Reciprocality

@melontonin Yes it is amazing how putting things in a new way can radically change the complete picture, schema, paradigm, whatever. I were hoping someone would get that reason/knowing distinction, and you did. Justified beliefs are a reference to our faculty of synthetic a priori intuitions both beyond pure logical certainty as in the analytical a priori but also beyond the synthetic a posteriori experience, this 'glue' in the middle is referenced further down in the same comment you responded to. Imagination is the fuel by which this faculty is running, without it consciousness may be completely impossible. (and I would argue so) You can never justify believes at a faster pace then you can imagine the completeness of the ego. Nothing is ever really justified (in the pure logic sense), though no less or more so then what is minimal for surviving by the second.

@Carl-Richard When I see a bird taking a shit I know only that this bird took this shit this once, or indeed only when i see that it does it and not afterwards. It is an object of reason that this bird takes shits in general. Even more so if i deduce from this that birds in general takes a shit. It is an object of reason that this bird is there in the world also when i close my eyes. And so it goes trough radical complexity. These objects of reason (pardon my examples) are both pointing you towards the idea of a physical world by themselves, as well as unfolding in the intuition of space. But the idea that there is anything independent of you which comes along with these intuitions or with culture, and that this independent dimension has the same kind of existence as you have yourself is to stretch the authority of reason to sillyland. Edit: Materialists projects their own existence into the assumption that the objects of reason has an independent existence beyond themselves. This is very understandable, precisely because nothing can be beyond existence, the problem is again the authority they assign to mere reason. edit2: Hume defeated the rationalists by mere imagination of birds that 'perhaps' does not shit after all, I claim imagination needs take no such part and actually is often a delusion used as such. Because speculation and knowledge is different, the claims that are good for 'but what if..' are mere entertainment of ideas, while knowledge speaks to logic and the senses alone. Entertainment of ideas are both in motion, the objects of this motion are irreducible to either. As soon as you want to have a knowledge of the motion beyond the being of their mere unfolding you are insane. Science can never be a knowledge precisely thereto.

The idea of a non-existence is a rationalism which means negation, is is an intellectual necessity for thought as such. To claim belief in its independence beyond reason is equal to claiming a belief in probability beyond Bayesian reasoning, that is claiming that something can unfold in nature by chance without a projection of our own knowledge of the given thing within it.

What I believe you mean here, or to put it in my terms rather would be the difference of affirming that something occurs at all, prior to all definitions which would merely follow from that fact (as in the Sartrean 'Existence precedes Essence'), and the many things that could unfold on the account of a given predicate trough that occurrence. To try to define the former would be to reduce what unfolds beyond a given concept into a given concept, it is insensible. Altogether meaningless, yet so very instructive. "Describing ontology as what does and doesn't exist is useful for painting a picture of what makes it distinct from other other aspects of metaphysics" Well i get you, and I believe many would do the same and so far as someone can understand something from it I guess it is fine. The reason being and existence are words with different meaning is because different people have tried to define what is as mentioned above 'beyond definitions', in the endeavour of which some have been less naive then others.

Camus Sartre Nietzsche

@DocWatts Most metaphysics does not even regard existence as a problem to be solved, or they don't regard themselves as a relation in it's solution, and for that reason I have a hard time classing their speculations as existential questioning at all. Ontology is about the nature of being whether or not the one studying it have the capacity to comprehend how that reflects of off himself existentially, not a mere confirmation of what does and does not exist. Outside the ontology branch of metaphysics there is made classes of things that for the purposes of Actualized gets deconstructed, for example the idea of identity typically unfolds outside ontology but for someone who is sufficiently conscious that becomes complete delusion. At the same time you have to group things together in some way, I believe this is a very subjective matter and is radically outside the reach of academic philosophy and science. Unless you are taking a degree then be smart and steer away from it's drivel, except the very classes of things that speak to you from within yourself. It can be said that it is just as easy to be confused about the insanity of SD orange rationalism from a yellow perspective as it is to comprehend how it all unfolds together in the yellow side of things from the orange perspective.

If there is no 'you' then there is no 'money', would monopoly money suffice for this course?

@Twentyfirst The idea of her will change form, in one instance she is both made sense of and experienced trough the senses. In another instance she is merely made sense of.

As long as you do not throw a Dawkins debate in their face I believe there is little harm in showing them an alternative to their worldview which do not directly confront it. Except if you are a very seriously inclined skeptic, then it could be best to put all on the table so to avoid driving yourself mad. If they do not bother you with Religion that often then your response may be best in equal proportion.

@Carl-Richard I believe in the study of ideas trough their minimal coherence within ones own mind, from the mind itself. Such that instead of asking what the difference between ontological and methodological reductionism is you venture out into problematic world so to find in it precisely the place and reason where the ideas bifurcate. In this way you posses not only the subjective defining power of words, but have alone the complete authority over every single word you use. Such that it would be impossible to be wrong on your applications of the ideas (if you are good at it), because the words becomes mere illusions that you but onto bigger conceptual illusions or truths. (oh boy this can be misinterpreted) To make it concrete, I were unaware that there were formal labels that differentiated between the method and ontology of reductionism until right now, yet upon reading about the difference it were as though I had studied them already, and of course in essence I have. The latter is a rationalism which is naive to the limits of its mind so to believe its conclusions can speak of independence. The former sees new things unfolding every day in science, it knows not what to make of it but it will not deny empirical reality, it does so trough whatever ontology 'works' so to say. It can do so without any belief of independence. Independence is whatever object is owed its existence from reason alone, sometimes these objects of reason unfolds into the paradigm of the physical and other times the Theological. (i will elaborate on this if you want) Reductionsim itself varies, sometimes it begins with the premise that all things must at their smallest part be the same. At other times it simply reduces all higher order explanations to the sum of the smallest parts they find, without explicit claims beyond that at all.

@ivankiss The argument of truth being outside knowledge would actually stand in proportion to the impossibility of simply being without concluding anything about it.

If the earth is flat then its area in relation to its circumference must be a forth of its current size.

@ivankiss Belief separates from truth the way a fan separates from its current. It ultimately does not, but as far as language is sensible they do. What your claim has to do with physicalism is simple, the idea that there is something independent of you encapsulate both. This idea is a belief, as i referenced as such. : )

You begin merely affirming things that it would make you insane to deny. You then find kinds of things in some naive opposition to other kinds of things, you are sure to discover that these kinds already have labels associated with them throughout history free of charge so to say. You ask if it is possible to know what separates such kinds, if you conclude with yes then you have done so aware of your reasoning faculties as they alone could triangulate such results. (others would say they were always there to be discovered, ex. Kantian idealism) Some people would at this point take leaps of faith and conclude that a brain predates such kinds and are the true reason they unfold, other people would make rigorous scientific analysis of the brain and make statements on its connection to the mind trough an inductive method from empirical information to believe what causes what in so far as they after the analysis score good in their predictions. Most of the latter class would be Epistemic Rationalists, that is they believe in abduction from induction, they believe in knowledge as objects of reason. Some of those believe that their objects of reason says something about an independent existence, these are ontological rationalists. Others would be skeptical about knowledge from induction, they would often altogether make a complete distinction between relation between things (a priory) and Impressions (a posteriory). Epistemic Empiricism as such holds knowledge to be the impressions in themselves. Impressions as defined as cold, warmth, heartbeat, visuals, etc. Epistemology is the heart of science, good epistemology has the potential to revolutionize it.

@ivankiss According to your standards of truth being beyond your mind you could not know that truth were beyond your mind, in fact you point within your mind when you say that you point beyond it. There is no fundamental difference between this and hardcore Physicalism, merely a difference of form.

Let's say you question the possibility of something incoherent. This necessarily unfolds on the predicate of coherence, as to say that if you arrived at a conclusion of two distinct properties not unfolding with perfect proportions you are giving them their higher order proportions in the awareness of their asymmetry alone. This is what the mind does, no indeed it is what doing is. Or worse: it is ad infinitum. The question itself closes the system, there can only unfold a mirage of open-endedness, this mirage takes form of reductionism, dualism, physicalism etc. The traditional Skeptic is entrenched in the biggest mirage of them all. He gives absolute authority over imagination, such that it poses to him the potential of for example his memories being inadequate for referenced truth. He even trough his faculties for imagination says that effect Y does not at all need to proceed from a given cause X. He says "I don't know, for I can easily imagine an effect Z." But this assumes already that there is anything truthful yet undiscovered trough the imagined, but that is precicely what is absurd, for nothing can be beyond the system that he closes. The Solipsist do not give his pure imagination such a power, it is that simple. He simply do not entertain the imagination as something beyond its own limits. There is no paradox, only imagined confusion. And there are no referenced truth.

I'm uncertain if this thread were meant for everyone to share their near death experiences, I'll assume it were for they are probably the reason I don't meditate too often as the NDE have got real when deep in it. Like scared that I will die from meditation, it happened a few times and even though I told myself between them that I should just face it I do the exact opposite when there.

@Preety_India So the question is two-fold, not merely what i in exact terms point out, but what you exactly get from it.

In choosing when and when not to apply language and its logical predicates you are dangerously deep in delusion. For there must be one thing and one thing only which takes the choosing part, we call it the ego. You can easily make among the many minds a castle from where to judge them yet with a locked door which never lets them in for they see in you without necessarily knowing so the lack of integrity such a choosing means.

@Preety_India Well ego is the final delusion, and only trough it do you lack integrity, as in particular the instances when you wield logic trough any language at all yet at the same time will avoid logic when its is inconvenient. To put it very simply, to have it both ways is a mighty delusion.

@Leo Gura You can ask questions in two radically different ways, you can do so either aware of its limitation or unaware of its limitations. Funny enough it is when I do not limit it in a particular way the dialogue becomes a robotic one in which I can predict your answer exactly because you do not engage with me according to my limits, according to your particular limits. If anything is necessary then all things are necessary, and if all things are necessary then will as a necessity must be together with and not in opposition to necessity, for were will a mere part of all necessary things then it would create things that would not themselves be necessary. The reason all things must be necessary from the confirmation that some things are necessary is predicated on the nature of the thing that are necessary as you yourself put forth as experience, experience is the predicate for all things and how can such a predicate include things within it which are outside its power as necessity? Existence is created out of necessity for nothing is an impossibility, see? To conceive of will as non-necessary as you do if you think god could choose not to create, then you become altogether meaningless.

@Leo Gura Just to be clear, that existence is even a possibility blows my mind on a daily basis to the point where i question my sanity. Yet they follow up with the most sane thing, namely pure awareness as a necessary thing from which alone gods will as infinite is accompanied trough the very restrictions that I where flabbergasted with the moment before.

@Leo Gura I referenced Curt as mere context, for indeed you are right as you've been before that his very purpose rests on him not ending up with anything tangible in itself. He is skeptical not only on synthetic judgement or claims but even on the very defining power he posses of words as a reference of analytical a priory concepts as evident particularly in his convo with Spira. I love him, but that is pretty insane. All restrictions being self-imposed are the very predicate for my questionings above, you probably did not understand what I meant and i don't blame you. It is a tricky problem to explicate and even more gets lost in translation. We are here, when speaking of things beyond experience we reference at all time our imagination and intuition such that the material world become a mirage of ourselves. We ask then why something at all? To which a response is that there were at no point anything else than 'something', this something is composed of no particular thing in opposition to any other particular thing but of no composition at all for it is infinite. Each time we reference the infinite we make a finite construct which never really has anything to do with the infinite other than as naive point of reference. (and in some sense the infinite already) You say that this infinite is both absolute truth and absolute will. You say then that all restrictions are self imposed and for me to agree I then have to say that there truly were a nothing beside god from where god created all things, the contradictions if I did not say that occurs because to create something as opposed to not creating anything is a restriction. The absolute restriction to be sure. But nothing is more absurd than a postulation of a nothing that exists, to which reason i conclude that the restriction of having to create something at all is actually the absolute ontological primary that not even infinite love/god can take away. I really can not get away from this issue, in some sense I am rid of any doubt concerning it yet afraid it shows the problem of language more than a great metaphysics.

@Karmadhi Haha well there are levels to fuck-ups it seems, though I don't really think you are fucked at all. It won't sort itself out however, so it is a matter of responsibility, and only you can take it for she obviously needs you to lead.

@Karmadhi well she is a girl, I know it is considered politically incorrect or whatever to understand the fundamental difference between men and women in general but she probably have things to lose that you do not. And she want to be a trophy, so instead of wasting time understanding her inner workings right now I believe you should accept that it is not easy to understand, as so many guys before you including me have had to accept.