Reciprocality

@A Fellow Lighter Absolutely, things in themselves have not been proven. "matter" have only been proven as it relates to our mind, but that it is different to our mind has not been proven.

@A Fellow Lighter I would definitely propose that babies conceptualize, it is the only way for them to navigate. Their intelligence is first and foremost sensible, not fantastical. Which means they render the empirical intuitions such as wetness or warmness or the objects of imagination such as chair or tree from a manifold of mathematical concepts, only in this way can they ever hope to trespass some territory. There is only one cognitive alternative, which says that all babies does is learn from experience itself, this is an inductive fallacy. We have already gone trough this, there can not be induction all the way down. Flatness is a proof of that, a triangle is a proof of that. Every analytic mathematical concept is a proof of that. Fantastical intelligence is synthetic, it creates something original trough the concepts that are innate, and the control of their body.

@Vynce Space, time and causality, without these there would be no reciprocity commenting here. These were called forms of sensible intuition by Kant. Then there are thing like flatness, roundness, triangle, etc.. all these are never experienced in the senses themselves, yet that which happens in sensation can seem quite flat. If it were no such a priori mathematical concept of for instance the perfect line between starting point and destination or flat surface then we would use excessive energy to walk our path, these mathematical creations are minimal. Logic takes the form of cohesion in direct consciousness, there is a reason nothing ever really seems "off", it is because we make everything cohesive, if we did not then we could neither have a singular consciousness. Even when we can not solve a problem it unfolds in perfect cohesion, the same goes for all paradoxes. The 'sketch maps' are like our schema.

So to be more precise, the scientific proposition regarding lets say the reaction of sun and water becoming steam is only causally connected as we experience it, but never in the paper (imagination) itself. But in the experience you can know with certainty that causation occured, but not what caused what. but the reason you can not know what caused what is not because you can imagine a different cause to the effect, but rather that it does not present itself to you by necessity. So I were a little to eager in saying that you can know that a causes b in particular, if it seems that is what I meant, only that a causes b in absolute generality, as in the past and future, to the exclusion of c, d etc.

@Consilience That is a very good question, how can we in a scientific experiment know that it weren't something completely different than a which caused b? If we can not even rely on the induction of similar experiments?. It is because causation is not what we think it is, instead of being something out there in a physical world it is instead a sensibility of our own minds. Causation is not subject to judgement, but instead immanent and necessary trough us. If it were not then nothing could keep us cohesive trough space and time. We are rendered by causation itself, and it in turn can be considered in a judgement or proposition regarding a and b, but a and b can never both be their causation and our judgement of them at the same time. Though I recognize this is merely an outline, and not necessarily enough to persuade you. So ask or criticize if there is something you disagree with. Space and time, in turn, is also of the mind.

@DnoReally Congrats, this is the most construct aware comment (except mine of course) of this whole thread. Alpha males are as real as water, they point to something in a sensible world.

The territory is rendered under the some maps, which is the only reason you can actually make maps. The territory shares an identity with the maps they are rendered under, the the maps which sketches out that territory shares an identity with both. Some maps are innate, a priori, without them you would be insane. The sketch-map is also the territory itself, everything is the territory. This is another way of saying that all roads leads to Rome, or that existence is holonistic, or that inteligence is firstly sensible then it is fantastical. The scetchmap is fantastical, the innate map is sensible.

The absolute necessity of existence, transcends all in us. And is as such like a wavelength which goes trough us. That there were something and not nothing, is our absolute identity.

Necessity can take two forms, it can be absolute and relative. Existence is absolutely necessary, but sensibility is only relatively necessary, it is only necessary in us for us to operate.

You can speak of imagination the ways you want to, but it will not change how without the sensibility of space there would be no comment. This is a contingency. I do not consider things that are necessary imagined, but so do you. This is hilarious, but fine by me.

It transcends the box by which it can be referred, there is no more awareness in the concept of it then there is outside the concept of it. Though knowledge can take the form of a priori sensibility, or mathematics a priori. Awareness transcends all these, it is present also when they are absent in us.

I have no idea what this comes from, or how it connects to that in quotation which you responded to. There is not much to learn about consciousness itself, but there are many ways to think of it. There are many modalities to it, if you will. But nothing to learn.

@A Fellow Lighter Well you go by a different username than me, if there were no opposite of us both then there were also no reason for us to be at all different. It is imprecise to call it completely different, at least for now. And it does not matter to my point.

On the contrary, causation is that which connects now and now, yesterday and tomorrow. The problem is finding scientifically what follows something else. You can always know that a causes b, but never if something similar will occur again. Hume got it almost right, but he did not understand in his essays on causation how identity had fooled him. What is hard is to determine if a were a part of the chain of events which resulted in b scientifically, this can only be induced. But the connection itself between that which were the chain is necessary, however fooled we are by the number of times we got the chain itself wrong. In another way, without causation there would be nothing intelligible. Everything would float around in time and space without b occurring after a. the alphabet would change all the time, there would be nobody to sense time.

@A Fellow Lighter There are many proofs in mathematical science which sees beyond the natural world which gets proven in it later, some such mathematical proofs can not be proven or discovered in measurement. The idea of an independent existence is just like those proofs that never gets measured, if you want to be rational you better believe in an independent thing in itself that is composed of parts you do not know in themselves but have (maybe) only glimpses of. If knowledge is your only concern then this independent entity is outside your scope so far as I know, but if you want to have beliefs then it is far more justified to believe in a necessary entity which requires your consciousness at its right time, than to believe in a physical chaos, or believe that Australia can be vacated to.

@A Fellow Lighter The only rational answer to the above is that there is such a thing as something independent of us, which itself is composed of many parts of which we know nothing about. It is only truth if reason has any validity, and to me it does. But you do not have to agree. But if you do not agree then stop arguing, there is nothing to argue about thereby.

I understand what your problem is, the thing is, I can easily say that awareness is all there is. I don't need to justify that I am aware, people with stupid thoughts and brilliant thoughts are all aware, but I am interested in also how the things in awareness unfold as they do. What is contingent on what. This does not negate my existence, it makes it approachable conceptually. Reason can well conducted and badly conducted, I intend to conduct it greatly. All there is is consciousness, and my rationalism has an idea of something else, a dualism. I believe but do not know that the thing in itself is real, but nothing makes much sense if it is not. The real questions begins when we see how you are completely different from me, and that if the opposite of us both are nothing then how the hell can we be different?

@A Fellow Lighter Well, if you will prove this you must also show me how sensibile time and space disappears and never returns. So you must really kill me, if what you would like to prove could be possible. And don't forget causality.

IF awareness can be void of content, or is considered that which is present throughout all content. I really don't know, we can only refer back to it trough reason, and speculate about it trough reason. So the question is inherently of reason, though yet perhaps unanswerable. So if your question can be affirmed it must actually be affirmed trough the acceptance that the question does not make sense, and that something is true of which the question is merely an effect, or an echo.

@A Fellow Lighter I may easily get you to agree that knowledge is information only, if you were to present me with how on earth you can know something other than information itself, or naive information if you will. That which says that information is also this other thing, is a belief and not knowledge the way it is presented. Which is a way of saying that the claim "my grass outside is green" is a belief and not something that you know unless you take a peak at it and propose it as you do so. It is entirely inductive if you do not actually see the grass, and therefore not known. You require a funny and UNDER DETERMINED theory if you regard the claim in the proposition as knowledge. Though the proposition itself is known.

If anything means such things as we are familiar with then you are correct and correct by definition. But the thing in itself, eternal substances of meta-time, metatime, these are also "anything" and are postulated as being necessary. You do not know if these things are contingent on you knowing of their possibility, these things (if they are) are precicely not contingent on you knowing them. They are not what they are as they are to us, if they are at all. We do not know if they are at all, to us they are only reason extended. To even hypothesize about them is reason itself, a brilliant mind can find them necessary but accept how they are never his thought about them, and speak therefore about them only in negative terms. Mystical. But just like non-duality, if you do not get it, there is absolutely nothing substantive here said. But to me, the idea of something on the other side, something like matter that is opposite to me and never how it seems, which non the less requires me to be. This boggles me to no end, I find it more spectacular than all our pity ideas of god. More profound, more extreme, more ridiculous indeed.

There is only reason to know you exist, because negation of that knowledge is impossible. You have confirmed this yourself "This is what I find to be an impossibility: the absence of knowledge. " You have definitely negated affirmation of truth if you think the question of whether you exist or not has any meaning, but my point were not about you. But you have not negated truth, that you can't do that were kind of my whole point.

"This is what I find to be an impossibility: the absence of knowledge. " "negation is an invention." "nothing is an impossibility" "something is a necessity" @A Fellow Lighter These all means the same thing, knowledge is the only thing that is possible, consciousness and knowledge is the same thing considered in opposite ways. Yet knowledge can take the form of belief in consciousness, belief is a rational invention which says that z can be both q and c even though both q and c are different. A belief that holds matter to be both particle and wave, a belief which says that my bathroom is both out there somewhere for me to walk in as well as the knowledge of it when I actually walk there, and the common synthetic identity the belief and the a posteriori knowledge share. Even the belief is knowledge, all that happens is that things changes identity. This is an apodictic proposition, that all we speak of is reducible to identity and that they change form I know with certainty, whether or not everything we speak about take a different form in a different realm. I do not ascribe to anything in pretty much everything I have written in this thread, I am totally unaware of something other than cohesion. This is because of the sensibilities we have in the first place. It's opposite can therefore only have a hypothetical negation. That these sensibilities are called intuitive is because of how just like all other intuitions they are imposed on "you" by nature, they simply appear before you outside of your power, all intuitions have this property. In fact, they are that trough which you have any power at all. For something to be an intuition there may be required also that it combines different things into a singular unit of measurement or identity, such as my laptop and phone are intuited as units of technology from intuition. Some intuitions are pure, and hinges on no intuition outside them. These are that which makes phone and laptop identities in time and space. a1 If you mean here that consciousness is possible outside sensible intuition, I allow that possibility, no problem. This renders the mechanisms behind things mystical, but not its necessity. At the same time, I would rather define knowledge as that in consciosuness which is not just non-duality without anything in it, but rather everything else in consciousness and therefore at present. a2 But if you mean to define reason as something outside the sensibilities (though dependent on them) but rather of the logical range itself, by which you propose knowledge being possible without then I would still hesitate, because the mutual relationship with everything in cognition or simply being is that upon which we can even speculate about these internal contingencies. For this reason the proposition "knowledge without reason is possible" is meaningless, as its only possible affirmation falls outside your consciousness. And if indeed you are correct about knowledge being present without reason at some point, then it is actual not merely possible and speculative. If it is actual then what is it? Is it sensation? Do we ever have sensation (a posteriori knowledge) void of mathematical/logical concepts? I can not think of any. My heart beats trough these concepts, my lungs breathes trough these concepts, my eyes sees trough them, my hunger does. That a toothache comes with related memories, that it comes at intervals or is inherently different in a logical range from headache, is that all outside reason? Nope. Does my hunger not take spatial presence in my inner spatio-mathematical mind? Not pure sensible space itself, but a determination of WHERE in it. Can a primitive animal have any sensation void of reason? That is a question, perhaps. Is our determination of spatial relation of hunger a necessity? would you have hunger if you never determined where you had it? Now these are actual meaningful questions, that instead of being easily responded to with certainty must be thought about a lot. You could further qualify them by saying that if it were possible to have these sensations without reason then the sensations would be felt entirely different or not at all, so far as reason is a priori concept only then I would go with the former, if it includes a priori sensible intuitions I would say that sensation ( a posteriori knowledge) would be completely impossible without it. This and and why it is so I have repeated extensively.

"See, one may argue there is no reason at all you know you exist," This is impossible, negation is an invention. Though it is possible as an absurd undertaking. "But go on, what would be the science? And how would it manage to not be as silly as attempting this with philosophy?" In particular it would be neuroscience, destroy the brain and there is little reason to believe there will be more of your existence. Though epistemically all things in science confirms your existence equally, going back to how your existence is not synthesized propositionally. Though Hegel and Whitehead may argue about that. I will not get into that here. Send me a message if this is of interest though.

What am I missing? @A Fellow Lighter That we know that everything with any content or which can be represented in thought occurs in consciousness. Or disjunctively because without consciousness every such thing disappears, If you get knocked down then for the 10 minutes you were gone there were things occurring that you did not witness. That there were such things occuring is a judgement, not knowledge though it may be true. I call it consciousness that which is, again. The sensibility of space that I referred to as X is in consciousness, so far as this is language it must be inferred as a judgement, but so far as you INTUITS its contents, so far as you in your own awareness know what is here meant, it is truth and obvious.