From: x@x.org
On 7/10/24 08:18, oldernow wrote:
> On 2024-07-10, D wrote:
>
>>> Assuming you meant the symbol 'external' by the symbol
>>> 'eternal':
>>
>> Yes! =) I blame the wife for talking to me when writing. ;)
>
> How dare you not recognize her angelic intent in helping
> you transcend external unto eternal! :-)
>
>> I think an easier theory is that the rock hurts and the
>> external world exists. ;)
>
> I think an even easier theory is that all that seems
> to be is mind only, but some of it considered (again,
> another mental operation) external, real, etc.
>
> That seems even more inclusive than your external
> world theory, because the mind only theory accounts
> for all phenomena, including mind (sure, that leads to
> self-referentiality looping).. but the "external world"
> theory can't seem to explain - i.e. account for - the
> likes of mind, beings, self, etc.
>
>> I refer to G.E. Moores "here is a hand" proof. Silly on
>> the surface, but very profound if you think about it.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
>
> But that Wikipedia entry doesn't even mention an
> observer in its summary at the top, which seems a
> necessary component of "knowing" (is there knowing
> without a knower?) a hand or two.. and yet trying
> to find that observer leads to nothing but a set of
> thoughts/concepts seemingly repeated to itself. In
> other words, said observer doesn't consist of anything
> observable/conceivable/nameable.
>
> If the observer is that flimsy a "reality", what about
> the solidity of whatever it tells itself it observes?
>
> And don't forget that words imply an objective/external
> reality. In fact, the degree of seeming real-ness seems
> proportional to the frequency and intensity with which
> the words are repeated.
>
> Given that, the more we discuss, the more real/external
> the world will seem *unless/until* a phrase or
> passage or two/more triggers the all-important
> word/concept/representation -less "insperience" that flies
> below the representational plane, so to speak....
>
> Where is the world in absence of a mind to know it -
> aka insist it be so and thus?
I am of the viewpoint that if some things are self
referential then that is enough.
By some definitions of thought I may not think.
By some definitions of existence I may not exist.
If I am referring simply to something myself it is
ok, but if there is a common meaning in language
of some word patterns then that is also self referential
to the language structure.
But that is adequate, it is simply the reference of a
word system with respect to itself, and the meanings
within the word system may still have value with respect
to each other.
It is ok if I do not think and it is ok if I do not
exist.
But the relation of the words or ideas with respect
to each other might still have some value in relation
to each other even without my specific thoughts
or existence.
Then there is the question what is mind and what are
ideas? It seems feasible to me that in some languages
something like 'mind' might have 'meaning', whatever
that means. It might have something to do with 'ideas'
or 'theories' but that is difficult to say.
>
>>>> 3. Even if they do not believe in the world and facts,
>>>> they still seem pretty intent on arguing their point with
>>>> other people, even though there is no point to argue. ;)
>>>
>>> Could it be they're fascinated by doing so seeming to
>>> provoke the kind of post this one is in reply to, and they
>>> so love typing that of course they're going to create as
>>> many opportunities to type as they possibly can?
>>
>> But that would imply an external world, or if not, the
>> person would enjoy talking to himself.
>
> But such "happens" in dreams too. Is a given dream's world
> external? The self/observer therein surely thinks it is,
> and yet all of a sudden POOF! both that world and that
> self are gone upon "awakening".
>
> Hmmm... how do you know with certainty that's not what's
> seemingly happening "here" apart from a vinyl record
> sort of skipping/repeating that this is a special case,
> and the others are "merely" dreams? Because that sense
> of "special case" i.e. "this is *REALLY* happening" -
> is present in dreams as well.
>
>> If he believes that everything is just himself, that would
>> be a collapse into solipsism, and ultimate doubt.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing ("collapse"), something
> to be avoided, etc.
>
> Could a purely conceived being possibly conceive of its
> purely conceptual underpinnings? And isn't using words by
> definition and attempt to conceive?
>
>> Note that with that position, the only thing you could
>> ever trust is the present moment. You also could not trust
>> your identity. However, what you would have to acknowledge,
>> regardless of illusion, is that for any eventual illusion
>> to take place, some kind of processing need to take place
>> in some kind of medium over time. That would imply an
>> external world.
>
> It could also imply imagining an external world and
> blessing that world with non-merely-imagined-hood.
>
> Isn't taking that world to be external-to/apart-from a
> modeler the worst possible model for a modeler? Sounds
> like a guaranteed recipe for alone-liness, and subsequent
> flavors of anguish rooted in alone-liness.
>
> And don't individuals mentally perform that "imagine and
> declare the reality - and details thereof - of that which
> is imagined" operation incessantly? Perhaps incessantly
> enough to generate a damned convincing "world" containing
> that individual?
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
