradicted themselves repeatedly. Anyone perceived as the "opposition," has to be loved and welcome unconditionally or else the so-called "spiritual" worldview in question has committed an egregious self-contradiction and internal inconsistency. 

 

Your view is internally consistent as far as I can tell. Logically applied skepticism. 

 

So, where to go from here?

 

Good point on explanatory on its own. Math on its own. Those are good objections. 

 

Thanks.  I was a bit worried that you might take umbrage at my relentless scepticism.  Once again I would like to emphasize that I don't dismiss or disparage your views.  I challenge them in an amicable and respectful way.  Hopefully that comes across.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Does this put you into the 'reject all metaphysics camp' - which is reject materialist and all other forms of metaphysics?

 

That's my next question. 

 

No, I can't possibly do that, Josh.  In this thread I've been careful to steer clear of hubris.  Any kind of wholesale rejection or dismissal smacks too much of hubris to me.  Therefore I cannot reject all metaphysics.  Earlier I said that I don't DO metaphysics.  But that's not a rejection.

 

I'm simply not well informed on the matter.  I've also never really seen the need to delve into it.  Physics has always taken priority over metaphysics.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

 

I think we're past that, but just briefly, I was responding to you asking why you believe. And pointing out that it's about models and explanatory power, not belief. It's no different with the Experiential Based Reality (EBR) modeling. Same thing.

 

It's just a way of explanation things that would have to precede what we are aware of right now within space-time. Ultimately, it represents currently existing experiential-based awareness (human beings) contemplating the pre-conditions of its own existence. 

 

We begin inquiry from the starting point of our best possible candidate for certainty, which is EBR. And includes the standard model of current experience. And all testing and evidence that also exist within the EBR. That should make the positioning clearer. 

 

Right now I have a very superficial understanding of EBR and what it entails. 

 

What I am familiar with are what I call the necessary assumptions that science is obliged to make.  As I see it these are not congruent with EBR.  Science tries to eradicate personal experience from the scientific method and it does this to standardise, unify and homogenise what different scientists experience. 

 

This is why two scientists, one in Japan and one in Jamaica, can seamlessly work together, regardless of the differences in how they experience reality.  A major aim of science is to eliminate personal experience, personal bias and personal interpretation.  That is why all science papers must pass through the process of peer review.

 

At this juncture Josh I seem to see EBR and science as incompatible and antagonistic towards each other.  Can you help?

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

After my last response, I sort of opened the door to what evidence do exist within our ability to know here in the experience of space-time. We start here and work our way backwards to the preconditions. We start with the standard model. At least that's how the Naturalist movement called "Analytic Idealism" starts out. Of course, there are countless new ager's and others in the mind area who go off in myriad directions. But this one is tempered with starting off with accepted science and then launching into inner core metaphysics thereafter. 

 

 

The experience of space-time?   Is this science's shared and collective experience of it or are you describing something else?  Before I can follow what you mean any further I feel that we need to resolve the issue I mentioned above.  The apparent incompatibility of science and EBR.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

Yes, that seems to be the issue of speaking to different things. I'm speaking balancing out physics and metaphysics and you're only catching parts and pieces along the way. Which is not your fault, if anything it's my fault because it's on me to try and explain myself in a way that what I'm trying to say may be understood. If I'm speaking in an unknow language that self-defeats my purpose of explaining at all. 

 

Agreed.  

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

I'm taking this criticism of the bible writers thing very seriously. We've all talked about it for years. Discovering depths and depths of the ways they screwed up. And I'm now interested in testing out the possibility that it could be done better. That it's possible, literally possible, to a better job than the Gospel Writers did of bringing about mystical realization to the world. It can't fail at every turn! It has to be better than that. 

 

I don't understand why I need a mystical realization of anything.  Could you explain why you think I do?

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Intuitively, I believe that it's possible to do it. I believe that the natural human mind at this point in time and evolution is capable of walking a tight path and not self-contradicting at every turn. Remaining internally consistent. 

 

Hopefully that explains my frame of mind better. 

 

If you mean that the human mind is capable of understanding reality, then sign me up to that belief!   We might not agree on how that should be done, but those are details we can work out along the way.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

Walt, I want to good in the world. And I plan to. I want to be internally consistent. I want to see the bigger picture. I want to freely use creativity and imagination in life. I want to help others. There's an internal "Will" (see Schopenhauer) that I feel driving these feeling of want. There's introspection. Into inner subjectivity. That extends all the way down to it's logically deduced core. 

 

You are drifting into that unknown language that is opaque to me, Josh.  Please try and find a different way to communicate what mean.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

The Ontological Primitive, meaning the irreducible point where nothing can be reduced any further. Objective thinking, led me to identifying the core of inner subjectivity. What we're doing in this new Naturalism movement is a logical outcome. By modeling Consciousness, we are allowing the intellectual mind intellectual permission to allow this level of self-contemplation. 

 

Unknown language.  Again.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 7:58 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

We are not living in self-contradiction at that point. We are internally consistent with the logic that follows from the model. Some spiritual teachers are pissed at us for trying to model Consciousness. I have been debating with them. Because this community are largely scientific minded former materialists who decided that materialist metaphysics is less preferred. Having no real background in eastern philosophy or any of that. No religious baggage from growing up Buddhist, Taoist, or Hindu. The one's with the baggage, surprise, surprise, have had a lot of objections and opposition. Which I'm currently wading through. And trying to challenge myself to handle as fairly as possible. 

 

 

You're going to have to explain more simply who you are referring to and what's going on here if you want me to follow you Josh.   Sorry about that!  I am definitely a largely scientific materialist who has little grasp of metaphysics.  So you're going to have to cut your cloth accordingly.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

However, the second step cannot be knowledge dependent.  If that were the case then what the ancient masters knew about reality would be radically different to what you, a 21st century man, know about reality.  Their reality would the earth, the sky and the sea.  Your reality is a vast and possibly infinite universe populated by uncountable numbers of stars, galaxies and planets.  And you cannot be expected to unlearn this so that you can try and be as they were.

I would immediately raise the objection that "reality" has not changed; rather, the perception of reality has changed.  From a Buddhist perspective, this simply means I have different "noises" distracting my mind than what the ancient masters had.  "Reality", beyond all of the obstacles and obstructions that cloud it, is still the same as it ever was.

 

Another comment that bears mention is that the goal is not to try to be as they were; but to realize that I already am as they were, as we are, as it always will be.

 

33 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Now, thanks to you recent post about Descartes I think I can guess what that common denominator must be.  If we accept that the only thing anyone can be truly sure is the existence of their own consciousness, then this must be the common denominator between you, the Prof and those ancient masters.  So, instead of being one with everything meaning being one with every part of the physical universe, it must mean being one with everything that you experience.  Because that is the only possible common denominator for everyone.

How can I not be one with every part of the physical universe and be one with everything I experience?  If everything I experience and every part of the physical universe of which I am aware all exist within my own consciousness?  The same applies to your own consciousness, Josh's own consciousness, Ed's own consciousness.  Everything you perceive exists within your own consciousness.  Same for Josh.  Same for Ed.  Yes, it is a common denominator; but it is also oneness of existence.  Because the only way I can be aware of your consciousness, is for it to exist within my consciousness; and vice-versa. 

 

In short, being one with my own consciousness is being one with everything (from the universe, to my own experience, to a snail under a mushroom); because my own consciousness contains everything that I perceive as existing.  And my consciousness is the only thing I know, really and truly, does exist. 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Perhaps this would facilitate better communication between us, Josh?

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/SU-4-multiplets-of-qqq-baryons-made-of-u-d-s-and-c-quarks-a-the-2120-multiplet_fig1_327392355

 

When I posted this link I tried to communicate about geometry in physics without referring to the language that physicists use.  That meant excluding stuff like this.

 

... to be antisymmetric. Since the color part is antisymmetric, the orbital and spin-flavor parts have to have the same symmetry (either symmetric, mixed symmetry or antisymmetric). In the absence of orbital excitations, the spin-flavor part has to be symmetric. The flavor and spin content of the symmetric spin-flavor configuration is given in Table I. There are two flavor multiplets, [3] and [21], both with the same dimension. The former consists of states with spin and parity S P = 3/2 + and the latter with 1/2 + . The decomposition of four into three flavors Table II. The symmetric 20- plet splits into a uds baryon decuplet, a sextet with one charm quark, a triplet with two charm quarks and a sin- glet consisting of three charm quarks. The 20-plet with mixed symmetry splits into a uds octet, a sextet and an anti-triplet with one charm quark, and a triplet with two charm quarks (see Fig. ...

 

Instead I tried to put myself into your shoes and also the shoes of others reading this thread.  'Does it help convey my point if I use language which Josh and others are probably unfamiliar with?'  The answer was No.  Therefore, I had to try and tailor what I was trying to say, trimming it and cutting it down to the simplest and easiest understood words I could find.  

 

Now that you know I have a sketchy understanding of metaphysics it might help if you tried do something similar Josh.  Ask yourself if I'm going to have any idea of what Schopenhauer's internal 'Will' or the Ontological Primitive are.  And then proceed accordingly.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I would immediately raise the objection that "reality" has not changed; rather, the perception of reality has changed.  From a Buddhist perspective, this simply means I have different "noises" distracting my mind than what the ancient masters had.  "Reality", beyond all of the obstacles and obstructions that cloud it, is still the same as it ever was.

 

Objection noted.  However I would counter that by saying that I never said reality itself has changed.  I said that our knowledge of reality has changed.  And since knowledge depends upon perception, then you and I are actually in agreement.

 

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Another comment that bears mention is that the goal is not to try to be as they were; but to realize that I already am as they were, as we are, as it always will be.

 

Ah yes, but how do you know that you are already this way?  Is that something that must be assumed without knowledge?  Surely you would first have to know and be aware of the ancient masters to go on to try and make this realization about your equality with them?  

 

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

How can I not be one with every part of the physical universe and be one with everything I experience?  If everything I experience and every part of the physical universe of which I am aware all exist within my own consciousness?  The same applies to your own consciousness, Josh's own consciousness, Ed's own consciousness.  Everything you perceive exists within your own consciousness.  Same for Josh.  Same for Ed.  Yes, it is a common denominator; but it is also oneness of existence.  Because the only way I can be aware of your consciousness, is for it to exist within my consciousness; and vice-versa. 

 

You mentioned Edgarcito.  If he were reading this (and he might be) he would probably say that this is the very line he's been taking for years, when arguing with us.  That everything is subjective.  Is that not, in essence, what you saying here, Prof?  And if not, what are you saying in terms of subjectivity?

 

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

In short, being one with my own consciousness is being one with everything (from the universe, to my own experience, to a snail under a mushroom); because my own consciousness contains everything that I perceive as existing.  And my consciousness is the only thing I know, really and truly, does exist. 

 

 

No.  I can't see that.

 

You are being one with what you perceive exists.  If you acknowledge that you do not perceive everything that exists, then you cannot be one with things that fall outside of your perception.  You are only one with that which you have currently perceived - not with anything you cannot perceive or things you have yet to perceive.

 

Yes, you can only be sure that your consciousness exists.  But what about the tentativeness you mentioned earlier?  If you acknowledge the reality of the tentative then you must address it.  If you address it then there is that which you are certain of (your consciousness) and that which you are uncertain (tentative) of.

 

To say that only your consciousness exists because that is all you can be certain of is to contradict what you wrote about the tentative.  By your very words the tentative must exist.  It must be just as real as your consciousness.  The difference being that you can certain of one, but not the other.

 

Therefore, isn't it fallacious to claim that you are being one with everything, when in fact what you mean is that you are being one with everything that you are certain of? 

 

Oneness with consciousness does not equal oneness with everything. 

 

Oneness with consciousness equals oneness with that you are certain of - yourself.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Objection noted.  However I would counter that by saying that I never said reality itself has changed.  I said that our knowledge of reality has changed.  And since knowledge depends upon perception, then you and I are actually in agreement.

Accepted.

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Ah yes, but how do you know that you are already this way?  Is that something that must be assumed without knowledge?  Surely you would first have to know and be aware of the ancient masters to go on to try and make this realization about your equality with them? 

Because, as we've already agreed, reality has not changed.  Again, the goal is not equality with them, or being like them, but rather the realization that reality is what it is, has always been, will always be.

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

You mentioned Edgarcito.  If he were reading this (and he might be) he would probably say that this is the very line he's been taking for years, when arguing with us.  That everything is subjective.  Is that not, in essence, what you saying here, Prof?  And if not, what are you saying in terms of subjectivity?

If, as you will argue a bit later in your post, everything is tentative, then ultimately, yes, everything has to be subjective as it it tied directly to the level of acceptance or skepticism an individual develops.

 

With that said, reality is still what reality is, irrespective of our perception and perspective.  As you've already said, Truth exists only as a potential ideal, a possibility. 

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

You are being one with what you perceive exists.  If you acknowledge that you do not perceive everything that exists, then you cannot be one with things that fall outside of your perception.  You are only one with that which you have currently perceived - not with anything you cannot perceive or things you have yet to perceive.

I believe this is exactly what I said.  My exact words were, "If everything I experience and every part of the physical universe of which I am aware all exist within my own consciousness?"

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Yes, you can only be sure that your consciousness exists.  But what about the tentativeness you mentioned earlier?  If you acknowledge the reality of the tentative then you must address it.  If you address it then there is that which you are certain of (your consciousness) and that which you are uncertain (tentative) of.

 

To say that only your consciousness exists because that is all you can be certain of is to contradict what you wrote about the tentative.  By your very words the tentative must exist.  It must be just as real as your consciousness.  The difference being that you can certain of one, but not the other.

 

Therefore, isn't it fallacious to claim that you are being one with everything, when in fact what you mean is that you are being one with everything that you are certain of? 

Why would you assume that it is impossible to be one with uncertainty?  Is uncertainty not a part of life?  Is it not a part of reality as it is, as it was, as it will be?

 

Yes.  I am certain that my consciousness exists.  I am equally uncertain about everything else.  I see no contradiction; and I'm pretty sure this is one of the points Descartes was trying to make.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Accepted.

 

Because, as we've already agreed, reality has not changed.  Again, the goal is not equality with them, or being like them, but rather the realization that reality is what it is, has always been, will always be.

 

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

 

However, since you cannot know from evidence, experience or perception that reality is what it is, has always been that way and always will be that way are then just accepting that it is as a given?

 

Or are you taking it on faith (without evidence) from others that it is?

 

I ask because I presume that the concept of reality described above did not originate with you, but you heard/read it from others.

 

And therefore on what basis are you accepting it as true?

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

If, as you will argue a bit later in your post, everything is tentative, then ultimately, yes, everything has to be subjective as it it tied directly to the level of acceptance or skepticism an individual develops.

 

With that said, reality is still what reality is, irrespective of our perception and perspective.  As you've already said, Truth exists only as a potential ideal, a possibility. 

 

If you hold to this position Prof you can surely expect Edgarcito to challenge you on why its ok for you to hold to it and not ok for him to hold to it.  

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I believe this is exactly what I said.  My exact words were, "If everything I experience and every part of the physical universe of which I am aware all exist within my own consciousness?"

 

Why would you assume that it is impossible to be one with uncertainty?  Is uncertainty not a part of life?  Is it not a part of reality as it is, as it was, as it will be?

 

Yes.  I am certain that my consciousness exists.  I am equally uncertain about everything else.  I see no contradiction; and I'm pretty sure this is one of the points Descartes was trying to make.

 

 

 

In the light of this perhaps you could explain to me exactly what you are seeking to become one with?

 

Every part of the physical universe of which you are aware - which would mean becoming one only with yourself?

 

Every part of the universe, including those parts you are unaware of - which would mean becoming one with everything there is and not just yourself?

 

As far as I can see to conflate the self with everything is a misuse of the word everything, when you actually mean only  yourself.  The two are not the same.

 

However, I await your further clarification on this.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rev R]

I hope y'all are having as much fun as I am watching this.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

 

However, since you cannot know from evidence, experience or perception that reality is what it is, has always been that way and always will be that way are then just accepting that it is as a given?

 

Or are you taking it on faith (without evidence) from others that it is?

 

I ask because I presume that the concept of reality described above did not originate with you, but you heard/read it from others.

 

And therefore on what basis are you accepting it as true?

Walt, on 13 March 2023,  at 12:40pm EDT, you wrote this:

 

What about Buddhism?  As I understand it there are no gods to be the embodiment of absolute truth in Buddhism.  Instead, isn't Nirvana a kind of dissolving of the self and the becoming one with everything?  (Please correct me here if I err.)  If everything equals absolute truth (and why not?) then those of us who attain Nirvana also become one with the absolute truth that is embodied in the everything-ness of everything.  

 

So, perhaps I need to modify what I wrote earlier about the Truth only ever being a possibility for us?

 

However, working on the assumption that my understanding of Buddhism might need correcting by those who know better, I'll wait and see what happens.

 

Since then, I have been attempting to answer your questions based on what I understand about Buddhism, which is what you asked me to do.  However, I am not a Buddhist.  I simply find certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy to be useful.  Moreover, I have already stated the extent to which I embrace Buddhist philosophy and outlined my reasons for doing so.  

 

What I am presenting here are simply possible answers to your questions according to my understanding of Buddhism, much like I might answer similar inquiries concerning christianity.  But I am neither a christian, nor am I a Buddhist.  

 

The extent of my acceptance of Buddhist philosophy, as I have already stated, are the most basic principles: the 4 Noble Truths (which mirror the Scientific Method), the 8-Fold Path (which tests the hypothesis set forth in the 4 Noble Truths), and the 5 Basic Precepts (which are simple suggestions for living in harmony with one's environment).  I accept nothing on faith.  Just as one might adhere to the idea of Doing Unto Others without necessarily embracing the rest of christian theology, one might equally find use in basic Buddhism without necessarily believing all of the doctrines and dharmas that come with it.  The Buddha himself told his followers not to just blindly accept what he taught; but to test it for themselves and keep the parts that rang true for them.

 

Going forward, I would appreciate it if you would bear this in mind.  If you still wish to argue the finer points of Buddhist beliefs, I'm sure your local temple has a monk whom you might find more accommodating.  

 

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

However, since you cannot know from evidence, experience or perception that reality is what it is, has always been that way and always will be that way are then just accepting that it is as a given?

 

Or are you taking it on faith (without evidence) from others that it is?

 

I ask because I presume that the concept of reality described above did not originate with you, but you heard/read it from others.

I don't recall describing a concept of reality at any point. 

 

Nonetheless...

 

I'm not sure why this is such a sticking point for you; or why it even matters.  What difference does it make whether I gained information from a book, saw it on a video, or had a bolt of lightning strike me upside the head?  If the information entered into my awareness, then it has obviously become a part of my consciousness.  If I find it true, based on the evidence of my experience and perception then it becomes part of my reality.  How is this such a difficult concept to understand?

 

Since it does seem to be a sticking point for you, let me spell it out.  The Buddha realized that:

1. There is suffering. 

2. Suffering comes from attachment and desire.

3. The is an end to suffering. 

4. The end of suffering is the 8-Fold Path.

 

Many ancient masters agreed with the Buddha and also realized that:

1. There is suffering. 

2. Suffering comes from attachment and desire.

3. The is an end to suffering. 

4. The end of suffering is the 8-Fold Path.

 

In my own life, I have also come to agree with the Buddha; and I have also come to realize that:

1. There is suffering. 

2. Suffering comes from attachment and desire.

3. The is an end to suffering. 

4. The end of suffering is the 8-Fold Path.

 

This is reality.  This has always been reality.  This will always be reality.  Do you care to dispute it?  If so, please answer the following questions:

1. Do you deny that there is suffering?

2. Do you deny that suffering comes from attachment and desire?

3. Can you demonstrate that following the 8-Fold Path does not result in an end of suffering?

 

Now, could I have come to this realization entirely on my own, without reading about it in a book, or hearing about it from a monk?  Given my track record for suffering, both experiencing and causing, coupled with my track record for introspection and brutal honesty, I'd say it's entirely possible that I could have.  Thankfully, some ancient masters spared me the trouble.

 

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

If you hold to this position Prof you can surely expect Edgarcito to challenge you on why its ok for you to hold to it and not ok for him to hold to it.  

Ed is welcome to come here and fight his own battles, if he's so inclined. 

 

However, if you are going to argue that not everything is subjective, the question you will have to answer is Is there anything that you are willing to accept without tentative skepticism?  If there isn't, then nothing is completely objective. 

 

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

In the light of this perhaps you could explain to me exactly what you are seeking to become one with?

No.  I could not.  I am not seeking to become one with anything. 

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

As far as I can see to conflate the self with everything is a misuse of the word everything, when you actually mean only  yourself.  The two are not the same.

As far as I can tell, I have repeatedly emphasized everything of which I am aware and everything I perceive as existing.  I'm not sure if you're intentionally ignoring my repetitious use of such terms in order to make another sticking point; or if you genuinely think so highly of me as to assume that everything I am aware of literally is everything.  If it is the latter, I should tell you, flattering though such admiration may be, it is far from the reality of which I am so painfully aware.

 

Since I suspect it is the former, let me break it down for you.  When I was around 11 years old, my family visited the Redwood forest in Northern California.  Redwood trees are absolutely immense, and very old.  I never saw one in its entirety.  But I did catch enough of a glimpse of one to get an idea of just how much life and reality one of them holds.

 

I described meditation as a deliberate and thorough examination of my consciousness, and thus an observation of existence itself and whatever reality that entails.  Do I really believe that my consciousness alone encompasses all of existence?  All of reality?  Come on, Walt.  

 

Just as seeing the trunk of a Redwood is seeing the tree itself, observing my own consciousness is observing consciousness itself.  Just as the trunk of the tree gives a glimpse of how much tree there really is, my consciousness (my only "existence") gives a glimpse at existence itself, and how much existence there really is.

 

The problem is that too often the forest cannot be seen for all the ugly-ass trees in the way.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Walt, on 13 March 2023,  at 12:40pm EDT, you wrote this:

 

What about Buddhism?  As I understand it there are no gods to be the embodiment of absolute truth in Buddhism.  Instead, isn't Nirvana a kind of dissolving of the self and the becoming one with everything?  (Please correct me here if I err.)  If everything equals absolute truth (and why not?) then those of us who attain Nirvana also become one with the absolute truth that is embodied in the everything-ness of everything.  

 

So, perhaps I need to modify what I wrote earlier about the Truth only ever being a possibility for us?

 

However, working on the assumption that my understanding of Buddhism might need correcting by those who know better, I'll wait and see what happens.

 

Since then, I have been attempting to answer your questions based on what I understand about Buddhism, which is what you asked me to do.  However, I am not a Buddhist.  I simply find certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy to be useful.  Moreover, I have already stated the extent to which I embrace Buddhist philosophy and outlined my reasons for doing so.  

 

What I am presenting here are simply possible answers to your questions according to my understanding of Buddhism, much like I might answer similar inquiries concerning christianity.  But I am neither a christian, nor am I a Buddhist.  

 

The extent of my acceptance of Buddhist philosophy, as I have already stated, are the most basic principles: the 4 Noble Truths (which mirror the Scientific Method), the 8-Fold Path (which tests the hypothesis set forth in the 4 Noble Truths), and the 5 Basic Precepts (which are simple suggestions for living in harmony with one's environment).  I accept nothing on faith.  Just as one might adhere to the idea of Doing Unto Others without necessarily embracing the rest of christian theology, one might equally find use in basic Buddhism without necessarily believing all of the doctrines and dharmas that come with it.  The Buddha himself told his followers not to just blindly accept what he taught; but to test it for themselves and keep the parts that rang true for them.

 

Going forward, I would appreciate it if you would bear this in mind.  If you still wish to argue the finer points of Buddhist beliefs, I'm sure your local temple has a monk whom you might find more accommodating.  

 

 

 

Thank you for this important and timely reminder, Prof.

 

Too often I can focus too hard on details, losing sight of of the wider view of things.  Your forest image is exactly right.  Therefore, let me first apologize for (A) forgetting what you have reminded of above and (B) causing you any upset as a result of this.  It is more important to me that we remain on good terms and show each other the proper measure of respect.  If I have failed to so do in this thread, once again, I apologize.

 

As it happens I do have further questions and points to make about those parts of your message which I have excluded from the above quote.  But, in the light of recent events here, I wonder whether it would be a helpful thing for us to go down this road.  What we might gain could well be outweighed by what we might lose and I don't think either of us would want our dialogue to end in acrimony.

 

Therefore, I leave the decision to you Prof and will gladly abide by whatever choice you make.  I hope that we can proceed cordially, whether we go further down this road or not.  

 

With sincere respect,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

17 hours ago, Rev R said:

I hope y'all are having as much fun as I am watching this.

 

Fun or not, it looks like the only show in town at this time.

[walterpthefirst]

Professor,

 

You mentioned brutal honesty, introspection and a person's track record.  So let me try these things.

 

In this forum I have a personal track record of too often relentlessly pushing what should be good-natured discussions into bad-natured territory.  Of pressing too hard on issues and turning them from debates into heated arguments.  In that respect I resemble Epimetheus, the bumbling brother of Prometheus.  Epimetheus translates as 'afterthought' and Prometheus as 'forethought'.  

 

Upon introspection I saw the same pattern in this thread that has occurred in other threads, when I have pursued and pushed something too far.  As per Epimetheus, it seems that I need to have this tendency pointed out to me by others, after the event.  I lack the wisdom to see it by myself, before it develops into a problem and I also lack the wisdom to see it happening in real time.  Lacking said wisdom, I find myself too often seeing the damage I've wrought in hindsight and only then when others have pointed it out to me.  

 

This is a significant failing, perhaps even a major flaw in my character.  If somebody makes a serious mistake once and then learns from it, fine.  But if they keep repeating it, then this is indicative of problem.  I must look to dealing with it.  The saying, 'Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them' applies here - to me.

 

Now I must get brutal.  Upon introspection I've come to believe that there's a strong element of ego involved here.  That I like showing off my intellectual prowess too much.  That I even bask in the kudos of having smashed and broken someone else's arguments.  Or a least corrected them on some technical detail.  That I enjoy showing off how clever I am.

 

And I thought I was doing so well at being humble by saying that I was trying to avoid hubris in this thread!

 

Well, it seems that real humility for honest reasons doesn't come that easy to me.  This is another aspect of my character that I must face up to and take action to deal with.  Not just for myself, but also for the good of this forum.  Every day I sit down in the morning and see what's new at Ex-C.  I will now have to remember that the forum isn't here for my personal glorification and ego-inflation.  A new reason for logging on and posting something will have to be put in place.  Something like, 'Why are doing this, Walter?  And who are you doing this for?  Yourself?  If so, then don't log on."  

 

Professor, I've already apologized to you but now I want to thank you for being to me like Prometheus was to  Epimetheus.  Once again you've pulled me up short and made me look at myself afresh.  I don't really much like what I've seen (again!) so I must look to change myself.  Period.

 

 

 

There are two more things I will say before winding this up. 

 

First, you can see into me with such clarity that you leave me (metaphorically) naked and literally ashamed.   My true motivations seem revealed for what they are.  Hopefully I can learn from what you've shown me about myself.

 

Secondly, there is a problem in something you wrote about suffering and the 8-fold path.  If you wish I can draw your attention to it and show you why it is problematic.  I am not saying this to be clever or to boost my ego.  I can help you out here and I think that when you see the problem for yourself you will want to re-think things.  So, I make the offer of help with all due sincerity, in the spirit of cooperation and respect.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Calm down, Walt.  Don't be so hard on yourself,  my friend.  We're all just flawed consciousness perceived in human form, after all.

 

I'm happy to discuss things with you.  I just don't want to argue with you over things that I don't personally believe in.  That's what Ed is here for.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm guessing you're going to point to a Buddhist rape victim and ask 1) how was her suffering the result of attachment and desire; and 2) why didn't her adherence to the 8-Fold Path prevent her suffering from happening?

 

Is that about right?

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Calm down, Walt.  Don't be so hard on yourself,  my friend.  We're all just flawed consciousness perceived in human form, after all.

 

I'm happy to discuss things with you.  I just don't want to argue with you over things that I don't personally believe in.  That's what Ed is here for.

Lol...

 

We kind of have to ask ourselves why the details matter anyhow.... if we can't ultimately know.  Why then is it important that Walter default to the response he did rather than rely on the details.  And what is ultimately the priority for our meat planes and limited consciousness.  And what makes us seek those details even though we, a decently intelligent group of humans, know beforehand, we can't totally understand.

 

Science gonna do it for us?  Religion?   And what do we do in the interim.

[Rev R]

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Since then, I have been attempting to answer your questions based on what I understand about Buddhism, which is what you asked me to do.  However, I am not a Buddhist.  I simply find certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy to be useful.  Moreover, I have already stated the extent to which I embrace Buddhist philosophy and outlined my reasons for doing so.  

You've been doing a pretty good job of explaining the basics and answering the challenges.

 

EDIT: I suggest that the 3rd Noble Truth be amended to "There exists a means to overcome suffering." 

[Rev R]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol...

 

We kind of have to ask ourselves why the details matter anyhow.... if we can't ultimately know.  Why then is it important that Walter default to the response he did rather than rely on the details.  And what is ultimately the priority for our meat planes and limited consciousness.  And what makes us seek those details even though we, a decently intelligent group of humans, know beforehand, we can't totally understand.

 

Science gonna do it for us?  Religion?   And what do we do in the interim.

For the most part, it's not so much about the destination as it is the journey and the tools we gain to make sense of things. But I would assert that there are some things that don't really need to make sense.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, Rev R said:

You've been doing a pretty good job of explaining the basics and answering the challenges.

 

EDIT: I suggest that the 3rd Noble Truth be amended to "There exists a means to overcome suffering." 

I agree from a practical level; but, being a purist, I still present it in the original form.

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Now I must get brutal.  Upon introspection I've come to believe that there's a strong element of ego involved here.  That I like showing off my intellectual prowess too much.  That I even bask in the kudos of having smashed and broken someone else's arguments.  Or a least corrected them on some technical detail.  That I enjoy showing off how clever I am.

 

And I thought I was doing so well at being humble by saying that I was trying to avoid hubris in this thread!

 

Well, it seems that real humility for honest reasons doesn't come that easy to me.  This is another aspect of my character that I must face up to and take action to deal with.  Not just for myself, but also for the good of this forum.  Every day I sit down in the morning and see what's new at Ex-C.  I will now have to remember that the forum isn't here for my personal glorification and ego-inflation.  A new reason for logging on and posting something will have to be put in place.  Something like, 'Why are doing this, Walter?  And who are you doing this for?  Yourself?  If so, then don't log on."  

 

 

Ego-inflation. Aren't we all guilty of presenting our case to the death because we have become quite enamored with our own personal views and preferences?  

 

You are guilty of being human, sir. Nothing more.