Logically, nothing should exist.

[Obvious Leo]

Why is everybody so desperate to over-think this? If we accept that existence exists then we automatically accept the proposition that non -existence does not. You make the theists argument poorly, Neo, (probably because your heart's not in it) but the burden of explanation inescapably lies with those who will choose to claim that existence can spring from non-existence. Larry Krauss had a crack at it, (and made a piss-poor job of it,) and the theists have fared little better. Two questions remain answered and they are by no means trivial ones. If existence is supposed to have sprung from non-existence then HOW did this occur and WHY did this occur?

As a simple country lad with a deep respect for Occam economy I'm willing to stick to the bloody obvious and wait till somebody can prove me wrong. Existence has always existed.

Regards Leo

P.S. You're on the right track with your bang/crunch cyclical model for the universe, Neo, but physicists are not the best arbiters when it comes to the nature of physical reality because their models make no sense. That sort of **** can happen when you're good at sums and see mysteries where there are no mysteries to be found.

[Belinda]

Obvious Leo wrote:

If existence is supposed to have sprung from non-existence then HOW did this occur and WHY did this occur?

It is a terminology problem with 'exist' and 'existence '.Phenomena exist: the cause of all phenomena does not exist but is being itself. If you like religion you might say "It is Being itself". Being is the cause of itself. Existence is phenomena that arise from being.

Theists believe that the cause of all phenomena both transcends, and is immanent in, this phenomenal world in which we pass our lives. Being does not merely exist :it is uncreated. Many theists also believe that the cause of all phenomena is One Who intends the phenomenal world to be as it is. Many theists also believe that the Cause of all phenomena takes a benevolent interest in human beings, and/or other assorted superstitions and anthropomorphisms.

At this point it's tangential whether phenonema are mind-dependent or mind-independent .

It is quite important to be sure that we understand and agree with definitions of "exist" . Theists on philosophyclub frequently blaspheme unknowingly when they claim that God "exists". What those theists should claim is that God is.

The Spanish language has two separate verbs for the English 'to be'. 'Ser' and 'estar'. Much more explanatory.

[Obvious Leo]

Belinda. I agree with all of what you say except this:

At this point it's tangential whether phenonema are mind-dependent or mind-independent .

As you know I share your Spinozan world-view that the universe alone is sufficient to its own existence. If this is indeed the case then phenomena can have no ontological currency beyond the cognition of the observer. Although I'm a contrarian by nature I arrive at this conclusion in lock-step with every other major school of philosophy in human history, but this is not the way the theists see the world. Or the physicists for that matter. A created reality mistakes the map for the territory.

Regards Leo

[Sim Al-Adim]

If Ontological currency is what you're after, consider the 5 sense media.

Motivation for the argument:

If a tree falls ... Yes. It makes a sound.

The same goes for sights, smells, tractions, and err. What's the udder one? Oh yeah. Tastes.

Argument: The relationship that corresponds to the meeting of sense media, sense perception, and sense faculty is a formative manner by which consciousness drives the evolution of beings.

Because:

If the sense faculties arise on their own, and we assume that they arrange the outside world, this is in contradiction to the truth and observation that one does not arrange the outside world according to his or her perceptions.

In one sense and another. In the solipsistic sense; the faculties arrange everything from nothing.

In the translational sense; the faculties arrange something incoherent into something coherent.

Is the world non-existent without the senses? If the will of the being exceeds the potential of the object, then yes. However, that is incoherent with reality and observations of reality (with exception magicians and devils).

Is the world incoherent without the senses? If consciousness is an internal property of perception, then yes. If it is not, then the world will only be incoherent, without the senses, if the manner of consciousness depends on the manner of form.

Ie. Assumming that consciousness exemplifies; rearranges; distorts; sound to the ear, sight to the eye, and taste to the tongue, etc., then a five-fold property of consciousness is asserted to endorse; persuade; reconsile the compatibility of each sense to each sense-object, on the basis of the material form of the sense faculty. This deamplifies the the sense object and asserts more conscious ability to the faculty than to object of sense. But both are made of the same thing. And the ear does not make a sound because it is not a sound. Therefore, we explain compatibility of sense faculty and sense object on the basis of an original distortion of information to and from one and the other. This in itself is incompatible with itself and therefore false.

Is the world incompatible without the senses? That depends on how you feel.

Therefore:

To explain how the manner of consciousness reveals the manner of form we might adduce the existence of sights, sounds, tastes, tangibles, and smells ahead of the existence of faculties.

For faculties that are not only receptive to, but also compatible with said existentials, the most likely argument for their "appearance" is in a direct relationship to said existentials. This asserts that consciousness has only one property. It sticks. It is a thing that sticks. It is a sticky situation we're in. Our situation is like a stick. It has the properties of a stick. We are like stick men. Let it be known!!!

[Belinda]

Obvious Leo wrote:

As you know I share your Spinozan world-view that the universe alone is sufficient to its own existence. If this is indeed the case then phenomena can have no ontological currency beyond the cognition of the observer. Although I'm a contrarian by nature I arrive at this conclusion in lock-step with every other major school of philosophy in human history, but this is not the way the theists see the world. Or the physicists for that matter. A created reality mistakes the map for the territory.



Regards Leo[/quote]
[/quote]

I am thinking that Spinoza regarded phenomena as both mind dependent reality and extended reality and that this duality is the well known 'dual aspect' of Spinoza's ontology. In other words, mind dependent and extension are both the case .

[Obvious Leo]

Belinda. Baruch did not have the benefit of the modern sciences of psychology and neuroscience. If he were to be re-incarnated into our modern era I suspect he might take a different view. He also predated Kant, who unequivocally drew the line of distinction between the world we observe and its ontological underpinning. Although Kant observed the honourable German tradition of ensuring that his philosophy was unreadable nobody has ever managed to lay a glove on his careful delineation of the "object". Our cognition of the object can only ever confirm our cognition of the object, which means the nature of its reality can only be accessed by the tools of human reason, fallible as they are.

Regards Leo

[Newme]

Comprehension of the Void requires no investment of faith, only the slightest application of reason. The idea that nothing should exist is quite correct. This 'nothing' is indeed a real state. It takes the form of the Void which is external to our realm of existence.

Existence is contained entirely within itself and does not affect the Void. The foundation of existence is the Void. It is the universal reference.

The problem with attempting to describe the Void is that all language is founded upon existential concepts which oppose the nature of the Void, and thus the Void cannot be precisely explained.

It does take some effort to separate oneself from this existence conceptually in order to understand what the Void is, or is not. Words are an inadequate means of understanding the Void.

And I am indeed well Newme, thank you. I hope you are also well.

Wow, Spiral, I'd never thought I'd tell you this, but you sound a bit religious.

As mentioned before, another term for God is Void - the space of potential to create.

I'm glad you're well. I'm getting better.

[Spiral Out]

Wow, Spiral, I'd never thought I'd tell you this, but you sound a bit religious.

I am spiritual, not religious. There is no structure to my spirituality.

As mentioned before, another term for God is Void - the space of potential to create.

Even God cannot survive the Void. The Void is the negation of all things, including gods.

Nothing (the Void) does indeed exist.

I just posted the following in another thread of identical concept:

"Yet your consciousness sprang from that nothing, and is here, and yet shall return to that same nothing, at which point none of 'this' will have ever occurred.

It sounds paradoxical but since when is any of 'this' required to conform to our limited understanding?

The Void does indeed exist, if the term is to mean anything that has an effect on 'this'. The Void does not exist in time therefore it is here right now.

The answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing" is that there is nothing, you just can't see it past all 'this' (something)… yet.

None of 'this' ever happened. You'll have to look past your own logic to get it. It takes quite a bit of concentration and focus."

I have pondered the Void for many years. I understand it. It doesn't have to make sense in order to be real.

[Belinda]

Belinda. I agree with all of what you say except this:

At this point it's tangential whether phenonema are mind-dependent or mind-independent .

As you know I share your Spinozan world-view that the universe alone is sufficient to its own existence. If this is indeed the case then phenomena can have no ontological currency beyond the cognition of the observer. Although I'm a contrarian by nature I arrive at this conclusion in lock-step with every other major school of philosophy in human history, but this is not the way the theists see the world. Or the physicists for that matter. A created reality mistakes the map for the territory.

Regards Leo

Each of our realities is a reality that is created by the interaction between the map makers and the receiver of the informations. Don't you think that some of those realities are better than others? Is there an epistemological basis for some realities being more substantial than others?

Although I appreciate postmodernism I cannot rest upon postmodernism but think that reason is the best criterion for selecting among realities.

[Obvious Leo]

Although I appreciate postmodernism I cannot rest upon postmodernism but think that reason is the best criterion for selecting among realities.

Amen, sister.

Don't you think that some of those realities are better than others? Is there an epistemological basis for some realities being more substantial than others?

Indeed there is and the human history over the past few centuries is complete and adequate proof. Philosophy without science is like a bath without soap. It warms you up but it won't remove the crap. Until the emergence of empirical science it was inconceivable that man could learn anything at all about his physical world simply by studying it, but this has now been shown to be false. However science without philosophy is equally incomplete because science can only tell us how the physical world behaves. It cannot tell us what it IS, a point which every major philosopher in history has taken pains to make but one which somehow seems to have escaped the community of physics.

Regards Leo

[Newme]

Spiral,

Possibly a something we might be able to agree on is that existence is conscious-based.

The point of disagreement revolves around the question "is conscious energy" & thus never zaps out of existence... or not?

-- Updated December 8th, 2014, 11:58 pm to add the following --

Spiral: "I am Spiritual" - Iove it!

"I Am That I Am" - all is conscious based.

[Spiral Out]

The point of disagreement revolves around the question "is conscious energy" & thus never zaps out of existence... or not?

Our disagreement would indeed appear to be that while you consider consciousness and energy to be synonymous, I consider consciousness to be an emergent property, at least in part from that energy.

"Mind, or consciousness, as an emergent property of our being, is the seamless and continuous singular convergent quality of our experiences through our thoughts and senses due to the inherent ability of our brain to integrate and associate all of the independent objects, concepts, entities and events into one flowing substantive sequence.

There are four states of existence: Object, Concept (or Idea), Process (or a limited-duration process such as an event) and Entity (as an Object/Concept/Process Hybrid)."

However, even if consciousness and energy were synonymous, consciousness is apparently not eternal where energy is commonly considered to be, thus when consciousness is gone, so is everything else. Logically, nothing exists, and for the reasons that I had stated earlier.

This topic is in the Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology forum so I am assuming that the point of contention here a the belief in the soul and the assumption of the existence of an eternal individual consciousness.

Without consciousness, there is indeed nothing. Subjective entities cannot view anything objectively. The Void is not a physical thing, it does not (apparently) negate the objective existence of the "universe", it negates the subjective existence of the "universe".

But then, to entirely subjective entities, there can be nothing else.

[Obvious Leo]

Without consciousness, there is indeed nothing.

So to a dead person the universe does not exist. Very profound.

[Spiral Out]

So to a dead person the universe does not exist. Very profound.

Yet as obvious as this simple truth is, people continue to deny it.

[Belinda]

Belinda. Baruch did not have the benefit of the modern sciences of psychology and neuroscience. If he were to be re-incarnated into our modern era I suspect he might take a different view. He also predated Kant, who unequivocally drew the line of distinction between the world we observe and its ontological underpinning. Although Kant observed the honourable German tradition of ensuring that his philosophy was unreadable nobody has ever managed to lay a glove on his careful delineation of the "object". Our cognition of the object can only ever confirm our cognition of the object, which means the nature of its reality can only be accessed by the tools of human reason, fallible as they are.

Regards Leo

By "human reason", in the above context, do you mean rational and thus infallible reasoning such as mathematics, and which Spinoza based his theory upon; or do you mean inductive reasoning? I must read Kant .

(Edited)I looked up 'Persian philosophy' and found out about Illuminationism. I got this quotation from Augustine which is in the spirit of Illuminationism:

If we both see that what you say is true, and we both see that what I say is true, then where do we see that? Not I in you, nor you in me, but both of us in that unalterable truth that is above our minds

This from Augustine is what I meant by "rational and infallible reasoning such as mathematics, and which Spinoza based his theory upon" . Both Spinoza and Augustine, then, subscribe to the coherence theory of truth by which we can claim that if a proposition is coherent then it is "that unalterable truth that is above our minds". Spinoza of course worshipped reason in which lay man's only hopes for freedom. S did not dismiss empirical truths but he was basically a rationalist.

I think I see why Omar Khayyam is your favourite philosopher, although I have not placed him as Illuminationist, which may be too supernatural for Omar.