1 3 5 6 7 8 9 19 20
Topic: 'Groundless' Thoughts?
Abracadabra's photo
Tue 07/14/09 02:11 PM

I really hope this make sense, everyone is all over the place on this one.


I see what you are saying Jeremy, but you keep giving trivial and LOGICALLY DECIDABLE examples.

All philosophical notions are not LOGICALLY DECIDABLE.

Like the one's I gave earlier.

Premise #1: We are the form. When the form ceases to exist we cease to exist.

Premise #2: We are the thing taking the form. When the form ceases to exist we continue to exist because we are the thing that took the form in the first place and THAT THING is eternal.

You can't logically prove one or the other.

They're beyond logic.

You just have to accept whichever one feels more intuitive for you.

So ultimately your stuck with intuition being your own grounds for anything at the deepest philosophical level.

Philosophy is ultimately beyond logic at its deepest level.


no photo
Tue 07/14/09 02:17 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 07/14/09 02:24 PM


Math is the only place where proof CAN be absolute. Horrible example.


That's easy to say when you're talking about something as simple as 2+2=4. But what about Gabriel's Horn?

Gabriel's Horn is a mathematical object that has INFINITE internal surface AREA, yet mathematically it only has FINTITE VOLUME!

Here's the paradox,...

If you had to paint the internal surface it would clearly require an infinte amount of paint because it has infinite surface AREA.

Yet, if you FILL it will paint like as if it is a bucket, then you can only fill it with a FINITE amount of paint. laugh

So much for the consistency of mathematics. ohwell
I was only answering his post Abra. HIS example was that simple.

Do not patronize me . . . seriously dude.

I see what you are saying Jeremy, but you keep giving trivial and LOGICALLY DECIDABLE examples.


Well that IS what we are talking about. We are talking about philosophical conclusions which are based in logic and limited in scope.

Shesh, I didn't even agree with rule changes and now I am having to work overtime to get a simple point across.

Some days its not even worth it in this forum, I am sure this is the very emotional response that gives rise to a desire to set forth rules of conduct becuase this gets ridiculous sometimes.

We spend more time explaining out posts over and over again then actually dealing with the nature of the phenomena, or concept, or ontology that we are discussing.

This is what bogs down philosophical conversations and it is avoidable. You really can just say you do not agree without 10 pages.

Abracadabra's photo
Tue 07/14/09 02:32 PM



Math is the only place where proof CAN be absolute. Horrible example.


That's easy to say when you're talking about something as simple as 2+2=4. But what about Gabriel's Horn?

Gabriel's Horn is a mathematical object that has INFINITE internal surface AREA, yet mathematically it only has FINTITE VOLUME!

Here's the paradox,...

If you had to paint the internal surface it would clearly require an infinte amount of paint because it has infinite surface AREA.

Yet, if you FILL it will paint like as if it is a bucket, then you can only fill it with a FINITE amount of paint. laugh

So much for the consistency of mathematics. ohwell
I was only answering his post Abra. HIS example was that simple.

Do not patronize me . . . seriously dude.

I see what you are saying Jeremy, but you keep giving trivial and LOGICALLY DECIDABLE examples.



I didn't mean to imply anything condescending toward you. I was just addressing mathematics in general.

Mathematics connot always be depended upon to give "absolute" truth.

That's just a fact about mathematics that has nothing to do with you on a personal level.

No way did I imply or mean anything condescending toward you personally.


Well that IS what we are talking about. We are talking about philosophical conclusions which are based in logic and limited in scope.

Shesh, I didn't even agree with rule changes and now I am having to work overtime to get a simple point across.

Some days its not even worth it in this forum, I am sure this is the very emotional response that gives rise to a desire to set forth rules of conduct becuase this gets ridiculous sometimes.


Well, I believe that on a fundamental level the deepest philsophical notions are indeed logically undeciable.

This is what Kurt Godel has shown in his Incompleteness Theorem.

Richard Feynman also expressed this in terms of endless semantic arguments when he said,

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." - Richard Feynman

So I suppose I offer these as my 'grounds' for suggesting that everything is ulimately 'groundless' in the end. laugh

And my mathematical example of Gabrial's Horn was just to show that even our highly-valued mathematical formalism is no exception to this observation.

In the end, nothing is 'grounded'. It's all just opinions supported by the best arguments we can muster for the sake of 'convincing' someone else to at least see our point of view.

So I guess this is my 'grounds' for my claim that everything is ultimately 'groundless' in any absolute sense. bigsmile


no photo
Tue 07/14/09 02:42 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 07/14/09 02:49 PM
I said "CAN" I even put it in caps hoping you would actually read that and try to understand that mathematically speaking it indicates that not in all situations the statement was true . ..

However in the example given it was true, and provided a proper refutation to the statement that NOTHING can be known absolutely.

Sad that this needs repeating, and that your response is to go off on a tangent that was NOT what was being said, this is common lately.


Abracadabra's photo
Tue 07/14/09 02:46 PM
Edited by Abracadabra on Tue 07/14/09 02:52 PM

We spend more time explaining out posts over and over again then actually dealing with the nature of the phenomena, or concept, or ontology that we are discussing.

This is what bogs down philosophical conversations and it is avoidable. You really can just say you do not agree without 10 pages.


You're right.

I'll try to just clarify my position as clear as I possibly can.

There can be no absolute grounds for anything.

All ideas are ultimately groundless in an absolute sense.

All we can do is offer our reasons for why we intuitively are drawn to particular premises over others.

We could perhaps call those 'reasons' our relative grounds.

And in that sense, everyone's relative grounds are equally valid because they are ultimately nothing more than their own choice of intuitive premises.

Keep in mind that Creative brought up the idea of 'groundless thoughts' to the point where he felt there should be a forum rule about it.

Keep in mind that Creative is the one who tells people their thoughts are "groundless".

Keep in mind that Creative is the one who tells other people, "It's impossible to think like you do, you are only kidding yourself if you think like that".

That's an absolute statement that denies anyone else's relative grounds in favor his HIS relative grounds as though his grounds are the absolute gospel truth. huh

When did I ever tell him that his ideas are 'groundless'? Or that he can't think the way he does? Or that he's kidding himself?

All I ever did was attempt to convey to him why I didn't accept his premise, and why I felt cool with the premises I had accepted.

But he says, "It's impossible to think like you do, you are only kidding yourself if you think like that". And then accuses me of having "groundless thoughts".

How absurd is that?

And then Lighthouselover posts the philosophical position of Rosmini that illustrates the very thoughts I was attempting to convey. So according to Creative then Rosmini's thoughts must also be 'groundless' in some absolute sense.

There can be no 'absolute' grounds. Not even within the formalism of mathematics. Even mathematical statements conflict with each other if taken to a high enough level.


no photo
Tue 07/14/09 02:49 PM
Some possible definitions of groundless: having no basis for belief, action, or argument; without basis in reason or fact; unsubstantiated. I am not going to define a thought.

I have no reason to believe there is such a thing as a groundless thought. If I had the ability to go into someone's thought and think it too, then I could determine based on some scientific measurement if that thought was factual, reasonable, and substantiated. Until I have the ability to think other peoples' thoughts, though, I have reason to believe that every thought has merit, value, is reasonable, factual, substantiated and grounded in reality. Even an imaginary thought is a valid, reasonable, and factual thought.

And, in the case of schizophrenia, I cannot say a schizophrenic's thoughts are groundless until I have ablility to think their thoughts with them. To the schizophrenic, I imagine that to them, their thought is factual, reasonable, and substantiated in their experience. And, until I can scientifically disprove their reality does not exist and my reality does, I cannot say their thoughts are groundless...who knows, maybe they have access to some other reality? Can I really prove scientifically that my reality exists? All we can do is corraborate the experiences of the majority. Majority rules.

Here is an imaginary thought: maybe someday we can manipulate the chemicals and structures in our brain to be the same as a certain individual schizophrenic (give ourselves the same amount of dopamine in certain areas, etc.) ... then, maybe we will "see and experience" the same reality as this schizophrenic ... at that point, who's reality is going to be correct? The majoritys'-who do not have the same structure and chemical composition? Who's thoughts will be groundless?

Science has shown over and over again that what we consider to be fact today may change in the future. I can go on and on with examples; For instance, when looking at scientific studies in healthcare, one can find all kinds of examples of what is believed to be true one day will change with the next scientific study. So, at this point, I have reason to believe that all thoughts are valid; there is no such thing as a groundless thought, and to censor thoughts goes against freedom of thought and speech and I hope to God we don't start going around telling other people what they can and cannot think and say.

I have never taken any philosophy courses: my fear has always stopped me, but I do enjoy reading these discussions. I may not be following the rules because I have not had any training in philosophy. I humbly apologize if I am not following protocol. I will not be offended if you tell me what I am saying is out of line with the rules. Just let me know because I really like this.





no photo
Tue 07/14/09 02:52 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 07/14/09 03:00 PM


We spend more time explaining out posts over and over again then actually dealing with the nature of the phenomena, or concept, or ontology that we are discussing.

This is what bogs down philosophical conversations and it is avoidable. You really can just say you do not agree without 10 pages.


You're right.

I'll try to just clarify my position as clear as I possibly can.

There can be no absolute grounds for anything.

All ideas are ultimately groundless in an absolute sense.

All we can do is offer our reasons for why we intuitively are drawn to particular premises over others.

We could perhaps call those 'reasons' our relative grounds.

And in that sense, everyone's relative grounds are equally valid because they are ultimately nothing more than their own choice of intuitive premises.

Keep in mind that Creative brought up the idea of 'groundless thoughts' to the point where he felt there should be a forum rule about it.

Keep in mind that Creative is the one who tells people their thoughts are "groundless".

Keep in mind that Creative is the one who tells other people, "It's impossible to think like you do, you are only kidding yourself if you think like that".

That's an absolute statement that denies anyone else's relative grounds in favor his HIS relative grounds as though his grounds are the absolute gospel truth. huh

When did I ever tell him that his ideas are 'groundless'? Or that he can't think the way he does? Or that he's kidding himself?

All I ever did was attempt to convey to him why I didn't accept his premise, and why I felt cool with the premises I had accepted.

But he says, "It's impossible to think like you do, you are only kidding yourself if you think like that". And then accuses me of having "groundless thoughts".

How absurd is that?

And then Lighthouselover posts the philosophical position of Rosmini that illustrates the very thoughts I was attempting to convey. So according to Creative then Rosmini's thoughts must also be 'groundless' in some absolute sense.

There can be no 'absolute' grounds. Not even within the formalism of mathematics. Even mathematical statements conflict with each other if taken to a high enough level.


By saying that nothing can be absolute you have created a contradiction.

Nothing can be absolute is an absolute statement about what can be known.

Differentkindofwench's photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:00 PM
Oy vay. Bottom line appears to be communication skills need to remain how people? Seriously, what would prevent potential "nit picking". Although I must say, that 2 + 2 = 4 was confusing as an example and the only way I could even attempt to see that was if one of the 2 was a fused double apple of some kind that could be depicted as 1 or 2.

Abracadabra's photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:00 PM

By saying that nothing can be absolute you have created a contradiction.

Nothing can be absolute is an absolute.


I haven't created that contradition.

The universe did!

This is the very basis of Quantum Mechanics. Comlementarity!

The universe is illogical!

The universe is a logical contradiction.

As ironic as this may sound, our logical formalism can even be used to logically prove this conclusion!

In fact, this is precisely what Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is all about. It's a mathematical theorem, not merely a theory, that logically proves that all things cannot be logically proven.

If that's a logical contradiction then logic contradicts itself.

What can I say?

We live in an illogical universe.

Yes, we do!

I accept that.

The universe is illogical.

And that conclusion itself is grounded in both pure mathematics and observational physics.

Yep, you got it!

The contradiction does not belong to me. It belongs to the universe! bigsmile


no photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:09 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 07/14/09 03:24 PM
Edited- I am done you are refusing to even start to understand and instead side track CONSTANTLY.

This conversation should have never become about absolutes, it was never intended to and yet here we are again with abra quoting godel out of the context of the thread.

The contradiction DOES belong to you abra. You brought it to this thread without grounds to do so . . HA!

Abracadabra's photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:34 PM

My logical conclusion is that we cannot have a logical conversation, my grounds are your posts.

You state that nothing can be absolute which is a contradiction.

You state logic is illogical which is a contradiction.

You state that the universe demands this be so and you use logic to show that logic is . . . wrong . . .

The definition of absurd.


That's perfectly fine with me. I never claimed to be able to prove anything using logic.

All I've ever done is offer my views, and my reasons for holding them. Some of my reasons may seem logical to you, others reason may seem to be based on intuition, experience, the results of the works of others. Or even the blatant fact that mathematics itself is ultimatley logically undeciable.

If you think you can figure out the universe using pure logic more power to you.

Personally I don't believe that's possible. I feel that this has already been shown to be impossible by both mathematical formalism and the observations of quantum physics.

I've always held that philosophy cannot be reduced to pure logic. It's already been recognized that we cannot prove the most fundamental ideas that we would need as seed to build any logical system on anyway.

You're just demanding that things be absolutely determinable.

As far as I'm concerned that went out with the Newtonian Clockwork Universe.

We're living in the Quantum Age now. Philosophies restricted to Netownian Determinism are outdated. And that include any sense of an absolute deterministic logic.

I'm also not even remotely attempting to convert you to my view.

If you wish to beleive that everything can be ultimately deterimined or know, fine.

I just hold that your view holds no more validity than mine. That's all.

No less, no more.

Neither view can be proven.

Unless, of course, you're willing to accept Quantum Mechanics and Kurt Godel's Incompletelness Theorem as 'proof' or 'grounds' for my position.

But if you reject those things, then more power to you. You are quite free to chose to think however you like.

I'm not attempting to convince you of anything. I just keep responding to your thoughts simply because you keep posting them, and as sad as it may be, I have nothing better to do with my life. :cry:

no photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:40 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 07/14/09 03:41 PM
Not at all, this was a simple thread, you made it complex. This is not about agreeing at all as a necessary conclusion. Its about what it takes to agree at all about anything regardless of absolutes.

Its about why people believe what they believe and not expecting someone else to believe you without grounds, or reasons, or details, or whatever you want to F-ing call it.

If you make a claim back it up or be ignored. Abra you know this and expect it of others and this whole thread has been one mind vomit post after another.

ArtGurl's photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:44 PM
I can only speak what is truth for me. It may not be truth for others and that is okay...we come from different places and that is the beauty of open conversation.

My truth comes from a myriad of formal and informal education, from reading so called experts in a field (who cannot agree with one another), from my own experiences and from the experiences of others who have generously shared their observations with me, from an inner knowing and from intuition ...

Those are grounds and explain why I believe the way I do but they will prove groundless for someone who dismisses the validity of them...

Perhaps that is all creative is asking for ... some reason why we believe something...

But what if we don't know why exactly? And by that, I am not talking about blind faith ... I am talking about the mix of the stew. Does that make it less valid? Does that rule out intuition and knowing?

It is important to question. And yes, I agree that it is important to know why we believe something but the answer may be as simple as I feel it in my 'gut' or its origin may be difficult to pinpoint.

As an example, I may have spent several years reading and studying existential philosophy, psychology, spirituality, human development and the like ... add to that years of conversations, years of experiences and observations, time to allow the information to mesh and percolate...

Today I can express my beliefs about the subject but I can no longer site specific studies, sources, conversations that led me to its formulation. All of our experience becomes integrated. Does that make my belief any less valid?

When outlining why I believe something, I can only expound upon what is known about my process. I may not have the language or the capacity to fully understand ALL of the correlations that have brought me to a belief yet, there are always reasons why a belief exists.

What I do know is that I never take anything on blind faith. I question, I analyze, I feel, I process ... and then I keep what resonates as truth...

That is 'ground' enough for me ....

no photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:47 PM
Perhaps that is all creative is asking for ... some reason why we believe something...
and he said as much PAGES ago . . but that was ignored in favor of straw man bashing and it makes me sick.

ArtGurl's photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:51 PM
Edited by ArtGurl on Tue 07/14/09 03:52 PM

Perhaps that is all creative is asking for ... some reason why we believe something...
and he said as much PAGES ago . . but that was ignored in favor of straw man bashing and it makes me sick.



I haven't read the thread




Abracadabra's photo
Tue 07/14/09 03:56 PM

Edited- I am done you are refusing to even start to understand and instead side track CONSTANTLY.


Ok, I made a statement that was incorrect.

I said, "There can be no absolute grounds for anything."

I didn't mean that in general and that was very poorly worded.

I meant, "There can be no absolute grounds for any specific primitive premise"

Yes, some things can be 'absolutely' determined within a formal system. Like 2+2=4 can be 'absolutely' determined within the rules of mathematics.

The claim that an invisible monkey exist which no one can see is simply senseless. I doubt if anything logical could even truly be said about such a statement other than it isn't saying anything meaningful.

When I said that there can be no absolute grounds for anything, I meant in the most primitive sense of fundamental premises.

From a philosophical point of view. No 'starting point' can be absolute. This is what Feynman meant when he said that we cannot define anything precisely. By "precisely" he means down to it's ultiamtely root of being.

That's what I meant by that. Sorry, for not expanding on that. That was my fault. I didn't say what I actually meant in detail.

I'm talking about philosophical "premises" here.

Starting points.

No fundamental premise can be absolute. That's what I meant to say.

no photo
Tue 07/14/09 04:12 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 07/14/09 04:13 PM


Edited- I am done you are refusing to even start to understand and instead side track CONSTANTLY.


Ok, I made a statement that was incorrect.

I said, "There can be no absolute grounds for anything."

I didn't mean that in general and that was very poorly worded.

I meant, "There can be no absolute grounds for any specific primitive premise"

Yes, some things can be 'absolutely' determined within a formal system. Like 2+2=4 can be 'absolutely' determined within the rules of mathematics.

The claim that an invisible monkey exist which no one can see is simply senseless. I doubt if anything logical could even truly be said about such a statement other than it isn't saying anything meaningful.

When I said that there can be no absolute grounds for anything, I meant in the most primitive sense of fundamental premises.

From a philosophical point of view. No 'starting point' can be absolute. This is what Feynman meant when he said that we cannot define anything precisely. By "precisely" he means down to it's ultiamtely root of being.

That's what I meant by that. Sorry, for not expanding on that. That was my fault. I didn't say what I actually meant in detail.

I'm talking about philosophical "premises" here.

Starting points.

No fundamental premise can be absolute. That's what I meant to say.

Hence why you are beating a poor straw man.

Because no one was claiming that. I dare you to find a post from me or Creative in this thread, or in the thread about the rule change where either of us reference absolutes except in responding to some other straw man argument.

Abracadabra's photo
Tue 07/14/09 04:13 PM

Perhaps that is all creative is asking for ... some reason why we believe something...
and he said as much PAGES ago . . but that was ignored in favor of straw man bashing and it makes me sick.


Well, he certainly couldn't be referring to anything I've said then because I've certainly given more reasons than you can shake a stick for everything I present.

I often call upon quantum mechanics, pure mathematics, the views and proofs of famous scientists. I even try to offer intuitive examples when possible.

What was his reason for telling me, "It's impossible to think like that, you're only kidding yourself if you think that way"?

Especially when I was backing up my thoughts with ideas from Quantum mechanics, pure mathmatics, and the ideas and comments of famous scientists? spock

What more 'reason' could he require?

And he's so upset about this that he wants to create new forum RULES?

I'll be absolutely perfectly honest with you and tell you precisely what I think.

And dear Michael, please understand that this is merely my perception based on your behavior. That is my 'grounds' for the following perception.

I believe that Michael simply cannot accept the random nature of Quantum Mechanics and the fact that the God Plays Dice.

Michael is like Einstein. He can't let go of the absolute determinism of the Newtonian view. He needs to believe that everything can indeed be understood logically. He needs to believe that we live in a perfectly logical universe.

So he rejects the idea that nothing can be determined in an absolute sense and therefore he's desperate to demand that it can be. Even if it means demanding that rules be put into place that everyone must back up their views with absolute sound LOGIC.

He simply cannot handle the idea that the universe might be illogical.

So he's taking it out on anyone who even remotely suggests that this might be the case. bigsmile

This I believe. flowers

The Newtonian Era is dead.

Welcome to the Quantum Universe of Uncertainty.

no photo
Tue 07/14/09 04:16 PM

Well, he certainly couldn't be referring to anything I've said then because I've certainly given more reasons than you can shake a stick for everything I present.
Well you would have to take that up with him.

All I can say is that I understood what he meant by grounds and was not conflating it to mean absolutes in any way shape or form, at first I myself conflated it to mean verifiable but he even made clear that ideas that where not verifiable could still have grounds, or reasons, or whatever . . . so I myself then better understood the looseness of what he was saying . . . and by no means did that include even 3/4 of your objections, I really do not want to hazard a guess as I literally did not read all your spam.

ArtGurl's photo
Tue 07/14/09 04:21 PM

cannot handle the idea that the universe might be illogical.



I can't help but wonder if we were able to view us and our universe from a higher dimension if it would seem so 'illogical' ...

1 3 5 6 7 8 9 19 20