|
On July 19 2010 04:33 Duelist wrote:
Other objects when they react in some way with another, be it heat transfer, a shock, etc. This is related to the 1st law of thermodynamics and Lavoiser's. Every object or system has a defined energy given by its mass times light velocity squared, but being mass constant, changes in the energy - in this case called internal energy - of an object are only transferable with other objects or systems through work or heat.
I can see we are going around in circles here. Just to clarify: the argument that started this expressed the idea that since you cannot define 'what' energy is in and of itself you cannot actually define what reality is. This leads to the question of 'why'.
My argument was based on the fact that because energy is all there is you cannot define it relative to anything else. I.E. in the absence of that which is tall you cannot define that which is short.
You continue to rebuttal my argument by discussing how energy functions instead of telling me what energy is. And in this you have failed to answer the question to which I presented you with.
On July 19 2010 04:33 Duelist wrote:
I believe we can... we can't say we understand all, but at least parts of the picture. When the earth was thought to be spherical, we can't say those scientists didn't understand anything, same when they thought it was an oblate spheroid. The general idea was there, most information was there, just a few details were missing. It wasn't 100% wrong..., ofc it wasn't 100% right either, but thats where data gathering and analyzing enters, and why science evolves with time.
Please re-read my previous post and seek to understand what I am trying to get across. The problem is not that science is half describing the functions of reality so by your reasoning this means it is not entirely true, it is that the theories that are generally accepted lead to understandings of the way the universe is - how reality is. This affects society and individual beliefs tremendously. Because if science is telling us how reality is that creates our beliefs about ourselves and ultimately is the cause of the way we act.
Now since it has been shown that many different accepted theories throughout the ages have lead to different philosophical beliefs about the world we can see that applying science to our understanding of how reality is, is not correct. Because in 10 years the theory might be debased and everything that we thought before and hence based our beliefs on was incorrect.
We must begin to understand that science does not just affect our understanding of the physical world it also affects the understand of our selves. Because we are a extension of the 'physical' world.
In this way science is a philosophy. It is directly related to our understanding of truth and reality. And just like with all other philosophies it makes certain assumptions that are unfounded. Assumptions I have stated before.
Therefore, we must begin to see science as a philosophy so that we do not mistakenly put our beliefs into it.
On July 19 2010 04:33 Duelist wrote:
Clearly something must be knowable or science would not be capable of making predictions at all. To make a prediction it's necessary to know at least how the phenomenon works. What we can say is that for our reality science seems to have some knowledge about it due to the accurate predictions it makes, and that there could be more realities, to which science has not yet made contact. Correct me if i'm wrong please.
Let me clarify: my argument is not based on whether or not something is knowable but whether or not that know-ability is what has been defined by science. That is what science has assumed.
My concern is not in whether or not science is a good approach to understanding truth rather it is concern with the assumptions that science has made and the philosophical implications of these assumptions. All of which have not been proven to be true.
Clearly, this discussion will go on for a long time before we can get to any kind of agreement. If you would like more sources, much more reliable then am I, to garner knowledge on what I am talking about I suggest the books:
Embracing Mind by Allan B. Wallace <- I recommend this one above the rest. The other references I have provided contain parts of what I am trying to convey. This contains the whole of it.
The Universe in a Single Atom by The Dalai Lama
Also:
http://thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790
Furthermore, anything to do with the philosophical arguments of Buddhism or quantum physics and its philosophical implications such as The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics.
|
On July 19 2010 01:46 travis wrote:
can I butt in here? I'm very interested. What exactly are you talking about? I tried to read back but I am just confused. Epsilon, can you explain what it is you are asking about?
It goes back to this post I made which was based on some previous discussions :
On July 17 2010 02:26 Epsilon8 wrote:
After thinking some more of this - 'how', 'why' tension between science and spirituality I have come to what I believe to be a fuller definition of the 'why' question :
Science looks at this 'why' and say : "Well thats simple there is no 'why', it just is. Random happenstance."
However, I believe it is more appropriate to say that people asking the 'why' question are really asking 'what'? And the what question when not answered naturally leads to a why question.
And it is still the 'what' that science has yet to answer. It may say "Well of course the what is energy and the atoms composed of this energy." But taken in this way since energy and not atoms (because atoms are composed of energy) is all there is, it is not possible to contrast it with anything, and hence you cannot truly define what it actually is. Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is.
All subsequent posts between Duelist and I were towards this first post.
|
To Epsilon8:
Science may ask why every once in a while, but that is not its primary concern. Science is concerned mainly with describing physical phenomena, and seeing if any possible connections between such phenomena can be utilized efficiently for humans.
Why is a question that is fundamentally human in nature; every human will want to know why to some extent, including scientists.
|
On July 19 2010 09:57 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 01:46 travis wrote:
can I butt in here? I'm very interested. What exactly are you talking about? I tried to read back but I am just confused. Epsilon, can you explain what it is you are asking about? It goes back to this post I made which was based on some previous discussions : Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 02:26 Epsilon8 wrote:
After thinking some more of this - 'how', 'why' tension between science and spirituality I have come to what I believe to be a fuller definition of the 'why' question :
Science looks at this 'why' and say : "Well thats simple there is no 'why', it just is. Random happenstance."
However, I believe it is more appropriate to say that people asking the 'why' question are really asking 'what'? And the what question when not answered naturally leads to a why question.
And it is still the 'what' that science has yet to answer. It may say "Well of course the what is energy and the atoms composed of this energy." But taken in this way since energy and not atoms (because atoms are composed of energy) is all there is, it is not possible to contrast it with anything, and hence you cannot truly define what it actually is. Can you truly give an answer to the question of "What is energy?". You may try to say what it is by talking about how it works, i.e. it has the power to effect things in a kinetic way, but this would not establish what it actually is. I would take this a step further and say that if you cannot define what it is then you cannot actually establish its existence at all.
And then the natural question after the 'what is it' question has failed is to ask well if we can't answer the what then it must be a 'why' question. Because if 'what' it is can not really be said to be anything, then we must ask a 'why' this is. All subsequent posts between Duelist and I were towards this first post.
I'm fairly confident science is concerned with identifying causes. I'm also confident physics can establish the existence of energy. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.
|
On July 19 2010 01:37 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 01:30 Blyadischa wrote:
Wish there were more people who actually have read some of the big philosophers before making claims from messages they found in movies. Can you cite who these people are and make appropriate arguments for this? I'm tired of people coming into this thread and assuming that the people in this thread do not know what they are talking about. While there are individuals who might exhibit this from time to time, we are not idiots. Read the entire thread history before you start making claims. This isn't particularly addressed to you Blyadisha but to everyone who does this. One of TL's ten commandments is to respect threads and to read the history of the thread before makings posts.
Blyadischa I would also recommend you reading some of Jiddu Krishnamurti`s teachings, especially about authorities and ideologies. Though I understand the seductive glamour of knowing great philosophers and their teachings, I think Epsilon is right.
|
On to discussion :
Objective is in my opinion a collective subjective and there is no such thing as objective reality, save yourself our collective subjective.
Though if you want to answer whether there is objective reality or not - you rather need to know what reality is first - and what is reality ?
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
Reality - is ingraspable to human mind because human mind can not grasp wholeness. Human mind can only pin things into a box, to analise, compare and classify. Reality is wholeness. Its everything. If its everything - then you can`t understand it by comparision because there is nothing you can compare it to.
So I hope we established that reality is indefineable and uncompareable. If that is the nature of reality - then can there be objective, absolute reality ? Yes but that very objective reality is indefineable , insepareable - which means that it can be anything. Objective reality can be non-objectivity of reality itself. For example reality could be self-creation - meaning we collectively create our reality, so it is collective subjective and that would be objective truth because it is collective subjective.
Which would mean that objective reality is our unity.
|
On July 20 2010 01:58 UFO wrote:
On to discussion :
Objective is in my opinion a collective subjective and there is no such thing as objective reality, save yourself our collective subjective.
Though if you want to answer whether there is objective reality or not - you rather need to know what reality is first - and what is reality ?
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
Reality - is ingraspable to human mind because human mind can not grasp wholeness. Human mind can only pin things into a box, to analise, compare and classify. Reality is wholeness. Its everything. If its everything - then you can`t understand it by comparision because there is nothing you can compare it to.
So I hope we established that reality is indefineable and uncompareable. If that is the nature of reality - then can there be objective, absolute reality ? Yes but that very objective reality is indefineable , insepareable - which means that it can be anything. Objective reality can be non-objectivity of reality itself. For example reality could be self-creation - meaning we collectively create our reality, so it is collective subjective and that would be objective truth because it is collective subjective.
Which would mean that objective reality is our unity.
(Note to Epsilon: I don't know if you saw, but I replied to your post.)
UFO, the phrase, "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" <sic> is a description of reality in itself. Much like the statement, "there is no truth" is equivalent to "there is no truth" is true. It refutes itself. Imagine though, that you disagree with me and it is the case that reality is beyond definition. We run into another problem. You said that "reality can be anything" which means that it might not be "indefineable and uncompareable" <sic>. So then, how can you sure of anything you're saying about reality? Rather, what I think you mean to express is that even if there is an objective, absolute reality, we cannot know it (a statement much in line with the ridiculous PoMo crowd - "postmodernist"). But even this statement must assume knowledge of reality as it actually is. There is at some point some base statement which expresses knowledge of reality as it actually is, hence it will refute any claims made that suggest reality as unknowable.
What this means is that you and I have (as a concept) grasped reality, comparing it in our minds with things which are not everything. I compare in my mind a reality which is everything, to a reality which is nothing (and it's a very hard thing, this nothing).
So you've established that either we take you on faith, as per your self-contradictions, or we ignore you, because you cannot possibly know what you're talking about.
|
On July 20 2010 02:30 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 01:58 UFO wrote:
On to discussion :
Objective is in my opinion a collective subjective and there is no such thing as objective reality, save yourself our collective subjective.
Though if you want to answer whether there is objective reality or not - you rather need to know what reality is first - and what is reality ?
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
Reality - is ingraspable to human mind because human mind can not grasp wholeness. Human mind can only pin things into a box, to analise, compare and classify. Reality is wholeness. Its everything. If its everything - then you can`t understand it by comparision because there is nothing you can compare it to.
So I hope we established that reality is indefineable and uncompareable. If that is the nature of reality - then can there be objective, absolute reality ? Yes but that very objective reality is indefineable , insepareable - which means that it can be anything. Objective reality can be non-objectivity of reality itself. For example reality could be self-creation - meaning we collectively create our reality, so it is collective subjective and that would be objective truth because it is collective subjective.
Which would mean that objective reality is our unity. (Note to Epsilon: I don't know if you saw, but I replied to your post.) UFO, the phrase, "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" <sic> is a description of reality in itself. Much like the statement, "there is no truth" is equivalent to "there is no truth" is true. It refutes itself. Imagine though, that you disagree with me and it is the case that reality is beyond definition. We run into another problem. You said that "reality can be anything" which means that it might not be "indefineable and uncompareable" <sic>. So then, how can you sure of anything you're saying about reality? Rather, what I think you mean to express is that even if there is an objective, absolute reality, we cannot know it (a statement much in line with the ridiculous PoMo crowd - "postmodernist"). But even this statement must assume knowledge of reality as it actually is. There is at some point some base statement which expresses knowledge of reality as it actually is, hence it will refute any claims made that suggest reality as unknowable. What this means is that you and I have (as a concept) grasped reality, comparing it in our minds with things which are not everything. I compare in my mind a reality which is everything, to a reality which is nothing (and it's a very hard thing, this nothing). So you've established that either we take you on faith, as per your self-contradictions, or we ignore you, because you cannot possibly know what you're talking about.
Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it.
There is at some point some base statement which expresses knowledge of reality as it actually is There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work.
UFO, the phrase, "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" <sic> is a description of reality in itself. Much like the statement, "there is no truth" is equivalent to "there is no truth" is true. It refutes itself. Imagine though, that you disagree with me and it is the case that reality is beyond definition
Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory.
|
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
Notice the difference between understanding reality and understanding part of reality. What you understand with your mind is always part of reality and never the wholeness of reality.
I didn`t mean to express that we can`t know it. I merely say that we can`t know it with our minds. We can only know part of it.
Here is what you said:
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
How can you bottle something that is infinite into a box of words and definitions ? You cannot !
This leaves no room for the new distinction you've attempted to create between knowing part of reality, and knowing the whole of reality. If reality as a whole cannot be defined with words and definitions, because reality is "multidimensional and infinite" then the same is true for knowing only a part of reality, because you're claiming that it's "multidimensional and infinite" (i.e. part of an infinite is itself infinite).
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
There is no statement which expresses knowledge of reality because there is no such thing as knowledge of reality. There is knowledge of part of reality, never the reality.
There is no statement that can express knowledge of reality. Statement can only express knowledge about part of reality or the nature of reality - ie impossibility of comparision of reality. You can perceive reality as disconnected parts and compare these parts and by that better understand these parts but this is not understanding of reality.
Also I don`t really think I`ve established what you think I did.
The contradictions you speak of are merely effects of how the words work.
So there is "no statement which expresses knowledge of reality" because there is no such thing as "knowledge of reality". Even though you have knowledge of reality, in that you're telling me that we can only have knowledge of part of reality, but not the whole of reality. You realize that is a "statement which expresses knowledge of reality". Namely, that it is infinite, multidimensional and unknowable, except for a small part of it.
The contradiction(s) I pointed out aren't mere word-play.
On July 20 2010 02:50 UFO wrote:
Well, I do disagree with you there. ' "there is no truth" is true ' refutes itself but "reality is indefineable and uncompareable" doesn`t. You mean something like :
Reality can`t be described = description of reality so this statement refutes itself. Thats merely word-play, behind these words, the meaning is not self-contradictory.
Why are you disagreeing with me, you modified your original statement. The fact is that my example isn't word play. If you're going to describe reality with the words "infinite" and "multidimensional" and "unknowable" then "man up" and acknowledge that you've described reality. Otherwise, simply say, "The only thing we know about reality is..." And you won't have this problem. That is assuming you're willing to state that you know at least one thing about reality.
|
It can be defined to the extent that we assume it to be definable.
Obviously not the whole of it, to define something exactly as is requires the same amount of information that it takes in the universe, needing a replicate universe to define the universe. But it doesn't have to be black and white like that. Just because you can't grasp the whole doesn't mean you can't define a portion of it.
edit: Or a generality, a pattern about it
|
On July 14 2010 05:12 UFO wrote:
I create this thread in hopes that it will provide us with a stimulating philosophical discussion.
Philosophy - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument."
What is the point of life ?
What can bring you lasting happiness ?
What are your most important values ?
What is good and what is evil ?
What is Wisdom ?
What is your personal answer to these questions ?
What philosphers or philosphical doctrines do you especially like and why ?
I`m especially interested in your own philosophical cogitation but any quotations of famous philosphers or ones you like are very welcome.
The pursuit of emotion is what dictates all our decisions. not logic. Values, Good and evil. Wisdom are all Things that are conveniently made up to made people work together in a society.
The purpose of life is no secret, it's evident all around you. From every man made object to the Invisible gratification that a man obtains when he accomplishes something. We do things because we are slaves to our own emotion. Without it. there would be no purpose. If you ask the purpose behind that then i converge you with another riddle. When you see an animal or any other living thing... is there any difference between you and them?
and i ask you to take this logic in mind. Does intelligence hold any weight in the universe to make us supreme to anything? its just an invisible stigma we use to dictate that its ok for how we shape things around us with little care for life besides our own.
We know that we are here and i tell you the reason is to divulge into our own needs..we do it every day; to consume. we are parasites till life ceases to exist on this planet for what ever reason.
|
On July 20 2010 01:11 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:
To Epsilon8:
Science may ask why every once in a while, but that is not its primary concern. Science is concerned mainly with describing physical phenomena, and seeing if any possible connections between such phenomena can be utilized efficiently for humans.
Why is a question that is fundamentally human in nature; every human will want to know why to some extent, including scientists.
My whole point is that because Science is a thought system which is based on ideas of how reality is it does answer these 'why' questions. At least in the view of the common public.
The most dominant theory of science at the time will have far reaching effects on the society of the time because it implies its own philosophical implications. If we take these to be true implications then we run the risk of allowing ourselves to believe in something which may not actually be real.
I have shown how through the occurrence of different dominant theories in science through out history, most of which are completely contradictory in terms of there philosophical implications, we as a society have held completely different models of the universe and of 'truth'.
These ideas of 'truth' have far reaching effects on society and who we believe ourselves to be as a society and individuals.
What I am saying is that we should be careful how much we believe science expresses 'truth' since it has been shown that in terms of philosophical implications it has not.
On July 20 2010 01:23 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I'm fairly confident science is concerned with identifying causes. I'm also confident physics can establish the existence of energy. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.
I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is.
Note to Gnosis: I did see it. I have been stalling for a while because I want to put forth my best and so have been letting the question run through my mind. I will answer your tonight, right after this post actually.
|
On July 19 2010 09:52 Gnosis wrote:
I believe we both get what the other is saying, it's just that we're using language that is going past the other (I hope, or perhaps it's just me). The only thing I would disagree with here is the notion that a thing which exists dependently (that is, empty) cannot be an actual, distinct being (in terms of ontology), such as a "Platonic form" (such a thing need not inherently exist).
Yeah, I believe I do get what your saying. Although, I'm not sure if you are. If you are getting me straight I apologize in advance for this reply. I'm just getting confused a little at your last disagreement here because I believe I have shown you before that I agree with you. The fact that you still have this disagreement is probably because my explaining badly.
I feel as if I have not given the best explanation of what the basis for reality which causes 'emptiness'. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have come to the conclusion that I believe that some kind of 'Platonic form' exists ontologically underneath 'emptiness'. And I believe its because I have used the word 'being' to describe this no-separation aspect of reality.
Being was the wrong word to describe this 'wholeness'. A more accurate description is that because it is whole you cannot say that it is anything. From a Buddhist point of view the ultimate nature of reality is that it does not exist and it does not not exist. Using these phrases Buddhim tries to convey the idea that ultimate reality is ultimately beyond distinction and cannot be described in anything dualistically. This is because it is one. And being one it is not big and it is not small. It is not good and it is not not good. It is not empty and it is not not empty.
I guess by 'being' I meant to convey the idea that even though it is beyond all distinctions it is in a way a 'being'. That is it is of one thing and is aware.
We come to the conclusion of awareness because awareness is not inherently based on any 'I', which I will talk about in the next section, and since awareness is observed as 'existing' in experience, awareness is not separate from emptiness and as such is experienced in the experience of 'ultimate reality'.
You may say that I have made a contradiction in that I have stated this 'theory' of ultimate reality as a definition and as such I have put forth some kind of basis for how reality is so at least this must be distinguishable. But I would proffer the classic Buddhist metaphor about how reality actually exists :
Picture these ideas of the notion reality as a finger and the finger is pointing at the moon. The moon is absolute truth. Now when I explain these definitions that Buddhism has created for 'defining' reality I also offer the fact that these 'definitions' are not actually reality. They are merely the finger pointing at the moon and not the moon itself. From a Buddhist point of view conceptualizations of reality will never accurately describe reality because it is not reality. In every Buddhist teach there is this idea - the idea that what you are being taught is only a finger to point the way, words that try to explain that which is wordless.
On July 19 2010 09:52 Gnosis wrote:
This is the reason my reply took so long, and honestly, I didn't get all that far looking into this (so you may need to explain Buddhist refutations, to me). I take Platonic forms only so far, as only applying to people, animal, plants... Things which are naturally occurring, rather than manufactured (such that Buddhist refutations exampling chariots, cars, cups, etc. become moot, missing the point). I really don't have a complex argument for it other than what I explained earlier. Perhaps you could highlight for me how Buddhists refute Plato, and I may be able to elaborate more.
I do not believe perception influences or defines reality as it is, even if perception has some part to play in the experiences of an individual in relation to reality. I believe things are all made of the same basic materials, but I do not believe that this necessarily means that everyone is part of a whole, such that 'this' or 'that' is an illusion of our perception. I would view myself as a contingent being (by virtue of my parents), so I wouldn't describe myself as "inherently existing". But I would say that I exist, have an essential nature, etc. I'm repeating myself, so I'll leave it for your reply.
Okay I'll try to explain this as best I can. At the end I'll give you some references to Buddhist materials which cover the subject if you would like to check those out as well. I do not think I will ever be able to explain certain concepts to you to the point where you understand them 100%. This is because I am not the greatest explainer and I rarely get to explain these concepts in their entirety so I am not well versed in communicating it accurately to another. So I apologize where I have mislead you in terms of what Buddhism is or have explained something incorrectly.
First off we can establish that something which is inherently existent cannot be dependent on anything else, they are mutually exclusive, one or the other. We can also establish through observation that the physical world is impermanent and so to are our thoughts of ourselves, ideas, and beliefs.
We can go on to say that because inherently existent things and non-inherently existent things are mutually exclusive, one cannot affect another. If an inherently existent thing could affect a non-inherently existent thing or vice versa the inherently existent thing cannot be inherent anymore because it has affected something else.
Buddhist approach the establishment of human beings being non-inherent by using two basic arguments.
If who we are as beings is inherent then this must mean that either :
1. The 'I' that is inherent is one with the body and mind.
2. The 'I' that is inherent is separate from the body and mind (as in soul).
Arguments for the refutation of option 1:
1. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then mind and body would not be able to be created or destroyed.
2. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then we could not think 'my' arm or 'my' leg. This is because the 'I' is one with these and cannot distinguish itself from them.
3. If the 'I' was one with mind and body we would not be able to experience the effects of actions or others actions because this would imply change to that which is inherently existent.
(The next two are in my opinion not that sound)
4. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then mind and body would have to be one thing.
5. If the 'I' was one with the mind and body then there would have to be two 'I's
Arguments for the refutation of option 2:
1. If the 'I' was separate from the mind and body then the separate 'I' would not be able to affect the mind and body because by virtue of affecting it it has changed.
2. If the 'I' was separate from the mind and body then we would be able to find the 'I' after clearing away all mental and physical characteristics.
These are the basic refutations of an 'inherent I'. I will go on to say that the 'I' as an entity, the way you perceive it in your mind, is established based on thoughts of the self. Ideas of who you are, where you grew up, things you like, dislike, beliefs you hold, etc. In this way your idea of who you are, even your thought that there is an 'I' to begin with, is based on dependencies of environment, experience, body, and mind.
For example: There have been studies of individuals who have been observed to lose there abilities of proprioception. Proprioception is the ability to distinguish your body from the rest of the world. These people begin to lose there sense of the 'I'.
All this leads to the conclusion that the idea of an 'I' is just that, an idea. The idea of a separate self of which we build an ego entity based on beliefs and experience is empty because thinking is based on empty things.
One more thing: Buddhism does not equate awareness with the sense of an 'I'. Rather, your sense of an 'I' comes from attachment to conceptualizations about 'who you are'. Awareness stands in the back of all of this, simply aware, no further complications.
Some things to take a look at if you haven't already :
http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_translation.html
http://thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
http://www.io.com/~snewton/zen/heartsut.html
Books :
How to See Yourself As You Really Are - The Dalai Lama
Embracing Mind - Allan B Wallace (I recommend this not specifically for Buddhism, but for making a case for Buddhism. Its awesome)
If you want more links to books I'll be happy to provide.
|
Thanks for the book recommendations (as well as site) Epsilon, unfortunately starting tomorrow my free time greatly diminishes. I'll still take a look into this, so I'll get back to you some time in the coming weeks, probably through PM (or this thread, if it's not closed). I'll leave your most recent reply until then, as I can't really do it justice with my current understanding of Buddhism.
On July 20 2010 04:14 Yurebis wrote:
It can be defined to the extent that we assume it to be definable.
Obviously not the whole of it, to define something exactly as is requires the same amount of information that it takes in the universe, needing a replicate universe to define the universe. But it doesn't have to be black and white like that. Just because you can't grasp the whole doesn't mean you can't define a portion of it.
edit: Or a generality, a pattern about it
I agree with you  It was his inclusion of the word "infinity" that was causing problems.
|
On July 20 2010 11:07 Gnosis wrote:Thanks for the book recommendations (as well as site) Epsilon, unfortunately starting tomorrow my free time greatly diminishes. I'll still take a look into this, so I'll get back to you some time in the coming weeks, probably through PM (or this thread, if it's not closed). I'll leave your most recent reply until then, as I can't really do it justice with my current understanding of Buddhism. Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 04:14 Yurebis wrote:
It can be defined to the extent that we assume it to be definable.
Obviously not the whole of it, to define something exactly as is requires the same amount of information that it takes in the universe, needing a replicate universe to define the universe. But it doesn't have to be black and white like that. Just because you can't grasp the whole doesn't mean you can't define a portion of it.
edit: Or a generality, a pattern about it I agree with you It was his inclusion of the word "infinity" that was causing problems.
Aww man. Alright, well I'll look forward to hearing from you. Its been great talking.
|
United States42601 Posts
On July 20 2010 08:03 Epsilon8 wrote:
I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is.
Yes it can. It is defined as energy. This is what nouns are for. Energy can also be described in terms of its traits and effects. You could equally say that science cannot describe a rock.
|
On July 20 2010 11:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 08:03 Epsilon8 wrote:
I never said energy was non-existent, nor that it science cannot establish its existence. What I did say is that science cannot define what it is. Yes it can. It is defined as energy. This is what nouns are for. Energy can also be described in terms of its traits and effects. You could equally say that science cannot describe a rock.
But when we get down to the 'base' we cannot go any further to define it. A rock is made of energy so I don't believe this is a correct analogy.
To define something you need to define it by its parts, what its made of. For example a rock is made of chemicals.
Energy cannot be defined in terms of its parts, that is, what it is. Because it is the base of everything. Because we cannot say energy is such and such because it is what it is we end up with the definition energy is energy. Which doesn't really explain anything.
So then we are still left with the question what is it?
|
Heres a Question for you all how was the universe created. I know the answer but I want to see what rest you are thinkin.
|
On July 20 2010 12:12 Maji wrote:
Heres a Question for you all how was the universe created. I know the answer but I want to see what rest you are thinkin.
Technically, saying that you know how the universe was created is a lie. You can't actually have 'knowledge' of how the universe was created if you accept the common philosophical definition of knowledge, because it is possible to conceive a case in which whatever explanation you may think you have is false, and it is likewise impossible to prove such a case to be false, based only on human perceptions. For example, I could say that the universe exists in a constant looping state, and has always existed that way or I could say that existence was created by some outside force that does not follow the rational laws of our universe. Since no one has ever been able to give a completely conclusive disproof of either of these statements, claiming you know that one (or some other conflicting one) is correct is false.
|
Can reality be even defined ? How ? With words ? The reality is multidimensional and infinite.
Reality does not need to be finite for it to have boundaries. Reality is the set of all non-contradictions. If something doesn't exist, then it's not part of reality, because its existance would contradict its non-existance. Anything that does exist is a part of reality. The sum of those things that do exist make up reality.
For example, the horizontal axis of a cartesian plane is infinite in length, but very easily defined as y=0.
You continue to rebuttal my argument by discussing how energy functions instead of telling me what energy is. And in this you have failed to answer the question to which I presented you with.
First, stop trying to use fancy grammar if you don't know how to use it correctly. You just sound like you're faking intelligence.
Second, explaining how something works is a perfectly acceptable definition. You're setting an impossible standard for definitions.
People like you ruin real debates and arguments by purposely overcomplicating everything so that you can claim that the only reason you aren't smart enough to understand a concept is because no one is. Many of us understand these concepts. You don't. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
