The Buddha's Ego

[Oli]

I recently had a debate with my friend about Buddhism. He argues that it is impossible to be enlightened. I disagreed, but he came up with a point that I could not actually come up with a counter argument to. His point was, “if the Buddha became enlightened, he would have had to have an ego to know what he was doing was ‘the right thing to do’. When he was sat under the tree for the certain amount of time, he would have had to have thought to himself that he was doing the right thing otherwise he would not have actually done it. To think that you are doing the right thing does require an ego.”

[TruthSeeker]

You don't need to think you are "right" in order to be enlightned. On the contrary, you must not think you are "right", because thinking of that is to limit yourself to your subjective perspective and, therefore, maintaining your ego.

To achieve enlightnment you have to let it go of your ego, and of your desires. If you desire to be enlightned, you will not achieve enlightnment. Thus is the Way.

Buddha didn't desire to be enlightnment. He let it go of that desire, and that is one of the reasons (if not the reason) he achieved enlightnement. Nirvana is also very similar in that nature. <_<

[scameter]

The Buddha became enlightened by experience, and by losing the illusion of his ego. To become enlightened, he had the illusion of an ego, but he lost that illusion when he became enlightened.

[navedub]

no one can say for certain, siddhartha never wrote an autobiogrophy. let's imagine the buddha (a title same as the christ) is predisposed to become enlightened. the ego being a societal condition of the mind (siddhartha guatama). i don't believe enlightenment can be had. something being "had" requires ownership and that is the very nature of ego. attaining enlightenment could well be more accurately stated in my imagination as a recollection of thee eternal self; ancient and divine, before man thus before egos. the buddha, the christ, god, divinity residing in all existence awakening from the collective dream, moving into collective reality.

[Thomas Knierim]

Oli: When he was sat under the tree for the certain amount of time, he would have had to have thought to himself that he was doing the right thing otherwise he would not have actually done it. To think that you are doing the right thing does require an ego.

I think this argument is flawed. There is a difference between doing what you think is right (opinion) and doing what is right (truth). As long as "doing the right thing" is based on opinion it is certainly an indication of ego, because only ego holds opinions. The perception of truth and the communication of truth is independent of the ego. For example, when I look at the lake and the trees in front of my house, I say that the trees are green and the lake is cool, then these are simply expressions of truths, not opinions, but when I say the lake is beautiful then that starts to constitute an opinion. The Buddha, and by extension all spiritual teachers, don't teach opinions; they teach truths.

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

I disagree slightly, Thomas. I don't think we have any idea what truth is. In your example, the trees are not green and the lake is not cool. We perceive them to be like that because our brains registers the information in that manner. In reality, they are simply vibrating atoms. Our brains interpret them in the way we perceive them.

Consider this. There are countless atoms all around us all the time. Why can't we see them? Well, maybe our brains can't handle that much information. So our brains condense the information in a way that it can be understood and communicated.

Huuuummm... <_<

[scameter]

But Thomas, what if, for instance, you said the lake is cool, but another said it was warm, even if the temperature was the same? And, sonrisa, I disagree that Buddha and Christ are the same thing, as well as that buddhahood is achieved. Enlightenment is a state of non-being, free of the illusion of ego, whereas Christ is essentially the son of God incarnate.

[TruthSeeker]

But Thomas, what if, for instance, you said the lake is cool, but another said it was warm, even if the temperature was the same?
That's basically what I pointed out. The difference of perceived temperature is caused by the temperature which the body already has. For instance, your body is in a temperature of about -10C and you jump in a lake that is 5C, the lake will feel warm. On the other hand, if your body is in a temperature of 45C and you jump in the same lake, the lake will feel cold. The temperature of the lake is relative to the observer because of the way the brain registers the temperature. <_<

Having said that, there is really no absolute measure of temperature. This is why we have many different scales.

And, sonrisa, I disagree that Buddha and Christ are the same thing, as well as that buddhahood is achieved. Enlightenment is a state of non-being, free of the illusion of ego, whereas Christ is essentially the son of God incarnate.
Christ said we are all sons of God. So.... not quite, scam... ;)

[scameter]

I never said the title Christ couldn't apply to many, except that I do believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God before becoming man, and is moreso God than man. Men may be sons of God, but we are much more bodily than Jesus.

[navedub]

it is a wonder that the east didn't make the mistake of saying siddhartha buddha as many western christians say jesus christ. siddhartha is a label for the divine essence of buddahood inherent to all existence. in the same way christ an expression of the anointed one not clarified yet in the hebrew understanding (still waiting for a messiah in a human form). intuition is useful here for me. that is we do not know just how 'bodily' jesus the walking, talking man was. however the grace filled essence of god can be had by all man through all time and that we call many things. buddha nature, christ nature, god, divinity, awakening, grace. many many words to describe this return to life/spirit. there is a reason their teachings so closely align. they both even speak of a mustard seed being planted, or at least the recordings of their teachings say so. however, i was just stating how people confuse those titles with those specific men and that it may (couldn't say for certain) be a block to comprehension that they too are worthy of those titles simply by relationship with the truth they spoke. whether drawing from the inexhaustible well they speak of or becoming the well the eventuality is a return to wellness ;) as that is our god nature. admittedly this is not the common expression amongst the church. it is still culturally bound, set up as a sort of spiritual monarchy and the bible is a secret so well hidden it is no wonder there are not many christian mystics. the mahayanas sure talk alot, the trappists not so much. :silent:

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: But Thomas, what if, for instance, you said the lake is cool, but another said it was warm, even if the temperature was the same?

Okay, I grant that the adjective "cool" contains a trace of subjective judgement. Basically the chosen words are situational. When I say that the lake is cool I mean that it appears so to those whom I speak to. Therefore a truth is communicated. However, the statement may not be univerally applicable. For example, it may not apply to an inhabitant of Alaska or a bison, though I did not address these subjects. It is important to note that this doesn't invalidate my point. I have little trouble to modify the statement to make it more universal, for example by saying that "the trees are green and the lake is 17.5 degrees Celsisus". Now a truth has been expressed that would be intelligible even to the Alaskan bison.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

What if the person viewing the trees were colour blind? See... I personally believe that for something to be a truth, it must be universal, and all-encompassing. Otherwise, it is simply a small, exclusive truth, or fact.

[Thomas Knierim]

Even if the colour blind person does not see the colour of the tree, the tree is still green. In other words, the tree reflects electromagnetic radiation of a specific wavelength (around 550 nm) independently of the observer's ability ro register it.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

How do you know? If every single person ever born were colour blind, how would we even know what "green" is?

[Thomas Knierim]

I think your argument is becoming hopeless. Colour blindness is quite rare. The word green has a very well defined meaning to you and me and almost everybody else.

Cheers, Thomas

[lenin32]

Thomas is absolutely correct in a sense. Yes, the tree is reflecting light at a certain wavelength, and the word for the wavelength is "Green".

But scameter also has a point that shouldnt be overlooked. Its very unscientific, but that is what makes it special. It is the view of not being able to "know" "truths" because they dont exist on their own. It is the distinction between the label of "green", and its actual self.

In a different universe, with different creatures than us, with different means of percieving their surroundings, those waves may be a feeling on the skin instead of registering in their visual center as us.

wow. I think I just confused myself. :D

[Oli]

In a different universe, with different creatures than us, with different means of percieving their surroundings, those waves may be a feeling on the skin instead of registering in their visual center as us.

This reminded me of something i heard the other day, that there are some children born with the inability to properly hear music; instead, they see the music. It is something in their brain patterns that has gone wrong, and they respond to certain stimuli wrongly, and they appear through different sences. I found this a very odd concept; imagine seeing music!

So this may show that everything may not necessarily have a universal truth, it is how it appears to us. Our own personnal truths. To some people, music is only 'true' through seeing it.

[TruthSeeker]

Our brain is just a machine that looks at the world and take in information. The information we see, however, is purely subjective. But our brain has the incredible capacity of actually taking all the inofrmation, despite the fact that we are only aware of a portion of that information. The difference between our perceptions and the actual Truth is equal to the amount of information that we are actually aware of, compare to the amount of information that we take in.

So, for example, our brain take in 100,000 bits of information. If you are aware of 10 of those, then you are not very aware and your perceptions is highly different from the actual Truth. However, if you take in 90,000 of those, then you are very aware and much closer to the Truth.

I believe the brain can be manipulated to make us aware of more information. The reason why the brain filters this information is because a lot of that information is not necessary for our survival.

So, for example, in the case of a colour "blind" person, the person is actually seeing more colours (or different) then we do! The person is taking in another information. This information is not false, it is not an illusion. This information is just some other information that we are not aware of simply because it is deemed "unecessary" for us and therefore we don't eprceive it.

So, for instance, let's say auras do exist. Then, a child will likely be able to see those auras because the child is not yet conditioned to filter out this "unnecessary" information.

Of course, we might very well be able to alter our brains or our senses in order to perceive this hidden information. And that's my present focus, particularly when God is concerned. I understand God better now and according to my theory above, I should be able to perceive Him if I alter the amount of information that my brain makes me aware of. That's my new challenge.... :o B)

The Seeker :tao:

[TruthSeeker]

Hey Oli,

Do you remember the source of your information about seeing music? I would love to take a look at it.... :)

Cheers,
TruthSeeker

[Oli]

It was in a discussion that i had a school with some of my friends when i first heard about it. After a quick search i have found some sites about the condition:

Synethesia 1 (http://www.infinitepink.com/blog/archives/2002/07/seeing_music_ta.html)

Synethesia 2 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Synesthesia&meta=)

[TruthSeeker]

Fascinating... B)

Thanks :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Lenin: But scameter also has a point that shouldnt be overlooked.

Yes, it is a subtle point which touches upon a basic question in philosophy. This question is often phrased as follows: "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make noise?" At first, the question appears very naive. However, as it aims directly at the "interface" between phenomena and perception, it cannot be answered without considering the nature of consciousness and mind. Interestingly the question appeared to be answered by science for a long time only to reappear in the 20th century. Science knows that phenomena such as "green" or "noise" can be described in objective terms. They can be described as electromagnetic radiation or sound waves and as such they are believed to exist independently of consciousness. Quantum mechanics has discovered phenomena that cannot be measured in the same way as the phenomena described above. Therefore the question arises once again: is reality only that which can be measured?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I personally think that science is limited to our subjective minds and selves because we only know as much about reality as our conceptualities allow us to make representations of, and to receive sensually. By this, I mean everything we know, from colour to temperature to texture, is subjective, and the reason we can describe it in reality is because we can experience it, and understand it conceptually. This is similar to something Russell conjured, called Russell's teapot. It essentially said this (from wikipedia): "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." I personally find it to be quite interesting, and true. And why I dislike scientists acting as if their physical findings can dismiss or prove God, when no one ever said God could be discovered physically.

[navedub]

Fascinating... cool.gif

keep an eye out for this guy if you're interested in brain function/neurochemistry and how that all relates to consciousness.

http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/ramabio.html

and if you have a fast connection and/or willing to wait this was a great video, though not on synesthesia strictly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...633351941696550 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-130633351941696550)

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: This is similar to something Russell conjured, called Russell's teapot.

Actually, it has not much to do with Russell's teapot. Russell's teapot argument is identical to the case of the invisible pink unicorn. You might have heard of that. Personally, I prefer the invisible pink unicorn, because the teapot hypothesis can be attacked via multiple avenues. The pink unicorn is a cleaner illustration. Both arguments are routinely brought up against theism. They touch upon the principle of Occam, also known as Occam's razor, which is part of the scientific method.

What I have outlined above is not a case of an extrasensory or supernatural phenomenon. The tree falling in the woods is an ordinary observable phenomenon. However, the question in this case is whether it makes noise if there is nobody to hear it. The implicit question could be phrased as follows: Does noise depend on perception? This leads to the contraposition of realism (yes, it makes a noise) and idealism (no, it doesn't make a noise).

I personally think that science is limited to our subjective minds and selves because we only know as much about reality as our conceptualities allow us to make representations of, and to receive sensually.

Yes, and by extension logically and conceptually. Everything we can say about reality is of course "conjured" by mind. Does that make it subjective? I don't tink so. Science has defined a methodology for arriving at objective statements. You need to ask yourself, what exactly is objective and what is subjective?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Yes, it would and does to many seem as if scientific findings, because of the impersonal method, is objective, but I disagree with this. Everything we know scientifically we have experienced with our subjective selves. Perhaps my definitions of objective and subjective are more broad than others'; from what I have seen, I would say so. Scientific findings can be seen as partially objective because of their impersonality, but they are so because of their pure search for knowledge. But, even this search is subjective; the desire for knowledge is a subjective thing, specifically human. We are willing to do anything for knowledge, and we treasure it above nearly all else. Because of this, science would seem objective, as would math. But both depend on our sets of being, which are subjective. Think about it: if our fundamental mental and physical aspects changed, everything we know about science would also change, as we would experience it differently. Even things intercepted by instruments are perceived by our minds and are understood only by how our minds receive the instrumental knowledge. I'm sure this is difficult for many supporters of science and math to grasp, as they see science and math as being the perfect, objective, inhuman study and search for knowledge, but unfortunately science is as subjective as anything else we do.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Think about it: if our fundamental mental and physical aspects changed, everything we know about science would also change, as we would experience it differently.

Certainly not. An alien with ultraviolet sight, who hears colours and smells neutrino storms, in other words, an alien with a completely different sense apparatus, can still arrive at the notions of singularity, plurality, counting, addition, subtraction, and so on, because these notions are universal. They lead to what we call logic and arithmetic, the foundation of mathematics. In fact, if the alien creature is intelligent at all, it would probably use a similar arithmetic as we do, although its symbolic representation is likely to be completely different from ours. The reason for this is that arithmetic can be used to describe many phenomena in nature. Hence, arithmetic is universal, and by extension mathematics is universal.

Scameter: I'm sure this is difficult for many supporters of science and math to grasp...

It is actually fairly easy to grasp. There are many subjective and accidental aspects of science starting from the development of our instruments and theories to the way they are expressed. The underlying concepts, however, are not subjective. Mathematics is not subjective. Arithemtics can be expressed in many ways. Do you know what an isomorphism is? An alien algebra might be isomorph to ours. Or it might be different. If it was different, we would still be able to discern an algebraic structure in the alien system and identify as an isomorphism with one of our algebraic groups or rings.

Scameter: ...but unfortunately science is as subjective as anything else we do.

It is subjective in the way that people use specific terms, specific instruments, names, symbols, specific systems, and so on. Yet, the concepts themselves are not subjective. It is important to understand this. Take human art as an analogy. --What is art?-- Art is basically skilful expression of human experience.-- Now, an alien race may have a completely different experience. If their culture is sufficiently developed they will still have some kind of art, regardless of the concrete nature of their experience. That's because the essence of art is universal.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

Art is basically skilful expression of human experience



not always

[scameter]

An alien with ultraviolet sight, who hears colours and smells neutrino storms, in other words, an alien with a completely different sense apparatus, can still arrive at the notions of singularity, plurality, counting, addition, subtraction, and so on, because these notions are universal.

To us. What if ultraviolet light doesn't truly exist, we simply intercept something else that isn't what we call ultraviolet light visually, and mentally title it that?

In fact, if the alien creature is intelligent at all, it would probably use a similar arithmetic as we do, although its symbolic representation is likely to be completely different from ours.

Maybe. What if the alien doesn't have consciousness, or logic, or what if it doesn't care about gaining knowledge simply for the sake of knowledge? We are as we are, and can do what we can, because of our state of being. If it were to be changed, our entire existence would change.

The reason for this is that arithmetic can be used to describe many phenomena in nature.

Except gravity. It can describe gravity's effect, but not gravity it's self. Not even science can do that yet.

Hence, arithmetic is universal, and by extension mathematics is universal.

This is a very common belief of supporters of logic philosophy and science, that math is all-powerful and all-encompassing. I think to say this is to give too much credit to our logical minds, as well as to limit our philosophical side/nature.

If it was different, we would still be able to discern an algebraic structure in the alien system and identify as an isomorphism with one of our algebraic groups or rings.

That is too much of an assumption.

Yet, the concepts themselves are not subjective.

The concepts must be experienced and recognized mentally to exist with any substance. Because of this, they are subjective; unless something exists (or perhaps doesn't exist) that is not perceived by us and then understood by our perception of it, we are entirely bound by subjectivity.

Art is basically skilful expression of human experience.

I agree with asheera. I think art is the expression (skillful being too individual a word; any art can be seen as skillful) of imagination.

If their culture is sufficiently developed they will still have some kind of art, regardless of the concrete nature of their experience.

That is too anthropomorphic. They may not have culture, art, imagination, technology, science, or any of the things we do. Why must we assume that all life must be like us, if it is "intelligent"?

I think I do now realize something however; my use of the words subjective and objective are incorrect grammatically; they are much more simple than I thought. Subjectivity is the observer, the subject; objectivity is that which is observed or is observable, or the object. Sorry for the misunderstanding. To be honest, this realization essentially destroys what I have been saying, or at least because of my continously incorrect usage of these two words. Sorry again.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: What if ultraviolet light doesn't truly exist...

That is absurd, since "ultraviolet" is simply a term for a certain spectrum of electromagnetic waves. You would have to call the existence of electromagnetism itself into question. Besides, your objection is unrelated to the issue, because my example was an auxiliary illustration whose omittance doesn't compromise my argument.

Scameter: What if the alien doesn't have consciousness, or logic, or what if it doesn't care about gaining knowledge simply for the sake of knowledge?

In this case we don't need to consider the alien's worldview. Just as we don't care about flatworm algebra (since flatworms don't have algebra...).

Scameter: Except gravity. It can describe gravity's effect, but not gravity it's self. Not even science can do that yet.

Pardon me? You might want to look up what Newton and Einstein have to say about gravity.

Scameter: This is a very common belief of supporters of logic philosophy and science, that math is all-powerful and all-encompassing.

It did not say that math is all-powerful. I said that the fundamental building blocks of mathematics are universal. That's a very different statement. Let's repeat it to be very clear about it. I am saying that the fundamental building blocks are notions such as singularity, duality, plurality, (integer) numbers, affirmation, negation, etc., and that they apply at any place and any time in our universe. It is possible to demonstrate (mathematically) how logic and counting can be derived from these notions, and how the rest of mathematics develops from the latter.

If you want to attack this argument, you have to show that the mentioned notions are somehow not fundamental or that mathematics does not emanate from them. Good luck.

Scameter: I agree with asheera.

If you agree with Asheera you have to propose an alternative definition of art, or at the very least refute the definition I provided. Please remember that "skilful" is a relative term. The fact that the degree of skilfulness varies does not invalidate the definition. We all know that there's great art and crappy art.

Scameter: That is too anthropomorphic.

You probably mean "anthropocentric". Yes, alien art appears to be an anthropocentric conjecture, but think about it this way: For a culture to arise, language or communication is required, and for communication symbols are required. If an alien race is capable of skilfully arranging symbols for the purpose of communication, then it is also -by definition- capable of art. So either, the alien race has culture including art, or it has no culture and no art. :alien:

Scameter: I think I do now realize something however; my use of the words subjective and objective are incorrect grammatically...

Not grammatically, but semantically. You appear to have had semantical unclarities with these terms.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

That is absurd, since "ultraviolet" is simply a term for a certain spectrum of electromagnetic waves. You would have to call the existence of electromagnetism itself into question. Besides, your objection is unrelated to the issue, because my example was an auxiliary illustration whose omittance doesn't compromise my argument.

If you wish. Although my objection is still valid; what if ultraviolet light doesn't exist? Not the concept, but the thing it's self.

In this case we don't need to consider the alien's worldview. Just as we don't care about flatworm algebra (since flatworms don't have algebra...).

That is the practical view yes. But what I mean is is that our concepts and understandings and knowledge are simply that which we perceive, and are limited thusly.

Pardon me? You might want to look up what Newton and Einstein have to say about gravity.

Einstein explains it as curvature of space I believe. Has this been proven?

and that they apply at any place and any time in our universe.

From our perceptions of them yes.

If you agree with Asheera you have to propose an alternative definition of art, or at the very least refute the definition I provided. Please remember that "skilful" is a relative term. The fact that the degree of skilfulness varies does not invalidate the definition. As we all know there's great art and crappy art.

I don't know that. Of course to me some art is better than others, but to someone else it could be exactly the opposite. And, I did say more than just agreeing with asheera; "I think art is the expression (skillful being too individual a word; any art can be seen as skillful) of imagination."

For a culture to arise, language or communication is required, and for communication symbols are required.

Indeed, for human cultures. As I said, aliens may not have culture at all.

Not grammatically, but semantically. You appear to have had semantical unclarities with these terms.

Yes indeed, I didn't realize their exact definitions.

'Do not accept anything on mere reports, traditions or hearsay;
Nor upon the authority of religious texts;
Nor upon mere reasons and logic;
Nor upon one's own inference;
Nor upon anything which appears to be true;
Nor upon one's speculative opinions;
Nor upon another's seeming ability;
Nor upon the consideration, 'This is our Teacher'.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Although my objection is still valid; what if ultraviolet light doesn't exist?

What if? If ultraviolet light does not exist, then electromagnetism does not exist, which means one of the four fundamental forces suddenly went missing, and we will have to redefine physics from scratch, or at least from Maxwell to quantum theory. Of course, electromagnetism can alternatively be explained with the pink invisible unicorn which produces the illusion of ultraviolet light and causes us believe in electromagnetism. :lol:

Scameter: But what I mean is is that our concepts and understandings and knowledge are simply that which we perceive, and are limited thusly.

This is a poor conception. Knowledge is not simply what we perceive. It is that which can shown to be true. In other words, knowledge gives us the ability to make accurate predictions, while mere perception doesn't.

Scameter: Einstein explains it as curvature of space I believe. Has this been proven?

In physics, things are never "proven". Things are "corroborated". General relativity has been corroborated experimentally and observationally beyond doubt. However, it is inconsistent with QM and therefore either GR or QM or (most likely) both are incomplete.

Scameter: I think art is the expression of imagination.

I think this is a weak definition. Scientific hypotheses, software diagrams, city zoning plans are all expressions of imagination, but they are not art in the common sense.

Scameter: As I said, aliens may not have culture at all.

If aliens don't have culture, then they don't have science and art. In this case their conceptions about the universe are not much more interesting than my dog's.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Indeed it could; and that's my point. Our scientific laws are based on what we perceive, electromagnetism being one thing.

Knowledge is based on perception. Knowledge is acquired through sensual perception and imaginative, speculative thought. What can be "shown to be true" is what we can experiencially perceive as being true.

Then science really has no idea? It simply goes by what it perceives, and then logically attempts to causally connect that experience with other experiencial knowledge and evidence, to form a theory? Now, I don't mean to be repititous, but this is quite important for me. So, to physics, it could see something, or rather many people with a good understanding of physics fundamental logic, could see something with their own eyes, and not believe it is entirely proven and true beyond doubt? If so, I like science more than I thought I did.

Scientific hypotheses, software diagrams, city zoning plans are all expressions of imagination, but they are not art in the common sense.

They are imaginative, but aren't expressions of imagination. By expression of imagination, I mean taking something entirely blank, with no real former knowledge or goal for a certain practical means, and using one's imagination, and whatever chosen media, to create something with no practical purpose beyond one's enjoyment, or possibly for acquisition. The examples you gave were imaginative expression for a particular, practical purpose.

If aliens don't have culture, then they don't have science and art. In this case their conceptions about the universe are not much more interesting than my dog's.

To you of course that's true, and this essentially proves what I mean; to you, what is interesting is what you are, how you are, and what you are capable of perceiving/experiencing/living. But, what you are and what you live may very well be entirely different to a different creation, if not a different person. This is why I firmly believe that no knowledge is definite beyond doubt, nor that reality exists beyond doubt.

[scameter]

:think:

[sahyo]

What is art?-- Art is basically skilful expression of human experience.--



appears as though human experience?




...........http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/phrosyne_copy.jpg

[TruthSeeker]

Looks more like a blob to me.... :o

Is that Buddha's ego? :think:

[sahyo]

:lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

Before I address your points, I want to note once more that your replies are difficult to read, because your own comments are not silhouetted against the quotations. It would be easier to read if you marked quotations somehow.

Scameter: Knowledge is based on perception. Knowledge is acquired through sensual perception and imaginative, speculative thought. What can be "shown to be true" is what we can experiencially perceive as being true.

Yes, but I don't see how this constitutes an obstacle to the acquisition of knowledge, unless you understand knowledge to be something completely out of reach for human beings. At this point I am not sure whether you argue from the viewpoint of radical scepticism (solipsism for example), or whether you argue in favour of a relativistic or fallibilistic point of view, which involves notions such as: truth is relative, everything can be refuted, and so on. Western philosophy traditionally defines three necessary conditions for knowledge: (1) belief, (2) truth, and (3) justification. Let me explain what this means.

(1) Knowledge requires belief. In order to know something, you must believe in it. This has nothing to do with religious belief, but it simply means that you have a specific idea of something to which you are committed. This does imply that you have a concept of the subject. For example, if you don't know anything about Italian cuisine, then you cannot express the belief that Ravioli are made from noodles and minced meat. You simply don't know anything about Ravioli. (2) Knowledge requires truth. For something to be known it must be true. If you say that Ravioli are made from potatoes this is not true. You might have a concept of Ravioli being a potatoe dish, but that concept is wrong. If you insist that Ravioli are made from potatoes, it would be absurd to say you have knowledge of Ravioli. (3) Knowledge also requires justification, because we need to exclude the possibility that your belief is accidentally true. For example, you could guess that Ravioli are a type of noodle, but you just guess so without knowing. This we cannot call knowledge. Therefore you must be able to explain why you think that Ravioli are made from noodle dough and minced meat.

Scameter: So, to physics, it could see something, or rather many people with a good understanding of physics fundamental logic, could see something with their own eyes, and not believe it is entirely proven and true beyond doubt?

Yes, that is basically the case. This property of scientific statements is known as falsifiability or contingency. It is an important property, since non-falsifiable statements are basically non-scientific statements. The notion of falsifiability was developed by Karl Popper, but the principle goes actually back to Kant and Hume who distinguished between "a priori" and "a posteriori" statements, wheras "a priori" roughly corresponds to "logical/tautological" and "a posteriori" roughly corresponds to "empirical". Kant said that all a posteriori statements can be denied without logical contradiction. This means that all universal empirical statements must be propositional.

Consider the following examples of statements:
(1) "The sun always sets in the west." (falsifiable, universal, corroborated)
(2) "The sun always sets in the south." (universal, falsified)
(3) "The sun set in the west yesterday." (true, non-falsifiable)
(4) "The sun set in the east yesterday." (falsified)
(5) "The sun sets." (non-falsifiable, universal, unscientific)

Scameter: They are imaginative, but aren't expressions of imagination.

Oh gawd, now it gets loopy...

Scameter: By expression of imagination, I mean taking something entirely blank, with no real former knowledge or goal for a certain practical means, and using one's imagination, and whatever chosen media, to create something with no practical purpose beyond one's enjoyment, or possibly for acquisition.

What you are doing here is loading the word "imagination" with a lot of specific meanings (...connotations it usually doesn't have...) to rescue your definition. Spare yourself the trouble and revise the definition.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

asheera: appears as though human experience?

It is not necessary for art to be realistic or even representational in order to express human experience. Abstract art, such as the one in your example, as well as music and many other non-representational forms of art fulfil this criterion as well. Why is that? Because (a) non-representational art evokes certain sensations and emotions, which are part of human experiene, for example in a dream world or as aspects of concrete experiences, and (b) art employs materials such as colors, shapes, tones, forms, etc., all of which are part of common human experience.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

non-representational art evokes certain sensations and emotions, which are part of human experiene


maybe, if memorying looking imagining human experience



art employs materials such as colors, shapes, tones, forms, etc., all of which are part of common human experience.


doesn't require imagining human experience

[sahyo]

scam:

no real former knowledge or goal



:thumbsup:

[scameter]

Yes, but I don't see how this constitutes an obstacle to the acquisition of knowledge, unless you understand knowledge to be something completely out of reach for human beings.

This isn't the point of what I said. I said what I did, and essentially everything I've said in this thread thus far, to illustrate that nothing we know is certain, and that knowledge, as well as science, is specifically ascertained from our point of view, and would be different from the point of view of something else. I'm not really trying to make some huge epistemological statement or anything; I fully believe that we can gain knowledge. I am simply saying that our knowledge is limited to our perception of reality, and that nothing is absolutely certain.

The notion of falsifiability was developed by Karl Popper

I'm not sure, but is this called the positivist approach? Stephen Hawking mentioned Popper in one of his books, and said that he essentially invented the positivist approach, which Hawking follows.

What you are doing here is loading the word "imagination" with a lot of specific meanings (...connotations it usually doesn't have...) to rescue your definition. Spare yourself the trouble and revise the definition.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm distinguishing from expression of imagination, and imginative action. This may seem semantical, which is why with me because I actually enjoy semantics, but I feel it is important to the definition of art.

no real former knowledge or goal

Exactly. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: This isn't the point of what I said. I said what I did, and essentially everything I've said in this thread thus far, to illustrate that nothing we know is certain...

This is a huge epistemological statement, and a valid one.

The certainty of our knowledge can indeed be questioned. For example, we could be in a sort of matrix wired to an artificial intelligence program which simulates everything we experience. In this case, nothing we experience would be real; all of our experience would be just simulation. Or you could state the possibility that you are simply a brain in a vat, a hallucinating mental entity. In this case, the world is entirely imaginary, a product of your own phantasy, and nothing you experience, including my answer which you are reading now, is real. These and similar theories is what philosophy calls solipsism. Solipsism cannot be refuted, because it is internally coherent and we cannot disprove its premise. On the other hand, it cannot be proved either. What is more, solipsism has never been corroborated (for example, by a glitch in the matrix or a similar event that points to a meta-reality). Traditionally, solipsism is formulated as follows: Either nothing exists, or if something exists, nothing can be known about it. This wraps up the classical skepticist position.

Now, the problem with asserting solipsism is twofold. First, if you assert solipsism then you are denying reality which is not a very serviceable foundation for questions like: "What should I do?", "How should I live my life?", "How should I interact with others?", and so on, because if nothing is real, these questions don't really matter. Secondly, solipsism has never been corroborated, as I already mentioned. There is nobody who came back from the matrix and told us that we are experiencing artificial reality. There is no indication that we are actually brains in a vat. Of course, there doesn't need to be such an external verification for the theory to be true, but we have to ask ourselves: why should we hold the position at all when there is not even a hint of empirical corroboration?

Basically, solipsism is a dead end.

Scameter: I am simply saying that our knowledge is limited to our perception of reality, and that nothing is absolutely certain.

Well, that does sound pretty much like solipsism to me. You should be totally clear about this: if you question perception, then you question whether experience and reason can give us any knowlegde at all. In other words, like Descartes, you question everything with two exceptions: (1) the existence of experience, and (2) logic itself. This means you have to doubt every empirical statement. For example, you cannot doubt only the existence of ultraviolet light or electromagnetism. This doesn't make sense. If you question the validity of perception itself, then you must also doubt the rest of physics, or indeed the entire field of science, and not only science but -as already mentioned- every empirical knowledge.

Scameter: Stephen Hawking mentioned Popper in one of his books, and said that he essentially invented the positivist approach, which Hawking follows.

Popper made important contributions to the Philosophy of Science. To my knowledge he was not a positivist. Is Hawking a positivist?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Basically, solipsism is a dead end.

Actually, it doesn't sound too bad to me. Too concrete perhaps, but not too bad. Mainly because it essentially says what I have been saying, that we go by what we experience and perceive, and cannot break past that, as well as that nothing we know is entirely certain; as you exemplified, we could simply be in a sort of matrix which simulates the world we think we know. This is really the main point I was attempting to get across; I am pleased Thomas that you have taken my point so open mindedly. I have posed it elsewhere, and many title what I say as idiotic and ignorant, and because I value open mindedness so, this really frustrated me, especially when said from seemingly intelligent people. Thank you. :)

If you question the validity of perception itself, then you must also doubt the rest of physics, or indeed the entire field of science, and not only science but -as already mentioned- every empirical knowledge.

Actually, I doubt everything. Remember, I am attempting to be philosophical. :P But, seriously, I do doubt everything, mainly because I think it is an inevitable part of truth-seeking. Nothing is certain, and without this doubt, truth cannot be attained, nor can truth's nature be described. Now, do not mistake my skeptical, solipsistic attitude to be concrete, as solipsisim appears to be; I doubt everything, but I also think it is possible that everything is real. I simply do not want to have any unnecessary and untruthful bounds, such as believing concretely that everything is real or isn't real.

To my knowledge he was not a positivist. Is Hawking a positivist?

I believe that's what he called himself yes. The positivist method he described sounded to me very much like the scientific method, and I believe he said Kant also supported it.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: This is really the main point I was attempting to get across; I am pleased Thomas that you have taken my point so open mindedly.

That's what philosophy is all about, isn't it? Questioning things, evaluating beliefs, designing arguments and counter-arguments. I once too thought that solipsism is a cool point of view, partly because my attitude was naturally sceptic (I wasn't inclined to take authority for granted), and partly because solipsism is unassailable and allows you to build a strong argument. This was a long time ago, however. A little bit further down the road I realised that nothing develops from solipsism -with the possible exception of nihilism-, so it suddenly didn't look that attractive anymore. On one hand, I was never drawn to nihilism and on the other hand, I thought that Rene Descartes was unjustified in concluding all the things he concluded from the mere "cogito ergo sum" starting point. There is simply nothing to conclude from solipsism.

Scameter: I have posed it elsewhere, and many title what I say as idiotic and ignorant...

Solipsism is neither idiotic nor ignorant. Whoever says so is probably ignorant himself, because he/she understands very little of philosophy. It is not a view to which everyone agrees, but it is a position which can be argued strongly and which tends to drives people against the wall. You are in good company, however, because there are several prominent philosophers who started out from an extreme sceptical (solipsist) position. I already mentioned Descartes, but there is also the Gorgias (a presocratic scepticist), and there is Berkeley who is not a solipsist in the pure sense, but a contender of radical idealism.

But again, solipsism is a dead end, because nothing can be developed from it and therefore it is not an attractive position. In order to make any useful statement about the world at all, we need to trust a posteriori knowledge, not blindly of course, but with a careful discrimination.

Cheers, Thomas

[CSwriter1]

Whoo, we break through our past perception of reality frequently. That is one of the exciting things about these discussions. We get a new peice of information, and are enlightened. Our limited view becomes a bigger view.

How about we do live in a matrix, or as Socrates said, the shadow of a cave. Does knowing this change our reality? How?

To the orginal question of ego, this comes up repeatedly, in Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosis. Who is asking who am I? Who is the inner observer of our lives? This is not the same as assuming our physical manifestation is who we are. Our physical manifestation may be as a suit of clothes we put on, and we wear many suits of clothes as we reincarnate several times.

Native Americans identified with their tribes, not with individual egos. That is a collective rather then individual identity.

How sure can we be that we are doing the "right" thing?
Is a different question for those with collective identities. With a collective identity, the "right" thing is defined by what everyone is doing, not an individual and separate identity/ego.

What if sitting under a tree is just waiting to think of the right thing to do? The decision to sit under the tree, may not be to sit there, but to waiting until a decision to move on is made. :uhoh:

Some people have seizures where they just freeze. They do not decide to do this, but their brain shorts out. <_< I am aging, and if I had a choice I would become physically younger. Not everything in our lives is our choice, but we are aware of what our perceptions make us aware, so long as we are fully conscious, which is rare. That is, we are rarely fully conscious of ourselves and our surroundings. So I will say Buddha could be aware of sitting under the tree, without making the choice to do so. We don't move without choosing to so, so sitting under the tree can be lack of choice?

[CSwriter1]

knowledge gives us the ability to make accurate predictions, while mere perception doesn't.

Thomas, I like what you said.

I am the perceiver, not the knower.

[CSwriter1]

Scientific hypotheses, software diagrams, city zoning plans are all expressions of imagination, but they are not art in the common sense.

Doctors once practiced the art of healing. Here is a consciousness expanding word, and demonstration of why it is benefacial to study Latin. The root of art is- Latin, aris- a combining form, a measure.

Our language and thinking is very materialist, leading to the idea that art is a noun rather than a verb. The noun is actually the product of the verb. The product is a picture, or can be a planned city, or health. Art is the doing that manifest the result. We can practice the art of living and achieve arte.

The t is shorten from Latin tau, and seems to mean when two forces cross. The 'e' means coming out of.
So arte is the crossing of good habits with good inheritance (what we are born with), which brings us to the good life, beauty, wealth, fame.

Not everyone was wealthy, so the Athenians created paid government jobs. Excuse me, my thoughts are rushing with new enlightenment for myself. I was going to move this all to another thread, but then realized it relates to the subject ego. With what were you born? What were you born into? Is this the stuff of ego? "e" coming of "go" action. We can remove self from one invironment and put self in another, say a Buddhist monastry. Who am I? My parents child, a Buddhist monk, a Jew or Navaho, Jesus, the temple is within.

One nerve ending of the consciousness?

[sahyo]

knowledge gives us the ability to make accurate predictions, while mere perception doesn't.


changing knowledge cannot predict accurately changing

what meaning word "perception" thomas?

[sahyo]

maybe didn't ask clearly


perception:

1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a capacity for comprehension
synonym see DISCERNMENT

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/perception


which meaning are using word 'perception' to point?

[scameter]

But again, solipsism is a dead end, because nothing can be developed from it and therefore it is not an attractive position. In order to make any useful statement about the world at all, we need to trust a posteriori knowledge, not blindly of course, but with a careful discrimination.

Indeed, as I said previously of it's limitation and excess of concreteness. May I ask, and I will also look this us: what is the skeptic philosophy truly about, and who were some of the major proponents of it? If you would answer Thomas, I would be honoured. :) As well as exactly what a priori and postpriori are, not to make you repeat I simply wish to be sure of this.

How about we do live in a matrix, or as Socrates said, the shadow of a cave. Does knowing this change our reality? How?

That's the thing: we both can't and don't know.

The product is a picture, or can be a planned city, or health.

I disagree. I think that art, as the noun product of the verb, is creative expression of pure imagination. Designing a city plan, while possibly appearing attractive to some, isn't done for pure creative expression of imagination; it is done for a practical reason, and I believe art is inherently impractical.

[CSwriter1]

Scameter, why did you to exclude other understandings of art? what purpose does this exculsion serve?

Making love can be an art, and I much rather do it with someone who thinks it is an art, than with someone just wanting to relieve himself. :)

Thinking of medicine as a healing art, has great value. For one thing it puts the healer in a proper prespective. Doctors are not Gods with unlimited knowledge and power. They are limited humans doing the best humans can do, and when do things creatively we are liberated to do them better.

Living can be considered an art, and when we do this we are apt to live a little better. We need to put the creativity back into our lives. By restricting art to a narrow, materialistic understanding of it, aren't you denying the creativity of our daily lives? This denial of creativity leads to atrophy and that kills entire civilizations.

[scameter]

Scameter, why did you to exclude other understandings of art? what purpose does this exculsion serve?

I don't see what you mean.

Making love can be an art, and I much rather do it with someone who thinks it is an art, than with someone just wanting to relieve himself.

Indeed, sex can be an art, especially if those involved believe it to be an art. But if they are simply having sex, as animals do, only to the effort of an individual mind can it be seen as art. But as true expression of creative imagination and with this in mind during the artistic expression, anything can be art.

By restricting art to a narrow, materialistic understanding of it, aren't you denying the creativity of our daily lives?

I hope by you, you didn't mean me, because you are assuming too much. I am not being materialist or limited in my definition of art; I am simply not going to say that someone taking a crap and having absolutely no mind to make that crap act an art is still an art regardless. I think art action takes the artists' intent to make art, for it to be truly art.

[TruthSeeker]

Making love can be an art
Hehehehehe... :dancing:

Yeah... :D :P

[scameter]

:D

[CSwriter1]

I feel angry, and pray you remove your socially inappropriate comments and all the childish laughing, because this will attract more of the same, and will drive away those looking for a more mature and intellectual discussion.

It was said city planning and other such things which are very much of the mind and do involve creativity, are not creative. However, this is less important than your childishly offense defense of bad arguement. Thomas should not be so tolerant of what people of quality find offensive, because that assures they do not participate in the debates. Stop trashing the fine work of Thomas, with bathroom humor.

[TruthSeeker]

Which bathroom humour? Making love is an art! All I said was that I am an artist! B)

[scameter]

I feel angry, and pray you remove your socially inappropriate comments and all the childish laughing, because this will attract more of the same, and will drive away those looking for a more mature and intellectual discussion.

Sorry for the emotion and sensitivity. I forgot that isn't appropriate to an intellectual act.

It was said city planning and other such things which are very much of the mind and do involve creativity, are not creative. However, this is less important than your childishly offense defense of bad arguement. Thomas should not be so tolerant of what people of quality find offensive, because that assures they do not participate in the debates. Stop trashing the fine work of Thomas, with bathroom humor.

Again, I ask for your forgiveness. And, I would also like to add that I think it is entirely ignorant to be discussing art in a philosophy and science forum. I think the psychological implications could be discussed, but to discuss what art is and how it is, using logic, is entirely against art; art isn't definable. Thus, I think the discussion here of art should stop. But of course, I am not Thomas, he is the head chief lord.

[TruthSeeker]

Now this (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/The+Poo+and+Wee+Song/) is bathroom humour! :blink:

[sahyo]

I feel angry, and pray you remove your socially inappropriate comments and all the childish laughing, because this will attract more of the same, and will drive away those looking for a more mature and intellectual discussion.

It was said city planning and other such things which are very much of the mind and do involve creativity, are not creative. However, this is less important than your childishly offense defense of bad arguement. Thomas should not be so tolerant of what people of quality find offensive, because that assures they do not participate in the debates. Stop trashing the fine work of Thomas, with bathroom humor.



no right-superior or wrong-inferior dancing-singing