Please clarify what you are referring to, my proof in the OP or my current belief in idealism.Sam26 wrote:None of this seems to amount to a proof Schneider, because your premises are too speculative. No one knows if the premises are true. It would probably be stronger if the argument was inductive.
Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
I am sorry, I can't speak for anyone else, so I won't. But are you saying, don Don, that your proof in the OP and your current belief in idealism are irrespective of each other? Or that they are just simply different? Or that you changed your stance form your obligation to the truth in your proof in the OP, to your current belief in idealism?Don Schneider wrote: Please clarify what you are referring to, my proof in the OP or my current belief in idealism.
You are rather quizzical.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
The problem is that I do not know what you mean by many of the words...and hence whether they are meaningful! For example, I am doubtful if we can create a coherent idea of what 'material realism' means, so I cannot just ignore that and jump to accepting that something is a 'paradigm' of it. Similarly, ideas like a 'block universe' tend to beg the question, or are circular, by saying a certain view of time is 'real', where 'real' seems to mean 'fits with the idea of a block universe'. As I say, you may see it differently but it would need explaining.Don Schneider wrote:
I fail to see what is unclear or ambiguous with: “a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies.” Yes, the verbiage is rather heady for the average person, but not for the type of people interested in this subject, such as yourself. Anyway, it refers to the “the block universe.”
As I asked before, what does 'exist' mean in that first sentence? If it is 'what is observed' and 'a description of relationship events' then it can only 'exist' if there is an observer, a describer. In that case it 'exists' not in the event but the mind of the observer/describer.Causality exists as evidenced by the relationship of events. If the causal event did not exist, then neither would the effect. This is what is observed, a description of relational events as opposed to the causal event the same as with, for example, gravity.
'Gravity' is not a thing. We can create a formula to describe the relationship of objects with mass, but we are only looking at the phenomena - we are not claiming to have identified some metaphysical entity behind those phenomena. Maybe there is no gravity, maybe our observations are an illusion created by the Matrix? Or maybe gravity is the enactment of God's Will? You can come up with endless metaphysical ideas about why things behave as they do - and these theories can all fit in with our material observations. We can all observe apples falling from trees forever, but will gain no information that will enable us to say whether what we see is down to the Matrix or God.
I know of Zeno's paradoxes, which can of course be interpreted both ways; either that 'change is impossible' or that 'everything must be always in a state of change'. What I think of the more interesting ones is that what they fundamentally show is that maths, in itself or as a description of reality, is always ultimately contingent. Rather crudely, reasoning based on axioms cannot be used to prove the validity of those axioms. I'm not sure where that gets us.Following on that, Zeno’s renown paradoxes were formulated in support of his mentor’s philosophy that: “A thing is what it is and can never be anything else. Therefore, change is impossible.” This is very much relevant to my OP. Are you aware that after the implications of Einstein’s STR were made clear by Minkowski, that some of his colleagues started sarcastically calling him “Dr. Parmenides”?
I do not think somebody calling somebody else "Dr Parmenides" makes anything clear, since I do not know what they thought about the philosophy of Parmenides. I think it is easier if we make our own points, rather than guessing what some third party might have meant.
We can come up with innumerable ideas that are 'not necessarily false' and 'cannot be refuted'. But 'philosophical proof' seems to be a greater claim.Me: “I am not being sarcastic when I say you are absolutely free to take such an approach, but in that case we would understand that when you say 'causality' or a creator 'exists' we would understand that this is in the context of a view which sees everything as an illusion. If you start from that position, then we cannot have a philosophical proof of anything, let alone a Creator.”
But once again, my proof implicitly assumes the validity of material realism. I term what I now believe (or at least lean in that direction) to be “corporate solipsism” to distinguish it from what I now term as: “radical solipsism,” the belief by an individual that only he or she exists with all else being a figment of his or her imagination. It is still, however, a form of solipsism and, therefore, as David Deutsch, the Oxford physicist, states, it cannot be refuted. That makes it unscientific but not necessarily false. So I agree with you no philosophical; proof of a creator can be valid in this paradigm. I have been drawn to it by “pointers” or “clues” which I believe I have discerned in my personal observations and then partaking in deductive reasoning. As I also said, I lean towards this form of idealism by default as I see material realism as having too many hurdles (such as Zeno’s paradoxes) to overcome for me to accept its validity. I don’t even know of a third paradigm to material realism and idealism, let alone any arguments for such. Therefore, I lean towards idealism by default.
I would say that although a complete proof can be long and complicated, we ought to be able to describe the basic axioms and rules by which it is formulated, and these should be simple. It cannot rely on some special rule, an exception, one that only applies for the purpose of one particular proof. To take a solipsistic view of everything, but also single out some aspects of that everything as “pointers” or “clues” seems to do that. If we are solipsistic, then we must be solipsistic about everything.
I would say that this often comes up in arguments about God, in the form of saying that since God is entirely outside science, science cannot disprove him. Then, like solipsism, such an idea of God cannot be refuted. However, if God is entirely outside science we cannot then make exceptions, saying 'this miracle shows the hand of God'. We cannot say this because any miracle will be a material event and we have defined God as entirely outside the material world; we cannot use the material to prove the existence of the immaterial.
This is why I keep nagging about what is meant be 'exist'. Exists as a material object, or as an idea...? A proof cannot rest on an ambiguity of meaning.
- Sam26
- Posts: 99
- Joined: March 8th, 2012, 1:23 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
Your proof in the OP.Don Schneider wrote:Please clarify what you are referring to, my proof in the OP or my current belief in idealism.Sam26 wrote:None of this seems to amount to a proof Schneider, because your premises are too speculative. No one knows if the premises are true. It would probably be stronger if the argument was inductive.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
I am not going to expend any further time discussing what I view to be semantic gymnastics and philosophical “cobwebs.” Material realism is the seemingly common sense idea (based upon observation) that matter/energy actually exists and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of it as opposed to the visa versa concept of the idealism of the Eastern metaphysical schools to which I referred. I am not going to enter into the farce of debating what “exists” means. It is synonymous with “am.” Therefore: “I think, therefore I am.” The only remaining question is what exists on a fundamental basis that is not an emergent property of something else, matter or consciousness. One or the other exists in its own right, the remaining one exists as a perception of the other, like a dream which exists but has no independent existence; its existence is dependent on the brain of the dreamer. If one believes that what exists independently of anything else is matter, then that is material realism. If one believes that it is consciousness that has the independent existence and matter is dependent upon it for its existence, then that is the paradigm of idealism.Londoner wrote:The problem is that I do not know what you mean by many of the words...and hence whether they are meaningful! For example, I am doubtful if we can create a coherent idea of what 'material realism' means, so I cannot just ignore that and jump to accepting that something is a 'paradigm' of it. Similarly, ideas like a 'block universe' tend to beg the question, or are circular, by saying a certain view of time is 'real', where 'real' seems to mean 'fits with the idea of a block universe'. As I say, you may see it differently but it would need explaining.Don Schneider wrote:
I fail to see what is unclear or ambiguous with: “a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies.” Yes, the verbiage is rather heady for the average person, but not for the type of people interested in this subject, such as yourself. Anyway, it refers to the “the block universe.”
As I asked before, what does 'exist' mean in that first sentence? If it is 'what is observed' and 'a description of relationship events' then it can only 'exist' if there is an observer, a describer. In that case it 'exists' not in the event but the mind of the observer/describer.Causality exists as evidenced by the relationship of events. If the causal event did not exist, then neither would the effect. This is what is observed, a description of relational events as opposed to the causal event the same as with, for example, gravity.
'Gravity' is not a thing. We can create a formula to describe the relationship of objects with mass, but we are only looking at the phenomena - we are not claiming to have identified some metaphysical entity behind those phenomena. Maybe there is no gravity, maybe our observations are an illusion created by the Matrix? Or maybe gravity is the enactment of God's Will? You can come up with endless metaphysical ideas about why things behave as they do - and these theories can all fit in with our material observations. We can all observe apples falling from trees forever, but will gain no information that will enable us to say whether what we see is down to the Matrix or God.
I know of Zeno's paradoxes, which can of course be interpreted both ways; either that 'change is impossible' or that 'everything must be always in a state of change'. What I think of the more interesting ones is that what they fundamentally show is that maths, in itself or as a description of reality, is always ultimately contingent. Rather crudely, reasoning based on axioms cannot be used to prove the validity of those axioms. I'm not sure where that gets us.Following on that, Zeno’s renown paradoxes were formulated in support of his mentor’s philosophy that: “A thing is what it is and can never be anything else. Therefore, change is impossible.” This is very much relevant to my OP. Are you aware that after the implications of Einstein’s STR were made clear by Minkowski, that some of his colleagues started sarcastically calling him “Dr. Parmenides”?
I do not think somebody calling somebody else "Dr Parmenides" makes anything clear, since I do not know what they thought about the philosophy of Parmenides. I think it is easier if we make our own points, rather than guessing what some third party might have meant.
We can come up with innumerable ideas that are 'not necessarily false' and 'cannot be refuted'. But 'philosophical proof' seems to be a greater claim.Me: “I am not being sarcastic when I say you are absolutely free to take such an approach, but in that case we would understand that when you say 'causality' or a creator 'exists' we would understand that this is in the context of a view which sees everything as an illusion. If you start from that position, then we cannot have a philosophical proof of anything, let alone a Creator.”
But once again, my proof implicitly assumes the validity of material realism. I term what I now believe (or at least lean in that direction) to be “corporate solipsism” to distinguish it from what I now term as: “radical solipsism,” the belief by an individual that only he or she exists with all else being a figment of his or her imagination. It is still, however, a form of solipsism and, therefore, as David Deutsch, the Oxford physicist, states, it cannot be refuted. That makes it unscientific but not necessarily false. So I agree with you no philosophical; proof of a creator can be valid in this paradigm. I have been drawn to it by “pointers” or “clues” which I believe I have discerned in my personal observations and then partaking in deductive reasoning. As I also said, I lean towards this form of idealism by default as I see material realism as having too many hurdles (such as Zeno’s paradoxes) to overcome for me to accept its validity. I don’t even know of a third paradigm to material realism and idealism, let alone any arguments for such. Therefore, I lean towards idealism by default.
I would say that although a complete proof can be long and complicated, we ought to be able to describe the basic axioms and rules by which it is formulated, and these should be simple. It cannot rely on some special rule, an exception, one that only applies for the purpose of one particular proof. To take a solipsistic view of everything, but also single out some aspects of that everything as “pointers” or “clues” seems to do that. If we are solipsistic, then we must be solipsistic about everything.
I would say that this often comes up in arguments about God, in the form of saying that since God is entirely outside science, science cannot disprove him. Then, like solipsism, such an idea of God cannot be refuted. However, if God is entirely outside science we cannot then make exceptions, saying 'this miracle shows the hand of God'. We cannot say this because any miracle will be a material event and we have defined God as entirely outside the material world; we cannot use the material to prove the existence of the immaterial.
This is why I keep nagging about what is meant be 'exist'. Exists as a material object, or as an idea...? A proof cannot rest on an ambiguity of meaning.
I have never heard that the philosophy of Parmendies and his protégée Zeno, or the latter’s paradoxes, could be interpreted as possibly meaning that everything changes constantly. On the contrary, such asserts that nothing ever changes which is why Einstein was saddled with the derisive: “Dr. Parmenides,” a jab at the eternally existing and static block universe that Minkowski and (eventually) Einstein asserted is implied by relativity.
I see no reason that with any form of solipsism “clues,” or perhaps inferences might be a better word, cannot be contained within the solipsistic perception of reality. One last time: My proffered OP philosophical proof is based upon the validity of material realism. I, nor anyone, can offer a philosophical proof in support of the form of idealism that I term as “corporate solipsism.” If such is true, then I believe such can only be confirmed by empirical means as mystics have asserted since time immemorial. It cannot be proved by language either as a formal philosophical proof or as an informal explanation. if true, then it is beyond the ability of the intellect to comprehend it.
Finally, causality exists as a description: “first this, then that.” I see no reason to go further than that and offer more threads to inane philosophical cobwebs.
-- Updated July 8th, 2017, 2:19 pm to add the following --
My OP proof is contingent upon two overt assumptions and one implicit assumption. I have stated them several times. Read the preface in my OP for the former two. The implicit one is the validity of material realism. All proofs are dependent upon certain assumptions. If a reader does not accept all of the assumptions as true, then the proof fails in his or her eyes as false, albeit still logically valid (assuming that is the case).-1- wrote:I am sorry, I can't speak for anyone else, so I won't. But are you saying, don Don, that your proof in the OP and your current belief in idealism are irrespective of each other? Or that they are just simply different? Or that you changed your stance form your obligation to the truth in your proof in the OP, to your current belief in idealism?Don Schneider wrote: Please clarify what you are referring to, my proof in the OP or my current belief in idealism.
You are rather quizzical.
I now lean towards the paradigm of idealism that I have put forth which cannot be supported by a formal proof or informal argumentation. If true, to be proven it must be experienced. (You’ll know it if you have it.)
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
If you are relying on the Upanishad, why not pick up the essence of the Upanishad and argue from that standpoint instead of beating round the bush.Don Schneider wrote:...and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of it as opposed to the visa versa concept of the idealism of the Eastern metaphysical schools to which I referred.
As I had mentioned somewhere, a good Western philosophical view that correspond to the essence of the Upanishad is from Schopenhauer's " The World as Will and Representation."
Therefrom the above, why not argue straight to the point re the essence of the Upanishad, i.e.wiki wrote:Schopenhauer read the Latin translation of the ancient Hindu texts, The Upanishads, which French writer Anquetil du Perron had translated from the Persian translation of Prince Dara Shikoh entitled Sirre-Akbar ("The Great Secret"). He was so impressed by their philosophy that he called them "the production of the highest human wisdom", and believed they contained superhuman concepts. The Upanishads was a great source of inspiration to Schopenhauer. Writing about them, he said:
- "It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death"
Does Brahman exist?
I was once very serious into Hinduism and the views of Schopenhauer thus very familiar with them.wiki wrote:In Hinduism, Brahman (/brəhmən/; ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2][3] In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][6][7] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.
The idea of 'Brahman' is exactly what you are trying to propose here.
I suggest you defend the existence of 'Brahman [Will and the likes exists].
My contention is "Brahman do not exists by itself."
Re God exists, I exists, I AM(exists) and the likes, Kant argued 'exist' cannot be a predicate.I am not going to enter into the farce of debating what “exists” means. It is synonymous with “am.” Therefore: “I think, therefore I am.” The only remaining question is what exists on a fundamental basis that is not an emergent property of something else, matter or consciousness. One or the other exists in its own right, the remaining one exists as a perception of the other, like a dream which exists but has no independent existence; its existence is dependent on the brain of the dreamer. If one believes that what exists independently of anything else is matter, then that is material realism. If one believes that it is consciousness that has the independent existence and matter is dependent upon it for its existence, then that is the paradigm of idealism.
Therefore the proper proposition is;
God exists as 'P.' i.e. P is the predicated. When god is predicated then God is conditional.
or
I AM 'P' it has to be "I AM some thing'.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
No, I am the one trying to clear away the ambiguities and vagueness that are the sole support for your argument. This process is called 'philosophy'.Don Schneider wrote: I am not going to expend any further time discussing what I view to be semantic gymnastics and philosophical “cobwebs.”
You really ought to be willing to debate what the words you use mean. An unwillingness suggests you don't know.Material realism is the seemingly common sense idea (based upon observation) that matter/energy actually exists and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of it as opposed to the visa versa concept of the idealism of the Eastern metaphysical schools to which I referred. I am not going to enter into the farce of debating what “exists” means. It is synonymous with “am.” Therefore: “I think, therefore I am.”
Above you refer to material realism, saying that objects "exist" and that consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of it. Then you say your notion of "exist" is either synonymous with consciousness, or derived from it ("I think therefore I am"). That is either self-contradictory or circular or you are using different meanings for 'exist'. To be fair, you seem to recognise this:
There are other possibilities. But I do not see why it is necessary to 'believe' either. If we cannot know something then we cannot know it. Remember, I am not claiming to know the answer myself, I am questioning how somebody can translate this inability to know something into a Proof of a Creator.The only remaining question is what exists on a fundamental basis that is not an emergent property of something else, matter or consciousness. One or the other exists in its own right, the remaining one exists as a perception of the other, like a dream which exists but has no independent existence; its existence is dependent on the brain of the dreamer. If one believes that what exists independently of anything else is matter, then that is material realism. If one believes that it is consciousness that has the independent existence and matter is dependent upon it for its existence, then that is the paradigm of idealism.
If your proof of a Creator is based on your personal belief, then I note that fact, but there really isn't anything more to be said.
Zeno's paradox of the arrow can be used to show that either motion (change) is impossible or that place (any static state) is impossible ...if we accept time is composed of a series of 'instants', which we don't. I do not see why you put such weight on what was presumably a jokey remark about Einstein. We know almost nothing about Parmenides, his name is just used as shorthand for a general idea. The classical alternative to Parmenides is Heraclitis, so I suppose Einsten could have responded by calling him 'Dr Heraclitis' (if Einstein had felt the need to impress listeners with his knowledge about the presocratics).I have never heard that the philosophy of Parmendies and his protégée Zeno, or the latter’s paradoxes, could be interpreted as possibly meaning that everything changes constantly. On the contrary, such asserts that nothing ever changes which is why Einstein was saddled with the derisive: “Dr. Parmenides,” a jab at the eternally existing and static block universe that Minkowski and (eventually) Einstein asserted is implied by relativity.
Because solipsism is the notion that all we can know to exist is our own minds. In that case, everything that is in our mind is of equal status. If we claimed to know that some particular thoughts were different, that they were perceptions of something outside the mind, i.e. reality, then we would not be solipsists.I see no reason that with any form of solipsism “clues,” or perhaps inferences might be a better word, cannot be contained within the solipsistic perception of reality.
In that case I do not understand what you mean by 'proof'. I will have to add it to all those other words you use, which I understand I am are expected to swallow uncritically.One last time: My proffered OP philosophical proof is based upon the validity of material realism. I, nor anyone, can offer a philosophical proof in support of the form of idealism that I term as “corporate solipsism.” If such is true, then I believe such can only be confirmed by empirical means as mystics have asserted since time immemorial. It cannot be proved by language either as a formal philosophical proof or as an informal explanation. if true, then it is beyond the ability of the intellect to comprehend it.
Absolutely, a description, something we produce as observers, just what I have said on several occasions.Finally, causality exists as a description: “first this, then that.” I see no reason to go further than that and offer more threads to inane philosophical cobwebs.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
Thank you for the response, though I am a bit perplexed. I don’t disagree with anything you said other than your assertion that I am (in effect) basing my current ontological beliefs on the Upanishads without saying so. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that several times here. I have personally (not taking it from anyone else) termed this fundamental philosophy as “corporate solipsism” in that all are manifestations of universal consciousness which is the only thing that exists of and in itself. Therefore, you are as real as I am and neither of us is a manifestation of the other’s imagination (“radical solipsism”; again, my personal terminology.) We and all are manifestations of universal consciousness (or “Brahman” in Hinduism non-dualist schools’ terminology).Spectrum wrote:If you are relying on the Upanishad, why not pick up the essence of the Upanishad and argue from that standpoint instead of beating round the bush.Don Schneider wrote:...and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of it as opposed to the visa versa concept of the idealism of the Eastern metaphysical schools to which I referred.
As I had mentioned somewhere, a good Western philosophical view that correspond to the essence of the Upanishad is from Schopenhauer's " The World as Will and Representation."
Therefrom the above, why not argue straight to the point re the essence of the Upanishad, i.e.wiki wrote:Schopenhauer read the Latin translation of the ancient Hindu texts, The Upanishads, which French writer Anquetil du Perron had translated from the Persian translation of Prince Dara Shikoh entitled Sirre-Akbar ("The Great Secret"). He was so impressed by their philosophy that he called them "the production of the highest human wisdom", and believed they contained superhuman concepts. The Upanishads was a great source of inspiration to Schopenhauer. Writing about them, he said:
- "It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death"
Does Brahman exist?
I was once very serious into Hinduism and the views of Schopenhauer thus very familiar with them.wiki wrote:In Hinduism, Brahman (/brəhmən/; ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2][3] In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][6][7] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.
The idea of 'Brahman' is exactly what you are trying to propose here.
I suggest you defend the existence of 'Brahman [Will and the likes exists].
My contention is "Brahman do not exists by itself."
Re God exists, I exists, I AM(exists) and the likes, Kant argued 'exist' cannot be a predicate.I am not going to enter into the farce of debating what “exists” means. It is synonymous with “am.” Therefore: “I think, therefore I am.” The only remaining question is what exists on a fundamental basis that is not an emergent property of something else, matter or consciousness. One or the other exists in its own right, the remaining one exists as a perception of the other, like a dream which exists but has no independent existence; its existence is dependent on the brain of the dreamer. If one believes that what exists independently of anything else is matter, then that is material realism. If one believes that it is consciousness that has the independent existence and matter is dependent upon it for its existence, then that is the paradigm of idealism.
Therefore the proper proposition is;
God exists as 'P.' i.e. P is the predicated. When god is predicated then God is conditional.
or
I AM 'P' it has to be "I AM some thing'.
The existence of Brahman cannot be proved intellectually. As Zen (which does not use that precise term but rather “The Mind” or “The Void”) puts it: “A sword cannot cut itself.” If it is a true doctrine, then it can only be proved on an empirical basis which is a realization termed “enlightenment.”
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
Without transmigration this is an abstraction without content. Transmigration or reincarnation makes it concrete and understandable.Don Schneider wrote:We and all are manifestations of universal consciousness (or “Brahman” in Hinduism non-dualist schools’ terminology).
-- Updated July 9th, 2017, 2:22 pm to add the following --
Solipsism is not conceivable without transmigration, because there are several of us here, and because our existence is temporal, there has to be a temporal connection between us if we are all manifestations of the universal consciousness.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
Thank you. I would like to address your comment but I’m afraid I don’t understand it, i.e., what you mean by a “temporal connection.”Tamminen wrote:Without transmigration this is an abstraction without content. Transmigration or reincarnation makes it concrete and understandable.Don Schneider wrote:We and all are manifestations of universal consciousness (or “Brahman” in Hinduism non-dualist schools’ terminology).
-- Updated July 9th, 2017, 2:22 pm to add the following --
Solipsism is not conceivable without transmigration, because there are several of us here, and because our existence is temporal, there has to be a temporal connection between us if we are all manifestations of the universal consciousness.
In the paradigm I’m suggesting, all (not just living beings) exist within the illusion of material realty in which time arises concurrently, also as an illusion. Some manifestations of universal consciousness exist contemporaneously (again, within the illusion of time) with others. Is that what you mean by a “temporal connection”? Any individual only exists as a transient manifestation of Brahman (universal consciousness) and has no independent existence separate from Brahman. Therefore, what is there to be reincarnated? (I believe this is what Buddha was getting at, at least as understood within Mahayana Buddhism, with his doctrine of "anatman," or "no-self."). What is “reincarnated,” so to speak, is not an individual but rather his or her actions (“karma”; “works”) which contributes to how the metaphorical program—how consciousness manifests—continues to unfold after the death of an individual. I don’t see your point that transmigration is necessary within this paradigm. Perhaps you could elaborate on your view and clarify such.
-- Updated July 9th, 2017, 3:32 pm to add the following --
I did not contradict myself. I merely distinguished the difference between material realism and idealism and am not conflating the two paradigms which are mutually exclusive. Again, I have never heard of a third, alternative paradigm. If you have, what is it, please?Londoner wrote:No, I am the one trying to clear away the ambiguities and vagueness that are the sole support for your argument. This process is called 'philosophy'.Don Schneider wrote: I am not going to expend any further time discussing what I view to be semantic gymnastics and philosophical “cobwebs.”
You really ought to be willing to debate what the words you use mean. An unwillingness suggests you don't know.Material realism is the seemingly common sense idea (based upon observation) that matter/energy actually exists and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of it as opposed to the visa versa concept of the idealism of the Eastern metaphysical schools to which I referred. I am not going to enter into the farce of debating what “exists” means. It is synonymous with “am.” Therefore: “I think, therefore I am.”
Above you refer to material realism, saying that objects "exist" and that consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of it. Then you say your notion of "exist" is either synonymous with consciousness, or derived from it ("I think therefore I am"). That is either self-contradictory or circular or you are using different meanings for 'exist'. To be fair, you seem to recognise this:
There are other possibilities. But I do not see why it is necessary to 'believe' either. If we cannot know something then we cannot know it. Remember, I am not claiming to know the answer myself, I am questioning how somebody can translate this inability to know something into a Proof of a Creator.The only remaining question is what exists on a fundamental basis that is not an emergent property of something else, matter or consciousness. One or the other exists in its own right, the remaining one exists as a perception of the other, like a dream which exists but has no independent existence; its existence is dependent on the brain of the dreamer. If one believes that what exists independently of anything else is matter, then that is material realism. If one believes that it is consciousness that has the independent existence and matter is dependent upon it for its existence, then that is the paradigm of idealism.
If your proof of a Creator is based on your personal belief, then I note that fact, but there really isn't anything more to be said.
Zeno's paradox of the arrow can be used to show that either motion (change) is impossible or that place (any static state) is impossible ...if we accept time is composed of a series of 'instants', which we don't. I do not see why you put such weight on what was presumably a jokey remark about Einstein. We know almost nothing about Parmenides, his name is just used as shorthand for a general idea. The classical alternative to Parmenides is Heraclitis, so I suppose Einsten could have responded by calling him 'Dr Heraclitis' (if Einstein had felt the need to impress listeners with his knowledge about the presocratics).I have never heard that the philosophy of Parmendies and his protégée Zeno, or the latter’s paradoxes, could be interpreted as possibly meaning that everything changes constantly. On the contrary, such asserts that nothing ever changes which is why Einstein was saddled with the derisive: “Dr. Parmenides,” a jab at the eternally existing and static block universe that Minkowski and (eventually) Einstein asserted is implied by relativity.
Because solipsism is the notion that all we can know to exist is our own minds. In that case, everything that is in our mind is of equal status. If we claimed to know that some particular thoughts were different, that they were perceptions of something outside the mind, i.e. reality, then we would not be solipsists.I see no reason that with any form of solipsism “clues,” or perhaps inferences might be a better word, cannot be contained within the solipsistic perception of reality.
In that case I do not understand what you mean by 'proof'. I will have to add it to all those other words you use, which I understand I am are expected to swallow uncritically.One last time: My proffered OP philosophical proof is based upon the validity of material realism. I, nor anyone, can offer a philosophical proof in support of the form of idealism that I term as “corporate solipsism.” If such is true, then I believe such can only be confirmed by empirical means as mystics have asserted since time immemorial. It cannot be proved by language either as a formal philosophical proof or as an informal explanation. if true, then it is beyond the ability of the intellect to comprehend it.
Absolutely, a description, something we produce as observers, just what I have said on several occasions.Finally, causality exists as a description: “first this, then that.” I see no reason to go further than that and offer more threads to inane philosophical cobwebs.
My proof is based on two overt assumptions as well as the implicit assumption of material reality. All one need do is to deny the truth of one or more of these three assumptions (which would mean disagreeing with Einstein and the great bulk of physicists today as I now do myself by questioning the truth of material realism) to proceed no further arguing against the proof. If, however, one accepts all three assumptions, then one needs to argue against the proof in order to disprove it. What is wrong with its argumentation and conclusion? This is the nature of any philosophical proof.
I’m sorry, but your kind of “philosophy” strikes me as the sort that satirists mock so artfully. With you, I get the impression that everything—absolutely everything!—is “ambiguous.” No word, no concept, nothing at all can have any clear definition. So you desire to go around and around debating, for example, what “existence” means. As we apparently cannot agree on the truthfulness of any assumption whatsoever, then I’m afraid any attempt at future discourse is futile.
Maybe you are obtuse or maybe your intellectual acumen is way over my head; that’s possible. But whatever the truth (define “truth”?; define “definition”, etc., Ad Infinitum ?), it seems pointless to continue this discussion.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
I think we cannot jump outside of time. Existence is temporal. Any manifestation of the universal consciousness, or the metaphysical I, to borrow from Wittgenstein, is temporal, and to contain all of us as its manifestations, it must be a succession of concrete presents beyond individual existence. And it must manifest itself as a concrete, present 'I am here now'. That is why transmigration is necessary. For concreteness. But perhaps I cannot explain my point clearly enough.Don Schneider wrote: I would like to address your comment but I’m afraid I don’t understand it, i.e., what you mean by a “temporal connection.”
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
I think I understand you now. What “migrates” is universal consciousness as it constantly changes forms. The various moments of the illusion of material realism and time are transitory, yes, but concrete while they exist.Tamminen wrote:I think we cannot jump outside of time. Existence is temporal. Any manifestation of the universal consciousness, or the metaphysical I, to borrow from Wittgenstein, is temporal, and to contain all of us as its manifestations, it must be a succession of concrete presents beyond individual existence. And it must manifest itself as a concrete, present 'I am here now'. That is why transmigration is necessary. For concreteness. But perhaps I cannot explain my point clearly enough.Don Schneider wrote: I would like to address your comment but I’m afraid I don’t understand it, i.e., what you mean by a “temporal connection.”
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
Yes, the existence of Brahman cannot be proven intellectually and rationally.Don Schneider wrote:The existence of Brahman cannot be proved intellectually. As Zen (which does not use that precise term but rather “The Mind” or “The Void”) puts it: “A sword cannot cut itself.” If it is a true doctrine, then it can only be proved on an empirical basis which is a realization termed “enlightenment.”
You stated one can only prove Brahman empirically basis via “enlightenment.”
But 'enlightenment' is merely a subjective experience and not an objective one thus it is not knowledge nor truth per-se.
Note a schizo can prove to him/herself the person is really real [in fact it is an illusion as no one around him see it].
Thus if you insist your subjective experience [enlightenment] is real, it could be a similar experience like that of the schizo.
Btw, effective enlightenment is not based solidly on experience, rather it is nothingness, "action without acting" - "chop wood carry water."
Have you listened to the "enlightened" experience of Jill Bolte, a neuroscientist, who have had such super experience due to a massive stroke. If you like your sort of experience of enlightenment, listen to Jill Bolte, it is really WOW!!
Some take drugs and hallucinogen to generate such 'enlightened' experiences.
Some experience them due to various mental illnesses or out of the blue.
The point is the ultimate reality [Brahman, corporate solipsism, etc.] you propose do not exists as real at all. What drove you to such conclusion is merely emotional and psychological drives from the base on your brain and mind and effective make you feel good and comfortable [in consonance].
I have no issues with beliefs [no potential harm nor violence] but we need to call a spade - a spade, not some fanciful thing.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
Yes, but I would not say time and matter are illusions, they are very real, in the core of our existence. This is in accordance with ontological idealism, the view I defend, although consciousness is the fundamental reality.Don Schneider wrote:I think I understand you now. What “migrates” is universal consciousness as it constantly changes forms. The various moments of the illusion of material realism and time are transitory, yes, but concrete while they exist.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm
Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)
I listened to the video and that, combined with your remarks within your post, leaves me uncertain as to you point. What I think you are saying is that although you once seriously entertained the truthfulness of the ontological paradigm espoused by the Upanishads, you now reject such and maintain such claimed experiences of enlightenment, the realization that all is universal consciousness and that all else, including ourselves, are illusory epiphenomena of Consciousness, are the result of brain abnormalities caused by inherent mental illness, insults (such as strokes), hallucinogenic narcotics or a self-induced states caused by intense meditation and are therefore bogus. Is that correct? If so, you’re hardly the first to claim such.Spectrum wrote:Yes, the existence of Brahman cannot be proven intellectually and rationally.Don Schneider wrote:The existence of Brahman cannot be proved intellectually. As Zen (which does not use that precise term but rather “The Mind” or “The Void”) puts it: “A sword cannot cut itself.” If it is a true doctrine, then it can only be proved on an empirical basis which is a realization termed “enlightenment.”
You stated one can only prove Brahman empirically basis via “enlightenment.”
But 'enlightenment' is merely a subjective experience and not an objective one thus it is not knowledge nor truth per-se.
Note a schizo can prove to him/herself the person is really real [in fact it is an illusion as no one around him see it].
Thus if you insist your subjective experience [enlightenment] is real, it could be a similar experience like that of the schizo.
Btw, effective enlightenment is not based solidly on experience, rather it is nothingness, "action without acting" - "chop wood carry water."
Have you listened to the "enlightened" experience of Jill Bolte, a neuroscientist, who have had such super experience due to a massive stroke.
If you like your sort of experience of enlightenment, listen to Jill Bolte, it is really WOW!!
Some take drugs and hallucinogen to generate such 'enlightened' experiences.
Some experience them due to various mental illnesses or out of the blue.
The point is the ultimate reality [Brahman, corporate solipsism, etc.] you propose do not exists as real at all. What drove you to such conclusion is
merely emotional and psychological drives from the base on your brain and mind and effective make you feel good and comfortable [in consonance].
I have no issues with beliefs [no potential harm nor violence] but we need to call a spade - a spade, not some fanciful thing.
My philosophical leanings towards this paradigm of idealism are not at all emotional, and I have no idea why you would attribute such to me; certainly not from anything I’ve written here. On the contrary, it comes from intellectualism, years of readings and reflection. It is strictly intellectual. I have never experienced anything akin to the reported experience of enlightenment. My physical and emotional conditions precludes me from intense periods of meditation or the required physical stamina of Hatha Yoga. Instead, I am inclined towards Jnana Yoga, the way of the intellect within Advaita Vedanta. If this paradigm is true, then that is the only viable chance I personally could ever have.
I don’t believe that all reported enlightenment experiences throughout history were hallucinations resulting from the physical reasons listed above. On the contrary, I believe such are yet more inferences or “clues” (indeed, "bread crumbs") inherent within the illusion of material realism to help us “find our way back” to truth, so to speak. The illusion of materialism became so convincing that we forgot our true nature thus giving rise to existential anxiety. (“And they saw that they were naked [defenseless against ultimate death] and were sore afraid.”) I believe this woman experienced something akin to the experience of enlightenment and not enlightenment itself.
-- Updated July 10th, 2017, 10:27 am to add the following --
I agree that they are very real, that they exist. But so does a dream. Illusions are real, they too exist as real perceptions, albeit lacking a fundamental existence of and in themselves. The same is true, for example, of color.Tamminen wrote:Yes, but I would not say time and matter are illusions, they are very real, in the core of our existence. This is in accordance with ontological idealism, the view I defend, although consciousness is the fundamental reality.Don Schneider wrote:I think I understand you now. What “migrates” is universal consciousness as it constantly changes forms. The various moments of the illusion of material realism and time are transitory, yes, but concrete while they exist.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023