"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
We often hear this said by people who try to justify the existence of a supernatural realm and a sentient all powerful entity, a god, that exists in that realm and interacts with the natural realm we perceive.
But when does the absence of evidence reveal that the probability of something existing is just wishful thinking?
Consider religions, all religions. For discussions sake let's say that humans started thinking about a supernatural realm 100,000 years ago. Personally I think that is a conservative estimate as we are now finding evidence that Neanderthals were superstitious.
Consider the tribal nature of humanity. We evolved all across the planet and created familial tribes as we went. Many of these tribes created their own unique cultural superstitions with their own pantheon of spirits and mini-gods.
So over hundreds of thousands of years many tens of thousands of belief systems evolved.
And how many people believed these superstitions? Well in the absence of any viable naturalistic alternative the vast majority of humanity believed their local superstitions.
So billions of humans, over hundreds of thousands of years, across tens of thousands of beliefs have lived their lives believing fairy stories. And not one claim by any of these people has a single shred of evidence to support it.
So while "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" the total lack of evidence does show that the possibility of the existence of a supernatural realm and a sentient all powerful entity, a god, that exists in that realm and interacts with the natural realm we perceive is effectively impossible.
The probability of the existence of a god is trillions to one. To live one's life based on such a tenuous probability is nothing short of insane. And it gets worse when people make up cultures based on that insanity.
Your thoughts?
You don't usually need evidence for absence - you need evidence for presence.
Yes, absence of evidence can be the evidence of absence, unless sufficient evidence of presence is present. Thank you, by the way, for giving me an opening to construct that truly Asmoic monstrosity of a sentence. :smilenod:
So, to unpack, you say "I have a motorcycle." There is no motorcycle in your garage, you have not been seen driving one, your money transfers do not suggest that you bought one and none is currently registered in your name. There is no evidence that you have a motorcycle - therefore, it is a safe bet that you do not, even if you claim the opposite. You may believe that you have one, but then reality may quite simply beg to differ.
Very prescient thoughts.
Another aspect of it is, of course, the quality of evidence of presence.
for instance, I have a car. here is the evidence;
(https://storage.googleapis.com/broom-caradvisor/content/images/4584/normal.jpeg)
Yeah... not so much though. While the make and model may be correct, that there is not my car. For one, mine is black. For two, I am actually the legal owner of mine, which is easily verifiable by those who know my name and have a tenner for a vehicle ownership information service.
So, at the very best, my "evidence" is the evidence of something other than my claim.
In any case, that is how absence of evidence can be the evidence of absence. If it doesn't matter to you either way, you may simply choose to believe me when I post a picture of a white station wagon as the evidence of car ownership. If, however, you are so inclined, you can use evidence to confirm my claim - or the lack of evidence to refute it. Say, I agreed to drive you somewhere important tomorrow. And by that, I mean literal I agreed to drive literal you. We are not personally acquainted, and so if you were of a distrustful mindset, you may have wanted to verify that I indeed have the tool for that job - and if you could not, you would be correct to assume that I do not.
You are showing me a white car to prove (falsely) that you have a car. The religious have no white car to show me, falsely or otherwise. They have no evidence of any kind to show me. The only thing they have is "faith" which is something that I cannot see or touch. Well I take that back. They can show me their bible.
They will expect me to believe that their bible is a book of instructions that was written by God himself and is therefore not contestable. Their evidence, the bible, is in their mind sufficient to direct their lives, and insist that it directs mine, "as God has commanded"...................
I have no illusions about myself being the smartest guy on the block. I implied above that we Americans are not among the brightest of societies..
Let us pray.
Quote from: Icarus on February 27, 2024, 04:19:19 AMYou are showing me a white car to prove (falsely) that you have a car. The religious have no white car to show me, falsely or otherwise. They have no evidence of any kind to show me. The only thing they have is "faith" which is something that I cannot see or touch. Well I take that back. They can show me their bible.
That is of course correct - I am trying to steel-man their "common argument" and regard what they provide as some sort of evidence - though arguing that it may be the evidence of something other than what they claim.
In my example, I'm addressing things like "miracles," "answered" prayers, personal experiences and so forth. To put it this way, you show me a CT scan with evidence of a tumor and then one without and claim a miracle.
That is about the quality of my not-my-car.
^ Your point of view respectfully Acknowledged.
absence of evidence is just absence of evidence.
the lack of evidence doesnt prove anything.
Practically though, it does.
Itself. It proves precisely itself.
nah
finding nothing merely proves that nothing was found.
you cannot make a positive claim to knowledge when all you have done is not observed anything.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 28, 2024, 02:20:05 AMfinding nothing merely proves that nothing was found.
Precisely what I said. :smilenod:
Quoteyou cannot make a positive claim to knowledge when all you have done is not observed anything.
Practically (and somewhat situationally) though, you
can.Probably the most obvious example is how absence of evidence of a crime or associated with an accusation is used to determine absence of guilt. You can absolutely claim to know that someone is, in this specific case, legally innocent of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was either evidence of something else (self-defence rather than murder, for example) or was absent - at least "sufficiently so."
Again, I use the word "practically" because in many everyday situations, the "cosmic truth" is not relevant. I propose that matters of faith fall under that umbrella, ironic though it might be.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 28, 2024, 02:20:05 AMnah
finding nothing merely proves that nothing was found.
you cannot make a positive claim to knowledge when all you have done is not observed anything.
But I haven't not observed anything, I've observed nothing over and over.
Your mind is so open your brain has fallen out crap has become tedious.
For me
If you keep building up anecdotes from different sources then sooner or later it will be interpreted as evidence, but that's all.
Like the skies above are teeming with aliens, a modern interpretation of the gods.
In reality there is no certain evidence for anything.
"Events don't happen", a statement by Hermann Weyl.
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2024, 09:53:27 AM"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Your thoughts?
The concept known as 'Absence' is a thought. As such, the thought identified as ''Absence'' once it becomes known; can never become unknown. So that which is conceptually known as ''Absence'' can never be unknown from it's own knowing, once known, this knowing already proves to be evident in it's own conception. All known concepts are immediately self-evident of this irrefutable knowing.
So in knowing any concept at all, what would there be left to not know? In knowing, there is never any experience of not-knowing. So anything claimed to be known can never be absent of it's own claim to know, the evidence is already the case.
Yes but, what about the unknowns unknowns?
That's absence.
Just like to add, there is no such thing as evidence other than what the whole universe is based on, and that is decay.
You can see it everywhere.
The whole universe and life is based exclusively on decay.
Quote from: Me_Be on February 29, 2024, 11:21:09 AMThe concept known as 'Absence' is a thought. As such, the thought identified as ''Absence'' once it becomes known; can never become unknown. So that which is conceptually known as ''Absence'' can never be unknown from it's own knowing, once known, this knowing already proves to be evident in it's own conception. All known concepts are immediately self-evident of this irrefutable knowing.
So in knowing any concept at all, what would there be left to not know? In knowing, there is never any experience of not-knowing. So anything claimed to be known can never be absent of it's own claim to know, the evidence is already the case.
I disagree.
Concepts are generalisations. Common-thread templates, if you will. The concept behind "absence" is anti-presence within a given context.
For instance, there is such a thing as apples - whether as a concept, a word, an idea, a physical object or a representation thereof. Apples are currently absent from my dinner table.
You'd better watch that.
An apple led to the fall of man.
Also, gravity, if rumors are to be believed.
That dang Newton and his apple juice soaked wig, keeping me from levitating with their shenanigans! >:(
...But yes, in the spirit of what I was saying, them apples are also absent from my dinner table.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 29, 2024, 12:43:32 PMQuote from: Me_Be on February 29, 2024, 11:21:09 AMThe concept known as 'Absence' is a thought. As such, the thought identified as ''Absence'' once it becomes known; can never become unknown. So that which is conceptually known as ''Absence'' can never be unknown from it's own knowing, once known, this knowing already proves to be evident in it's own conception. All known concepts are immediately self-evident of this irrefutable knowing.
So in knowing any concept at all, what would there be left to not know? In knowing, there is never any experience of not-knowing. So anything claimed to be known can never be absent of it's own claim to know, the evidence is already the case.
I disagree.
Concepts are generalisations. Common-thread templates, if you will. The concept behind "absence" is anti-presence within a given context.
For instance, there is such a thing as apples - whether as a concept, a word, an idea, a physical object or a representation thereof. Apples are currently absent from my dinner table.
I agree, a concept known is known only as and through the tangible physical object it represents to the knower. In reality, there is no such thing as an apple existing outside of it's mental construction. No 'thought' is ever seen, thoughts are only known; as conceptually constructed objects.
For example: an apple maybe present or absent from the dinner table, but the fact it can be either present or absent is only possible because the concept of apple is already known to the knower as an image of the imageless. The knower of an apple is just a 'thought' which is never seen, it's only known conceptually, so the apple can only be known as an image of the imageless. That which knows apple or any concept for that matter cannot experience the object known to it, nor can it experience the absence of it's own concept of itself as the knower.
The phrase 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a misnomer, since nothing that can be claimed to be known can experience it's own absence, or presence for that matter, as it's simply an artificially constructed concept.
Ah! I see.
No, I think that's missing the mark somewhat. In this case, evidence is the apples from the example. What is the context? Well, in the example, it is the contents of my dinner table. There is no ambiguity then in stating that apples are absent from it. It does not depend on "experiencing own absence," which, by the way, you are doing right now. You are experiencing your absence from my living room. How is it? ;-)
Absence of apples is the evidence of absence of apples.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 29, 2024, 04:59:54 PMAh! I see.
The I is a construction of the mind there in you. You there, have constructed the I that is you there, and have also constructed the me here there in you. As there is nothing outside of your own mind that could ever be anything other than you're own experience there in you.. Everything you have ever known is nothing but the imagination of you're own mind. You there have invented me here, I here do not exist outside of you're own creation of me there. You have imagined me.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 29, 2024, 04:59:54 PMNo, I think that's missing the mark somewhat. In this case, evidence is the apples from the example. What is the context? Well, in the example, it is the contents of my dinner table. There is no ambiguity then in stating that apples are absent from it. It does not depend on "experiencing own absence," which, by the way, you are doing right now. You are experiencing your absence from my living room. How is it? ;-)
Absence of apples is the evidence of absence of apples.
The idea there in you, that there is a you/I here who is experiencing the absence of a living room belonging to the you there, is never the experience of me here. The idea of a me here experiencing the absence from you're living room is you're own construction there.
And yes, I agree that the absence of apples relative to the observer is the evidence of absent apples in the context of apples being known to exist conceptually. My point is that apples are a mental construct, known in their image made from that which is imageless, an apple is simply a construct of a mind, an apple is a label for some object that has no idea what it is, except what is put there by a mind, a mind that is never seen, a mind that is only known as and through the evidence of conceptual knowing, an apple is basically an image of the imageless. There is no real apple out there, it exists only as your own construct that is neither out-there nor in-here. Here/there, where is that? where is the exact location where the mind can be pinned down, it can't.
Can any thing known, ever be absent from the knowing of the known? Not really, as any thing known can never not be known, or be absent from this knowing. While absent apples are evidence of their non-show, their absence is only illusory because their knower cannot experience it's own absence, and so as the knower of apples, there cannot be the absence of the known object that is apple, as the contents of the knower are inseparable from what the knower knows. The knower never shows up to it's own show, it's only the contents of the knower that is on show, as imaged. As the mind creates the image of itself, it can say, now you see me, now you don't in the construction process. But in reality, there is nothing here that can never not be here as in absent.. and while the knower is never seen, the knower is only known in it's own image that you conceptually construct.
To me here, the word absence, is like saying that nothing can exist, it's contradictive, but it's not, because it's obvious that nothingness cannot exist, except as a concept known to exist. Something does exist, and can only exist in it's conception. And this conception is the invention of you're own mind that cannot be negated or refuted, or be killed off, or naturally die due to entropy. The mind cannot not be, as in absent. As the you who has invented the concept known as absent can never not be here. You are never not here.
I'll revisit this when on a proper keyboard (being not-fourteen on an iPhone, and thereby my thinking far out-paces my typing capabilities)
For now, "absence" is not precisely saying that nothing can exist - not even the absence of existence says that. It speaks to... Anti-presence in the context of its use. Not the possibility of presence - merely its state of... Not-being. Ok, this was clumsily-worded.
To abstract, absence of x in y means that in the set y, there is not an element x. There can be tons of x outside y, however.
With regard to evidence, x is the evidence and y is the claim it relates to. Absence of evidence in this case means that claim y is not supported by whatever, if anything, x happens to be.
Yes... That was more of an explanation. I'll come back for an in-depth when on PC.
The Asmo hereby returneth and wall-of-texteth as promised... eth. :smilenod:
Quote from: Me_Be on February 29, 2024, 07:39:48 PMThe I is a construction of the mind there in you. You there, have constructed the I that is you there, and have also constructed the me here there in you. As there is nothing outside of your own mind that could ever be anything other than you're own experience there in you.. Everything you have ever known is nothing but the imagination of you're own mind. You there have invented me here, I here do not exist outside of you're own creation of me there. You have imagined me.
Yes and no. We perceive the environment through our considerable sensor suite, that is correct. That does not speak to the nature of said environment, however, only to our perception thereof.
We can gain a deeper understanding of what it is we perceive by combining sensor data and analysing the resulting patterns.
Einstein would have liked to believe that the Moon was there even when he was not looking at it. Well, there are ways to check. Put some sensor that is independent of you on it, then check sensor data from when you were looking away.
The current models of reality are sophisticated enough to be able to reasonably conclude that reality is more than an individual's perception thereof. (I'm not talking in spiritual sense of any kind - merely that there are things within your sensor range, and those without. Similarly, there are things within your sensing capabilities and those without.)
QuoteThe idea there in you, that there is a you/I here who is experiencing the absence of a living room belonging to the you there, is never the experience of me here.
Sure it is. You are not in my living room. Therefore, you are experiencing not being in my living room. Your onboard sensor suite is incapable of detecting my living room and is thereby giving you feedback inconsistent with being in it - that's more or less all that means. Or are you speaking specifically to conscious experiences?
QuoteThe idea of a me here experiencing the absence from you're living room is you're own construction there.
It was my idea, so of course It was my construct. But then, I am currently experiencing not having your ideas, in the sense that the very sensor data I keep coming back to is being analysed by me, independently of you.
QuoteAnd yes, I agree that the absence of apples relative to the observer is the evidence of absent apples in the context of apples being known to exist conceptually.
That was better worded than what I did. Nice! Yes, though I would not limit the scope of "known" apples to "merely" conceptual.
QuoteMy point is that apples are a mental construct, known in their image made from that which is imageless, an apple is simply a construct of a mind, an apple is a label for some object that has no idea what it is, except what is put there by a mind, a mind that is never seen, a mind that is only known as and through the evidence of conceptual knowing, an apple is basically an image of the imageless.
I disagree - perhaps strongly so, depending on the minutia.
The mind processes sensor data and catalogues its conclusions in certain ways. The mental image or understanding of an apple is just that - a model.
That is not what the apple is. The apple is what the model is
of.It is in this case also completely irrelevant whether the object being modelled has any notion that it exists, what it is or is even physical in nature. There simply isn't a link there. "Apple" is your mental model based on certain sensory input. A blind person understands "apple" a little differently from one who can see. A red-green colorblind person understands red and green apples differently from one who can see colors normally for a human. An octopus understands it in yet another way. A person who has lifted an apple understands it slightly differently to one who has not, and there are minute variations simply from person to person. That's just processing sensor data. It speaks to an analyser's modelling capabilities - not what's being modeled. For that, you want multiple datasets that "agree" somewhere "in the middle."
QuoteThere is no real apple out there, it exists only as your own construct that is neither out-there nor in-here. Here/there, where is that? where is the exact location where the mind can be pinned down, it can't.
Mind is a process. You can certainly pin down where it's run - its a brain connected to an array of inputs and outputs, performing signal analysis.
There are absolutely real apples out there, it's just that our individual models of what one is may vary to some degree. To a large degree, even, given a properly malfunctioning brain.
QuoteCan any thing known, ever be absent from the knowing of the known? Not really, as any thing known can never not be known, or be absent from this knowing.
It can. A model of reality - or a part thereof - can degrade, be damaged or rendered obsolete by a superior model. If you know that the Earth is a disc, you can certainly "un-know" it. That is somewhat beside the point however. Let's get back to them apples. :smilenod:
QuoteWhile absent apples are evidence of their non-show, their absence is only illusory because their knower cannot experience it's own absence, and so as the knower of apples, there cannot be the absence of the known object that is apple, as the contents of the knower are inseparable from what the knower knows.
An apple is still there whether there is a sensor on it or not, much like a yet-undiscovered planet is still orbiting its star. Yes, on quantum level, particles pop in and out of existence, tunnel and do all sorts of "unpredictable" weirdness. Sufficiently scaled up, however... It's not a very good comparison, but if you have a chunk of uranium and a uranium atom has a certain chance to "randomly" (not really, but simplifying) turn into lead, statistically, your chunk will still remain uranium for millions of years - just with an ever-increasing amount of lead in it.
Reality "runs" independently of our models of it.
QuoteThe knower never shows up to it's own show, it's only the contents of the knower that is on show, as imaged. As the mind creates the image of itself, it can say, now you see me, now you don't in the construction process. But in reality, there is nothing here that can never not be here as in absent.. and while the knower is never seen, the knower is only known in it's own image that you conceptually construct.
Well... If you substitute "see" (show, image, etc - a specific call for visual representation) with "sense," then you can certainly sense the knower. Again, it is a process, not a thing that emits or reflects photons. You may simply need to apply a different suite of sensors to detect it. Electromagnetic can be a good start. Of course, if unable to use such sensors directly with sufficient resolution, you may want to then translate their output into something more processable, and thus stuff like infrared cameras are born, giving a visual representation of the wavelenghts of light that we commonly experience as heat rather than shapes and colours.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 08:42:55 AMA model of reality - or a part thereof - can degrade, be damaged or rendered obsolete by a superior model. If you know that the Earth is a disc, you can certainly "un-know" it. That is somewhat beside the point however.
I do not think you can unknow knowing. That's what I was getting at. The claim the earth is a disc will first have to be known before that known can become unknown. Knowing is fundamental and cannot unknow what it knows, it can only change what it knows to something else, like for example: the earth is a disc can later be changed to the earth is a triangle. The knowing of both ideas never changes, only what is known changes. That's what I meant.
As for our models of reality, this to me means we can never directly know or experience objective reality, we can only know it according to our own representational model of it, which to me, can only mean the reality for the known knower on the human level, can only be an A.I. experience, and never be known to us as it actually is, because how it actually is, is unknowable to the human mind. We only have our back stories to represent it, but memory is often wrong on reflection, reflection is a poor representation of what is always and ever this immediate presentation and never a representation.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 08:42:55 AMLet's get back to them apples. :smilenod:
You have responded in great detail about the subject of apples, which I appreciate, but have to admit I am rather perplexed as to why apples became relevant to what I was originally responding to in the OP started by Tank. But I understand how topics can often go off on unexpected tangents.
I was speaking in the context relating to absence of evidence for a supernatural realm and the idea of a God existing without evidence. What can be read below..is what I want to discuss, more than the existence of apples.
My aim was to address the post below. And to mention that all of what is being discussed here regarding the absence of a supernatural existence, or the idea that the absence of God is evidence of no God is all just basically a mental construct, showing up as and through the written word by the authors mind, in this case, Tanks mind.
My theory is that there is nothing outside of Tanks mind that has any obligation to exist or show up as evidence to prove it exists, as the entire content of what is being discussed here already does exist in Tanks mind. In other words without the projection screen of Tanks mind, where do these thoughts and ideas that can be put into words and read below, actually exist for real, except in the script contrived by Tanks mind?
QuoteSo billions of humans, over hundreds of thousands of years, across tens of thousands of beliefs have lived their lives believing fairy stories. And not one claim by any of these people has a single shred of evidence to support it.
So while "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" the total lack of evidence does show that the possibility of the existence of a supernatural realm and a sentient all powerful entity, a god, that exists in that realm and interacts with the natural realm we perceive is effectively impossible.
The probability of the existence of a god is trillions to one. To live one's life based on such a tenuous probability is nothing short of insane. And it gets worse when people make up cultures based on that insanity.
QuoteME
The idea there in you, that there is a you/I here who is experiencing the absence of a living room belonging to the you there, is never the experience of me here.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 08:42:55 AMSure it is. You are not in my living room. Therefore, you are experiencing not being in my living room. Your onboard sensor suite is incapable of detecting my living room and is thereby giving you feedback inconsistent with being in it - that's more or less all that means. Or are you speaking specifically to conscious experiences?
I just wanted to address this post of yours which I find rather interesting.
How can not being in your living room be my experience of absence, when in my world view, I do not exist until you decide to create me there in your mind. The absence of a created being separate from your own being can't possibly be the created beings experience, as that created being is something that is inside your mind. I or other is always just a creation of you there, and never outside of you, there is no way you can step outside of your own mind and meet up with another mind as if it existed for real. Two minds can never meet. Two or many minds are simply imagined appearances, they are the creation of the one infinite mind making distinctions within itself, for itself and by itself. And so your mind is the only place another mind can exist for you, another mind will always be your own creation. You are infinite mind. You there can make up, imagine just about anything you want, and belief will make what you make up real for you.
You there can never be conscious of another persons conscious experience, so you cannot tell yourself that another person is experiencing the absent from your living room. To hear you say that doesn't make any sense to the mind here in me.
It's only my experience here, because you there is saying it is, and believing that it is. But, that which is there, is never here, only there, as there is nothing outside of one's mind, if that one's mind is to be believed to exist, then what that one mind is creating will project it's creation as if it exists out-there. That's the nature of duality, the split mind phenomena.
That's not to deny there is a reality outside existing out-there independent of the mind, there is without doubt or error. Reality is, it exists in an unborn nondual state. Only the mind is born, and the mind is what apparently splits the nondual reality into two, into knower and known, into you and me, here and there, albeit just the many distinctions within the infinite mind.
Quote from: Me_Be on March 01, 2024, 12:49:02 PMI do not think you can unknow knowing. That's what I was getting at. The claim the earth is a disc will first have to be known before that known can become unknown. Knowing is fundamental and cannot unknow what it knows, it can only change what it knows to something else, like for example: the earth is a disc can later be changed to the earth is a triangle. The knowing of both ideas never changes, only what is known changes. That's what I meant.
I think this is a semantic framing. nothing wrong with that. I am using "knowledge" in the sense of "accepting something as fact." You no longer know that the Earth is a disc when you no longer accept it as an accurate representation of the planet. Similarly, you never knew that the Earth was a disc if you never accepted that model as valid, for whatever reason - be it conscious application of knowledge, or just "never having thought about it."
In this sense, the known can, and in certain circles often
is "un-learned."
QuoteAs for our models of reality, this to me means we can never directly know or experience objective reality, we can only know it according to our own representational model of it, which to me, can only mean the reality for the known knower on the human level, can only be an A.I. experience, and never be known to us as it actually is, because how it actually is, is unknowable to the human mind.
That is not the implication though. Your brain constructs a model of reality based on a more-or-less continuous stream of "sensor readings." Whether or not the sensors have a margin of error, the readings are real data, pertaining to real experiences of the real reality.
If my sensors provide conflicting data, we can compare more datasets and see if either of our models is more accurate.
Certainly, there are degrees of accuracy involved in our individual understanding of reality, but that does not make it unknowable - it's just that the degree of precision with which you know something is not a constant.
For instance, Newtonian gravity is an inaccurate model of what gravity is and does when compared to Einsteinian, which in itself may be insufficient when compared to whatever-comes-next. It's more than good enough to enable us to make airplanes fly, though.
QuoteWe only have our back stories to represent it, but memory is often wrong on reflection, reflection is a poor representation of what is always and ever this immediate presentation and never a representation.
There is such a thing as functionally good enough. Picture the following (The graph may not work as well on mobile screen - haven't tested)
Utterly false_______________________0________________1___2__Unequivocally true
If your model of something falls somewhere between 1 and 2, it is
correct, even if not perfectly accurate.
It's not a matter of knowability - you can know whatever your sensor suite can pick up, and being crafty about it, you can probe the world your sensors were never designed for by using tools. I mentioned infrared cameras that allow you to see heat. Electron microscopes can let you see individual atoms. TV static can let you see and hear cosmic microwave background. You can know it - the rest is comparative. (As in, you can know it somewhere on the scale from "not at all" to "perfectly."
QuoteYou have responded in great detail about the subject of apples, which I appreciate, but have to admit I am rather perplexed as to why apples became relevant to what I was originally responding to in the OP started by Tank. But I understand how topics can often go off on unexpected tangents.
Actually, it was me deliberately sticking to chosen example. you can substitute apples with children or laws or, for that matter, gods, and my position will remain consistent. I chose apples because an apple is "just a physical thing," which makes the associated explanation if not easier, then at least less esoteric to follow than if I stuck with "evidence," which is a matter of cause and effect. The same principles apply, they are just easier to visualise when its something visual.
QuoteI was speaking in the context relating to absence of evidence for a supernatural realm and the idea of a God existing without evidence. What can be read below..is what I want to discuss, more than the existence of apples.
Well, to put the last few walls of text into a sentence, it would be something like this: If you have looked and found no evidence of a thing, then there is not a thing. therefore, absence of evidence may indeed be the evidence of absence.
QuoteMy aim was to address the post below. And to mention that all of what is being discussed here regarding the absence of a supernatural existence, or the idea that the absence of God is evidence of no God is all just basically a mental construct, showing up as and through the written word by the authors mind, in this case, Tanks mind.
It's all in good fun. I like deep-dives. :smilenod:
Here's the thing though, people who would usually throw "absence of this is not evidence of that" line tend to have certain common threads in their understanding of what makes a God. Knows about and interacts with the world, gives a rodent's bottom about you, so forth...
...To put it like this, absence of evidence of someone's specific god is not by itself the evidence of absence of gods as a species - or whatever they may or may not be. It is, however, the evidence of absence of
that individual's God - or that individual God, even. That's where apples and dinner tables come from. What can I say, I'm convoluted.
QuoteMy theory is that there is nothing outside of Tanks mind that has any obligation to exist or show up as evidence to prove it exists, as the entire content of what is being discussed here already does exist in Tanks mind. In other words without the projection screen of Tanks mind, where do these thoughts and ideas that can be put into words and read below, actually exist for real, except in the script contrived by Tanks mind?
You are of course correct in nothing having an obligation to anything. Obligations are a concept of conscious beings. The rest... Acts in certain ways which can sometimes be codified into what we refer to as the laws of nature. It's not
because of those laws that, say, apples fall from apple trees, but rather, the laws are there because apples "predictably and invariably" do.
In any case, we've spent considerable effort addressing this point, so I'm not going too in-depth about it beyond re-stating that reality exists independent of good T's understanding thereof, and he has far more than his own dataset to compare when addressing most "everyday" dilemmas.
You
could invoke probability, but then it would be worth remembering that you are teetering between "it doesn't exist ["as described" - throughout this sentence]" and "it absolutely doesn't exist," rather than between "it doesn't exist" and "it maybe-perhaps-might exist."
Carry on gentle persons. You are digging deeply into the philosophic realm. I approve of exchanges of that sort.
Quote from: Icarus on March 02, 2024, 02:30:23 AMCarry on gentle persons. You are digging deeply into the philosophic realm. I approve of exchanges of that sort.
Thank you Icarus. Nice name too. :)
Quote''Icarus laughed as he fell. Threw his head back and yelled into the winds, arms spread wide, teeth bared to the world. (There is bitter triumph in crashing when you should be soaring.)''
Icarus, I'm happy you approve, why, because I had just been wondering whether the happy atheist corner of the internet could possibly have not been the right place to be expressing one's world views in a nondual philosophical context, so I apologise if it's not my place to do so here on this particular forum. However, if it's ok with you, then I'll carry on. 8) Thanks for dropping by.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMI think this is a semantic framing. nothing wrong with that. I am using "knowledge" in the sense of "accepting something as fact." You no longer know that the Earth is a disc when you no longer accept it as an accurate representation of the planet. Similarly, you never knew that the Earth was a disc if you never accepted that model as valid, for whatever reason - be it conscious application of knowledge, or just "never having thought about it."
In this sense, the known can, and in certain circles often is "un-learned."
Yes I agree. What we think we once knew to be the case, can turn out to not be the case at all, we can always change our mind about something we once thought was true and real, but turned out to be completely the opposite. We can do this using the knowledge we already have available at the present moment.
And so in essence, anything not yet known now, meaning, that which has not yet come into our awareness as known, can eventually become known to us.. but that which is unknowable, can never be known. So all we've got is the knowledge we already have, that our minds have made-up, that's the only place knowledge comes from, what we have agreed to accept, all of which help us make sense of our apparent autonomous conscious being, including the environment we live in.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMThat is not the implication though. Your brain constructs a model of reality based on a more-or-less continuous stream of "sensor readings." Whether or not the sensors have a margin of error, the readings are real data, pertaining to real experiences of the real reality.
If my sensors provide conflicting data, we can compare more datasets and see if either of our models is more accurate.
Certainly, there are degrees of accuracy involved in our individual understanding of reality, but that does not make it unknowable - it's just that the degree of precision with which you know something is not a constant.
For instance, Newtonian gravity is an inaccurate model of what gravity is and does when compared to Einsteinian, which in itself may be insufficient when compared to whatever-comes-next. It's more than good enough to enable us to make airplanes fly, though.
Thanks. But what I mean is that here in the immediate presence of real-time here and now, reality is unfolding in a never known before scenario ever brand new, and unwritten. It only becomes known to have happened on reflection via a process of reflexive knowledge on demand that is stored within memory. That process tells me our sense of intelligent selfing is formed artificially, so our knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality. Many authors appear as there are many minds that create them, but there is only one reader of all these finite temporal models of reality as they are being written by the minds that author them, these stories are mere appearances within the infinite mind. So yes, while everything appears to be real, it is also unreal in that known reality is artificially generated by the brain, which is thought to be where the mental activity is happening, so on the human level, the sense of self is illusory, and at the same time appearing real.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMActually, it was me deliberately sticking to chosen example. you can substitute apples with children or laws or, for that matter, gods, and my position will remain consistent. I chose apples because an apple is "just a physical thing," which makes the associated explanation if not easier, then at least less esoteric to follow than if I stuck with "evidence," which is a matter of cause and effect. The same principles apply, they are just easier to visualise when its something visual.
Ok, thanks.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMWell, to put the last few walls of text into a sentence, it would be something like this: If you have looked and found no evidence of a thing, then there is not a thing. therefore, absence of evidence may indeed be the evidence of absence.
Yes, I agree. And yes, one would have to use a 'physical thing' as an example of that, so far so good.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMIt's all in good fun. I like deep-dives. :smilenod:
Cool!
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMHere's the thing though, people who would usually throw "absence of this is not evidence of that" line tend to have certain common threads in their understanding of what makes a God. Knows about and interacts with the world, gives a rodent's bottom about you, so forth...
...To put it like this, absence of evidence of someone's specific god is not by itself the evidence of absence of gods as a species - or whatever they may or may not be. It is, however, the evidence of absence of that individual's God - or that individual God, even. That's where apples and dinner tables come from. What can I say, I'm convoluted.
Ah yes, I see what you mean now.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMYou are of course correct in nothing having an obligation to anything. Obligations are a concept of conscious beings. The rest... Acts in certain ways which can sometimes be codified into what we refer to as the laws of nature. It's not because of those laws that, say, apples fall from apple trees, but rather, the laws are there because apples "predictably and invariably" do.
Very good, I agree with that.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 01, 2024, 03:26:52 PMIn this sense, the known can, and in certain circles often is "un-learned."
I just wanted to come back to this point you've made here.
I would like to add that anything claimed to be known is inseparable from the knower. And while the knower can only pertain to the mind, the mind can change it's story about something it thought about, it can learn something about a subject one day, only to throw it away the next by replacing it with a different idea.
The mind can do that with any conditioned belief system that it has been taught. It can substitute that learning by unlearning what has been learnt.
That said: that which is knowing which is different from the knower, cannot experience it's own absence. Knowing can never not be here, knowing is never absent, knowing is just another word for ''BEING'' and being doesn't learn to be, being just is. Being is unborn, meaning it cannot die, being is like pure awareness, it's infinite. Being is this knowing that cannot be known by a someone, because a someone is simply a mental construct, it's known as a concept, and that which is known, knows nothing.
You are this knowing, you are this being, and there is nothing outside of you that is not also you. You are infinity.
Quote from: Icarus on March 02, 2024, 02:30:23 AMCarry on gentle persons. You are digging deeply into the philosophic realm. I approve of exchanges of that sort.
The Asmo likes. :smilenod: The Asmo shall continue complicating the complicated and disentangling the entangled.
Quote from: Me_Be on March 01, 2024, 02:57:33 PMI just wanted to address this post of yours which I find rather interesting.
Certainly. I missed it the first time around as I suspect I was proof-reading my own reply when you posted, but let us address the points.
QuoteHow can not being in your living room be my experience of absence, when in my world view, I do not exist until you decide to create me there in your mind.
It's very simple, really. Your existence is not predicated on your world view, and even it if was, you experience not being in my living room precisely the same way as you experience the Sun being bright or the tea being hot - through accumulating and analysing sensor readings. The sensors being eyes, skin, taste buds and so forth, and the data processor being primarily your brain.
QuoteThe absence of a created being separate from your own being can't possibly be the created beings experience, as that created being is something that is inside your mind.
It doesn't matter, unless you are speaking of conscious experiences specifically, which would call for additional variables. Again, this is likely a semantic point, but I use "to experience" in the sense of "to be in a state of." A spring experiences tension when compressed, but it has no agency over or notion of that experience. Well, so what?
If translated to specifically conscious realm, there is an added component to it, which does not change the underlying principles - that being the sensor suite which I keep coming back to. A "conscious spring" knows that it is under tension because it has some sort of a sensor to measure it and some sort of a processor to interpret the reading.
Whether a spring is a spring or a simulation thereof doesn't come to play, nor does whether the spring was created or a natural occurrence.
QuoteI or other is always just a creation of you there, and never outside of you, there is no way you can step outside of your own mind and meet up with another mind as if it existed for real.
Of course you can. Just use your own or third-party signal converters and sensors as intermediary. You can speak, gesticulate, write, make facial expressions, excrete chemical compounds, change skin colour by pumping blood to or from the skin, so forth. We've covered the input side rather extensively already.
QuoteTwo minds can never meet. Two or many minds are simply imagined appearances, they are the creation of the one infinite mind making distinctions within itself, for itself and by itself. And so your mind is the only place another mind can exist for you, another mind will always be your own creation. You are infinite mind.
No. I think you may be confusing a thing and a model of a thing. A thing exists independently of its model. When you engage with another mind, you understand it through modelling its output singals in patterns - not through recreating its processes within your own. (This
is a matter of degrees though - to some degree ;) )
You know that there is another mind in broadly-similar ways as you know it's windy outside or that there is a planet orbiting a far-away star. You analyse the "effects" of it.
Where does "infinite" come from? What is your justification for using that particular scope?
QuoteYou there can make up, imagine just about anything you want, and belief will make what you make up real for you. You there can never be conscious of another persons conscious experience, so you cannot tell yourself that another person is experiencing the absent from your living room. To hear you say that doesn't make any sense to the mind here in me.
Me experiencing your experience is irrelevant to my knowing that you experience your absence from my living room. Yes, my model is based on my sensor readings, but it can be trivially verified by combining with a different set of sensors. You will not materialise in my living room just because another observer is watching.
Ok, I think I have a good example.
If you go to the international space station, you will experience weightlessness, which is the absence of weight or, framed differently but sufficiently for
this example, the absence of constant acceleration against a surface. You will experience it even when you are asleep. Your pet cactus will also experience it there - as will a random speck of dust or a coffee cup.
QuoteThat's the nature of duality, the split mind phenomena.
No disrespect, but that sounds thinner than the "Matrix theory." at least the latter avoids the problem of things you never knew being capable of affecting you since there, there exists a simulated reality with a degree of control over the individual. If your reality only exists in terms of you and you have never considered radioactivity, is it then safe for you to eat out of that little lead container at an x-ray lab? You have no idea what it is, after all, but it looks positively yummy.
You see, your mind does not split reality into knowers and knowns - it merely processes its data and churns out models, which it then refines with varying degrees of ease. The sum of those models and their revisions and amendments is the sum of your knowledge. Everything outside them is unknown specifically to you. Fundamentally, your model of "I" is no different. It is an analysis of the world interacting with you and you interacting back.
We've been looking at it from a different angle, so this needs no rebuttal unless you are so inclined. I suppose my overarching point is that you may be giving your "you-ness" too much credit.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 04, 2024, 09:08:50 AMWe've been looking at it from a different angle, so this needs no rebuttal unless you are so inclined. I suppose my overarching point is that you may be giving your "you-ness" too much credit.
Yes I see, but Who are you without your ''you thought''? Without the mind as one's projection screen where or what IS-YOU?
The known concept 'YOU' .. to me, is just a thought. It's a concept known, and as known, itself cannot know, and that's all there is to that.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 04, 2024, 09:08:50 AMWhere does "infinite" come from? What is your justification for using that particular scope?
For me, the word 'infinite' doesn't come from anywhere. It's just another word for the immediate now.
Notice it's always NOW and never not NOW
And since no temporal living human being can ever experience NOW endlessly forever, then that's why I use the word ''infinite'' because beginnings and endings are just temporal appearances within what is ultimately this seamless beginningless and endless now. (Appearances IN finite) infinitely.
Meaning... That which is limitless or endless in space, impossible to measure.
Quote from: Me_Be on March 10, 2024, 09:26:10 AMYes I see, but Who are you without your ''you thought''?
Ah, yes! This is interesting. :smilenod:
Without the sum of my thoughts, I cease to be a "who" and become a "what." There is some gradient there, but ultimately, herein lies the difference between a person and a corpse.
QuoteWithout the mind as one's projection screen where or what IS-YOU?
If your data processing is inactive, you are more or less "a bag of meat and bones." You can, though to a somewhat limited degree, think of it as follows; you have a picture from your last vacation saved on your computer. When you open the file, the data is processed and you see palm trees and umbrella drinks on the screen. When you turn off the computer, however, all you have is variations in magnetic polarity or electric charge in a certain configuration. So, where is the picture? Well, it is a product of data processing. As long as the data in question is not being processed, the picture does not exist.
The memory drive, however, does exist, as does the data that, when analysed by certain algorithms and processed to certain outputs, will yiled that very picture.
So, if your processing capabilities are inactive, but the "drive" is intact, then "you" are in a sense offline. If the drive is sufficiently degraded or otherwise compromised, then you are no longer "you."
QuoteFor me, the word 'infinite' doesn't come from anywhere. It's just another word for the immediate now.
Notice it's always NOW and never not NOW
Now is always now... Mmmmh not really. Well, in a manner. An object in motion is never where it is not. Well, it
can be, but we don't need to dwell into the wave nature of particles for this. You are an object in motion through spacetime, thus having a velocity in space as well as a velocity in time. Your motion through spacetime is not infinite (having no start and/or endpoint) - you are a specific system that starts at conception, that being your time slice t=0, and ends (if we are being very generous here) when your constituent components are recycled, degraded or otherwise sufficiently compromised, that being your timeslice t=n. You may not know the value of n, but can sufficiently demonstrate that n<inf.
That said though, one has to point out that "now" is a matter of perspective. It's an intersection of timelines.
QuoteAnd since no temporal living human being can ever experience NOW endlessly forever, then that's why I use the word ''infinite'' because beginnings and endings are just temporal appearances within what is ultimately this seamless beginningless and endless now. (Appearances IN finite) infinitely.
Meaning... That which is limitless or endless in space, impossible to measure.
You could say that a stick is theoretically limitless because you can break it in half, then break the half in half, then the quarter and so on infinitely many times. (Let us hand-waive molecular and atomic structure and even planck length for the purpose of the example) It still occupies finite space.
Whether or not spacetime is infinite in any direction, "now" occupies finite time. It is a slice across spacetime at t=now. You can conceptualise time as a series of spaces at every subsequent moment layered upon each other - a series of "nows."
So?
We aren't much
So?
So we should enlargen ourselves with gobbledygook
Each to their own, I suppose.
You can also enlargen yourself with fat, sugar and salt - the meth, crack and weed of culinary world. :smilenod:
That said though, what are you talking about?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 11, 2024, 08:14:39 AMQuote from: Me_Be on March 10, 2024, 09:26:10 AMYes I see, but Who are you without your ''you thought''?
Ah, yes! This is interesting. :smilenod:
Without the sum of my thoughts, I cease to be a "who" and become a "what." There is some gradient there, but ultimately, herein lies the difference between a person and a corpse.
Interesting idea!
''What'' implies there is definitely a ''something'' the difference being, there is no label attached to it, so it's actually nothing except in it's conception.
Thoughts are things, and things can be any thing, like a person and a corpse. But no thing knows these things. There's just infinite Not-knowing aliveness.
QuoteWithout the mind as one's projection screen where or what IS-YOU?
Quote from: Asmodean on March 11, 2024, 08:14:39 AMIf your data processing is inactive, you are more or less "a bag of meat and bones." You can, though to a somewhat limited degree, think of it as follows; you have a picture from your last vacation saved on your computer. When you open the file, the data is processed and you see palm trees and umbrella drinks on the screen. When you turn off the computer, however, all you have is variations in magnetic polarity or electric charge in a certain configuration. So, where is the picture? Well, it is a product of data processing. As long as the data in question is not being processed, the picture does not exist.
The memory drive, however, does exist, as does the data that, when analysed by certain algorithms and processed to certain outputs, will yiled that very picture.
So, if your processing capabilities are inactive, but the "drive" is intact, then "you" are in a sense offline. If the drive is sufficiently degraded or otherwise compromised, then you are no longer "you."
Interesting description! And very true. Could also be described as there is no you because there is no other than you.
QuoteFor me, the word 'infinite' doesn't come from anywhere. It's just another word for the immediate now.
Notice it's always NOW and never not NOW
Quote from: Asmodean on March 11, 2024, 08:14:39 AMNow is always now... Mmmmh not really. Well, in a manner. An object in motion is never where it is not.
The object that is known to be in motion has no awareness of motion or time. That which is aware of motion and time never moved, and is timeless. Always Now.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 11, 2024, 08:14:39 AMWell, it can be, but we don't need to dwell into the wave nature of particles for this. You are an object in motion through spacetime, thus having a velocity in space as well as a velocity in time. Your motion through spacetime is not infinite (having no start and/or endpoint) - you are a specific system that starts at conception, that being your time slice t=0, and ends (if we are being very generous here) when your constituent components are recycled, degraded or otherwise sufficiently compromised, that being your timeslice t=n. You may not know the value of n, but can sufficiently demonstrate that n<inf.
That said though, one has to point out that "now" is a matter of perspective. It's an intersection of timelines.
This is a very good description of what is a finite conception of you, but it's only an appearance of the infinite, it's the infinite appearing as many finite objects infinitely.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 11, 2024, 08:14:39 AMYou could say that a stick is theoretically limitless because you can break it in half, then break the half in half, then the quarter and so on infinitely many times. (Let us hand-waive molecular and atomic structure and even planck length for the purpose of the example) It still occupies finite space.
Whether or not spacetime is infinite in any direction, "now" occupies finite time. It is a slice across spacetime at t=now. You can conceptualise time as a series of spaces at every subsequent moment layered upon each other - a series of "nows."
I still believe ''time'' to be an illusion, a manmade construct of the mind. Time exists within the dream story, in spacetime duality for sure, but that conception of spacetime duality, is still just one of many appearances within what is ultimately this immediate timeless infinity that is reality, experienced only as finite, as infinity in and of itself is NEVER any one's direct experience. Experiences are always 'finite'...an endless series of such, appearances and disappearances.
''Experiencing'' on the other hand is seamlessly always now infinitely.
Quote from: Me_Be on March 14, 2024, 07:43:04 AMInteresting idea!
''What'' implies there is definitely a ''something'' the difference being, there is no label attached to it, so it's actually nothing except in it's conception.
In a manner. It's a matter of qualifiers and modifiers, if anything. "Who" implies a personality. For what I suppose are emotional reasons, it can also imply a past or projected personality, or just person
hood."What" in this instance implies a collection of matter in certain configuration. It may have labels attached to it, just as a "who" can. A corpse is a "what." That dude over there is a "who." Both can be things like fat, tall, bearded... So forth.
Thus, when I cease to be a who and become a what... How to word this well..? I cease to be The Asmo and become a corpse of The Asmo.
QuoteThoughts are things, and things can be any thing, like a person and a corpse. But no thing knows these things. There's just infinite Not-knowing aliveness.
Thoughts are
processes. Neurons and their constituent components are things. Thoughts are specific
interactions between specific things.
QuoteInteresting description! And very true. Could also be described as there is no you because there is no other than you.
I don't see my way clear to conclude that if there is no other than you, then there is also no you. The conclusion does not depend on the premise.
QuoteThe object that is known to be in motion has no awareness of motion or time. That which is aware of motion and time never moved, and is timeless. Always Now.
This claim suffers from the same as the above. Its premises do not lead to its conclusions. Motion is not dependent on awareness. It is dependent on the frame of reference, but that's a different thing.
QuoteThis is a very good description of what is a finite conception of you, but it's only an appearance of the infinite, it's the infinite appearing as many finite objects infinitely.
...But then, of course, I would have to ask, "what is the underlying theory necessitating it to be so?"
The "art" of theorising is to a large degree in not adding variables without a reason.
QuoteI still believe ''time'' to be an illusion, a manmade construct of the mind. Time exists within the dream story, in spacetime duality for sure, but that conception of spacetime duality, is still just one of many appearances within what is ultimately this immediate timeless infinity that is reality, experienced only as finite, as infinity in and of itself is NEVER any one's direct experience. Experiences are always 'finite'...an endless series of such, appearances and disappearances.
''Experiencing'' on the other hand is seamlessly always now infinitely.
You can describe time as a measure of change and construct an adequate model of reality based on that. It is not an illusion, however, as "things take time to happen." It is measurable and quantifiable. Time is not a thing the way an apple is a thing - it is a dimension of reality, really not that unlike space. Just as you can visualise a 3D space by layering 2D sheets, so you can visualise spacetime through layering 3D spaces. (We cannot visually perceive a 4D space, but the visualisation would simply be that of a 3D space with stuff changing in it)
Though time is still time even if no change is occurring, just as space is still space if there is nothing in it. Whether time or space are
relevant at that point is a different matter, they are still not
illusory.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 13, 2024, 02:25:18 PMYou can also enlargen yourself with fat, sugar and salt - the meth, crack and weed of culinary world. :smilenod:
That said though, what are you talking about?
Sorry, I'm finding this all a bit rainbow dolphin mystic crystal.
"Thoughts are processes"
Basics, define thing and thought, hmmm.
Thinking is a process, I think.
A thought, may involve a conclusion, maybe a thing...
Quote from: Me_Be on March 14, 2024, 07:43:04 AMThoughts are things, and things can be any thing, like a person and a corpse. But no thing knows these things. There's just infinite Not-knowing aliveness.
I disagree, things can only be things a thing can possibly be, posits me.
Quote from: Me_Be on March 14, 2024, 07:43:04 AMThere's just infinite Not-knowing aliveness.
No there isn't.
I can't know everything so I can't know anything, I get by nonetheless.
I don't think imperfect perception means everything is illusory.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 14, 2024, 09:27:46 AMI don't see my way clear to conclude that if there is no other than you, then there is also no you. The conclusion does not depend on the premise.
The concept 'You' is known as a synonym that includes many other words like 'self' 'I' and 'Me' or the 'I Am'
We all identify with the same [YOU] synonym when it comes to human self-awareness. We all operate from a level of nondual consciousness insofar as we're all conscious that we are conscious. The common denominator is Consciousness; the one without a second fundamental substrate behind every 'single self' or 'you'
Consciousness is same in all of us, whereas, yes, it seems the personal 'headsets' consciousness is experiencing are all different appearances of the [Nondual Impersonal Consciousness]
Quote from: Asmodean on March 14, 2024, 09:27:46 AMThough time is still time even if no change is occurring, just as space is still space if there is nothing in it. Whether time or space are relevant at that point is a different matter, they are still not illusory.
Whatever we use to label reality is a concept known, and yet no concept known knows anything of it's existence. In other words we know that we do not know. That's why reality is seen as illusory. But that doesn't mean reality does not exist, it clearly does, but there's nothing known about it except in this conception, this Not-Knowing knowing.
The illusion/illusory/ is both real and unreal depending on how it is perceived by the thinking mind brain. Thinking in a really simple, physical way though, you can't see your face. The face of another or the reflection in a mirror is not your face, it's simply some 'other' surface reflecting a projection of the nondual consciousness.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on March 15, 2024, 12:00:47 PMBasics, define thing and thought, hmmm.
A thing is something that exists independently. A radio wave is a thing.
A process is an interaction of things. A radio transmission is a process.
I'm pretty sure I wrote a paragraph on what a thought is already... Several, even.
Quote from: Me_Be on March 15, 2024, 12:24:33 PMThe concept 'You' is known as a synonym that includes many other words like 'self' 'I' and 'Me' or the 'I Am'
This is not a linguistic argument. As such, its chosen language does not matter as much as what this language describes. "I" and "my own sweet self" are the exact same system, looked at from slightly different perspectives. It doesn't matter what I, you or anyone choose to call it, as long as we agree that we are talking about the same system.
QuoteWe all identify with the same [YOU] synonym when it comes to human self-awareness. We all operate from a level of nondual consciousness insofar as we're all conscious that we are conscious. The common denominator is Consciousness; the one without a second fundamental substrate behind every 'single self' or 'you'
Case in point. this is a purely linguistic approach. It has to do with an individual description of a model of reality, and not the underlying reality said model describes.
QuoteConsciousness is same in all of us, whereas, yes, it seems the personal 'headsets' consciousness is experiencing are all different appearances of the [Nondual Impersonal Consciousness]
It is not. My thought processes differ from yours, which differ from Pudding's, which differ from Juan the Amazonian spear fisher's.
In the simplest terms, consciousness is the sum of the processes in your brain. It's input- and data analysis and output management. Different inputs and datasets, ran through differing algorithms lead to different analyses, lead to different outputs.
If your car is of the same make and model as my car, it's not necessarily the same car. (Differing colours, mileages, trim levels, so forth) Replace "car" with "consciousness" (make and model becoming
h. sapiens sapiens) and bolts and sprockets with applicable processes.
If you would claim sameness, it would ned to be substantiated. "Grounded in reality," if you will.
QuoteWhatever we use to label reality is a concept known, and yet no concept known knows anything of it's existence. In other words we know that we do not know. That's why reality is seen as illusory. But that doesn't mean reality does not exist, it clearly does, but there's nothing known about it except in this conception, this Not-Knowing knowing.
The illusion/illusory/ is both real and unreal depending on how it is perceived by the thinking mind brain. Thinking in a really simple, physical way though, you can't see your face. The face of another or the reflection in a mirror is not your face, it's simply some 'other' surface reflecting a projection of the nondual consciousness.
You can construct models of reality which are adequate for their puirpose. It's not a matter of creative linguistics, labeling or even that you only interact with reality through analysing your own potentially-lacking sensor data. That model building is what your mirror analogy is an excellent metaphor for. As I have pointed out in a previous post, well so what if you cannot see your face? you have plenty of other sensors - or even third party sensors - to collect data about it from, if that is what you are after. Touch is one way. Taste and smell. If it is your face, pain, pressure and a few others. All add degrees of comprehensiveness to your model.
Now, if you have no sensor data, or your data is unreliable... Well, you will still draw conclusions, because not to may mean the difference between having dinner and being dinner in the wild, and that's what many of your mental processes are tuned for, but what you can do, is realise that your dataset is not suited to the purpose at hand and... Re-evaluate. That's what we do "all the time," except for certain occasions where we willingly, or at least kniowingly, disregard the evidence - or lack thereof - at hand. On those occasions, our models of reality degrade. Say a parent has a kid who got busted for smoking pot outisde his school. Caught with the spliff in his mouth, smoke coming out of his nose, hair, blood or whatever else have you tested positive for marry jay, and yet the parent is convinced that the kid dind't do no drugs. I think religions and such like work in broadly-similar way, and it boils down to "wanna-feel-good or don't-wanna-feel-bad" rather than "is or is not."