Greetings. This is my first post to the SDMB, though I’ve lurked for about a year now. I’ve been trying, over the last few weeks to determine what I know with absolute certainty.
The one thing that I am willing to say, that I find no fault in is that
[ul]
[li]There is perception.[/li][/ul]
Now, the question is whether of not perception requires multiplicity (of mind or matter). Again, I am willing to say that in its normal mode (excepting mystical trances)
[ul]
[li]Perception implies multiplicity.[/li][/ul]
It seems to me that all of the above necesitates that
[ul]
[li]Something is.[/li][/ul]
Which also implies that
[ul]
[li]Something is not.[/li][/ul]
I haven’t gotten further than this yet. I apologise in advance if my writing is unclear. I will be more than happy to elucidate my views on any of these points if necessary. What I would really like is not intelligent criticism of any of these points so that my ideas can evolve (I’m in a bit of a rut since I don’t have anyone at home to discuss these things with). Thanks for your replies.
I’m not sure if I understand what it is you’re trying to ask - - but as I too only registered last Friday - - and had been lurking and reading for a few years - - I wanted to give my support…
but, what is it you’re asking, saying???
There were a few words I didn’t understand - I’m off to dictionary.com right now to find them out - - but…
perception, is how someone sees an event… and if it’s perceived it must be (something is)…
although, you may read this and perceive ignorance - - which to a degree there is… or sarcasm - which there isn’t - - so, I’ve confused myself more…
I would say that for perception to exist, there must be a perciever and a percieved. Even if the perceptions we experience are only manifestations of our own consciousness (as in solipsism), there is still a multiplicity of thoughts which are percieved within the thinking consciousness. The only exception would be the aforementioned mystical trances. Such states of mind as the yogic samadhi or the buddhist nirvana where the manifold is banished would break this rule only because they are not natural states of mind but are deliberatly induced.
No, “Something is” does not logically imply “Something is not.” Why would it?
Empirically speaking, however, wherever we look we see Something on a background of Nothing. Through an undisciplined program of excremeditation you can learn to skatesurf between the two states and get Something for Nothing – but only “Bob” can show you how! www.subgenius.com
Um…let me try and restate my thesis. I’m saying that the only thing we really know is that perception exists. That is to say that we experience events through perceptors. I’m not saying what it is that is doing the percieving or what it is that is being percieved, only that the event of perception exists. I do not think that this can be doubted. From this, as I explained in my response to ultrafiler’s query, the act of perception nececitates that there is a perciever and a percived; this is the multiplicity of which I speak. Next, I follow from this that for all of this to be occuring, something must exist (there cannot be only nothingness as in Theravada Buddhism). And as we know, every idea implies its opposite, so nothingness must be a part of the system as well. Is this clear?
It would be difficult to prove that something is not, unless you were to get into specifics (a dog is not a cat).
There is no such thing as ‘nothing’ in a terminological sense, even a vacuum is a vacuum. It’s very difficult to imagine ‘nothing’ – as we are coded to identify (the god asked adam to ‘name’ things myth). We can say, however, “I perceive nothing,” but then we have just named nothing to be something. (Nothing is something.)
Perception only implies multiplicity if one accepts that illusion, imagination and hallucination also count as ‘something.’
I think you need to define your terms a bit more specifically if you want concrete answers.
So what? Are you questioning the reality of the material universe, or not?
It’s clear but it’s not true. Every idea does not imply its opposite – at least, not in epistemological terms. In purely logical, conceptual terms, perhaps – you might argue, e.g., that the existence of positive integers implies the existence of negative integers; but that’s neither here nore there.
I’m not trying to question the materiality of the universe, I’m just trying to determine what I can say that I know about my perceptions other than that I percieve them.
As to your other point (which the hampsters ate when I clicked reply), and to answer Snakespirit, I’m not talking about nothingness in a metaphysical sense, but in an ontological sense. In this way every idea does need its opposite.
Could you expand? I reviewed the Wikipedia page on ontology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) and could find nothing about an idea implying its opposite. Furthermore, the question, in those terms, is meaningless because ontology is not about ideas, it is about beings. And before we can ask whether every being implies its opposite we must define what the “opposite” of a being means. Something might be the logical opposite of nothing, but that does not mean physical matter is the opposite of hard vacuum; nor does it mean that the Platonic ideal conception of a circle is the opposite of a non-circular shape, nor of the total absence of shapen, nor of anything in particular; nor does it mean that your perception is the opposite of unconsciousness absence of perception; etc.
Remember, also, that opposite is not the same thing as negation. The opposite of a positive electric charge is a negative charge, not a neutral charge.
Perhaps I was mistaken in regards to this assertion. I’m still working through Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, so I’ll conceid this point for now, as it really isn’t that important if we’re just talking epistemology.
Do you think that there is anything wrong with my initial proposition? Is there any way to deny that? Could I simplify things further?
I’m still unclear as to what question you’re proposing for debate. Your OP (original post) says, in sum:
There is perception.
Perception implies multiplicity.
Something is.
Something is not.
Well and good. All four statements perfectly true. (2. is not as obviously true as the others, but as you stated the argument – perception implies both a thing perceiving and a thing perceived – I get it.) But what’s your point? We don’t really need any epistemology beyond the level of cogito ergo sum to tell us that something exists. (What that is, is the important question.) Nor is it profound to say “something is not.” A four-sided triangle is not. Invisible pink unicorns are not. So what? Why is that an important conclusion? And what are you still perplexed about, or trying to figure out or discover?
Sorry if I’ve come off as sounding pompous or self-important. I can’t quite figure out how time fits into the scheme of things. If we’re in agreeance that points 1-3 are true (we can forget 4), I’d like to ask this: Does perception need time in order to function. I’m thinking that this will be true, since an event requires time as one of the parameters of its existence. Any ideas?
If we can agree that the existence of time logicaly follows from the first proposition, then since Einstein has shown that time cannot be divorced from space, the first proposition also necesitates the existence of space. So, to recap, we’ve got
Perception
Multiplicity
Being
Spacetime
I cannot think of any way to derive the existence of matter/energy in the same way that 1-4 have been done. Do the admission of any of the 4 proposition necessiate the existence of matter/energy? I’m thinking that it might derive from one of them, but I’m not quite sure which, or if it would be some combination of the four.
If spacetime exists as described by physics then matter, energy, perception and the concepts called “multiplicity” and “being” exist as an arrangement of spacetime.
How’s that for a monism? Or do you demand a dualism by objecting to characterising perception and concepts as supervening on the physical?
All is pattern. There is unity only in the very bottom of the pattern well, the One of Plotinus or the Brahman of Hindu thought. If you meditate, you can catch a glimpse of it.
Above that, you will have multiplicity of some form or another in the patterns, since you have the relation of one thing to another. Hell, that’s what patterns are.
Multiplicity is not born of perception, although your intuition is correct that perception is not possible without it.
An idea does not imply its opposite. Does a strawberry imply an anti-strawberry? Sometimes our words express only half of a concept, which can give the impression that half-concepts exist by themselves. The concepts are high-low, near-far, left-right, etc. It’s not as though someone thought up the concept of “left” and later on discovered “right” by accident (Christopher Hitchens excepted). But other complementary pairs are not necessarily mathematically related. One could experience love without experiencing hate, so I would not say the concept is love-hate, even though in many ways they are opposite.
So, to answer the OP: Uh, what was the question again?
It doesn’t necessarily, but it implies a subjective reference frame. If there is more than one frame of reference, then there must of necessity be multiple perceptions.
I don’t know what you mean by “moving parts”, but when I speak of subjective reference frames, I mean agents of consciousness — like people, for example. For each of us, our consciousness is subjective. I cannot experience yours, and you cannot experience mine. My sense of “me-ness” is forever closed to you, as is yours to me. Only an objective reference frame (one that is privvy to all the subjective frames) can have an objective perception. As it happens, that is a satisfactory epistemological description of God; i.e., the Objective Frame of Reference, or Objective Consciousness.
