Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist?

Without the perceiver, dose the perceived exist? Which one comes first? Dose the perceiver know the whole truth about the perceived?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The perceiver comes first from his perspective...but how can you know that you aren't being perceived by what you perceive? In that perspective, what comes first is somewhere in the middle, or the perceived meets the perceiver in the middle...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean "Does"

You need to elaborate on this. Do you mean man being the perciever and the nature being the percieved, or man as the perciever and also the percieved. No one can come first really because the perciever is also the percieved at one point.

The concept of truth is sort of moot here because the perciever is limited by his stilmulus. One perciever may percieve something differently than another solely due to that person different ability of stimulus intake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yinwag:

This is the age old hyperbolic 'doubt' of Mr. Descartes and Hobbes.

Or Hume? I forget..one of the H's.

Inquiry is the immediate byproduct of ego. Without it, any of these questions are what's moot, not the concept of truth.

Anyway, we're wasting our time here. Proof: go to the library and walk over to those shelves housing all those thinkers that braved writing on solpsistic inquiries. That's why you and I are both wasting our times.

End of post.

 

the perceived must precede the perceiver or the perciever could not perceive. (in the case where the perceived is "reality" or "the objective world")

 

Gendy:

I think the excercise of thinking about stuff like that for one's self is superior to going to the library, depending on what you find interesting or enjoyable about conversations and such. No?

For instance I'd much rather hear your thoughts about it that some dead guy's. it's just more interesting to me.

 

There really isn't any way one could know that for certain.

 

Well certainly.

But if you assume that logic and reason are applicable, then I disagree.

 

The idea of an objective reality is an assumption, a blind leap, pure and simple.
Choose to make it or don't.
Logic, reason . . . these change nothing.

 

/The idea of an objective reality is an assumption, a blind leap, pure and simple.

I agree completely. My only contention is that it's implicit to logic and reason that an "objective reality" exists and it is via logic and reason that it can be shown to exist.

For all practical purposes, or to the limitations of logic and reason, you exist as do I and there is a common medium.

/Logic reason . . . they change nothing.

How is that? It is through the acceptance of the visceral experience that we sense our surroundings. It is logical due to the visceral nature of this experience that it is the result of an actual interaction with a medium. That is not to say it is true other than inside of the context of this logical reasoning.

Logic and reason are the items you're taking on faith. Without them you cannot reach the conclusion that your visceral experience is valid.

 

It's logical to assume that experience results from interaction within a shared medium?


Nope.
There's nothing logical about that.
It's just a great, big, fabulous assumption.

If you really want to be logical, eliminate all the excess baggage, all the media, all the experiences, all the respective stockholders and partners.
There's no absolute validity in them, in those other things.

Logically, there is nothing valid but self.

 

/Nope.

/There's nothing logical about that.
/It's just a great, big, fabulous assumption.

Actually I'm running a little slow today so help me out. how did i reach that assumption?

Let me ask differently.

I'm actually stating (i think) that it is the logical practical assumption - in that via all discernable inputs, I cannot refute it. Meaning the only possible evidence available to me all indicates with condition to be so. So until there is observable evidence to the contrary, this is the logical assumption, as it does nothign to detract from other potential realities that lie outside of this logical assumption, it is rather a boundary condition. My experience is without doubt to me, indicative of the reality of my condition. I validate this subjectively as a result of the assumption that it is logical to accept the indications given to my mind. After all there is no discernable difference from anything else, so the assumption of a common medium follows from the same logic.

I do realize it's unconventional and potentially logically flawed (but I can't help but think I might have actually somewhat progressed this issue via an examination of subjectivity), but I need to get to the bottom of it and ask the fundamental question of the applicability of logic and reason to the problem of existence in the first place. In other words I see reason as superceding yet inclusive of logic... and I believe the problem of existence to be right on the boundary of logic, where we can pick of "that which is reasonable" which is defined subjectively. However, there is an apparent commonality to the subjective experience (as gleened via abstraction of the visceral) which is IMO subjectively reasonable, via a short extension of logic.

/If you really want to be logical, eliminate all the excess bagga
ge, all the media, all of experience, all the individual stockholders. There's no absolute validity in them, in those other things.

You participated in "Refutation of Nihilism" didn't you? I'll respond but I want to know that first if you don't mind.

/Logically, there is nothing valid but self.

But self can only be known subjectively.

 

So what? We have lots of old unresolved questions.

So what? Ego comes first?

Maybe yours but certainly not mine.
Thinking myself is always a good exercise.
And I also beleive the new-comers are more clever to answer a old question. Just like we can understand the world better than the stone-age elders.

 

sure.

 

Wes, it's always best not to make assumptions, whether or not they can be refuted; there is no reason to trust inputs, and any and all assumptions based on those inputs are to be called into question. Of course, once one discounts all of the external factors and all the ideas and feelings that proceeded therefrom, the only fact left is the self, the absolute origin, the awareness.

The point is, the 'indications' given unto one's awareness since its immemorial inception are not necessarily true. Logically, they should not be treated as consummate realities, but only as dubious observations.
The self need not be assumed; it is.

You agree, I suppose, but yet you also believe in a reality outside of self, which does not follow to me.
I think that since it is the only verity to be had, the self should be designated as the source of the 'indications'.


I did not read the Refutation of Nihilism thread, Wes, but I do understand that something cannot come from nothing.

However, my intent is only the assertion of the incontrovertible truth of self over shadowy figments, not the assertion of . . . nothing.

I'm not claiming that I 'know' the self intimately. I don't understand it at all, Wes.
I only infer its existence through scepticism.

 

I was originally going to respond when this thread was first started, but I dismissed it as silly. Anyway, the question supplies a peceiver, and therefore implies a conscious entity outside the self. Can the self exist in an inanimate environment, where there are no other consciousnesses to observe the self? Of course-- isolation. I think a better direction for the question would be: can there be a self without an environemt? Is this context the only that allows existence?

 

/Wes, it's always best not to make assumptions, whether or not they can be refuted;

All analysis makes assumptions, the most common of which is "it is reasonable to utilize logic and reason" or something to that effect.

/there is no reason to trust inputs

you're fooling yourself. if you are contemplating logic you are far into trusting your inputs.

/and any and all assumptions based on those inputs are to be called into question.

absolutely - however for practical reasons (like survival) we make certain assumptions about the validity of our input. for instance if i see a rock i don't want it to smash my skull.

/Of course, once one discounts all of the external factors and all the ideas and feelings that proceeded therefrom, the only fact left is the self, the absolute origin, the awareness.

But how did you reach that conclusion? Didn't you have to assume that the logical answer if the valid one? Are you saying that 1 = 1 isn't an assumption? Reliability might really be the issue, but regardless it's logic that resolves it. We see that 1=1 because we know it is the definition, we know it was last time and as such logically presume it will be the same next time. There is absolutely nothign wrong with that but it is important to identify just where your assumptions lie, so as you've noted, later we can come back and question them if we like.

/The point is, the 'indications' given unto one's awareness since its immemorial inception are not necessarily true. Logically, they should not be treated as consummate realities, but only as dubious observations.

Hehe, but what about application of the logic itself? do you not call IT into question?

/The self need not be assumed; it is.

It must be if you want to be able to utilize logic or reason to reach a conclusion. With no POV logic is utterly moot. You cannot reach the conclusion that the "self, IS" without logic.

/You agree, I suppose, but yet you also believe in a reality outside of self, which does not follow to me.

I think it reasonable to assert a common medium within the boundaries of subjective logic. I had to come to be. I have seen and apparently caused birth, so it is overwhelmingly obvious that the process of birth led to my existence - which calls for a common medium as my mother must have existed before me such that I might exist.

Look here's the deal. Subjectivity is the theoretical limit on knowledge as far as I'm concerned. With that in mind, subjective logic is truly all we have. We might question all other inputs and even our own experience, but we are still privy to what we perceive to be our actual experience even it if is in no way representative of the anything besides itself.

/I think that since it is the only verity to be had, the self should be designated as the source of the 'indications'.

Again I ask you to consider that you had to think logically to reach that conclusion.

/I did not read the Refutation of Nihilism thread, Wes, but I do understand that something cannot come from nothing.

If you're interested in this topic, you'd enjoy it I think - pardon for suggesting out of turn. How is it that you understand something cannot come from nothing? What if they're two facets of the same thing (for example)?

/However, my intent is only the assertion of the incontrovertible truth of self over shadowy figments, not the assertion of . . . nothing.

I disagree with your assertion of "incontrovertible" as you did say before that all input must be questioned did you not?

/I'm not claiming that I 'know' the self intimately. I don't understand it at all, Wes.

I didn't say you were claiming to know self intimately. I'm saying to acknowledge self requires thought. To validate thought, we use common sense or logic. Therefore: You have to use logic to validate self. If you have to use logic to validate self, how do you validate logic? You have to assume it to be so - or as I term it "you have to have faith in reason".

/I only infer its existence through scepticism.

Which employs logic as a primary tool.

 

/I think a better direction for the question would be: can there be a self without an environemt?

well that's tricky. what if the self could create an environment of its own?

/Is this context the only that allows existence?

you mean self-awareness?

 

You have a altitude problem.
Zeno'paradoxes are silly, they are against every body's experience.
That dose not mean you can answer the "silly" questions.
Maybe I should say there are far more silly answers than silly questions.

 

I am unaware of such a self outside this context. Maybe you can supply an example?

Yes.


yingyang:
LOL. Be calm tonto. This paradox is only one if you accept the 'load'. Why don't you simply 'say' instead of suggest that 'maybe you should'? Yes there are many many more silly answers to this silly question.