What is the fundamental nature of Distinctions/Differences?

[Bobby_2021]

1. Are all differences, the same?

I am not talking about a specific distinction, but the abstract nature of a distinction/difference. 

What is the abstract level nature of a difference and how does it relate to other differences? 

Here Leo says that there is more to reality than distinctions. How can that be possible? There should only be more distinctions. Right? 

Thoughts??

Edited August 15, 2023 by Bobby_2021

[Ajax]

You must deconstruct your logic. Answers lay beyond. Logic can be quite limited. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ajax

[integral]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Here Leo says that there is more to reality than distinctions. How can that be possible? There should only be more distinctions. Right? 

But there are no distictions, distictions are a convient interpretation of reality.

Choose a interpretation of reality not dependent on making distictions. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by integral

[ivankiss]

Distinction is possible because:

- thinking 

- perception 

[Bobby_2021]

8 hours ago, integral said:

But there are no distictions, distictions are a convient interpretation of reality.

Choose a interpretation of reality not dependent on making distictions. 

Can you give me such an interpretation of the God's mind, independent of distinctions? 

4 hours ago, ivankiss said:

Distinction is possible because:

- thinking 

- perception 

And perception is Truth. Perceptions are distinctions imagined by God.

8 hours ago, Ajax said:

You must deconstruct your logic. Answers lay beyond. Logic can be quite limited. 

I didn't use any complex logical statements enough to deconstruct here.

It's impossible to imagine a reality independent of distinctions 

[Ajax]

4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I didn't use any complex logical statements enough to deconstruct here.

It's impossible to imagine a reality independent of distinctions 

 Define reality for me. Define distinctions for me.

Looking is a more intelligent act than thinking.  Try this: Find a physical object (coin, stick but preferable a tree).  Stand in front of that tree(or physciall object, but preferably a tree). Set a timer for 5 minutes. Give yourself the intention of only doing three things. They are looking, seeing asking "what do I not know" about what I am looking at or seeing in detail.  Give yourself only 3 commands for the 5 minutes. Look, See, What do I not know about "look-see)"? All about the tree of course. 

[ivankiss]

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

And perception is Truth.

Lol no.

'Veil of perception'

[Osaid]

16 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

1. Are all differences, the same?

In structure, yes. In content, no. Imagine a box (structure) with different items inside it (content). You can perceive differences in the content.

A distinction is a thought (structure) which creates a simulation/description (content) of experience/reality.

Note that, ultimately, content and structure are one and the same, but for the sake of communication and understanding it is useful to distinguish the two. To further cement this point through analogy, when we listen to music, the structure of music is the same (sound), but the content (different notes and pitches) can be perceived as different, although the content cannot exist without the structure, and vice versa. 

[LastThursday]

@Osaid that's good.

You could say that all phenomena have attributes. Similar to your example, tables have the attribute of having four legs, so in that sense they are all the same. But they also have an attribute of construction material (wood, plastic etc), so tables can be distinct from each other.

In the end you can assign a bunch of attributes to any perception. For example red and green are distinct in hue, but the same in that they're both colours. You could say that all vision is the same monolithic inseparable thing or equally made up of perceptions of colours, shades, sizes, position etc.

I would say that a distinction is a binary or digital thing: yes or no. It either exists or it doesn't. Once you make a distinction it automatically creates a boundary around itself. e.g. Once you create the country of France it naturally has a border with Spain - otherwise France wouldn't be distinct from Spain. In this case a distinction is a thing of the mind, you need a map to maintain it, there's no border in reality.

The mysterious thing is what actually makes the distinction in the first place? Once I've learnt what a table is, I can't "unlearn" it. Does a table actually exist if I haven't made that distinction at all? I say no. Would anything exist if there were no distinctions?

[Osaid]

7 hours ago, LastThursday said:

The mysterious thing is what actually makes the distinction in the first place? Once I've learnt what a table is, I can't "unlearn" it. Does a table actually exist if I haven't made that distinction at all? I say no. Would anything exist if there were no distinctions?

It gets kind of tricky here, so bear with me.

Distinction is ultimately just a thought. That is the only medium it can exist in.

For example, there is this distinction of "physical object", but "physical object" always only exists as some form of communication, in this case it is words on a screen, and then you might describe it to yourself in your imagination as well, but it is NEVER the actual experience of physicality itself. 

The experience of physicality is NOT distinction, it is just physical sensation. Physical sensation is not a distinction, and it is not limited by anything. The actual physical experience itself cannot be contained by anything. You cannot limit or distinguish qualia that is genuinely in your experience. So, you have to use your thoughts to create a limited simulation of your experience that says "these things are physical", but that thought/distinction you made up is NOT the experience of physicality itself, and you cannot find a distinction outside of that thought, you can only find the sensation of physicality outside of that thought, which is not a distinction.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Osaid

[LastThursday]

Definitely tricky, agreed. When you layer language into the mix it's difficult to disentangle what's going on. 

Say you hold two things, one in each hand. It doesn't require any language to - at some level - understand what's going on: you're holding stuff. The description in language "I'm holding two things" can be completely separated from the direct sensation of holding two things. You can argue that in fact you only ever experience one sensation with everything happening simultaneously.

Although, the mere fact that you can make a distinction between what you're holding in the left hand and the right, means that the ability to distinguish things is somehow built in to direct experience in general. There is a perception of "making a distinction" separate from its use in language.

It's the sameness/difference argument we both made above. You can say all perception is the same thing, or you can make distinctions and say that parts of perception are different from each other. You can then convey those distinctions using language.

Edited August 16, 2023 by LastThursday

[Bobby_2021]

21 hours ago, Ajax said:

Define reality for me

Reality is the imagination of distinctions.

21 hours ago, Ajax said:

Define distinctions for me

That's what I am trying to get with this thread. 

21 hours ago, Ajax said:

Try this: Find a physical object (coin, stick but preferable a tree).  Stand in front of that tree(or physciall object, but preferably a tree). Set a timer for 5 minutes. Give yourself the intention of only doing three things. They are looking, seeing asking "what do I not know" about what I am looking at or seeing in detail.  Give yourself only 3 commands for the 5 minutes. Look, See, What do I not know about "look-see)"? All about the tree of course. 

I see Nothing but distinctions. And it's not mental constructions, although those are made up of distinctions as well.

20 hours ago, ivankiss said:

Lol no.

'Veil of perception'

There is nothing behind the veil. Veil is the thing. 

17 hours ago, Osaid said:

Distinction is ultimately just a thought. That is the only medium it can exist in.

I can get behind this.

Distinctions are fundamentally a thought in the mind of God.

Distinctions can also be imagined in the human mind.

That's already a distinction. 

17 hours ago, Osaid said:

The experience of physicality is NOT distinction, it is just physical sensation

Whaaat??

A tree is a car because tree is different from a cat. And that's not a language gane here. I am talking about an actual car and an actual tree. 

Those are Distinctions thought of in the mind of God. Physical reality is composed of distinctions.

20 hours ago, Osaid said:

Note that, ultimately, content and structure are one and the same, but for the sake of communication and understanding it is useful to distinguish the two. To further cement this point through analogy, when we listen to music, the structure of music is the same (sound), but the content (different notes and pitches) can be perceived as different, although the content cannot exist without the structure, and vice versa. 

Good analogy.

I am still racking my head over this. 

4 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Definitely tricky, agreed. When you layer language into the mix it's difficult to disentangle what's going on. 

Say you hold two things, one in each hand. It doesn't require any language to - at some level - understand what's going on: you're holding stuff. The description in language "I'm holding two things" can be completely separated from the direct sensation of holding two things. You can argue that in fact you only ever experience one sensation with everything happening simultaneously.

Although, the mere fact that you can make a distinction between what you're holding in the left hand and the right, means that the ability to distinguish things is somehow built in to direct experience in general. There is a perception of "making a distinction" separate from its use in language.

It's the sameness/difference argument we both made above. You can say all perception is the same thing, or you can make distinctions and say that parts of perception are different from each other. You can then convey those distinctions using language.

Well said. Definitely something to conemp over a long time. 

[Osaid]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

A tree is a car because tree is different from a cat. And that's not a language gane here. I am talking about an actual car and an actual tree. 

Those are Distinctions thought of in the mind of God. Physical reality is composed of distinctions.

You can't talk or think of an "actual tree" or "actual car." So, no, you aren't. These are just abstractions of the actual experiences. The medium that you are perceiving these differences in is literally wrong, and it is not reality itself, it is just a thought.

A tree is your experience. A car is your experience. The experience can't point to itself or reduce itself further, so you separate it with thought and say "the tree is different from a cat, and vice versa."

Experience cannot separate itself, you can only create a simulation of separation through thought. So, the distinction is just a thought, and then the actual experience does not have distinction.

5 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Although, the mere fact that you can make a distinction between what you're holding in the left hand and the right, means that the ability to distinguish things is somehow built in to direct experience in general. There is a perception of "making a distinction" separate from its use in language.

It's the sameness/difference argument we both made above. You can say all perception is the same thing, or you can make distinctions and say that parts of perception are different from each other. You can then convey those distinctions using language.

Note that you say "make" a distinction, meaning that this distinction did not exist previously before you "made" it. This previous state which existed before you made the distinction is not a distinction, it is the real experience itself, and it contains no distinctions, because experience cannot separate itself or point to itself. It can only create a simulation/description of "pointing to itself" through the medium of thought. It's just a thought.

There is perception, but perception is not distinction. Perception is experience. 

Distinction is not something that magically embeds itself in reality, it is just a very descriptive thought. That's literally all it is. Just a thought.

Just as an analogy, you might think that your experience includes: "A human being, a chair, a table, a computer, the sun, the sky, sounds, etc."

But no, it's redundant to create those distinctions and separate them in a list like that, it's more like your experience is just "your experience", and then "your experience" experience includes humans, chairs, tables, computers, etc. There's no need to create the separations "A human being, a chair, a table, etc." because it's all included in "your experience." It is all your experience, and it is literally YOU.

This might be confusing, so let's imagine you're playing a game of Mario.

Notice that, when you play Mario, even though you are controlling Mario, you are still experiencing the entire game, including Bowser, the goombas, Princess Peach, etc. These are all included inside of the experience of Mario.

The game isn't JUST a guy named Mario, in the same way that your life isn't JUST a human being. Your life includes other human beings, it involves food, it involves music, etc. So, it's the entire experience of being a human, rather than just this secluded distinction of "I am a human."

Ultimately, these distinctions are just abstractions of you and your experience, not the actual experience itself. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Osaid

[Ajax]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Reality is the imagination of distinctions.

What makes the imagination persist?

What makes the distinctions real?

Who creates the distinctions?

Who is created by the distinctions?

Does reality create the distinctions or is it created by the distinctions? What are the differences, identities and similarities?

 

[Breakingthewall]

I think we have to distinguish between reality and experience. the ultimate reality is infinite and undifferentiated, immutable, total.

experience is the creation of distinctions in the reality. It is like movement, it needs points of reference, without points of reference there is no movement, the same thing with experience, since it is movement

[LastThursday]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

experience cannot separate itself or point to itself. It can only create a simulation/description of "pointing to itself"

I think this is where our arguments are distinct (sorry). I'm saying that experience can separate itself and also point to itself. Even a simulation would have to bootstrap "pointing to itself" from nothing, how would it do it this? Could a blind person simulate the ability to see? No, they must be able to see in the first place. Can experience simulate the ability to make distinctions, without it already having the ability to make distinctions?

I would say the primary attribute of conscious experience is precisely that of "pointing to itself". That's what existence actually is.

 

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

it's redundant to create those distinctions and separate them in a list like that, it's more like your experience is just "your experience", and then "your experience" experience includes humans, chairs, tables, computers, etc. There's no need to create the separations "A human being, a chair, a table, etc." because it's all included in "your experience."

There's no need, but that is what happens. We inhabit a world full of distinctions. The fact that we can talk about such things, proves the point. There's no inclusion as such. There is no separate monolithic "experience" separate from distinctions within it, they both exist simultaneously.

 

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

It's just a thought.

If it's a thought then it's a very strange type of thought. I can not think my table into a stack of cash, it's very stubborn that way. I also can't unthink my table. I could re-think it as firewood, but then it would still be a table as well. So it doesn't appear to be "my thought" causing and maintaining distinctions in experience.

Isn't any sort of thought happening in experience in any case? Isn't thought a distinction in itself?

 

1 hour ago, Ajax said:

What makes the imagination persist?

That's another facet of consciousness/experience. It has the ability to make things persist. It has a certain stickiness to it.

[Osaid]

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

I would say the primary attribute of conscious experience is precisely that of "pointing to itself". That's what existence actually is.

No. You can't point to something that is infinite. It's just one thing.

You cannot point to the edge of your vision, for example.
 

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

The fact that we can talk about such things, proves the point.

It proves that you're talking, ABOUT something. Anything you talk about isn't what you're actually talking about. It's always AROUND the thing.

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

There is no separate monolithic "experience" separate from distinctions within it, they both exist simultaneously.

It exists as a thought. You are interpreting thought as something that you should connect to something that isn't thought (your experience), and so it seems like it is not just a thought, but it is.

Yes, the thought is one and part of experience, but, in your experience, you are connecting this sensory perception (thought) to things that are not thought, and you are mistaking it for those things.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Osaid

[Bobby_2021]

11 hours ago, Osaid said:

proves that you're talking, ABOUT something. Anything you talk about isn't what you're actually talking about. It's always AROUND the thing.

The words you are seeing on a screen are distinctions in reality. 

[Osaid]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The words you are seeing on a screen are distinctions in reality. 

No. Visual experience is not equal to distinction, which is thought. The experience of vision is infinite.

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

No. Visual experience is not equal to distinction, which is thought. The experience of vision is infinite.

Do you see any difference between the visual experience of a tree and a cat? 

Are there two letters the same or different?

A B - Different 

B B - Same

This difference exists in the visual experience. You can choose to build on top of it by conceptualizing. 

-----

When I say I make distinctions what I mean is that I imagine a distinction in my mind.

Visual experience is God's mind.

I can recognize and conceptualize that in my human mind.

All minds are capable of coming up with distinction. The human mind itself is a distinction imagined by the mind of God.