The Boolean logic of the Western reduction rational society.

[Zen Pig]

Not throwing stones in my own glass house here,  but I see more and more how conditioned we are by our social upbringing.  I have discussed this before in a charming story of how Robert Thurman's Tibetan teacher told him that he did not need to meditate so much because as a pre-programmed westerner, he could never drop his conditioned world view in order to become enlightened.  bet that was a real knee slapper for him. 

 

I see so many spiritual seekers, and so called "awakened or enlightened" folks who still hold the boolean "all or nothing" , "yes or no",  "real, or unreal, world views.  

If something is not real, like a dream,  we call it Illusion,  or that it really does not exist.  If something is Real,  (like my tv remote or smart phone) LOL,  then we say that "this is real, material, we can all see it and discuss it".

 

But when I was younger,  and had dreams where I did not know I was dreaming,  I could sit with a group of people at a table,  and we agreed that we were all there, maybe eating food, that I could taste, feel, and that world was as "real" as this world, until I awoke, and saw that it was now, "unreal" or "Just a dream".  So my mind was and is preconditioned to believe all or nothing, real/unreal, right/wrong. 

 

Can something be both real and unreal at the same time?  do the terms "real, unreal" make any sense?  for that matter, do the terms, "right/wrong", good/bad make sense as a mental label.?  I have seen very bad people do good things, and vice versa.  I have seen dreams that I "knew" were real at the time, but then upon awaking, "Knew" that they were unreal.  

 

Maybe just letting go of these ideas and beliefs,  and just viewing the universe, life, everything as it unfolds without making a mental label for them.  doubt we can let go completely, but maybe a little at a time. who knows?

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

48 minutes ago, Zen Pig said:

Can something be both real and unreal at the same time? 

 

Yes, something can be both real and unreal at the same time.

 

For example: A mother looks at her young child and says "I love you." The words are not real. They have no mass and take up no space, yet hearing them deeply moves the child. Don't believe me? Perhaps the mother look at her young child and says "I hate you. I wish you would die." These, too, are just words with no mass and occupying no space. Yet these words carry life long impact on the child who hears them. These words cascade outward from the point of utterance, affecting many people for many years to come.

[Zen Pig]

1 minute ago, Lost in Translation said:

The words are not real. They have no mass and take up no space,

good points about how words make life changes to others.  kind of amazing how words can be powerful. 

 

But my original point of deciding what is real and unreal is dependent on our  conditioned upbringing.  

Many people define "unreal" as "Have no mass and take up no space", which we "Know" is true and makes sense,  but If I told someone 150 years ago,  that "waves"  that are everywhere,   travel in the vacuum of space,  and have no mass or take up no volume are "real" they would laugh in my face and think I was insane.  Of course now days, we all "Know" that these waves are real because we are taught that they are real.  If i were to ask 100 people on the street,  in today's "modern" world,   "how does the wireless internet travel through empty space to our phones"?  ...... I will be optimistic and say that only 99 out of the 100 would not have a clue.  most would just say, "because we are taught that they do".  I could even walk up to 100 people in the street and ask, "can you prove to me that the earth is not flat"..........  how many could?  not by saying, "this is what everyone is taught", but really show me that the earth is round using simple plane geometry like the Greeks did 3000 years ago.

The point that I am probably not making very well, is how we think we "know" something,  when we were really just conditioned to accept or believe something.  how weird is that? 

thanks for the great comment.

[Lost in Translation]

31 minutes ago, Zen Pig said:

The point that I am probably not making very well, is how we think we "know" something,  when we were really just conditioned to accept or believe something.

 

Well said.

[manitou]

I'm having a little trouble understanding the basis for your post.  It feels like something that is trying to emerge from the mist.  I can almost make out the shape, but not quite yet.  I feel you're on to something probably very profound, but it might be at that special 'place' where words can't describe it.

 

I too think about stuff like this all the time.  So much of us is filled with space, not matter.  And what makes this any realer than a dream which is also projected onto our basic consciousness?  I just don't know if there's an answer that we have access to.  We are nothing but our conditioning - until we get to the place where we realize that, and at that point we can start thinking and behaving in alternate ways.

 

When I walk the dogs, I have gotten into the habit of trying not to label anything - to realize that the air we breathe is also a type of matter, only not visible to us.  I try to look at everything as all connected with no differentiation.  Once, about 35 years ago, I was driving across the desert - which is a bit of a mind deadening thing to do anyways.  Almost hypnotizing.  But suddenly I saw all these concentric lines attaching everything to everything else - surrounding the trees, the houses, the clouds, the people, the cars - everything.  It was all the same thing, acting in concert.  And for an instant, I was given a glimpse of how it all worked.  I remember saying to myself "Aah!  So that's how it works!"  I truly saw it.  And then, the next moment, it was all forgotten.  It slipped away - it's still in there somewhere, and I suspect that I get access to it only when needed.

[wandelaar]

Nothing wrong with Boolean logic, the internet wouldn't even exist without it. But what is wrong is creating false dilemmas. See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

Now ironically this topic itself is based on a false dilemma. The reasoning goes thus:

 

1. We cannot be absolutely sure about anything, because we might just be dreaming. (Which is true.)

 

But:

 

2. We either (a) know something or (b) we know nothing at all and would do better to do away with the very idea of knowing something.

 

Now as it isn't (a) it has to be (b):

 

3.  We know nothing at all and would do better to do away with the very idea of knowing something.

 

The error here hides in the (implicit) use of a false dilemma in 2. Absolute knowledge is a favourite subject for philosophers and a dead serious illusion for religious fanatics, but everyday life, common sense and science don't need it. Provisional knowledge is good enough. So the fact that we haven't got absolute knowledge is actually irrelevant.

[dwai]

The words “real” and “unreal” are bandied about with wanton abandon (Like they’re a pile of fall leaves being tossed about hither and tither by a vagabond wind)...

 

Let us understand what real means...and what unreal means. Is real the same as existent and unreal the same as nonexistent?

 

The word “real”, to me, means independently existent. “Unreal”, then means, that which doesn’t exist independently. So then nothing we experience in this world (waking or dreaming) is “real”. What then is real? That which knows the unreality of things and experiences...

 

[Zen Pig]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

The error here hides in the (implicit) use of a false dilemma in 2. Absolute knowledge is a favourite subject for philosophers and a dead serious illusion for religious fanatics, but everyday life, common sense and science don't need it. Provisional knowledge is good enough. So the fact that we haven't got absolute knowledge is actually irrelevant.

good that you sussed this out by yourself.  See the western origins to the search for what is true, or Epistemology.  

It is interesting that the origin of western rational "sciences' is developed on a foundation of the "three distinctions",  and by the way, this description is a shit translation of the original Greek text.

 

"The Greek word episteme is the root of the English word Epistemology. This philosophical term is commonly associated with the inquiry for truth and knowledge. Greek philosophers seeded the study, and from this cultivation of thought stems the growth of many sciences. The meaning of the word has three distinctions. First, epistemology can be the quest for true and scientific knowledge as opposed to opinion or belief. Secondly, reality is an organized body of thought. Lastly, sometimes referred to as the “first philosophy” epistemology is the understanding of the divine. Restated, epistemology has three focuses, a practical application, an applied science, and a theological approach.

[wandelaar]

The fact that absolute knowledge is impossible was already known to the ancient sceptics. See:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism#History_of_Western_skepticism

 

So that quest could have stopped right there, but the illusion dies hard. And people in emotional trouble still long for doctrines that promise absolute certainty.

 

True scientists don't claim absolute certainty, they usually only claim to know better than those who didn't take the trouble to (sufficiently) study a particular subject. And I see nothing wrong with such a moderate claim. That's why I think that:

 

Science is not just another religion.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

 

 

Science is not just another religion.

I agree with this , and support it with an addition, that it is an investigation of what is objectively real. 

 

I think there have been degree-d and respected philosophers who spent far more time trying to parse out the meaning of the words like 'real' , than is useful, since at its basis , its just a noise or symbol to which we attach a significance.

 

The 'real' question is -what do people mean when they use ,or hear, the word real? , and that varies. One just needs to get everyone on board as to what the definition best is, to have the definition. ( tautologically true) 

 

I propose , that one should consider all things that all statements which are tautologically true - are true , and are above suspicion. 

From there , we have now 'fact'

(,,a ,,  reality within the cognitive sphere,, a starting point on which to build a cognitive framework of rational thought.)

 

Proceeding more  ,,,  the physical world which we believe to exist, is the one that we would say the word 'exists' is indicating , is 'objectively real'  ,so long as we objectively agree,, (because we do not require ourselves,  to manifest them,, they are phenomena  independent of sentiment). 

 

The world of things subjectively existing also can be said to be 'real' so long as we DO subjectively manifest them. 

 

What does 'not exist'  is unreal ,because  it is not provable  objectively , nor is it an accurate manifestation of the subjective situation. 

Basically its an error , an untruth. 

 

From all that difficult wording , one might digest ,

 

that all the things that actually are manifest , do exist , and are 'real', and those which are not accurately manifest are 'unreal'.

And so long as we can all get behind this definition , philosophers may get down to important things,, like ,

" What should I do now?"

 

IMO

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Stosh

[Zen Pig]

15 hours ago, Stosh said:

I propose , that one should consider all things that all statements which are tautologically true - are true , and are above suspicion. 

From there , we have now 'fact'

OK,  this gets a bit weird, but a tautology is a logical truth, so to speak, like the statement A = A,  which is intuitively true.  by that, I mean if one takes the statement that A does not = A,  that would  be intuitively false.  but if we look at these two statements,  there is no real way to determine which statement is actually true or false.  it is all a conditioned intuitively knowing,  which is not objective. 

Lastly, If I say, A=A, which on the surface seems true,  in the so called "real world", we cannot find any examples of this "truth".  Such as replacing the symbolic A with an apple .  so if i then say that Apple = Apple,  while at first glance, seems to be an objective truth, is in fact not true, like we thought it was.  after all, how can one apple ever equal another apple. one might be more red, one might taste a bit different, one might have a bruise on it........ and on and on. Even if one compares identical twins saying that Twin -= Twin, that also does not wash, as even identical twins have different finger prints.  so in the day to day world,  a tautology is just a subjective truth like everything else.  

[wandelaar]

43 minutes ago, Zen Pig said:

so in the day to day world,  a tautology is just a subjective truth like everything else.  

 

No it is not subjective, because digital circuits and computers can operate with logical truths. You don't need to be self conscious to do that. And errors in logical reasoning can be pointed out beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

But you have a point in that we cannot derive empirical truths from logical truths. So the problem of defining reality cannot be solved by logical means only.

[manitou]

54 minutes ago, Zen Pig said:

OK,  this gets a bit weird, but a tautology is a logical truth, so to speak, like the statement A = A,  which is intuitively true.  by that, I mean if one takes the statement that A does not = A,  that would  be intuitively false.  but if we look at these two statements,  there is no real way to determine which statement is actually true or false.  it is all a conditioned intuitively knowing,  which is not objective. 

Lastly, If I say, A=A, which on the surface seems true,  in the so called "real world", we cannot find any examples of this "truth".  Such as replacing the symbolic A with an apple .  so if i then say that Apple = Apple,  while at first glance, seems to be an objective truth, is in fact not true, like we thought it was.  after all, how can one apple ever equal another apple. one might be more red, one might taste a bit different, one might have a bruise on it........ and on and on. Even if one compares identical twins saying that Twin -= Twin, that also does not wash, as even identical twins have different finger prints.  so in the day to day world,  a tautology is just a subjective truth like everything else.  

 

Is it a particle or is it a wave of probability?  Oops.  It's both.

Edited January 17, 2019 by manitou

[wandelaar]

25 minutes ago, manitou said:

Is it a particle or is it a wave of probability?  Oops.  It's both.

 

Or neither. It's quite conceivable that the many paradoxes in the interpretation of quantum mechanics derive from our continued use of the inappropriate concepts of "wave" and "particle". The micro-world could very well consist of something else that sometimes manifests as waves and sometimes as particles.

[Stosh]

2 hours ago, Zen Pig said:

OK,  this gets a bit weird, but a tautology is a logical truth, so to speak, like the statement A = A,  which is intuitively true.  by that, I mean if one takes the statement that A does not = A,  that would  be intuitively false.  but if we look at these two statements,  there is no real way to determine which statement is actually true or false.  it is all a conditioned intuitively knowing,  which is not objective. 

Lastly, If I say, A=A, which on the surface seems true,  in the so called "real world", we cannot find any examples of this "truth".  Such as replacing the symbolic A with an apple .  so if i then say that Apple = Apple,  while at first glance, seems to be an objective truth, is in fact not true, like we thought it was.  after all, how can one apple ever equal another apple. one might be more red, one might taste a bit different, one might have a bruise on it........ and on and on. Even if one compares identical twins saying that Twin -= Twin, that also does not wash, as even identical twins have different finger prints.  so in the day to day world,  a tautology is just a subjective truth like everything else.  

Basically I get your two points, and agree they have validity. But, so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I will defend my original position despite recognizing the validity of your proposal, thusly...the idea of equating is indeed imperfect in that it constricts attention to parameters we arbitrarily define. True, two 'real' apples are not identical , and true again that the apple is not a 'stand alone object' independent of the universe in which it is observed. 

However , with the logical context where apples are definable there are absolutes -abstracts , (which according to my definition are unreal things  ) and our logical framework we use these false absolutes to model subdivisions of the Great Unbounded Manifest. 

We do it for practical reasons , within which,  the rules may be held inviolable.

The tautology lifts itself up by it's own bootstraps and hovers in mid-space. 

To avoid the whole truth ,,which is ,,-Everything sometimes somethings always, but nothing never anythings ever..... Bah! you know what I mean

Edited January 17, 2019 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

Where does the idea derive from that logic declares that one apple has to be equal to all other apples?

[Stosh]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Where does the idea derive from that logic declares that one apple has to be equal to all other apples?

That's precisely what I think we are attending ,

We hold these truths to be self evident ,

unless one attempts to distinguish the apples.

[Zen Pig]

23 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Where does the idea derive from that logic declares that one apple has to be equal to all other apples?

just an example of using symbolic logic in the day to day world.  and also, the subjective understanding of a tautology.  Also, the "idea derive from that logic that declares that one apple has to be equal to another apple" is a direct result of  attempting to use a tautology in the real world,  so it comes from the equivalence inherent in the tautology. 

I'm not saying an apple has to equal another apple,  the tautology construct is.  In the day to day world,  symbolic logic is a very rough road map at best.  Mostly I am saying that the idea of a "Objective" truth is questionable.  (of course if I said that "there is no objective truth",  then this would be a kind of Russell's Paradox,  where by I would be stating an objective truth as proof that there was no objective truth)  LOL

[Stosh]

I on the other hand ,Do  have complete confidence that there is objective truth. 

[Zen Pig]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

I on the other hand ,Do  have complete confidence that there is objective truth

Could be.  I tend to agree in certain aspects of this comment. or maybe there is an "absolute subjective" truth.   i personally think that a real "truth"  would transcend both our subjective and objective scrutiny.  but just my not knowing suggest that it might be deeper than we think it is

[wandelaar]

Should have known better than to participate in this topic. It's just one more of those mindless anti-science rants that currently can be found everywhere on the internet. The apples example is completely wrong, and proves that Stosh and Zen Pig have no idea what they are taking about. Nor do they show any signs of wanting to know more about it. - Have a nice time science bashing guys, I quite.

[Zen Pig]

5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

It's just one more of those mindless anti-science rants that currently can be found everywhere on the internet. The apples example is completely wrong, and proves that Stosh and Zen Pig have no idea what they are taking about. Nor do they show any signs of wanting to know more about it. - Have a nice time science bashing guys, I quite.

actually i  have an undergraduate in physical chemistry,  and retired from our local state university about a year ago............. so I have no problem with science. 

scientific methodology is a process of asking "what is it that we can know"??  this originates from the ancient Greeks who also asked the question, "can we ever know something for sure"  or epistemology.

This is the  very reason in western science we say something is a "theory" instead of a "scientific fact" which is something that media, and non scientific true believers say. 

 

The purpose of saying that something is a theory,  goes back to the original idea  or question, "can we really know anything for sure"...... so a theory says. "This is what we know so far from observation, and reproduction in a laboratory environment, so we think this is the way this process goes,  unless we get additional information that contradicts our results"  

This is the way scientific methodology was designed to work. 

 

But now days, we get folks who might have taken a science class in junior high or high school, forgot most of it, but have a fundamentalist "true believer"  faith in science.  So if one does there due diligence and questions long held ideas, they are accused of being "unscientific"  where the  reality of scientific investigation is to question everything.  The late great MIT philosophy professor Huston Smith coined the term, "scientism" or the religious belief in science.  

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

Should have known better than to participate in this topic. It's just one more of those mindless anti-science rants that currently can be found everywhere on the internet. The apples example is completely wrong, and proves that Stosh and Zen Pig have no idea what they are taking about. Nor do they show any signs of wanting to know more about it. - Have a nice time science bashing guys, I quite.

Though I dropped out of college senior yr -(big error) , I was a biology major and have been entirely employed in medicine engineering and laboratory work my whole life , I never science bash. We are just examining the foundations upon which all knowledge is based, whereabouts things get a little ambiguous. Feel free to explain whats wrong with the apple example though.

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Zen Pig said:

Could be.  I tend to agree in certain aspects of this comment. or maybe there is an "absolute subjective" truth.   i personally think that a real "truth"  would transcend both our subjective and objective scrutiny.  but just my not knowing suggest that it might be deeper than we think it is

I have read that the standard philosophical position is that the subjective is self-proving ( I think... therefore I am) I agree with that , believe it to be self evident and undeniably "just as real" as physical manifestation 

( how else could my ideas help my car navigate a road ? or an I phone function?  )

On the other hand , the physical is proven to be just as real as the mental , because independent of opinion,  we are forced to yield where the road ends. 

But the two do not mesh , in the sense that dreaming of unicorns,  makes them objectively physical. 

 

That's why I defined real such as I do. It works out well to look at it this way.