How Is Definitive Knowledge Possible?

[r0ckyreed]

How is definitive knowledge possible? Knowledge is such a tricky beast. There seems to be no reliable way to discern and differentiate truth from falsehood. Rationality can lead you astray, science can lead you astray, your own senses can deceive you, other people can deceive, and of course my own self, intuition, and emotions deceive me. I can even be deceived through "false insights." So how can I know that any "insight" I have is true understanding? I can smoke 5me0 or meditate and attain an insight or a feeling of conviction that I understand something completely when I don't.

A lot of the times when I bring up this problem of knowledge, people say, awaken and you will find out. But this begs the question. How do you know you are awake when every facet of your mind and reality is against you to deceive you? I hear people claiming to have awoken to this or that, but what I am really seeing is that they are very confident that they understand something deeply when they actually might be mislead by their emotions. When a person claims they have awoken, I feel like they are being deceived by their feelings. How do you know that you have totally understood something to the deepest level? How do you know you are not being deceived at all by your insight? What method did you use to discern truth from falsehood and how did you counteract self-deception? You can take 5me0 or meditate and still be deluded, so even meditation and psychedelics aren't a reliable pathway to truth and true knowledge.

To fully awaken and reach true knowledge, I think you need to answer definitively of whether anything can exist independently of the mind. If there is such a thing as a mind-independent phenomenon, then notice that you could never awaken and know definitively because all knowledge and awakening are mind-dependent. 

The feature of knowledge is that it is mind-dependent. It is impossible to have knowledge of anything outside of your mind because the function of knowledge itself is dependent on the mind! But this does not mean that what you do not know doesn't exist. I find it interesting that there seems to be things that exist independent of my knowledge of them even though my knowledge is dependent on my mind. For instance, when I learned about cults for the first time it is implied that they have always existed despite my mind not knowing about it. There can in fact be things that exist right now that I do not even know now but yet still exist it seems. The earth was still round even before I knew anything about it. However, there is no escaping that knowledge is dependent on the mind. But we should not mistake the limits of knowledge for the limits of reality. What if reality is larger than our mind? What if there actually are mind-independent phenomenon but we could never know of it because it is mind-independent? Could you conceive of that possibility?

In addition, we also have to take into account that relativism also presents us with another problem in that how can we know anything definitively if all of our methods of trying to know the Absolute are themselves relative? Meditation is relative to the mind, so are psychedelics, and so is contemplation and rationality and science. In fact, you can use all those methods listed to delude yourself into conspiracy theories and nonduality nonsense. But if reality is absolutely relative, how could we say that conspiracy theories are false? 

I understand that at some degree radical open-mindedness defeats itself because then you expose your mind to all kinds of nonsensical worldviews and toxic ideologies. At some point, you need to close your mind off to perspectives you have definitively understood to be false. But the method for knowing something definitively seems itself to be undefinitive. How do you reconcile this problem?

Edited Tuesday at 12:04 AM by r0ckyreed

[Someone here]

@r0ckyreed only direct experience is true . If you doubt your direct experience then can you doubt that you doubt ? If yes ..then can you doubt that you doubt that you doubt ?

the mind is infinite .I'm normally accused of being the biggest mental masturbator on this forum but im glad ive found a competition 😂 ❤

what does an answer to this question change in your experience? 

 

Buddha himself may answer you with X (the truth)..but jumping to a conclusion or believing in it would do more harm than good as it gets in the way of your own questioning.  But Buddha might be full of shit . Right ? Of course everyone that speaks of anything that is not based on experience (either directly or indirectly ) is a blatant liar .

 

So..here's the truth: banana.

 

Now what?

[r0ckyreed]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

only direct experience is true . If you doubt your direct experience then can you doubt that you doubt ? If yes ..then can you doubt that you doubt that you doubt ?

 

But even your direct experience can deceive you. Even your doubting and skepticism can be deceptive. I don't think anyone here grasps what I am trying to communicate. How can you know anything definitively, especially given that there is no reliable method for discerning truth from falsehood?

It seems like there is absolutely no ground for definitive knowledge. 

Edited Tuesday at 12:16 AM by r0ckyreed

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

But even your direct experience can deceive you. Even your doubting and skepticism can be deceptive. I don't think anyone here grasps what I am trying to communicate. How can you know anything definitively? 

@r0ckyreed I know EXACTLY what you're asking. 

I'm telling you there is no answer other than direct experience.  And since there is nothing else but direct experience then your question is automatically obsolete. 

It's like asking where does the universe exist ? Or where is this present moment happening?  It's just here and there is no outside to it since there is nothing else but it . So the answer would be It's just here .and here is all there is and it doesn't have an external location or position. We exist in the middle of nowhere. 

Similarly.."how do we know that this experience here is reliable or definitive knowledge "?

The answer is you have no alternative to accepting this .

Go ahead and doubt it for a sextillion years and see if it changes anything .

 

[Ulax]

@r0ckyreed You can never know anything definitively.

Anytime someone claims something to be true, they try to justify it in some way. But that justification relies on another justification, and so on, and on, and on.... and on....

So, nothing can be known definitively. 

[Someone here]

Just now, Ulax said:

@r0ckyreed 

So, nothing can be known definitively. 

Is that ⬆️ known? 

If its known then you just contradicted yourself. 

If its not known then its wrong .

[Ulax]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Is that ⬆️ known? 

If its known then you just contradicted yourself. 

If its not known then its wrong .

"If its known then you just contradicted yourself". What is your justification for that? (Tee-Hee)

Edited Tuesday at 12:32 AM by Ulax

[Someone here]

@Ulax answer me first and then I'm gonna answer you . This is fair right ? Don't answer my question with a question. Answer my question with an answer .

[Ulax]

Just now, Someone here said:

@Ulax This is fair right ?

What is your justification for this claim?

[Someone here]

Not really interested in games . Only serious discussion pls.

[Ulax]

18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Not really interested in games . Only serious discussion pls.

I was giving serious replies. But to put it in another way.

32 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@r0ckyreed You can never know anything definitively.

Anytime someone claims something to be true, they try to justify it in some way. But that justification relies on another justification, and so on, and on, and on.... and on....

So, nothing can be known definitively. 

27 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Is that ⬆️ known? 

If its known then you just contradicted yourself. 

If its not known then its wrong .

You are claiming i contradicted myself. In claiming this, you believe your claim "you contradicted yourself" is in some way justified. However, I will just say that whatever justification you have for this claim relies on another justification, which itself relies on another. And so on. Meaning that your justification is arbitrary, and hence your claim is arbitrary.

Any challenge you make to my argument I will make this argument in response. And, any challenge you make to any of these sub-point can be met by this response. Because any argument you make pre-supposes that one argument can be more justified than another. I am saying it cannot.

When I was asking those questions I was essentially just pointing out that every claim you made relied on a justification, which itself relied on a justification.

Edited Tuesday at 12:58 AM by Ulax

[Princess Arabia]

You bring up a valid point. Anything known stems from previous knowledge. We cannot experience anything without the knowledge we have previously learnt. We are operating on the knowledge we have learnt from previous generations and the world. There is no Reality other than what we've been taught. Knowledge separates us from Reality. To know something is to be separate from it. There is no separation so knowledge is illusory and so are experiences.

Edited Tuesday at 01:07 AM by Princess Arabia

[Someone here]

17 minutes ago, Ulax said:

You are claiming i contradicted myself. In claiming this, you believe your claim "you contradicted yourself" is in some way justified. However, I will just say that whatever justification you have for this claim relies on another justification, which itself relies on another. And so on. Meaning that your justification is arbitrary, and hence your claim is arbitrary.

Same point .so same answer .

This ⬆️ applies to itself .this line of reasoning applies to this very  line of reasoning as well . So you also have to back up this line of reasoning with further justifications ad infinitum.  So you've shot yourself in the foot . This is self-defeating logic . 

"This statement is false ". Please square this with its own implications. 

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Ulax said:

So, nothing can be known definitively. 

So then what the hell is awakening?

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

@r0ckyreed I know EXACTLY what you're asking. 

I'm telling you there is no answer other than direct experience.  And since there is nothing else but direct experience then your question is automatically obsolete. 

It's like asking where does the universe exist ? Or where is this present moment happening?  It's just here and there is no outside to it since there is nothing else but it . So the answer would be It's just here .and here is all there is and it doesn't have an external location or position. We exist in the middle of nowhere. 

Similarly.."how do we know that this experience here is reliable or definitive knowledge "?

The answer is you have no alternative to accepting this .

Go ahead and doubt it for a sextillion years and see if it changes anything .

 

Right. But there is an assumption that our experience is direct. Your “direct” experience is filtered through the lenses of survival. Experience is not as direct as you think. Our course experience is all that we have, but that doesn’t mean it has total access to reality and is unbiased. There are plenty of things I don’t experience right now but yet are true.

Everything is filtered through the human nervous system, so how can objective reality be known if everything we have access to is experienced subjectively? Definitive knowledge seems impossible, but my intuition tells me that definitive knowledge possible. It’s hard to know what to listen to and whether my rationality, intuition, etc. are correct.

Edited Tuesday at 02:03 AM by r0ckyreed

[Princess Arabia]

31 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Right. But there is an assumption that our experience is direct. Your “direct” experience is filtered through the lenses of survival. Experience is not as direct as you think. Our course experience is all that we have, but that doesn’t mean it has total access to reality and is unbiased. There are plenty of things I don’t experience right now but yet are true.

Everything is filtered through the human nervous system, so how can objective reality be known if everything we have access to is experienced subjectively? Definitive knowledge seems impossible, but my intuition tells me that definitive knowledge possible. It’s hard to know what to listen to and whether my rationality, intuition, etc. are correct.

You're getting to the point where you will realize there is no such thing as Truth. There are no Ultimate Facts and this is all a play on a movie screen. There is only Awareness and there is nothing beyond that. You seem to think there's an objective reality, but there isn't. It's only Awareness and you have never experienced anything outside of that. You say there are things you do not experience but are true. How do you know that. You can only know anything through your awareness. There is something that is aware that you are not experiencing things that are true - or is saying that to be precise.

Welcome to the world of illusion, where this is your playground and there are no truths but only what you say is true. The ultimate reality is Awareness and awareness can only be aware, so anything you're aware of is the only reality.  Everything else is imagination. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:32 AM by Princess Arabia

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Same point .so same answer .

This ⬆️ applies to itself .this line of reasoning applies to this very  line of reasoning as well . So you also have to back up this line of reasoning with further justifications ad infinitum.  So you've shot yourself in the foot . This is self-defeating logic . 

"This statement is false ". Please square this with its own implications. 

Yet every claim you make here in criticism also relies on further justifications ad infinitum.

[r0ckyreed]

13 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

You seem to think there's an objective reality, but there isn't. It's only Awareness and you have never experienced anything outside of that. You say there are things you do not experience but are true. How do you know that. You can only know anything through your awareness

We can only know anything through our awareness. But we can’t forget that appearances can be deceiving. What if there is an objective reality but I can never know it and access it. For instance, there are colors right now that I do not have access to. There are also millions of planets that I have never set foot on that exist without my awareness of them. Knowledge is mind-dependent but that doesn’t mean there isn’t such a thing as mind-independent.

[Ero]

You are asking very important and deeply non-trivial questions. My suggestion is for you to familiarise yourself with the field of epistemology and to some extent metaphysics. To not delude oneself is exceptionally hard.

My current paradigm is somewhere along the lines of knowledge being a generative model of a fundamentally intractable/chaotic world (with the goal of minimizing surprise= maximising entropy) . All knowledge is fundamentally incomplete and relative to the metaphysical assumptions. That doesn’t mean all knowledge is created equal - you can compare paradigms using statistical methods of hypothesis testing (establishing only relative truthfulness, nowhere is it “absolute”) by sampling the outer world. 
Unlike many, I would make the distinction between “knowledge” and direct experience. The latter informs the former but there is a significant “loss”/compression that is required to extract anything meaningful (i.e the principle of abstraction)

[r0ckyreed]

I feel like I am finally grasping what epistemological solipsism and anarchism are. There is no ground or basis to base knowledge off of. Knowledge has always been about the mind. It’s scary because I have always based it off of science and rationality and now to realize how inconsistent and unstable they are in being by definitive, I am left with epistemological anarchism/solipsism.

Edited Tuesday at 02:59 AM by r0ckyreed