At home -- in "The Truman World"?! Disregarding the message of the film "The Truman Show", I would like to use the story of that film as the framework for my thinking about some practical problems that occur when talking about philosophies and their applications in everyday life. We are born in a certain environment, we gather knowledge here and there, and make our own theories and explanations of the who's, why's, how's, where's, when's and what's in our life. In a way, we live in our own Truman world. So we live in our Truman world, not aware that there may be a Christof pulling all the strings, an a million people watching us. (And another Christof pulling their strings ...) We can think of our Truman world as a realm, defined by our perception of time, space and causality (TSC). But, as long as in our Truman world, we are not necessarily aware that this TSC are limited. But then, it happens that a reflector falls from the sky, someone says something to us -- and for some reason, we become aware that there are also other explanations possible, and that the ones we (currently) have are not necessarily the only ones. Why is this so? Why do we feel that other ways of thinking are possible too? Why do we explore? But isn't it so, that when we come from one Truman world -- we come into yet another one? And another one? We make one theory, that works for some time. Then we see it's faulty somewhere, and make a new theory. And so on. Well, not all people do that. Why do some people give up their old way of thinking -- even though it enabled them to live a good life! -- and explore, in the search of a new one? I guess I am just stating the obvious, so I apologize for that. But it really irks me! How does one become content with going from one Truman world into another? How does one become content with staying in one Truman world and not going any further? Metaphorically, when something is regarded as a hen/egg problem, this means that the POV chosen to observe a phenomenon was too narrow. For a long time, the "What was there before: the hen or te egg?" was quite a problem. Taking evolution into account, it sems to cease to be a problem: evolutionarily, the hen and the egg are just two representations of the same thing, with a minuscule difference though; the difference that allows evolution. So we get back to the first cell, and even further back, to Big Bang. But here our TSC way of thinking fails to render us meaningful service. Here we are facing the door with the title "Exit". Where did Truman Burbank go when he exited that door? That girl went to meet him -- but he didn't know that!! He just went. Why?
We can only make theories about our world, our reality because we are not omniscient. Only if you knew everything, the theories can be thrown aside and the truth can be recognized. We humans just seem to be unable to see the truth.
I don't know if I'm making this up or using it or where the hell I got the idea, but this seems pertinent: The cost of wisdom is never knowing if you're actually wise? For some reason that seems like the solution. The opportunity cost for existence, or for having a POV is that you can't ever really know which "truman world" you're in. As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it comes down to simple geometry. You are a dot inside the circle of your stimulous. What is outside that circle is by the establishment of your perspective - unknowable. Hell for that matter, even what's inside the circle is suspect! If you take it as real, and desired to maintain consistency about all you can do is try as hard as you're able to be as reasonable as you can manage. Of course I think that could take you a long way if you run with it....
Wes and everybody, Yesterday, late at night, I came to this: The core of the TSC theory was originally like that: "We think in the determinants of time, space and causality (TSC). These are characterized by being linear and continous. The TSC we are thinking in are limited." I sensed that there was something wrong with that, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. As I was thinking about what a good theory should be like, I came to the point that a good theory must not make assertions or implications about phenomena that are outside of the system it observes. (Gosh, I guess I could have just taken a textbook in formal logics, and copy this from there. But, it's worth more that I figureed it out myself. Ha.) And this is where the TSC is flawed: linear and continous causality eventually presumes that there will be an endless end [nonsensical!], or that we have to put a First and Last cause there. But that First and Last Cause would be the things that enable the TSC to be in the first place -- meaning that they are *outside* of the system that the TSC theory is observing. Hence that theory was implying its own existence out of itself. (In other words, it presumed that you can call yourself from your phone to your own phone -- and talk to yourself.) The relationship between time, space and causality seemed this: we are able to perceive time because we are able to perceive space, and vice versa. One comes with the other. If I am position S1 and move to S2, time T needs to elapse to enable causality to kick in and say that a move in space and time has happened. Causality says that if I moved to S2, I must have been is S1 before, and to do that, T had to change from T1 to T2. If I would suddenly find myself in S2, without any time elapsing, I would be confused, and would lose sense of identity. Namely, it seems that to establish identity, nods of T1S1C1 and T2S2C2 are needed. If there are two phenomena with the same TSC, we perceive them as ONE phenomenon. Anyhow, the TSC theory may not be that bad, but it certainly must be modified, at least regarding the system it observes. Based on the above-said, I DISCARD that theory and with your wonderful help make myself on the way to find a more consistent and adequate theory. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So it is. And I was so utterly benighted that I tried to define omniscience. Blegh. Yes. It is such a wonderfully modest thought. I read somewhere: "I must not act like a wise man now, lest I should turn out to be a moron later." That's the thing: A good theory should also be USEFUL. Meaning that it should deal with matters directly pertaining life. A theory should not be a toy to indulge a brain that obviously has too much RAM and diskspace to burn ... I just learned something. Man, am I proud of myself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I wanted to point out that you never really know when you find a way out of the system. The idea of omniscience was the first that came to my mind when I thought about this thread. (BTW You would know that you are omniscient when you are omniscient Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Another possibility to leave the system would be to cease to exist. But truly I do not know if there is a theory with which you can cover everything. At least I lack objectivity. I would have to be outside of time and space to gain this objective view.
A stab in the dark: There is only the reletive now, so causality, while very reasonable based on experiemental data - is not requisite for us to exist. That we think that we do makes the alternative irrelevant from our perspective. Of course you are free to think that you don't. While that may effect your behavior, you will still exist (as far as I can tell (meaning, this is the limit of personal knowledge)). Perhaps your behavior will rectify your apparent rejection of the idea of existing. Otherwise what is it founded upon? Yah. That way you don't have to remember it, and it's fun to figure it out again next time. Groovy. Interesting to note I'd think though, that TSC does give us this interesting notion to ponder. Perhaps holding our data set (like demanding causality) as a "must be" in terms of the model, we might tend to overlook that there is more in the now that just what's there. Or is that a means without a means? See what I mean? I cannot help but feel like that in some sense I encompass some portion of the now.. this river of stimulous and feedback processes in a three dimensional energy relationship that is the brain, tangent to the manifold I mentioned before and fed back onto that three dimensional energy pattern from a reaction or pattern or something induced by the brain in imaginary time. So in this sense, I can see the possible sense of a mean without means, as it is analagous to the conceptual relationship of 0 and infinity which coexist in our mind with no contradiction. I swear I know what I mean, it's just tough to explain and probably retarded. Now see this is what I'm getting at.. TSC is a transitory deal, when we invoke its endpoints like you just did, you're talking boundaries.. so you can't keep going. TSC tells you "this is how it seems". That's all it can tell you. Pretty plausible though I'd say. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hmm it seems that by basic logic we are ultimately constrained to 'has always been' or 'started at some time'. The first is self-contradictory, and the second doesn't explain itself. There are the basic logical arguments(?). If logic falls, does reason fall with it? At that limit of existential failing, does reason become emotion? Shit I'm meandering now, pardon. One thing is certain: ultimately, we're all hypocrites. I think that honest attempts to minimize hypocracy is about the best you can ask for from anyone, and that's highly subjective and conditional. Shit okay I'm stopping now. Perhaps it is merely 'incomplete' or slightly off base? Hell I don't know I lost my train of thought. Technically, I don't even think it's at all modest. It's simply indicative of the system. If you accept the geometry I offered you earlier, I think this is the exact logical consequence. I believe it's as Heisenburg put it. Something about uncertainty. I've been working with the notion that this is exactly the nature of knowing. The equivalent being just what I said, "to know is to know you don't know". At this point in thought tonight though, I don't know. I'm spent. Reason stands where logic fails. I suppose it's because reason is about what you can relate to, logical or not. Hehe.. yeah no shit. I think all i did was confuse myself. Some of it seemed really good, and at other points I was entirely in doubt. Amusing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On another thread, Moementum7 posted this thought: Hah! So good. This is where you come in with your wonderful "by the mandate given to you by your existence". In this sense, a theory should be regarded as a useful tool that we can use in everyday life to ... well, "live happier", or, "to achieve a stability that allows us to do the things we want to do". And this tool is our reason and the way we *educate* it. M7 made a great point regarding that. The postulate: A good theory must not make assertions or implications about phenomena that are outside of the system it observes. It also has a very practical meaning regarding the maker of a theory: I must not make a theory for myself that would make assertions or implications about phenomena that are outside of the system of my experience and expertise. I am not a quantum physicist, nor am I a professional philosopher or anything like that. Why should I attempt to maintain a theory of time, space, causality, identity, existence that is way out of my league?! It is pure unrealistic, dilettant, eccentric, wannabe smart, bound to fail BS. When people say "we cannot know everything", "but this is outside of my scope, and therefore irrelevant" -- it just didn't calm down my reason until I came up with that postulate about a good theory; even though it says exactly the same thing: that some things are irrelevant or out of my scope. Huh, I needed a clear thought. I need to make a theory that will work for me. I need a *different approach* to time, space, causality and all that. I stretched the TSC theory as far as I could, I agree with the geometry solution, but now a new take is needed. It is a kind of explosion and I'm all excited about it. You remember what it was like when your daughters started to speak? For the first year and a half or so, it was just individual words and short sentences. But then, within a few weeks, an immense change took place, and they could talk, really talk, sentences never heard before! This is called the language explosion. Some linguists believe that the brain soaks up language information for a certain time, and creates a system. During that time, little output is possible, because the system in still in the process of building. But when the language system in the brain reaches a certain functional stage, systematic output is possible. The holistic theory suggests that all our knowledge is processed that way. First a phase of loading up with little output possible, then an explosion, and the uploaded system works with a lot of output. I'm thinking of a nice functional system that would see reason as a more or less useful tool. This would then also unburden it from that negative notion of hypocrisy. The primary postulate of that system would be the principle USE OR LOSE. No notions of hypocrisy, no "I know that I know that I don't know"-s. There must be a way out of this.
The truman show is just a movie, and has very little to do with philosphy. It touches on the "caveman" idea, and goes a little further, but nothing new is learnt. I think it's great that people still question and think about that kind of stuff. keep it up! - Jacko is Wacko (Stop Pedophiles) -
Read the intro: "Disregarding the message of the film "The Truman Show", I would like to use the story of that film as the framework for my thinking about some practical problems that occur when talking about philosophies and their applications in everyday life." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But from our conversation on language, we know that it's possible to ask illogical questions, or propose questions that cannot be answered. If for instance the idea of "before" the big bang event, isn't really applicable in the classical sense, "I know I don't know" would be the logically correct answer, since in reality it is the question that's wrong. Of course, that doesn't speak to whether or not there is a "before" in reference to the big bang, just giving an example where I think an answer of "i know I don't know" doesn't impact consistency.
This is what I've been ranting about all along: It seems that in our society, logical reason [as different from ethical reason, which is the "it is reasonable to be reasonable" kind of reason] has been given a position it does not deserve; it is often regarded as the most important and omnipotent thing. Of course, logic provides a space where also illogical assertions can be made. And it will mostly likely go on doing so, there's no problem with that. What I'm having in mind to do is to give a different ethic approach to theories in general. Logics and theories turn out to be hypocrisy only if we give them more importance than they are actually meant for. I'm talking about general philosophy of science and philosophy here. IMO, logics and theories should be regarded as useful tools; as such, they are of course more or less useful or flawed (flawed in the sense that they include a great number of illogical incoherent postulates). But if we regard them as mere tools, we cannot call them hypocritical: to call them hypocritical means that we judged them from the POV of *something else* but logics. Saying that a theory, which in itself is consistent and pertains to matters of logical reasoning, is hypocritical is the same as saying that this computer I am using right now is hypocritical. Maybe I'm just being awfully idealistic.
