Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gertie]

But I am speaking of a situation where this world of ours does not exist, but the world without subjects could exist instead. And I am saying that it cannot exist.

We're well aware that you are saying this. But this is simply your premise, not a conclusion drawn from evidence or logic or anything.

My understanding of Tam's position is that it's a big picture whole cloth 'What if...' hypothesis.

It doesn't 'follow the evidence' and there's no logical formulation which gets him there.

So we're left with it 'feeling like it makes sense' because... without experiencing Subjects, there's no knowledge or meaning.


The ontological step from No Knowing, to Nothing Existing To Be Known, thereby becomes what he would call absurd.


This gives Subject Experiencing a much more significant role in the fundamental nature of reality, which isn't a neat fit with our traditional ways of viewing reality, which are more neatly packaged in evidence and logic.


The big fly in the ointment is the evidence that non-conscious stuff existed prior to Subjects who could experience it. In order to incorporate this evidence, which he accepts, there has to be some underlying Subject-Object Relationship which is more fundamental than the Time relationship between the two.


It's an interesting way to conceptualise the world, but it doesn't use our usual tools of evidence or logic, so persuading anyone else is really down to it 'feeling like it makes sense' to them too. It also puts it outside the usual testing grounds of evidence and logic, and makes debate frustrating. There's nothing to anchor it, no grounds to debate on, no way to test it. As an argument it stands or falls on whether it makes sense to you.

[Tamminen]

In any case, it is time for me to move on from this topic. I've enjoyed the discussions. Take care good friend.

I have enjoyed it too. Thanks.

My understanding of Tam's position is that it's a big picture whole cloth 'What if...' hypothesis.

It doesn't 'follow the evidence' and there's no logical formulation which gets him there.

So we're left with it 'feeling like it makes sense' because... without experiencing Subjects, there's no knowledge or meaning.


The ontological step from No Knowing, to Nothing Existing To Be Known, thereby becomes what he would call absurd.


This gives Subject Experiencing a much more significant role in the fundamental nature of reality, which isn't a neat fit with our traditional ways of viewing reality, which are more neatly packaged in evidence and logic.


The big fly in the ointment is the evidence that non-conscious stuff existed prior to Subjects who could experience it. In order to incorporate this evidence, which he accepts, there has to be some underlying Subject-Object Relationship which is more fundamental than the Time relationship between the two.


It's an interesting way to conceptualise the world, but it doesn't use our usual tools of evidence or logic, so persuading anyone else is really down to it 'feeling like it makes sense' to them too. It also puts it outside the usual testing grounds of evidence and logic, and makes debate frustrating. There's nothing to anchor it, no grounds to debate on, no way to test it. As an argument it stands or falls on whether it makes sense to you.

Yes, it is beyond language, and cannot be reached by language. In language there is too much sound and fury. Even the kind of poetry I have sometimes used does not seem to help. So perhaps it is time to listen to the sound of silence.

But to remind those who are interested:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15258

[Felix]

The big fly in the ointment is the evidence that non-conscious stuff existed prior to Subjects who could experience it.

I don't see an issue with that, it's how things work in a temporal universe; events unfold over time, innate potential is expressed. It's only a problem if you insist that everything must have a logical explanation.

[Tamminen]

Tamminen:

there would be no sense in 'existence'

Consul:

What do you mean by "sense" here?

We have an internal point of view to the world, because we belong to the world.

There is no external point of view to the world, a “God's eye” or something. All perspectives to the world are internal.

We cannot imagine ourselves looking at the world from an external viewpoint and saying: “There are no subjects!” It just makes no sense.

To say that the world without subjects is possible requires a leap from an internal viewpoint to an external viewpoint, from immanence to transcendence. It is a religious leap, and it has no justification.

If this is materialism, materialism is a religion. I am on the immanent side. Matter without the subject is transcendent, the subject is immanent.

[Tamminen]

The world cannot exist, because there is no reason for its existence. But it exists. Strange!

The subject must exist, because its nonexistence would be self-contradictory. But it cannot exist without the world. So the world exists for the subject.

[Felix]

To say that the world without subjects is possible requires a leap from an internal viewpoint to an external viewpoint, from immanence to transcendence. It is a religious leap, and it has no justification.

Well, you can't go that far unless you want to preach solipsism but it is true that all nonsubjective knowledge requires that one make rational assumptions.

[Tamminen]

To say that the world without subjects is possible requires a leap from an internal viewpoint to an external viewpoint, from immanence to transcendence. It is a religious leap, and it has no justification.

Well, you can't go that far unless you want to preach solipsism but it is true that all nonsubjective knowledge requires that one make rational assumptions.

I think the world is a community of subjects. I guess this is not solipsism.

[ThomasHobbes]

To say that the world without subjects is possible requires a leap from an internal viewpoint to an external viewpoint, from immanence to transcendence. It is a religious leap, and it has no justification.

Well, you can't go that far unless you want to preach solipsism but it is true that all nonsubjective knowledge requires that one make rational assumptions.

You mean like Bio-energy healing??

[Sy Borg]

We're well aware that you are saying this. But this is simply your premise, not a conclusion drawn from evidence or logic or anything.

My understanding of Tam's position is that it's a big picture whole cloth 'What if...' hypothesis.

It doesn't 'follow the evidence' and there's no logical formulation which gets him there.

So we're left with it 'feeling like it makes sense' because... without experiencing Subjects, there's no knowledge or meaning.


The ontological step from No Knowing, to Nothing Existing To Be Known, thereby becomes what he would call absurd.


This gives Subject Experiencing a much more significant role in the fundamental nature of reality, which isn't a neat fit with our traditional ways of viewing reality, which are more neatly packaged in evidence and logic.


The big fly in the ointment is the evidence that non-conscious stuff existed prior to Subjects who could experience it. In order to incorporate this evidence, which he accepts, there has to be some underlying Subject-Object Relationship which is more fundamental than the Time relationship between the two.


It's an interesting way to conceptualise the world, but it doesn't use our usual tools of evidence or logic, so persuading anyone else is really down to it 'feeling like it makes sense' to them too. It also puts it outside the usual testing grounds of evidence and logic, and makes debate frustrating. There's nothing to anchor it, no grounds to debate on, no way to test it. As an argument it stands or falls on whether it makes sense to you.

Thank you, Gertie, for so well articulating misgivings about the "subject first" view I'd groped for numerous times but could never find. This has bugged me for years! You have given me the relief one feels when a word is on the tip of your tongue but stays maddeningly out of range until someone finally someone says it :)

Yes, Tam's ideas seem to be drawing more on the mystical body of knowledge that has run parallel to scientific knowledge for centuries. To be fair, western science is still yet to work through many of the discoveries in subjectivity that were almost as rigorously experimented with in Buddhism as outer phenomena has been tested by western science.

Maybe neuroscience and even AI developments might act as a bridge between these studies of the "objective" and "subjective"? One would not hope for another endless impasse as has been the case between relativity and QM.

Or could this suggest that reality really is in some sense split down the middle? Or maybe it's our perceptions that are somehow split and imposed upon a seamless reality? Rhetorical questions. I wouldn't know.

[BigBango]

Greta, you need to step back and realize how ingrained it is for us to believe that the "subject" evolved from inanimate matter. In my view the fundamental existent is the galaxy that always has both "subject" and inanimate matter as its members.

With that presumption, Tam's thesis fits nicely, It is very much consistent with Schopenhauer's " The World as Will and Representation", only it is "The World as Experienced and Representation".

What Tam needs to address is the solipsism of his thesis as mentioned by Felix.

Why did we have the Copernican revolution before "subjects saw the earth rotating around the sun?

Any "subjects" view of another subjects experiential states is an objective, external view. In Tam's terms that would constitute a religious view as would all of sciences established conclusions. Kant addresses this problem by saying that the "objective world" cooperates by being a world that we can understand and agree amongst ourselves. How does Tam overcome the solipsism of his thesis?

[Sy Borg]

Greta, you need to step back and realize how ingrained it is for us to believe that the "subject" evolved from inanimate matter. In my view the fundamental existent is the galaxy that always has both "subject" and inanimate matter as its members.

I will consider what you say if you can explain where the subjects might be in the early universe of plasma and hot gas clouds?

What Tam needs to address is the solipsism of his thesis as mentioned by Felix.

Agreed.

In Tam's terms that would constitute a religious view as would all of sciences established conclusions.

I completely reject any claim that science is religious. It's as illogical as claiming that religion is scientific.

White is black too - if you turn the lights off.

Kant addresses this problem by saying that the "objective world" cooperates by being a world that we can understand and agree amongst ourselves. How does Tam overcome the solipsism of his thesis?

Kant was being poetic. Nature seems so terribly obliging to our endeavours, aside from the small fact that we spend our lives trying to prevent her from absorbing us back into herself - until we no longer can, of course.

The "objective" world consists of the patterns of nature discernible by technological hominids at this particular stage of their development. No doubt they miss plenty of patterns too. Further, the human capacity to see quasi patterns was made famous by iconic examples of pareidolia applied to Mars rover images. So we make errors of interpretation at times.

[Tamminen]

Any "subjects" view of another subjects experiential states is an objective, external view. In Tam's terms that would constitute a religious view as would all of sciences established conclusions. Kant addresses this problem by saying that the "objective world" cooperates by being a world that we can understand and agree amongst ourselves. How does Tam overcome the solipsism of his thesis?

As I replied to Felix, there is no solipsim in this phase. That comes later in my metaphysical reasoning. There is an objective world that all of us share, and the others appear to us as subjects. Where is the solipsism? It is only that without subjects there is nothing. This should not be so difficult to understand. A simple reflective step proves this.

[Sy Borg]

Tamminem, please indulge me and explain just one more time, as clearly as possible, how there could be subjects in the early universe of plasma and thick gas?

[Tamminen]

Tamminem, please indulge me and explain just one more time, as clearly as possible, how there could be subjects in the early universe of plasma and thick gas?

We are the subjects. Here and now. Simple enough?

[Thinking critical]

To say that the world without subjects is possible requires a leap from an internal viewpoint to an external viewpoint, from immanence to transcendence. It is a religious leap, and it has no justification.

Not so, it requires nothing more than logical deduction.
I can deduce that the world necessarily existed before my being came into existence because I was a born from another who required a world to exist in order for them to have me.
No faith required just a rational thinking and logic.