[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[madera23]

What reality? Can you demonstrate this reality to us?

I see many here who would like it demonstrated, but, have closed minds and I don't bicker with closed minds.

 

[bhsmte]

I see many here who would like it demonstrated, but, have closed minds and I don't bicker with closed minds.

Ok, cool.

 

[Chriliman]

There is a difference to my mind between saying that change is part of something's existence, and that the power to change is part of something's existence. With the latter it is reasonable to say that something ceases to exist when it changes, because it has changed into something else. A has the power to change into B. A had existed, and now B exists instead. A has been replaced by B. A is therefore no longer in existence. There is no contradiction in that.

So then the question becomes, where did that something get the power to change? From magic gnomes or infinite cosmic egg? Or is it more reasonable to believe the power to change comes from an infinitely powerful entity?

As far as A and B, it depends on what you say A is and what B is. If you say A is a rock and B is a tree, it becomes very unreasonable to believe a rock could change into a tree without an outside force acting on it.

If A is a literal "A" on a computer screen, sure you could delete that "A" and replace it with a "B", but that action required you to do it. The "A" still existed in time, its just that at this moment in time the "B" exists. You don't have the power to actually take an "A" out of existence because an "A" will always exist somewhere in time. You also don't have the power to take time out of existence, but an entity that is timeless(God) does have the power to change you into a being that can experience timeless eternity.

1 Corinthians 15:52
"in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."

In Jesus name, God bless!

 

[dlamberth]

Exposure to the light of truth terrifies the guilty. Every corrupted soul shields itself with massive lies and excuses to avoid the burning light of conscience. To reject reality and accept the lie as truth requires energy, and that energy is always covert resentment, or overt rage. Conversely, the proper energy of defense against wicked accusations is found in the divine energy of grace -- love.

You sound almost mystic like.

.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Everyone's reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real.
Even the reasoning of a cat is based on the assumption that reality is real.
When it's stuck in a tree because it is afraid to jump down, it's because reality informs it that if it's too high, it will get hurt.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality?

The point is that they had no choice.
One doesn't need to realise it. One does it by necessity. Kowingly or unkowingly.
Because there is no other valid option (if you wish to stay alive).

Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

It doesn't matter.

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Word salad.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

When people say that one must assume reality to be real to be able to function properly, then they aren't speaking about a consious decision that needs to be made.

One doesn't wake up one morning saying "today, I'll assume reality is real".

What the point of the statement really is about, is that logically it cannot be proven that reality is real. In this context, "reality" being that which we commonly observe in the universe.

ie, that we aren't brains in jars. That we don't live in the Matrix. Etc

 

[Chriliman]

Everyone's reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real.
Even the reasoning of a cat is based on the assumption that reality is real.
When it's stuck in a tree because it is afraid to jump down, it's because reality informs it that if it's too high, it will get hurt.



The point is that they had no choice.
One doesn't need to realise it. One does it by necessity. Kowingly or unkowingly.
Because there is no other valid option (if you wish to stay alive).




It doesn't matter.



Word salad.



When people say that one must assume reality to be real to be able to function properly, then they aren't speaking about a consious decision that needs to be made.

One doesn't wake up one morning saying "today, I'll assume reality is real".

What the point of the statement really is about, is that logically it cannot be proven that reality is real. In this context, "reality" being that which we commonly observe in the universe.

ie, that we aren't brains in jars. That we don't live in the Matrix. Etc

Sure, I understand, but my question is how'd did you or anyone reason before you realised reality can't be proven to be real? Does this question make sense?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So then the question becomes, where did that something get the power to change?

From itself. It is part of that entity's nature.

From magic gnomes or infinite cosmic egg?

I assume that you are opting for magic gnomes, or the equivalent?

I never described he cosmic egg as infinite. I said that it might have a timeless aspect given that it doesn't exist in a larger context of time. In my view, the cosmic egg is finite in many respects, and perhaps all of them.

However, the cosmic egg had in its power by nature the ability to change into something else, which in turn had in its power by nature to change into something else, etc.

Or is it more reasonable to believe the power to change comes from an infinitely powerful entity?

No, that is not more reasonable. I don't see why "infinite power" (whatever that means) is required for there to be change, or why this m

As far as A and B, it depends on what you say A is and what B is. If you say A is a rock and B is a tree, it becomes very unreasonable to believe a rock could change into a tree without an outside force acting on it.

Perhaps in an extreme example such as that, where there are no intermediate steps.

But that is a strangely extreme example, and in less extreme examples, I don't see why an "outside force" would be necessary at all. The process of aging, for instance, is internal. Nuclear decay is also internal.

If A is a literal "A" on a computer screen, sure you could delete that "A" and replace it with a "B", but that action required you to do it.

You must not be a software developer. An internal program could easily delete that "A" and replace it with a "B".

In any case, you are cherry picking this example by referring to human technology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

From itself. It is part of that entity's nature.

So now we're back to saying change is a part of somethings existence. I can't tell if we're getting anywhere or if I'm just watching you go around in circles.

I assume that you are opting for magic gnomes, or the equivalent?

I never described he cosmic egg as infinite. I said that it might have a timeless aspect given that it doesn't exist in a larger context of time. In my view, the cosmic egg is finite in many respects, and perhaps all of them.

However, the cosmic egg had in its power by nature the ability to change into something else, which in turn had in its power by nature to change into something else, etc.

It just seems like you're really trying to avoid using the concept of God to describe anything. You're basically just replacing God with nature.

No, that is not more reasonable. I don't see why "infinite power" (whatever that means) is required for there to be change.

Because it makes sense.

You must not be a software developer. An internal program could easily delete that "A" and replace it with a "B".


eudaimonia,

Mark

So now programs can program themselves without humans to create the program in the first place? You seem to be not really thinking about your responses to me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So now we're back to saying change is a part of somethings existence.

Pay attention. I said that the power to change is a part of something's existence.

I can't tell if we're getting anywhere or if I'm just watching you go around in circles.

You are the one going around in circles. I'm just repeating myself now.

It just seems like you're really trying to avoid using the concept of God to describe anything.

That's because I don't need to. I hold to a different metaphysical view. Why would this be surprising?

You're basically just replacing God with nature.

Perhaps you are replacing nature with God.

I don't define nature in the same way that Christians define God, so I don't think that one is truly a stand-in for the other. I don't see nature as transcendent (to itself), for instance.

Because it makes sense.

It makes no sense to me. But do go on about how it makes sense to you.

Why should the power to change have to be explained by an entity with "infinite power"? Why not simply say that an entity has its own limited power to change because that is what that sort of entity is and does?

So now programs can program themselves without humans to create the program in the first place? You seem to be not really thinking about your responses to me.

I thought that you meant by a key press, so there would be an external cause from the computer itself at the moment that the change occurred.

If you really did mean that the cause could happen at any time in the past, then you are shamelessly cherry-picking your example. You've chosen change that inevitably has a human cause. However, 99.999999999999999999999999999%+ of the change in the universe doesn't require a human cause. Why not pick something like that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Pay attention. I said that the power to change is a part of something's existence.

So this brings us back to the question: Where did it get that power from? And your answer is that it gets the power to change from itself. If we apply this reasoning to the cosmic egg, we get a timeless cosmic egg that somehow is able to change itself from a timeless cosmic egg into a universe that we observe today? I simply to do not think this is reasonable to believe, unless we apply some kind of consciousness to this cosmic egg, which would allow it to change itself, but this still doesn't make sense to me. Which is why I believe in God.

You are the one going around in circles. I'm just repeating myself now.

I'm trying to explain why I don't think your reasoning makes sense. You have yet to explain why my reasoning doesn't make sense in a way that's reasonable.

Perhaps you are replacing nature with God.

They way you describe nature, implies that nature must be conscious in someway in order to apply change to itself. This does not make sense to me. This is just one reason of many, that I believe in God.

I don't define nature in the same way that Christians define God, so I don't think that one is truly a stand-in for the other. I don't see nature as transcendent (to itself), for instance.

Yet it has the power to change itself somehow?

Why should the power to change have to be explained by an entity with "infinite power"? Why not simply say that an entity has its own limited power to change because that is what that sort of entity is and does?

Because it doesn't make sense to say this, when the obvious question is, where did it get that power from? If you say it gets the power from itself, then this implies consciousness.

I thought that you meant by a key press, so there would be an external cause from the computer itself at the moment that the change occurred.

If you really did mean that the cause could happen at any time in the past, then you are shamelessly cherry-picking your example. You've chosen change that inevitably has a human cause. However, 99.999999999999999999999999999%+ of the change in the universe doesn't require a human cause. Why not pick something like that?

So, 99.999999999999999999999999999%+ of the change in the universe was caused by nature and this is possible because nature has the power to change itself and it gets this power from itself? The best way to explain something that has power within itself to make change is the term conscious or self aware.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, I understand, but my question is how'd did you or anyone reason before you realised reality can't be proven to be real?

In the exact same way.

It doesn't matter. I think I explained well enough that you don't have another choice BUT to assume that reality is real.

It's what we commonly observe to be real, so we assume that we aren't all hallucinating the exact same thing, or that we aren't brains in jars living in the same virtual reality that we call "the universe" - kind of like a multiplayer online game.

We can fantasize about such worlds as much as we like, all the while realising that if it were true, we could never demonstrate it.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
This commonly observed universe is the reality we are "stuck" in - virtual or otherwise.

Does this question make sense?

No.

Perhaps an analogy will help.

Your question, to me, sounds like "how could people stand upright before knowing about gravity".

 

[Chriliman]

It doesn't matter. I think I explained well enough that you don't have another choice BUT to assume that reality is real.

By saying this, you're also saying I cannot choose to NOT assume reality is real. So you're essentially saying I can't believe reality is real because I MUST assume it's real all the time because I have no other choice. Since I have no other choice but to assume then I can never accept the truth that its real because I'm stuck assuming its real. I'm simply disagreeing with this reasoning and saying we MUST first believe reality is real, in order to make any assumptions about it.

I believe reality is real, but your reasoning would imply that I must always assume reality is real and therefore never be able to believe its real. Once I believe something, it would then be unreasonable to assume that same thing.

It's what we commonly observe to be real, so we assume that we aren't all hallucinating the exact same thing, or that we aren't brains in jars living in the same virtual reality that we call "the universe" - kind of like a multiplayer online game.

Right there you just said we commonly observe to be real and then assume. Observing does not require an assumption. So the observation came BEFORE the assumption. Isn't it reasonable to believe that the first self aware adult humans observed reality and only made assumption later? If you find this reasonable, how can you say we MUST base our reasoning on assumptions instead of observations? We first observe reality first and then make assumptions. Assumptions do not come first.

We can fantasize about such worlds as much as we like, all the while realising that if it were true, we could never demonstrate it.

Requires an understanding of reality to fantasize about worlds that would be beyond our reality. We gain understanding of reality by first observing reality, not by first making assumptions.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
This commonly observed universe is the reality we are "stuck" in - virtual or otherwise.

If its so easy to think our reality could be virtual, then why isn't it easy to think that when we die we actually enter a reality that is eternal?

Your question, to me, sounds like "how could people stand upright before knowing about gravity".

This would be more akin to "how can people exist in reality before realizing they exist in reality". The simple answer is that reality must exist first before they can exist within reality. So their first experience of reality would be an observation, not an assumption. This is sound reason that shows we don't have to first assume reality is real. In fact we must first observe reality and accept it as true, then we can make assumptions. Unfortunately, you'll find away to assume I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[Eudaimonist]

You have yet to explain why my reasoning doesn't make sense in a way that's reasonable.

I have done so, but if you don't think so, our discussion is pointless. We might as well stop.

I'll just mention one detail, and you may feel free to reply or not as you choose, but I don't think that the power to change must involve consciousness. It is in the power of the Earth to keep us from floating off into outer space, but that doesn't require any conscious awareness on the part of the planet. It is in the power of our yellow Sun to grow into a red giant a few billion years from now, but not because it has consciously decided to do so.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

By saying this, you're also saying I cannot choose to NOT assume reality is real. So you're essentially saying I can't believe reality is real because I MUST assume it's real all the time because I have no other choice.

I clarified "having no other choice" with "(if you want to live)".
Sure, you can go ahead and assume / believe that reality isn't real and that you, for example, won't plummeth to your death when jumping from the Empire State building while I take the stairs.

And at the end of it all, only one of us will be standing and breathing.

Since I have no other choice but to assume then I can never accept the truth that its real because I'm stuck assuming its real. I'm simply disagreeing with this reasoning and saying we MUST first believe reality is real, in order to make any assumptions about it.

I have already told you that I consider this to be word salad.
In this context, "assumption" and "belief" means the exact same thing.

I believe reality is real, but your reasoning would imply that I must always assume reality is real and therefore never be able to believe its real. Once I believe something, it would then be unreasonable to assume that same thing.

You are only confusing yourself. Which is bizarre, because this seems so simple.

Right there you just said we commonly observe to be real and then assume. Observing does not require an assumption. So the observation came BEFORE the assumption. Isn't it reasonable to believe that the first self aware adult humans observed reality and only made assumption later? If you find this reasonable, how can you say we MUST base our reasoning on assumptions instead of observations? We first observe reality first and then make assumptions. Assumptions do not come first.

That's the point, you'ld have to assume that what you observe is actually what you observer. That that which you receive as input through your senses actually come from real things outside of your brain.

Again, these are basal assumptions that are recognised in the philosophical / logical intellectually honest explanations about reasoning and the experience of what-we-call reality.

Ultimately, we have no choice but to trust our senses, since it's the only way we have to gain information about anything.

Requires an understanding of reality to fantasize about worlds that would be beyond our reality.

...and humans have the intellectual capacity to do exactly that. What's the problem?

We gain understanding of reality by first observing reality, not by first making assumptions.

The assumption in question is implicit.
As I said, it's not a decision that is made. Rather, it's the default position...

If its so easy to think our reality could be virtual, then why isn't it easy to think that when we die we actually enter a reality that is eternal?

It's very easy to fantasize about anything.
I think your question here is better formulated as "why would one accept the fantasy as real?"

This would be more akin to "how can people exist in reality before realizing they exist in reality". The simple answer is that reality must exist first before they can exist within reality.

This is really touching on a different matter.
*something* obviously exists in which our minds exists.
The point about assuming reality is real, is about the reality we actually experience being actually real. As in, not virtual.

So their first experience of reality would be an observation, not an assumption. This is sound reason that shows we don't have to first assume reality is real. In fact we must first observe reality and accept it as true, then we can make assumptions. Unfortunately, you'll find away to assume I'm wrong.

No. The problem is that, even after all this time, you still haven't understood what the basal assumption is about.

Consider this: you must assume there is something to observe before you can actually observe it.

But once more, I'ld like to ask why you are so obsessed by this subject?
What point are you really trying to make and impact do you think it has?
Why is this so important? Considering this is just some philosophical idea concerning the intellectually honest position about not being able to prove that we aren't brains in jars?

 

[True Scotsman]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality? Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

You're trying to say with this post that reason is faith based because we can not prove that reality is real.

Here is the simplest way to look at this issue. If something exists, there is no evidence for its existence above and beyond the fact that it exists. So this whole idea that we have to accept the fact that there is a reality, that things exist, without evidence, i.e. on faith, is fallacious because it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. The idea is ridiculous. We literally have all the evidence in the world. The self evident does not need to be proved, it is outside the province of proof because it is a precondition of any proof. So if one begins his reasoning with the fact that reality is real, there is no problem. All of the so called philosophical problems are the result of the denial of one or more axiomatic concepts, usually the axiom of identity. I don't think you have any understanding of what an axiomatic concept is even though I've tried to explain it to you.

 

[Chriliman]

I have done so, but if you don't think so, our discussion is pointless. We might as well stop.

Indeed, if your reasoning is correct then our conversation is pointless. Only if my reasoning is correct does our conversation have meaning that goes far and beyond both of us.

The question is, which of the above possibilities frightens you more? When you find the honest answer to that question within yourself, you will begin seeing the truth.

God Bless!

 

[dlamberth]

Because it doesn't make sense to say this, when the obvious question is, where did it get that power from? If you say it gets the power from itself, then this implies consciousness.

Which makes me think of the Gaia hypothesis...which does make a lot of sense to me.

.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The question is, which of the above possibilities frightens you more? When you find the honest answer to that question within yourself, you will begin seeing the truth.

Get over yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

That's the point, you'ld have to assume that what you observe is actually what you observer. That that which you receive as input through your senses actually come from real things outside of your brain.

Your assuming I had an understanding of how my brain works, the very moment I became self aware. This is an unreasonable assumption.

Again, these are basal assumptions that are recognised in the philosophical / logical intellectually honest explanations about reasoning and the experience of what-we-call reality.

You'll freely assume reality is true, but you refuse to assume basal assumptions could be false. Interesting...

Ultimately, we have no choice but to trust our senses, since it's the only way we have to gain information about anything.

According to your reasoning it would be just as reasonable to say "we have no choice but to assume we have senses", however, this does not makes sense because trusting something is not the same as assuming something. And our senses had to come first in order to make assumptions.

...and humans have the intellectual capacity to do exactly that. What's the problem?

The first self aware humans did not, that's the problem.

This is really touching on a different matter.
*something* obviously exists in which our minds exists.

The reasoning I'm using can touch on all matters and never contradict itself. This reasoning did not come from my brain, it came from God because God is the source of all knowledge.

No. The problem is that, even after all this time, you still haven't understood what the basal assumption is about.

The only thing you refuse to assume is that basal assumption could be false.

Consider this: you must assume there is something to observe before you can actually observe it.

This is implying I came before reality. I do not accept the notion that I create reality by assuming its there.

But once more, I'ld like to ask why you are so obsessed by this subject?
What point are you really trying to make and impact do you think it has?
Why is this so important? Considering this is just some philosophical idea concerning the intellectually honest position about not being able to prove that we aren't brains in jars?

It's simple, God is trying to speak to you through me, all you have to do is listen. I pray that you'll open your heart and mind to the truth of God.

 

[Chriliman]

Get over yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I wouldn't spend so much time trying to explain God to you, if I was full of myself. I'm just being honest.