Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, this is going nowhere. I suspect it's at least partly a language thing.

So let's try the questions I asked earlier:

One thing that I'm having difficulty is the following: Is there even such a thing as a "shared" environment? Or can this scenario only be seen from a single observer's viewpoint with the other "observer" merely being an object?
...[text shortened]... al model. If I understood what you were saying, I wouldn't have to ask questions.

Therefore ToO, just in case my English are still Greek to you and therefore you understand not what I say, I repeat that I claim that all states of being are determined by mind, truth included😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Therefore ToO, just in case my English are still Greek to you and therefore you understand not what I say, I repeat that I claim that all states of being are determined by mind, truth included😵

Just a couple of points:

1. "Evidently what we have here is a failure to communicate"
Is that a Cool Hand Luke quote?

2. There will be more than a passing resemblance between the epiontic principle and theology until there is beef.

Originally posted by black beetle
Therefore ToO, just in case my English are still Greek to you and therefore you understand not what I say, I repeat that I claim that all states of being are determined by mind, truth included😵

God's mind.

Originally posted by black beetle
There is a "shared" environment for the sentient beings, the Human included -our kosmos as we percieve it by means of our body/ speech/ mind mechanism. Each observer is a sub-system within our kosmos, and we are observers too.

Our Knowledge is the process of a never ending evaluation of our products of the World 1, 2 and 3 based on given elements of ...[text shortened]... e packets of information available to us through the miscellaneous observers that we observe😵

Let's say that X happens in this shared environment.

Observer A is unaware of X.

Observer B interprets X as Y.

Under my conceptual model, what both Observer A and Observer B believe are not true.

Under your conceptual model it seems that what both Observer A and Observer B believe are true?

Is this correct? If not, please explain what Observer A and Observer B believe they know and what they actually know.

Originally posted by daniel58
God's mind.

Mused the Texan in deepest dejection
As he passed round the box for collection:
-- "If it comes to the worst
Can a curate be cursed
Or a rector be wrecked by erection?"
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Mused the Texan in deepest dejection
As he passed round the box for collection:
-- "If it comes to the worst
Can a curate be cursed
Or a rector be wrecked by erection?"
😵

1. I'm not a priest.
2. I guess.

You never really reply to anybody you just make up your little poems and think it's cool.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's say that X happens in this shared environment.

Observer A is unaware of X.

Observer B interprets X as Y.

Under my conceptual model, Observer A nor Observer B both believe they know the truth about X but neither actually know the truth about X.

Under your conceptual model it seems that both Observer A and Observer B believe they know the ...[text shortened]... t, please explain what Observer A and Observer B believe they know and what they actually know.

I accelerated when I saw the green light and he accelerated too although he had to stop due to his red light because he had not a driving licence, and he was driving illegaly his moher's car. He knew not that he had to respect his red light and stop, whilst I knew not that he was not qualified to drive and that he wouldn't stop.

Under your conceptual mode I was unaware of the fact that the other was not a qualified driver whilst he thought that he had not to stop due to his red light, but neither of us actually knew how to evaluate the meaning of the traffic light and what to do regarding a given indication of the traffic light.

Under my conceptual model it seems that both we beleived that our interpretation was the correct one and in fact we both acted according to our personal interpretation based on our experiential reality.

Now, I claim that the "truth" (our personal experiential reality which it derives from our respective personal conceptual awareness) of each one of us does not stand alone "as is" and that therefore it is "empty"; also, I claim that the heavy crach that occured, it is not an "absolute truth" but an event.
😵

Originally posted by daniel58
1. I'm not a priest.
2. I guess.

You never really reply to anybody you just make up your little poems and think it's cool.

And if, among RHP admirers,
They stimulate naughty desires,
Confess them, at least,
To your neighbourhood priest
For the price of ten Ave Marias😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I accelerated when I saw the green light and he accelerated too although he had to stop due to his red light because he had not a driving licence, and he was driving illegaly his moher's car. He knew not that he had to respect his red light and stop, whilst I knew not that he was not qualified to drive and that he wouldn't stop.

Under your conceptual ...[text shortened]... aim that the heavy crach that occured, it is not an "absolute truth" but an event.
😵

lol. Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

So do you post here mainly to mess with people?

I notice that you seem to enjoy messing with daniel58 and I guess that you've been doing the same with me. Of course, if truth is relative, then so is morality. Makes it easy to dispense with a conscience, no?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

So do you post here mainly to mess with people?

I notice that you seem to enjoy messing with daniel58 and I guess that you've been doing the same with me. Of course, if truth is relative, then so is morality. Makes it easy to dispense with a conscience, no?

ToO, I just gave you an event X and then I followed both your personal interpretation and mine in detail in order to help you see the analogy.

Also, from the very beggining of our conversation I made clear my opinions regarding "truth", "absolute truth". "experiential reality" etc. I even offered you in detail my view regarding the concept of sunyata/ emptiness and I tried to make the situation the clearest possible regarding the relativity of everything using also as examples speific scientific facts and evidence, however you keep up insisting about matters regarding a so called "absolute truth" which is standing alone "as is" and separeted by everyting else. This approach of yours is in my opinion dogmatic.
On the other hand, I assure you that I never mess with nobody here and particularly with you.

Of course, in my opinion, "truth" (a product of our experienial reality!) is relative due to the fact that it depends on our personal experiential reality, which is unique. And I claim that morality is also a product of the Human which is designed to serve her/ him at her/ his social environment😵

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

So do you post here mainly to mess with people?

I notice that you seem to enjoy messing with daniel58 and I guess that you've been doing the same with me. Of course, if truth is relative, then so is morality. Makes it easy to dispense with a conscience, no?

Oh, and something else: "yes or no" is just one of the possible probabilities/ reactions, and in our case it seems to me that you accept strictly a "yes or no" scenario with nothing else in between because of your classicist approach. Of course this is just a human concept and not a model that shows how reality evolves;

As a veteran motorcycle testman I assure you that we riders are trained with specific means and methods in order to become able to overcome the seemingly unexpected. The most miles you write in your personal driving portfolio, the most probable an accident it gets. We know that the average biker will have at least an accident per 100.000km, and we are aware of the fact that many bikers have done more than 600.000km without having experienced none -but anyway the accident will occur under the proper circumstances. Now, this extract/ conclusion is neither an "absolute truth" nor an "absolute non-truth" that stands "as is". It simply describes a probability of a specific event that is likely to happen under the proper circumstances.

Furthermore I could say that, the probable accident uses its self-perceiving process within our dualistic world of experience in order to explore and to pefect its becoming into an event. Our role, I mean the role of us bikers within this process, is central (by far more critical than he role of any other's observer like a tree, a cloud, a dolphin, an eagle etc.) because we bikers we are by far the most individuaded conscious observers within the prosess of the self-perception of a traffic accident.

I hope that now, ToO, my thesis is quite clear to you😵

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Just a couple of points:

1. "Evidently what we have here is a failure to communicate"
Is that a Cool Hand Luke quote?

2. There will be more than a passing resemblance between the epiontic principle and theology until there is beef.

I do not understant neither why you applied to me regarding ToO's affirmation, nor your notion "Is that a Cool Hand Luke quote?". Kindly please explain;

Regarding your secont point, kindly please clarify if you dismiss the EP, and if so, the reason why.
Also, do you estimate either that this specific scientific theory is dogmatic, or is as valuable as a theologic approach?
😵

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Using the word "ultimate" was just to distinguish it from a "relative truth". I'd be more than happy to refer to "truth" and "reality" with the understanding that they are "simply what-there-is". But then you get people who say things like, "Nothing is true ,everything is permitted", "It showed me the relativity of 'truth' at the time.And since.", etc., which seems to indicate "truth" and "reality" are what-is-perceived.

OK, that's clear now.

'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' is a slogan that can be deployed from the perspective of your choice. It could be used in defence of Kant, for instance. I'm confident it could even be enlisted under the banner of logical positivism. But I'll leave that task to whoever can be bothered to do it.

Originally posted by black beetle
I do not understant neither why you applied to me regarding ToO's affirmation, nor your notion "Is that a Cool Hand Luke quote?". Kindly please explain;

Regarding your secont point, kindly please clarify if you dismiss the EP, and if so, the reason why.
Also, do you estimate either that this specific scientific theory is dogmatic, or is as valuable as a theologic approach?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I do not understant neither why you applied to me regarding ToO's affirmation, nor your notion "Is that a Cool Hand Luke quote?". Kindly please explain;
I replied to you because the second point is the more important and relates to the epiontic principle. The answer to the second part of your question is that this is (almost) a quote from a film:
"What we got here is... failure to communicate."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/quotes

Regarding your secont point, kindly please clarify if you dismiss the EP, and if so, the reason why.
No I don't.

Also, do you estimate either that this specific scientific theory is dogmatic, or is as valuable as a theologic approach?
😵
I'm not sure that it yet qualifies as a scientific theory, since although it is compatible with, for example, the various Young's Slits experiments, it is difficult to see how the epiontic principle could be falsified at present. Perhaps you know a way that it could?

Theological approaches might be useful for some things, but it is wise to be mindful of the distinction between these and scientific theories in my view.

Originally posted by daniel58
1. I'm not a priest.
2. I guess.

You never really reply to anybody you just make up your little poems and think it's cool.

I like him-even if I run into him in the street I may want to to veer into his path just to piss him off.
I wish more people on this site came up with obscure little poems.
Not to say I'm unhappy with things just the way they are.