Explorations in ontology

[moving finger]

There is no way to be consciouss of something if there is nothing outside and apart and independent of you.

This may be true, but there IS a way that one could have the illusion of being conscious of something when there is nothing outside and apart and independent of one.

MF

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

The universe came out of the bum of a miniscule green goat. This is true. Fortunately "there is no burden of proof for either party, since nothing can be proven objectively". You must define God if you wish to bring it into the objective arena, otherwise God is just a miniscule green goat. If you wish to keep it as a subjective experience then remain silent and contemplate. (as opposed to 'Shut up and calculate').
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
If you can ask the right question then everything is inexplicable (unexplainable). This is the true beauty of Thought.

Charmingly put. I wrote way too many words, but meant the same thing... i think

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

This may be true, but there IS a way that one could have the illusion of being conscious of something when there is nothing outside and apart and independent of one.

MF

but to that perspective, the one can't know if it is an illusion or not. If we are to apply the component of subjective truth, then everything the one experiences is truth, and not "illusion", since everything a mind perceives can't be said to not have happened (to that mind).

 

[moving finger]

but to that perspective, the one can't know if it is an illusion or not. If we are to apply the component of subjective truth, then everything the one experiences is truth, and not "illusion", since everything a mind perceives can't be said to not have happened (to that mind).

The illusion comes in at the level of interpretation. I am not suggesting that one can deny perceptual experience, but I am suggesting that one can deny the truth or accuracy of the interpretations that we place upon those perceptual experiences. You believe that you have eyes and ears and hands etc because of the interpretation that you place on the information being processed from your senses. There are however alternative interpretations, and one of those is that you do not have eyes or ears or hands and you are just a brain in a vat. Both interpretations fit the empirical evidence, but which one is true?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

The illusion comes in at the level of interpretation. I am not suggesting that one can deny perceptual experience, but I am suggesting that one can deny the truth or accuracy of the interpretations that we place upon those perceptual experiences. You believe that you have eyes and ears and hands etc because of the interpretation that you place on the information being processed from your senses. There are however alternative interpretations, and one of those is that you do not have eyes or ears or hands and you are just a brain in a vat. Both interpretations fit the empirical evidence, but which one is true?

wow, I haven't been to pf in a while, i can't believe this thread is still up on the first page still.


This is a good point. the "brain in a vat" idea/the matrix idea. Yeah, so it is possible that we don't have any physical bodies at all, or that the universe even physically exists (e.g., a potential absolute truth of reality). However, this doesn't overturn the idea of subjective truth. It is still true to me that I experience being in a physical body in a physical world, and that I also experience the non-physical side of reality (the mental experience). Both of these components of truth can be true at the same time (brain in vat, and experiencing having a physical body).

 

This may be true, but there IS a way that one could have the illusion of being conscious of something when there is nothing outside and apart and independent of one.

But how can I have such an "illusion" if you hold that there is no"thing" from which the illusion can be created ? All illusions derive from the fact that the mind has accumulated a certain amount of sensory material. That for example the "stick that is half in water". It looks bent--this is the illusion--but the illusion derives from the fact that a stick and water exist, neither the stick nor water are an illusion. Thus I cannot have an illusion of being conscious of some"thing" (stick or water), only of some aspect of the thing (is the stick bent or not when interacting with water). Perhaps I just do not understand what you are saying about "illusion".

 

...Objectivity at its maxim sounds a lot like the idea of absolute truth to me, since it implies knowledge of everything...

Objectivity implies dialectic and uncertain knowledge only of that perceived (eg., a union of the object and the subject), not of "everything". To the Objectivity, it is absolutely true that all knowledge is contextually derived as a dialectic union of existence and consciousness always measured with error--the process is called Science.

 

[moving finger]

But how can I have such an "illusion" if you hold that there is no"thing" from which the illusion can be created ? All illusions derive from the fact that the mind has accumulated a certain amount of sensory material. That for example the "stick that is half in water". It looks bent--this is the illusion--but the illusion derives from the fact that a stick and water exist, neither the stick nor water are an illusion. Thus I cannot have an illusion of being conscious of some"thing" (stick or water), only of some aspect of the thing (is the stick bent or not when interacting with water). Perhaps I just do not understand what you are saying about "illusion".

You are assuming that your interpretation of what your senses is telling you (ie that you see a physical stick and physical water) is a correct interpretation. You may actually be a brain in a vat, with electrodes implanted to give you the sensation (illusion) that you are seeing a stick and water, when in reality no physical stick and no physical water exists anywhere close to you.

THIS is what I mean by illusion.

 

[moving finger]

This is a good point. the "brain in a vat" idea/the matrix idea. Yeah, so it is possible that we don't have any physical bodies at all, or that the universe even physically exists (e.g., a potential absolute truth of reality). However, this doesn't overturn the idea of subjective truth. It is still true to me that I experience being in a physical body in a physical world, and that I also experience the non-physical side of reality (the mental experience). Both of these components of truth can be true at the same time (brain in vat, and experiencing having a physical body).

What is true is that your experiences are consistent with you being in a physical body in a physical world; but your experiences are also consistent with a number of other interpretations of reality (one of which is that you are a brain in a vat). You simply choose to believe one interpretation, and reject the others.

But you have no way of determining which interpretation is true.