Most things are imagined

[Reciprocality]

7 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

On 23.3.2022 at 10:34 PM, Reciprocality said:

You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X)" Nope.

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.

[Reciprocality]

"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.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

@Reciprocality

14 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

That we know that everything with any content or which can be represented in thought occurs in consciousness

This is what we agreed upon earlier before delving in the matters of intuition, yes? 

14 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

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 also agree with this, and I'd also regarded this as our common ground in discussing imagination. In my sentience, consciousness is the intelligence that enables the experience of things X. Without consciousness, there is only the intuition that there could be something, a vibe so to speak of. Do you find this to be true, as well?

14 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

The sensibility of space that I referred to as X is in consciousness

Yes, because consciousness enables sensibility, nothing else enables this.

14 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

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.

Okay, so this is where you lose me: What do you mean by “intuits it contents”? Is the world of experience something to be intuited? How does that work?

It is truth and obvious, if it were not, then we would not even be discussing it as a matter, as there would be no way to make it relatable to the other-self. But because you also experience what I experience, we can commune these experiences, and discover them to be truths. Is this not how the world world works? 

[A Fellow Lighter]

15 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@A Fellow Lighter My thinking gets too dry and repetitive when instead of being proactive in its own questions and solution it is reactive towards already chewed questions.

You are certainly a skeptic towards something, though it is not even clear that it is to the possibility of truth, only truthful judgements.

"most screens are 9 by 16 inches" is a synthetic judgement/proposition, I would agree with it though hardly know it, it would even be unclear if I knew it if someone else measured all the screens on the planet, nay if I measured them all myself I would not even know, for I could hardly measure them all at once. And even if I did I could not know that screens were a Human invention only, no not even know that it were a human invention at ALL.

Though I know what the proposition means, on this there is no real dispute.

It seems you have confounded synthetic judgements such as above with a priori knowability. I know of nothing besides sensations and feelings of and in my body, concepts of intellect and sensibility in terms of which both are connected. 

I know they are connected because without the sensibility of causation there were nothing upon which for anticipations of experience to form, these anticipations occurs mathematically or conceptually in a language of simple and complex logic every minute of the day, yet they do so by means also of feelings and sensations of the body.

If I were not sensible to time or space I had no direction in which to think or move, the sensibility of causation is that which unifies both, this unification occurs automatically or analytically and requires no formed judgement, thus are a priori truth. (as nothing is required to do for one to know it, it is true "before" judgement.)

Is there a truth outside of consciousness? And is there a truth outside of knowledge? Because, according to me, there is a difference between knowledge and consciousness, and that is - knowledge is more fundamental or more essential. For there to be anything, something must have known of its possibility, or intuited it, or awakened to it, whatever... But nothing comes out of nothing, only knowledge can offer the potential of there being a something. 

This is what I find to be an impossibility: the absence of knowledge. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

14 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

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.

What have I negated here? It seems that you have ascribed to reality an absolute framework which suggests absolute cohesion of everything that is finite. Knowledge without reason is not an impossibility, for which law would deem it an impossibility? Would it be a philosophical law?

I have negated nothing here, in fact, if anything, this is the positing (acceptance, acknowledgement) rather than negation of truth. Otherwise explain to me how I'm being negative.

[Reciprocality]

"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.

On 26.3.2022 at 11:18 AM, A Fellow Lighter said:

It seems that you have ascribed to reality an absolute framework which suggests absolute cohesion of everything that is finite

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.

On 26.3.2022 at 11:18 AM, A Fellow Lighter said:

Knowledge without reason is not an impossibility

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.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

 

On 26.3.2022 at 11:18 AM, A Fellow Lighter said:

  On 25.3.2022 at 8:20 PM, Reciprocality said:

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.

 

On 26.3.2022 at 11:18 AM, A Fellow Lighter said:

What have I negated here? It seems that you have ascribed to reality an absolute framework which suggests absolute cohesion of everything that is finite. Knowledge without reason is not an impossibility, for which law would deem it an impossibility? Would it be a philosophical law?

I have negated nothing here, in fact, if anything, this is the positing (acceptance, acknowledgement) rather than negation of truth. Otherwise explain to me how I'm being negative.

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.

[Reciprocality]

On 26.3.2022 at 11:07 AM, A Fellow Lighter said:

For there to be anything, something must have known of its possibility, or intuited it, or awakened to it, whatever... But nothing comes out of nothing, only knowledge can offer the potential of there being a something. 

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.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

12 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

There is only reason to know you exist, because negation of that knowledge is impossible.

Then what you refer to as knowledge is what I refer to as information. Our problem here truly is a linguistic difficulty.

Tell, is awareness possible without reason?

[A Fellow Lighter]

9 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

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.

A matter of experience then, not what I refer to as knowledge. In precisely this way I would agree with you completely.

[Reciprocality]

@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.

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 minute ago, Reciprocality said:

@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

I'll do this in one sentence: Is your awareness informed? 

[A Fellow Lighter]

The title of your thread states: “Most things are imagined.” But if you let me, I'll prove to you that All things are in fact imagined.

[Reciprocality]

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.

[Reciprocality]

@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.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Reciprocality

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 minute ago, Reciprocality said:

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.

See, this is the problem with philosophy: that a thing in itself cannot be used to prove itself.

Why must you consider anything in the first place in order for you to tell me that you are aware without the need for reason? Did your existence come about your ability to reason? 

[Reciprocality]

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?

Edited April 4, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

@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.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

@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]

18 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

I can easily say that awareness is all there is.

Precisely, knowledge is all there is, it is this knowledge (awareness) that cannot be placed in the box of conception that I would refer to as nondual. 

22 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

but I am interested in also how the things in awareness unfold as they do. 

What is contingent on what.

As I've said, the contingent is imagination. We may properly discuss this now if you wish.

25 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

The real questions begins when we see how you are completely different than me, and that if the opposite of us both are nothing then how the hell can we be different?

How are we completely different? I sincerely ask out of curiosity, not to argue. Where has this complete difference been established? So that one may know of it.