The Case For Non-Existence**

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by impermanence, May 3, 2023.

  1. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: The Case of Non-existence
    SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
    ※→ impermanence, et al,

    (OPENING)

    I do not expect that you will consider any opposing view

    First Approximation.png
    (COMMENT)

    Definition ONTOLOGY.png
    SOURCE: The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary © Oxford University Press 1991 First published 1991 Reprinted 1991, 1994
    A "philosophy's philosophy" hummmm... Most interesting. I do not quite know what to say on this.

    Unsolved Concepts.png
    (COMMENT)

    I imagine that for someone that knows it all, there would be no need for First-Order Approximation. However, I have to use concepts like the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) • there is a reason or cause as to why an material object or thought exists. But I must reconcile the reality that there are answers to deep question - for which I do not the answer. But there is an answer out there.

    (COMMENT)

    I do not know what that means.

    (COMMENT)

    This is so very wrong, that the statement is unsalvageable. What are these "rules and regulations" of which you speak. "Non-existence" has nothing to do with knowledge, skills, and abilities.

    (COMMENT)

    Hummmm... I'm not sure as to what to do with this collection of diparit and disconnected thoughts.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  2. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: The Case of Non-existence
    SUBTOPIC: The Simplist Answer is Often Correct
    ※→. Dirty Rotten Imbecile (DRI), et al,

    DRI presents an important aspect of "existence."

    (COMMENT)

    I think, therefore I am. As our friend points out, a Life Force is not required. But is there existence if there is no consciousness to recognize it.

    Consciousness is that special framework that even allows for the interrogatives to be brought forth. I hope DRI does not mind my embellishment. Consciousness is that special delivery by the Life Force

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  3. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No need to complicate this. It's very simple.

    You see a tree because you're having the experience of being separate from that tree. This creates awareness of both the tree and the self. This awareness creates a sense of identity of self (or "I") as a single 'perspective'. Hence we say, "I see the tree."

    Thus, separation (ie, illusion of separation) = awareness = existence.

    And, because the self cannot escape it-self (that mysterious ever-present 'observer'), it cannot absolutely 'know' it-self - so that which the self experiences can only be a reflection of it-self. Thus, we can say, "I AM the tree."

    And, because the experiences the self can have are infinite, the self becomes infinite.
     
    Injeun likes this.
  4. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In your example, how about if the observer is blind, deaf, and has no limbs?
     
  5. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My own individual perception is incontrovertible proof that either I exist, or at least something exists - depending on how strict you want to be.
     
  6. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does your perception have to do with existence. And where exactly is this perception taking place?
     
  7. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Something has to exist for perception to exist. Which it does, because I am experiencing it right now. Where is the perception taking place? Somewhere. That's the point. Not nowhere.
     
  8. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, it gets back to whatever you believe existence is.
     
  9. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An excellent question.

    For the 'observer' to continue to exist there must be awareness of some-thing, and thus some element of the experience of separation - even at the highest dimensional planes of experience. Thus the observer remains the observer no matter in what world/realm/dimension it's having the experience. (At progressively 'higher' dimensions the experience of separation shrinks as the experience of Oneness expands - and hence time & space/distance, which are functions of separation, become nullified.)

    In our current physical/material realm, if the body's tactile nervous system is functional, there would be an awareness of touch/pressure/pain & taste, which would be the experience of separation of self (observer) as a result of X vs non-X. For example, having the experience of pain (X) as a contrast to the experience of no pain (non-X). And, there is the further experience of separation from self (observer) in being aware of one's thoughts & feelings (which gives us our self-awareness).

    If the tactile nervous system is non-functional, there may still be an awareness of internal functions as other senses become hypersensitive - eg, hunger, thirst, heart beating, digestive activity, internal discomfort, or other subtle physiological sensations. These experiences, coupled with an awareness of one's thoughts/feelings, would be an experience of separation from self (observer). There's also the very real possibility that the individual is psychically aware on some level (ie, able to experience multiple dimensions), which may allow communications/interactions with trans-dimensional worlds & entities.

    But what if one didn't have a physical body? If we look at NDE (near death experience) reports, we find numerous reports of leaving the physical and entering into some kind of super black (but peaceful) void before entering a tunnel/light/etc. Yet, in this void, awareness of one's self (and thus existence) remains because (1) there's visual awareness of the black void (vs the dynamically visual physical they were in), (2) awareness of feelings (peace, absence of pain/suffering, oneness, sensing a presence, etc.) they're having of being in that void, and (3) awareness of their own thoughts (curiosity, puzzlement, questions, etc.) about being in the void. So awareness of self (observer) remains even in this black void.

    We also have to take into consideration two possible scenarios: existence before birth and non-existence before birth.

    If we (self/observer) have always existed on another level prior to birth, we would remain always in some state of awareness no matter if were in a badly functioning physical body or not. I recall reading an interesting past-life regression of a subject who saw himself in another life as constantly being 'happy' - and, from his current perspective, he couldn't understand why. He later realized he was born (in that life) into a body that was retarded/developmentally disabled. So who really knows what goes on in the mind of those unable to verbally express their thoughts/feelings.

    But if we had no existence (no self/observer) prior to birth - and assuming that consciousness/life was physically possible without that 'spark' from self/observer - awareness may perhaps not be possible in a badly functioning physical body. However, this scenario appears to be contradicted by a mountain of evidence indicating that consciousness/life is in every-thing.
     
  10. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's say our observer is fully intact sense-wise and is in his/her bedroom propped up on the bed with a 270 degree view and under an incandescent light source of 2500K. You would suggest that this person exists because there is separation between their self and another object.

    I would counter by suggesting that there are an infinite number of points which are reflecting light to this person's visual cortex [all occurring at different times because the distance of each point is different] which then must be creating an infinite number of existences in an infinite number of times.

    How exactly does that work?
     
  11. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is the perception (experience) of separation - but no absolute separation at the fundamental level. The observer and the observed are one and the same.

    I'm unclear on what this has to do with the emergence of awareness/existence from the illusion of separation. Whether there's a single universe/selves or infinite universes/selves doesn't contradict the fact that no-thing can be aware, and thus exist, without separation between that which observes & that which is being observed. Remember, awareness = existence. Existence = awareness.

    X is a function of non-X. Non-X is a function of X. In other words, X gives existence to its absence (non-X), and non-X gives existence to X. Either both exist, or neither can exist. Existence/awareness thus emerges out of separation.
     
  12. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: The Case of Non-existence
    SUBTOPIC: It may sound correct, but is it?
    ※→ JCS, et al,

    This is not true all the time or everywhere.

    (COMMENT)

    The comprehension of "Existence" is a matter of philosophy. By definition, it is:

    AXIOM OF EMPTY SET The axiom of empty set (or axiom of null set, or empty set axiom, or null set axiom) asserts that there exists a set containing no members. In first-order logic supplemented with the membership symbol “∈,” this can be formulated as:​

    (∃x)(∀y)(y ∉ x)

    or:

    (∃x)(∀y)(y ∈ x ↔y =/ y)
    SOURCE: A Dictionary of PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC © Roy T. Cook, 2009, Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 22 George Square, Edinburgh, pp23​

    That is to say that IF the IUT (Item Under Test) is a "member of a set" THEN it is real ↔ it exists. (There is no such thing as a set where the members do not exist.) That is a null set. IF the IUT is not a member of a set (a null set) THEN it is not real • it does not exist.

    When I first started to craft a response to this "JCS's" Posting #61 (supra), what was so clear to me when I started, became quite elusive when it came to putting it down on paper.

    While it seems to be quite obvious, it is extremely hard to discuss matters of "pure experience" or "empirical truths" without including "logical relationships." They cannot be defined or interpreted in the abstract.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  13. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would recommend camping or gardening.
     
  14. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't comment on the 'math-like' symbols/equation because I'm too dumb to understand it. (I've never seen an upside-down A and E before either.) So I'll comment on the rest of what you posted.

    This is a relativistic argument. The 'set' is arbitrarily defined. If you create some-thing, you're separating it from some-thing else (X vs non-X), and so you also create it's absence. Thus, the null set has no meaning without the set.

    Ergo, there would be no awareness (and thus no existence) of the set itself without the null set.

    For example, we're aware of the tree because it has 'form.' Form creates separation - separation creates form. Hence our awareness of the tree's form emerges out of its 'separation' from the formless space where it does not exist.

    Another simple way to look at it is to consider contrasting colors. If our entire reality was 'yellow', we'd not be aware of 'yellow' as a unique color, let alone a 'color' itself. There must be separation where X is in contrast to it's absence (non-X). Hence, 'yellow' exists in contrast to its absence, 'blue' (non-yellow).

    And another simple example is a water vortice. Water vortices appear & disappear constantly in moving body's of water. We could not be visually aware of them if they lacked form (separation) because they're made of the same element from which they emerge (water). When they emerge they appear to be 'separate' from the body of water, but are never actually separate from it. Other good analogies are bubbles, clouds, and frequency modulation within carrier waves.

    You can view the emergence of awareness (separation/existence) from Oneness in the same way. Note also that just as Oneness gives existence to the illusion of separation, the illusion of separation gives existence to Oneness. That which is knowable gives existence to the unknowable - that which is unknowable gives existence to the knowable.

    There isn't an experience that cannot be called "pure experience", nor one that lacks a "logical relationship." There are infinite causes for every effect, and infinite effects from every cause. Scientists merely pick & choose which cause/effects relationships they wish to concentrate on - ie, those that are useful and/or fit into their paradigm. When observing modern science vs indigenous cultures, the two operate on completely different paradigms in how they acquire their basic needs, as well as how they view, manipulate & interact with their reality.

    But there is one universal question which is forever unknowable: How can the illusion of separation (and thus, awareness/existence) emerge from Oneness? Which is identical to asking, how can any-thing even exist? In approaching this puzzle, it appears we have to accept two simultaneous states: If separation is an illusion, then awareness/existence must also be an illusion. Yet, without the illusion of separation, there can be no awareness/existence. Thus, awareness/existence is both real AND an illusion.

    Oneness is inescapable. Just as with water vortices, infinite 'life-times' in infinite dimensions emerge from Oneness, unbound to time, space & motion - yet able to experience time, space & motion. And from this infinite awareness/consciousness, the 'mind' (our individual navigator of worlds) creates its own unique mental forms by compartmentalizing (separating) the very infinite, formless & unknowable Oneness it is fundamentally inseparable from.

    ALL IS ONE is all there is really to know.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2023
  15. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: The Case of Non-existence
    SUBTOPIC: It may sound correct, but is it?
    ※→ JCS, et al,

    I was in a conflict with myself as to whether or not I should include this notation.

    (COMMENT)

    JCS = "math-like' symbols/equation because I'm too dumb to understand it."
    RoccoR = I do not think this is true at all. More than 90% of the general population (employed mostly in some service industries) would never need to understand this equation and the specific notation. If there is a dumb one here, it is me. I should not have used a humorous first-order approximation.


    The symbol "∃" is a logic statement that means "there exists." It is called an "existential quantification."
    The symbol "∀" is also an "existential quantification." But it is a bit confusing. It can mean "for every" •• "for all" •• "for every."
    You might see me use the symbol "→." It is a "material implication."

    (COMMENT)

    I get it. And I agree in this limited case.

    (COMMENT)

    "Separation" does not create "form." Separation implies indeterminate proximity. The Earth and the Moon have a separation in a physical respect. However, they are not separate in the local gravitational respect.

    The separation is determined by the proximity and shape of the two objects. The two objects have been moved apart. Assuming nothing traverses the constantly changing space between the two objects.

    (COMMENT)

    There are many applications and interpretations as to what constitutes a "pure experience." Pure only means there is an absence of impurities or altering influences. I just had my 71st Birthday. And in all that time, I cannot recall having an experience that did not interact with anything else in the world.

    (COMMENT)

    I'm not sure I actually know what practical or technical importance than anything having an infinite property is to me. I cannot imaging an infinity. The topic of "infinity" is an entirely difference conversation. It is a concept I try not to use; one of those words I should avoid using.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  16. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I found myself in the middle of a conversation, perhaps, but I would expect any expert worth their salt to be able to explain it in words that I could understand, and where they didn't know, I would expect them to be able to give me references that I could follow up for any particular piece of knowledge.

    I do find the subject matter interesting, that's why it's all the more frustrating when the meat of the matter is diluted by weird word choices and purple prose.

    Sure. And as far as I know, you could be among the people who are getting it wrong, due to its difficulty.

    Well, you could tell me how your epistemology works, and some examples of how it would handle illustrative cases, you know, like I've been asking you to.

    Nope, the fact that I can't make heads or tails of it (after some attempts) means that nobody who has tried to tell me have truly understood it. It just means the subject matter is unknown, but then again, I put no stock in subject matters that are unknown.

    Sure, I imagine someone made it up baselessly thousands of years ago, but since the line of thinking includes no way of making sure the info is reliable, it just never goes away.
     
  17. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I got an expert for you, chatGPT, and this is the first question I asked. The question was, "Please tell me about the Zen concept of emptiness."

    The answer blew me away. It is as good [or better] an explanation as I have ever read over 30+ years. Enjoy, and let me know what you think.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Zen concept of emptiness, also known as "sunyata" in Buddhism, is a fundamental aspect of Zen philosophy and practice. It refers to a profound understanding and direct experiential realization of the true nature of reality, transcending conceptual frameworks and attachments.

    In Zen, emptiness does not refer to a literal void or nothingness but rather points to the absence of inherent, independent existence in all phenomena. It recognizes that everything in the phenomenal world is interconnected and interdependent, lacking a fixed, permanent essence or self-nature. Emptiness is the recognition that all things are empty of inherent and separate existence and are, instead, intimately interconnected and interrelated.


    This understanding of emptiness is closely related to the concept of impermanence (anicca). Zen practitioners observe that all phenomena arise and pass away, constantly changing and shifting. Nothing remains static or permanent. The realization of emptiness helps to dismantle rigid concepts and fixed perceptions, allowing one to perceive the fluid and dynamic nature of reality.

    Emptiness is not just an intellectual understanding but is meant to be directly experienced and embodied. It involves letting go of attachments to conceptual thinking, judgments, and dualistic distinctions, and entering a state of non-discriminatory awareness. It is often associated with the practice of meditation, where one learns to observe the arising and passing of thoughts, emotions, and sensations without clinging or identifying with them.

    The concept of emptiness is not nihilistic or a denial of existence but a recognition of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things. It encourages a shift in perspective, seeing beyond the illusory boundaries of the self and recognizing the intrinsic unity of all existence. Emptiness is considered a gateway to liberation and awakening, as it can lead to a direct experience of the interconnectedness and interpenetration of all phenomena.

    It is important to note that the concept of emptiness is inherently challenging to fully grasp and is often approached through direct experience and contemplation under the guidance of a qualified teacher. It is a concept that Zen practitioners engage with throughout their spiritual journey, gradually deepening their understanding and direct realization of emptiness through their practice.
     
    LiveUninhibited likes this.
  18. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Literally...and this is what so few "understand."

    Once you arrive at this realization, there's no turning back...
     
  19. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At the very least, a universal truth should sound 'correct', right? Following that, it needs to pass the test of effectively addressing all our philosophical & existential questions.

    Well, that certainly makes sense. Although my preference is to keep things as simple as possible - because, afterall, the 'TOE' really is very simple.

    By 'separation' I wasn't speaking of two unique objects, but of the emergence of form vs the absence of form - ie, of separation/form from Oneness. In this way, 'separation' and 'form' are essentially interchangeable terms. Form (object) creates the illusion of separation (observer) - separation (observer) creates the illusion of form (object).

    Recall the example I gave of water vortices. These swirling vortex patterns continuously appear & disappear in moving water. Think of the water as the absence of form (or Oneness), and the water vortice as form (separation). We can observe the vortice despite the fact it takes its form from the very element from which it emerged.

    Another analogy is clay. The unformed clay = Oneness. The clay forms = illusion of separation. No matter what that form is, it will forever remain, fundamentally, clay. If you form a piece of the unformed clay into a human, and another piece into a tree, the person can experience the tree & the tree can experience the human. The two appear separate, yet both remain forever the unformed clay - and thus are fundamentally inseparable.

    But how do we define "altering influences"? Are not all of our experiences the sum of all influences - visible & invisible, conscious & unconscious?

    * All is One. So Oneness cannot escape it-self, and thus cannot 'know' it-self absolutely. It can only 'experience' it-self. And because it can never know it-self absolutely, it can experience it-self infinitely. Oneness can be every-thing because it is no-thing. It is no-thing because it is every-thing. Therefore, Oneness is infinite.
    * All is One. So time, space/distance, and thus motion cannot exist. Therefore, Oneness is eternal.

    Conclusion: Oneness is infinite & eternal.

    Think of 'infinite' as a number that neither increases, nor decreases - but a number that's fixed. For example, what would the answer be to the question: "How many 'souls' exist?" The answer would be that there are a fixed number of souls, but they are infinite in number. It's a bit weird and hard to wrap our head around it I know. But Oneness + separation is it-self a contradiction, so reality will be full of coexisting contradictions.
     
  20. JCS

    JCS Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,933
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very true. There's no turning back.
     
  21. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I mean, that isn't a question I have been asking. I have only been asking how we know that the conclusions coming from it are reliable. ChatGPT's answer doesn't answer that either.
     
  22. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It literally takes most people years to begin to understand what this stuff is about. A great deal of what it addresses are ideas like the reliability of conclusions. Again, it's not about understanding [because reality is too complex], instead it's about being in the flow...getting a sense of where things are going.

    If it is reliability you seek, then science is your friend. Of course, science's reliability is impermanent like all things knowable [intellectual], but this seems to satisfy almost everybody [and certainly keeps folks here busy attempting to show those who have attached to a different illusion just how wrong they are].
     
  23. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does it really address reliability? Because so far, I've mostly just seen them claim to have it, without justifying it, which is the same logic we get behind conspiracy theories, snake oil salesmen and Nigerian princes.

    So then if science is my friend, where does that leave your methods? In the dust, as far as I can tell.
     
  24. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: The Case of Non-existence
    SUBTOPIC: Reliability → Validity
    ※→ impermanence, Swensson, et al,

    (COMMENT)

    "Science" can lend support to the concept of "Reliability" only when the "hypothesis" can be consistently tested, and the tests can be reproduced the same results. Nothing in the "supernatural" realm [including Zen (a religion) Emptiness] fits in that category. Science has not to date been able to test and produces/reproduce accurate accuracy in the outcome or results.

    (COMMENT)

    Our fellow contributor "Swensson" → makes a compelling point. IF you cannot study and subject the hypothesis to the scientific method, THEN it is not science. String Theory is an example of a concept that many think is under scientific study. HOWEVER → to date, the hypothesis and theory are not to the point that they can be subjected to the scientific method.

    [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  25. impermanence

    impermanence Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2022
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you are catching on. Anybody who throws his hat into the intellectual ring has a severe issue with reliability, myself included. Going with the flow of things is sort of an intellectual way of saying that you must be with constant change without having to understand it [which we can't anyway].
     

Share This Page