How I KNOW

[Tynan]

I suggest that if you don't want the fire, don't light the match.

I think the notion that if you can answer these four questions you can 'truly' 'know' is shallow and without merit, if you take this as a personal insult I apologize.

Now back on topic.

Have you ever had a dream in which you thought that you were awake? How do you know that you are not dreaming right now?

I would like to think I could tell the difference between the states of sleep and wakefulness, but I take your point that in theory all around us could be nothing more than illusion.

Then in answer to your question '3) How do you know that anything exists at all? we can see that at the very least the illusion exists.

But for you to know one way or another, you are going to have to get into what it actually means to be conscious. What is "higher consciousness" for example?

I do not know, could you tell me your interpretation of 'higher consciousness' ?

So 2 questions should lead toward the actual answer to question 3;

1) How do you know that you are not merely dreaming right now?

In theory, as you pointed out, all around us could be a dream, an illusion or some kind of trick of the mind.

2) What is consciousness?

The awareness and perception of being.

My answer of 'because I am conscious' if negated by your idea that this consciousness may be illusion still leaves the illusion as existent.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I apologize.

accepted and forgiven.

I take your point that in theory all around us could be nothing more than illusion.

Then in answer to your question '3) How do you know that anything exists at all? we can see that at the very least the illusion exists.

This is great and might lead to even a shorter path to the answer than what I had in mind.

I do not know, could you tell me your interpretation of 'higher consciousness' ?

First concern and serious advice to anyone and everyone, for your own good...

STOP declaring something exists or does not exist if you don't know what it IS!!!

Without definitions, even personal ones, any statement that something exists or doesn't exist is pure non-sense.

When the Christian states that he believes in God or is trying to follow the commandments of God yet, when asked, declares that he (and no else) can know God, then he is displaying insanity.

On the other hand, the atheist by declaring that God does NOT exist and is merely a fictitious character, is doing the same thing and is equally displaying the inability to reason = insanity.

In defense of the atheist, his notion of what a god is has come from religious people talking about God yet never really defining what they are talking about. He is left with little choice but to conclude that they are talking about some vague mystical, magical, and invisible creature floating around in the sky somewhere. His presumption that the Christian actually knew what he was talking about is what led to the misunderstanding and eventual decision of the atheist that the thing they are talking about couldn't exist.

Of course, the atheist concluding that the Christian actually knew what he was talking about while at the same time declaring that the same Christian is in a state of illusion, shows a bit of irrationality on the part of the atheist.

The agnostic is the only one showing any signs of actual sanity by declaring that he simply doesn't know. Although many agnostics declare that "it cannot be known". This declaration puts them right back into the insanity pool of making declarations about something without any definition of what they are talking about.

In theory, as you pointed out, all around us could be a dream, an illusion or some kind of trick of the mind.

I'll address this shortly (r/t interruption)

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I do not know, could you tell me your interpretation of 'higher consciousness' ?

The word "conscious" means "with awareness". It doesn't specify of exactly what you are to be aware, but the implication is "yourself and your surroundings."

The combination of yourself and all that surrounds you constitutes all existence. Thus the statement that, "I know that things exist because I am conscious" merely says, "I know it because I am aware of it."

This is why I said that it is the same as the Christian proclaiming that God exists simply because, "I am conscious" = "I know it because I am aware of it."

Obviously neither really answers the question as to HOW you know. They both only state that the person thinks they are in knowledge or confirmed awareness.

Knowledge is confirmed awareness such that a fact cannot be denied (by the person involved).

"Higher consciousness" refers to being aware of "higher" concepts concerning reality. For example;

I can state that ALL existence is made up of you, all that is NOT you, and any mixture of the two. This cannot be reasonably denied simply because by definition of the terms, logically there is nothing else that has not been included. This one thought helps lead to the answer to question (4) as well.

It is a "higher" thought that has included ALL possibilities than one that merely includes the probabilities based on observations.

The spiritually minded person is really one who deals with higher concepts than what are immediately apparent to the physical senses. He is NOT the person who merely accepts that some things are magical and fun to dream about. As with ALL groups of people, there is a fundamentalist class of the spiritualist within which the people basically worship magical forces and have no understanding of what a "spirit" actually is.

When someone talks about “higher consciousness” or “enlightenment”, they are referring to being aware of much higher logical constructs even to the point of being totally all inclusive (holy) than what the merely “Earthly” (normally dumb animal) picture of reality yields.



As to how you can become aware of your potential state of illusion...

Have you ever thought to yourself, "I must have been dreaming"?

What would give clue or inspire a person to suspect that they had been dreaming? There are 2 categories, only one of which is valid.

 

[Tynan]

What is "higher consciousness" for example?

Tynan wrote: I do not know, could you tell me your interpretation of 'higher consciousness' ?

First concern and serious advice to anyone and everyone, for your own good...

STOP declaring something exists or does not exist if you don't know what it IS!!!

Thank you for your insightful and learned advice, but I have not declared 'higher consciousness' exists, I have simply asked for your definition of 'higer consciousness'.

On the other hand, the atheist by declaring that God does NOT exist and is merely a fictitious character, is doing the same thing and is equally displaying the inability to reason = insanity.

I think it no more a signal for insanity to reason that the Christian god does not exist that it would be to reason Shiva, Zeus or Goblins exist.

I don't think it is a display of insanity to think goblins do not exist.

In defense of the atheist, his notion of what a god is has come from religious people talking about God yet never really defining what they are talking about. He is left with little choice but to conclude that they are talking about some vague mystical, magical, and invisible creature floating around in the sky somewhere.

I am certainly guilty of this.

His presumption that the Christian actually knew what he was talking about is what led to the misunderstanding and eventual decision of the atheist that the thing they are talking about couldn't exist.

The agnostic is the only one showing any signs of actual sanity by declaring that he simply doesn't know. Although many agnostics declare that "it cannot be known". This declaration puts them right back into the insanity pool of making declarations about something without any definition of what they are talking about.

This would leave us all agnostic with regard to magical flying dragons or the tiny blue fairies who live on the streets of Paris and disappear when you look for them, or indeed agnostic towards everything.

Are you agnostic towards goblins or agnostic to the amount of legs you have or the number of eyes you have, are you agnostic towards the second world war ? Did it even happen, how can we know. Is Zeus angry over our adoption of the Christian god, how can we know ?

The agnostic position is in this regard largely pointless.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

but I have not declared 'higher consciousness' exists, I have simply asked for your definition of 'higer consciousness'.

Not to nit-pick but you declared that you are "conscious" without knwoing exactly what "conscious" meant. Thus you declared something before you understood what it was that you were declaring.

This same holds true when you declare that God doesn't exist. How can you make a declaration before you know what the thing even is?

Why is it SO hard for you to understand that if you don't know what something is, then you cannot rationally or logically make declarations concerning it?? This should be in the realm of merely common sense. The fact that "common" has been reduced to "babbling about anything crossing the mind" is the problem. If you want to help, then remove the insanity by at least making sure that people understand what things are before they declare things about them and start with yourself.


You further make declarations concerning what signs of insanity are, yet have you a solid understanding of what “insanity” really means? Learn what you are actually saying BEFORE you say it.

 

[variant]

It seems pointless to discuss “How to know” something, so I thought I might offer for discussion “How I know anything.”

I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. In a sense, to me, it wouldn’t really matter if Jesus was ever a real person or not simply because even if He wasn’t, who ever wrote the stories hit on something significantly logically real anyway. The concepts turn out right either way.

But having said that, how do I know?

I say that there are only 4 concerns to knowing and they can be typified by the following 4 questions;

1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what absolute good is?


If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things. From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isn’t one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.

The same concepts that allow you to answer these questions is what allows you to truly KNOW, not merely suspect with high probability nor merely take someone else’s word in faith.

All knowledge to the extent that it is knowable is verifiable only through consistency. If what you propose is consistent with the rest of the facts that you know to be true, and this evidence links back to your claim in a manner that can be seen, then you can say you know something to the extent that things are knowable.

We can not know things in an absolute manner; we know them in a consistent manner. But that is how we know things, and if you ask for absolute knowledge you are going to be sourly disappointed, because it is not the nature of knowledge.

Asking for an absolute is a fallacy, it is not how humans perceive the world around them, we perceive things in chunks, and in a limited faction, so we can only know things when there is some consistency.

#1 I know that 2+2=4 to the extent that my numbers match the environment I am describing, because when utilized it is always correct.

#2 I know a ball is red because it is consistently red to everyone, and consistently red to me. Red is a description of the ball, and so long as the description is consistent with a quality of the ball, the ball is red.

#3 I know that things exist because it consistently appears that way.

#4 is not knowable through consistency absolutes are unknowable to limited minds, that you propose to know such a thing is laughable.

Scripture is not verifiable through consistency, if you assert that scripture is true, you have logically committed yourself to many other propositions that you would have to logically assert to be false through the standards you use.

You can not therefore know that scripture is true.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

All knowledge to the extent that it is knowable is verifiable only through consistency.

Agreed up to this point.

We can not know things in an absolute manner; we know them in a consistent manner. But that is how we know things, and if you ask for absolute knowledge you are going to be sourly disappointed, because it is not the nature of knowledge.

I suspect that you did not read the coninuing posts. If you did, then how is it that your own definition of something can not be absolute? It requires no agreement of others, nor any comparison to reality.

If I declare what the concept of a sqircle is within my thinking, then how can I not be absolutely correct? If I merely remember what I declared, then how is this not knowledge?

Asking for an absolute is a fallacy, it is not how humans perceive the world around them, we perceive things in chunks, and in a limited faction, so we can only know things when there is some consistency.

Almost correct, but not quite.

if you assert that scripture is true, you have logically committed yourself to many other propositions that you would have to logically assert to be false through the standards you use.

Show me, with MY declarations of absolutes that I am not being consistent, and I will agree with you.

 

[variant]

Agreed up to this point.

I suspect that you did not read the coninuing posts. If you did, then how is it that your own definition of something can not be absolute? It requires no agreement of others, nor any comparison to reality.

Your definition doesn’t have to be something you know either. It is free to be something that is inconsistent, and something you don't know or something that is unreal or illusionary, or non-existent.

You can not have knowledge of non-existent things, you can certainly postulate them logically though.

If I declare what the concept of a sqircle is within my thinking, then how can I not be absolutely correct? If I merely remember what I declared, then how is this not knowledge?

Knowledge of what? Knowledge of non-existence? Knowledge of an illusionary definition? As absolutes don't exist, they are free to define non-existences (this point is always missed).

Your mind may be free to postulate non-existences, like the bald king of France, but that doesn’t make understanding them knoledge.

Once you apply your definition of squirkle (which is the only way it will have anything to do with knoledge) it will become inabsolute.

Concepts are labels for relationships, so if it doesn’t consistently match any relationship, it doesn’t exist. And if it does, it does so inabsolutely.

And, it just occurred to me, that If the concept of a squirkle does exist in some way, you would have to have absolute knoledge of yourself in order to have absolute knoledge of your concept of a squirkle. I assert that absolute knoledge of yourself is imposable because it gets into too many paradoxes when you think about what observance is (I will expand on this later if you wish).

Almost correct, but not quite.

Show me, with MY declarations of absolutes that I am not being consistent, and I will agree with you.

Sure but later, I have other things to do.

 

[Tynan]

Not to nit-pick but you declared that you are "conscious" without knwoing exactly what "conscious" meant. Thus you declared something before you understood what it was that you were declaring.

This is something you continue to state, but it is not somthing I have said.

The truth is I share your understanding of 'concious', I am sure most people do, unless you posses a magical special understanding that the uninitiated can never know ?

I ask you once more, why would you think I probably do not know what concious means ?

This same holds true when you declare that God doesn't exist. How can you make a declaration before you know what the thing even is?

Using the same logic we stuggle to dismiss the tiny blue people of Paris or Zeus or Molloch or Shiva or Ganesh or Vampires ?

Your point appears weak at best and at worst self deception based on your entrenched views.

Why is it SO hard for you to understand that if you don't know what something is, then you cannot rationally or logically make declarations concerning it??

Again I ask you do you believe in Zeus or Cronus or Rhea, do you need to invest yourself in the myriad of gods for the worlds numerous religions,and gain a true and indepth understanding before dismissing them as myth ?

Have you done this for all the suggested religious dieties ?

This should be in the realm of merely common sense.

Religious and magical/spiritual thought is entirely divorced from common sense.

You further make declarations concerning what signs of insanity are, yet have you a solid understanding of what “insanity” really means? Learn what you are actually saying BEFORE you say it.

ReluctantProphet it would appear you are conversing with people who struggle to grasp concepts that you find easy, second nature even, maybe we are not worthy of discussing this with you ?

The general trend seems to be a subject is raised, a reply is generated and then you go on to explain the the person posting the reply has no knowledge of the subject he is engageing in, be it 'insanity', 'god', 'conciousness' and so on.

I defer to your greater and more insightful mind.

Good luck.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

ReluctantProphet it would appear you are conversing with people who struggle to grasp concepts that you find easy, second nature even, maybe we are not worthy of discussing this with you ?

This would only be true if you refuse the needs of communication as pointed out in post #3.

By your very first posts, I could already see that you were one of those who does not strive to ensure that your understanding of the words I am using matches your own understanding of those words BEFORE you make statements to me or attempt to make declaration or conclusion from anything I have said.

The first thing your mind NEEDS to do when reading ANYone's postings is to ask itself, "How is this poster defining or meaning these words?" If you don't go to the trouble of ensuring the accuracy of the match between your usage and his, then you only create false communication and presumption in error.

How can you verify the match in meaning of a word if you don't even know what your own definition of the word is?

Communication requires obligation from both parties to ensure that the words being used match in meaning.

Even when a machine does not do this task, if fails to communicate properly and behaves improperly. It is then either repaired or thrown out.

 

[Tynan]

This would only be true if you refuse the needs of communication as pointed out in post #3.

By your very first posts, I could already see that you were one of those who does not strive to ensure that your understanding of the words I am using matches your own understanding of those words BEFORE you make statements to me or attempt to make declaration or conclusion from anything I have said.

The first thing your mind NEEDS to do when reading ANYone's postings is to ask itself, "How is this poster defining or meaning these words?" If you don't go to the trouble of ensuring the accuracy of the match between your usage and his, then you only create false communication and presumption in error.

How can you verify the match in meaning of a word if you don't even know what your own definition of the word is?

Communication requires obligation from both parties to ensure that the words being used match in meaning.

Great stuff, now go watch some TV, o' wise one, I am afraid your egotistical ramblings have become too tedious for even me !

You seem to have an entrenched view that nobody except for your goodself (the 'prophet' no less) understands the words they are using, you have reached this conclusion devoid of evidence, what can I say other than coversing with you is mostly one way traffic, listening to you explain what I think and what I understand.

Carry on, go spread your inerrant wisdom.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Great stuff, now go watch some TV, o' wise one, I am afraid your egotistical ramblings have become too tedious for even me !

You seem to have an entrenched view that nobody except for your goodself (the 'prohphet' no less) understands the words they are using, you have reached this conclusion devoid of evidence, what can I say other than coversing with you is mostly one way traffic, listening to you explain what I think and what I understand.

Carry on.

Oh so now you own the thread. I found those posting before you to be somewhat "getting it". Since the topic is about ME, I can easily claim superior knowledge about how I think than others.

But then, you have accepted that you are the only clear eyes above which there can be no other.

If you don't like the subject, stay off the thread because you are not contributing.

 

[Tynan]

Oh so now you own the thread.

No ?

I found those posting before you to be somewhat "getting it".

That's great, but I am talking only about our conversation.

Since the topic is about ME, I can easily claim superior knowledge about how I think than others.

Absolutely, but what you are mostly doing is telling others how they think, or more pointedly what they do not understand.

But then, you have accepted that you are the only clear eyes above which there can be no other.

No, this is wrong, you have made a mistake.

If you don't like the subject, stay off the thread because you are not contributing.

My frustration is not with the subject but with your closeted thinking.

You freely make comments like STOP declaring something exists or does not exist if you don't know what it IS!!! without any idea as to whether I do in fact understand the concept.

Your argument, as I have said, appears to be entirely based on the notion that you feel you know people you are talking to do not understand the terms being discussed, whilst you seem to have no problem believing that you do understand.

This we call arrogance, your chosen name should have warned me of your exaggerated sense of your own importance, abilities and knowledge.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

That's great, but I am talking only about our conversation.

We have no conversation. How could you call it a conversation? You admit that you do not understand the words that you use. My very earliest posts were pointing out that attempting to communicate with those who do not bother to ensure definitions is pontless => hence your frustation.

I mentioned that when I say "correct" I am ONLY referring to myown perspective and none other.

READ the POSTS before you so arrogantly attempt to show yourself as being so authoritatively superior.

What you are seeing as arrogance is merely your own reflection. If you don't like what you see, look elsewhere. - "go watch TV" and get some more of your same common programming.

 

[Tynan]

We have no conversation. How could you call it a conversation? You admit that you do not understand the words that you use.

You keep repeating this, but repeating it will not make it true.

I have not said that I do not understand the words I use.

Really, go check !

My very earliest posts were pointing out that attepmting to communicate with those who do not bother to ensure definitions is pontless => hence your frustation.

Attempting to communicate with those who do not read the replies they receive is equally pointless, hence my frustration.

I mentioned that when I say "correct" I am ONLY referring to myown perspective and none other.

Of course, this is understood.

READ the POSTS before you so arrogantly attempt to show yourself as being so authoritatively superior.

Yes Sir ! (stands to attention)

I have made no claims to authoritative superiority, you have made this up, we call this 'a lie'.

Prove me wrong on any of these points, show where I have stated I do not understand the words I use, show me where I have said I am authoritatively superior.

Please cut and paste it from the offending posts I made.

(the sound of tumble weed)

What you are seeing as arrogance is merely your own reflection.

No, the arrogance I see is in your personality, at least the one that manifests itself as an online prophet telling others how they haven't got a clue.

If you don't like what you see, look elsewhere. - "go watch TV" and get some more of your same common programming.

Unfortunately I have no TV

I think it is you who has invested himself in the most prevalent, the most common of all programming, diety worship.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I think

You greatly over estimate.

 

[Tynan]

You greatly over estimate.

Very good, very clever, you really should have been a comedy writer instead of an inerrant intenet forum 'prophet'.


Found those statements of mine yet ?

 

[Kleptin]

I'm greatly disappointed in the turnout of this topic. Where are the moderators? Isn't there a respectful and civilized way you can carry out this debate? These posts are simply childish insults.

 

[Tynan]

I'm greatly disappointed in the turnout of this topic. Where are the moderators? Isn't there a respectful and civilized way you can carry out this debate? These posts are simply childish insults.

Yes it has descended into a bit of a bun fight, but don't worry no contributors were hurt in the making of this thread.

Either pick up a bun and aim or get outta here !

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

RP,
Couldn't you just post how you know? Trying to get people to follow along has kinda run its course, I think.
Thanks.