Paradigms of reality: Metaphysics vs Science

[Deepak Kapur]

Grasshopper: Master Po, what is a pain in the ass?


Master Po: Grasshopper, you and yourquestions are a pain in the ass.


Grasshopper: Master Po, how is it that you know that?


Master Po: Grasshopper, how is it you do not know?

Does it mean we cannot know anything outside our subjective experience?

Does everything (knowledge, reality, God etc.) depend on 'us' for its existence?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Why is feeling pain not knowing?

To pain is the knowing.
So you know that you are in pain in the same way as you know that you know that the name of the capital of france is paris.

To pain is the knowing?

What does that mean?!
EB

I got a lot more zen than I ment to...

It should have said "the pain is the knowing".
The pain itself is the symbol.

I guess it should help but it doesn't. I don't understand "the pain is the knowing". And I don't see how pain would be a symbol. The meaning of a symbol is conventional and that doesn't seem to apply to pain. Also, I don't see how pain could mean anything.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Does it mean we cannot know anything outside our subjective experience?

Does everything (knowledge, reality, God etc.) depend on 'us' for its existence?

If doesn't follow from the fact that we don't know the material world that it depends on us (or on our knowledge of it) for its existence. You seem to be reducing existence of X to knowedge of X, which is in contradiction with the notions of the existence and knowledge as we usually understand them.
EB

 

[steve_bnk]

Grasshopper: Master Po, what is a pain in the ass?


Master Po: Grasshopper, you and yourquestions are a pain in the ass.


Grasshopper: Master Po, how is it that you know that?


Master Po: Grasshopper, how is it you do not know?

Does it mean we cannot know anything outside our subjective experience?

Does everything (knowledge, reality, God etc.) depend on 'us' for its existence?

Whatever your paradigms of reality maybe , they are functions of your brain. If you wish to dispute that,you might just as well ask how it is blood circulates in the body.

I take it as a core Buddhist teaching,mind is ultimate reality in that it is the brain which self createsthe paradigms. It does not mean physical reality depend on minds.

People who spin endless philosophicaldiscourse that goes nowhere are self creating their own reality. Onecreates one's own conundrums. It is all subjective.

If you are not familiar I parodied ascene from the TV show Kung Fu.

Taoist disciple Caine is standing nextto his blind mentor Po. Po asks Caine if he is aware of agrasshopper at his feet which he is not. Cain asks how Po heard it,Po relies how is it you do not?

How is it you do not grasp it is all afunction of the brain? Do you want an answer or do you just want toself create an endless stream of questions?

For a skeptic like me, 'god' is human created by our biological neural net, and exists only as biochemical states in the brain.

There are no metaphysical absolutes. Meaning is only that which we agree to by consensus. From one perspective your life in nothing but a subjective self illusion.When you grasp that and all the implications, then the reason why many people choose to be in an absolute god. It provides personal stability.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

Grasshopper: Master Po, what is a pain in the ass?


Master Po: Grasshopper, you and yourquestions are a pain in the ass.


Grasshopper: Master Po, how is it that you know that?


Master Po: Grasshopper, how is it you do not know?

Does it mean we cannot know anything outside our subjective experience?

Does everything (knowledge, reality, God etc.) depend on 'us' for its existence?

Whatever your paradigms of reality maybe , they are functions of your brain. If you wish to dispute that,you might just as well ask how it is blood circulates in the body.

I take it as a core Buddhist teaching,mind is ultimate reality in that it is the brain which self createsthe paradigms. It does not mean physical reality depend on minds.

People who spin endless philosophicaldiscourse that goes nowhere are self creating their own reality. Onecreates one's own conundrums. It is all subjective.

If you are not familiar I parodied ascene from the TV show Kung Fu.

Taoist disciple Caine is standing nextto his blind mentor Po. Po asks Caine if he is aware of agrasshopper at his feet which he is not. Cain asks how Po heard it,Po relies how is it you do not?

How is it you do not grasp it is all afunction of the brain? Do you want an answer or do you just want toself create an endless stream of questions?

For a skeptic like me, 'god' is human created by our biological neural net, and exists only as biochemical states in the brain.

There are no metaphysical absolutes. Meaning is only that which we agree to by consensus. From one perspective your life in nothing but a subjective self illusion.When you grasp that and all the implications, then the reason why many people choose to be in an absolute god. It provides personal stability.

Thanks for elaborate reply.

Now suppose a grasshopper falls to the ground.

Nobody is around. No human, no animal, no bird etc. i.e. no living being is around....

Would there be sound?

Thanks.

 

[steve_bnk]

Grasshopper: Master Po, what is a pain in the ass?


Master Po: Grasshopper, you and yourquestions are a pain in the ass.


Grasshopper: Master Po, how is it that you know that?


Master Po: Grasshopper, how is it you do not know?

Does it mean we cannot know anything outside our subjective experience?

Does everything (knowledge, reality, God etc.) depend on 'us' for its existence?

Whatever your paradigms of reality maybe , they are functions of your brain. If you wish to dispute that,you might just as well ask how it is blood circulates in the body.

I take it as a core Buddhist teaching,mind is ultimate reality in that it is the brain which self createsthe paradigms. It does not mean physical reality depend on minds.

People who spin endless philosophicaldiscourse that goes nowhere are self creating their own reality. Onecreates one's own conundrums. It is all subjective.

If you are not familiar I parodied ascene from the TV show Kung Fu.

Taoist disciple Caine is standing nextto his blind mentor Po. Po asks Caine if he is aware of agrasshopper at his feet which he is not. Cain asks how Po heard it,Po relies how is it you do not?

How is it you do not grasp it is all afunction of the brain? Do you want an answer or do you just want toself create an endless stream of questions?

For a skeptic like me, 'god' is human created by our biological neural net, and exists only as biochemical states in the brain.

There are no metaphysical absolutes. Meaning is only that which we agree to by consensus. From one perspective your life in nothing but a subjective self illusion.When you grasp that and all the implications, then the reason why many people choose to be in an absolute god. It provides personal stability.

Thanks for elaborate reply.

Now suppose a grasshopper falls to the ground.

Nobody is around. No human, no animal, no bird etc. i.e. no living being is around....

Would there be sound?

Thanks.

Heee Heee Heee. Can you be a bit more original? Define what sound is, if it meets the definition then sound is made. Does the Sun radiate when you can not see it?

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Did I answer your question on the subjective nature of human mind or not?

BTW. Do you think Oklahoma will beat San Antonio in the NBA west finals? Will the Seahawks repeat in the Superbowl?

 

[none]

Now suppose a grasshopper falls to the ground.

Nobody is around. No human, no animal, no bird etc. i.e. no living being is around....

Would there be sound?

Thanks.

if nobody is around how do you know or who would know there is a grasshopper?

 

[Juma]

Now suppose a grasshopper falls to the ground.

Nobody is around. No human, no animal, no bird etc. i.e. no living being is around....

Would there be sound?

Thanks.

if nobody is around how do you know or who would know there is a grasshopper?

We see it lying on the ground afterwards...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thanks for elaborate reply.

Now suppose a grasshopper falls to the ground.

Nobody is around. No human, no animal, no bird etc. i.e. no living being is around....

Would there be sound?

Thanks.

The grasshopper will hear the sound?

If there is a sound when we hear it then there is one if nobody hears it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Now suppose a grasshopper falls to the ground.

Nobody is around. No human, no animal, no bird etc. i.e. no living being is around....

Would there be sound?

Thanks.

if nobody is around how do you know or who would know there is a grasshopper?

We see it lying on the ground afterwards...

And... and... we can still hear the echo of its fall...
Go tell it to the mountain?
EB

 

[Juma]

Now suppose a grasshopper falls to the ground.

Nobody is around. No human, no animal, no bird etc. i.e. no living being is around....

Would there be sound?

Thanks.

if nobody is around how do you know or who would know there is a grasshopper?

We see it lying on the ground afterwards...

And... and... we can still hear the echo of its fall... EB

Not if we arent there fast enough. The solutiond to the wave equation in 3D shows that the waves dies out.

 

[Togo]

There are no metaphysical absolutes.

That statement is a metaphysical absolute.

Meaning is only that which we agree to by consensus.

Disagree. By your arguement, the consensus has now been broken, and you're wrong, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[Juma]

That statement is a metaphysical absolute.

Meaning is only that which we agree to by consensus.

Disagree. By your arguement, the consensus has now been broken, and you're wrong, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

You may intent meaning by yourself but that is worthless for anyone else unless they agree to that meaning.

 

[Kharakov]

Wait, so if one person agrees with steve, doesn't that make the consensus fall towards the meaning of meaning that steve thinks meaning means.

 

[Togo]

Well, consensus just means agreement, so depends on what you're taking as your criteria. If you take it as 'majority', then sure. However, I think we can agree that the truth value of steve's words doesn't depend on how many people I can scare up to agree or disagree with him at short notice, nor does the truth change as people change their minds.

 

[steve_bnk]

That statement is a metaphysical absolute.

Meaning is only that which we agree to by consensus.

Disagree. By your arguement, the consensus has now been broken, and you're wrong, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

Not really, I made an assertion of a fact.

Therein lies the problem with metaphysics. My point being meaning is not absolute in the sense of some standard or set of rules, it is by consensus and usage. The years of debete on mening on the old forum illustrates that.

All's you have to do is thumb through a dictionary and look at variation in meanings of words, contextual meanings.

Consider the usage in common speechfrom the 90s of 'bad' meaning good in some contexts. or something really impressive being 'sick'.

If you made some remark like 'That babe over there is gorgeous' and I chime in with 'Absolutely!' do I mean absolute as ias a provable truth, or do I mean I subjectively support what you said? Which meaning is intended is determined by contextual social usage.

BTW when I say chime in does that men Iam ringing a chime? Or is the meaning clear?

Abbot and Costello, Who's On First. Metaphor for metaphysical debate.

Ever have an unintentional real life Who's On First moment? I have.


https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...s+on+firdt&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-


I am not getting a direct link to the video. Pick one of the video links if you have never seen it.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, consensus just means agreement, so depends on what you're taking as your criteria. If you take it as 'majority', then sure. However, I think we can agree that the truth value of steve's words doesn't depend on how many people I can scare up to agree or disagree with him at short notice, nor does the truth change as people change their minds.

Except their true subjective experience. Pretty sure that part of the truth changes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That statement is a metaphysical absolute.

Meaning is only that which we agree to by consensus.

Disagree. By your arguement, the consensus has now been broken, and you're wrong, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

You may intent meaning by yourself but that is worthless for anyone else unless they agree to that meaning.

As to consensus here it is not specified the consensus of whom. We can assume it's the consensus of people having a conversation so a consensus of two is good enough. And from there you can spread the word. Precisely, take the word "messiah" and the discussion we had about "the true Messiah". As nobody pointed out then, the use of "Messiah" by Christianity was highjacking on a grand scale since "messiah" initially really meant somebody sent by God to free the Jews from tyranny. So, by this account, Jesus was a fraud, not a true messiah at all (mind: not "not the true Messiah"). He certainly did not free them from tyranny.

As to meaning subjectively understood, we all do whatever we like... or maybe it's a consensus of our neurons.
EB