thought and non-thought

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If we call ‘reality’ that which is not an illusion.
Can we experience this reality or only an illusion created by it.
I feel like to say we can only percieve an illusion is dualism.
I think dualism is about as philosophically backrupt as it gets.
I think we only percieve illusions when we attempt to conceptualize what we sense.
If we free our mind of concepts then we can see reality as it is; without a map.
There is, though, much to be gained from concepts.
By concepts we can create extremely acurate descriptions of reality; science.
With science we can learn to manipulate the world around us and create all the wonders of the modern age.

But science cannot fully describe what we experience. It may describe the cause but not the experience itself.
I think that there is then to types of action done by the mind.
The mind can think in terms of the concepts it places on the world placing these concepts over actual reality.
Or the mind can simply let in reality through senses.
We can choose to filter out anything that we cannot conceptualize things we cannot describe or explain.
Or we can not think about what we are sensing and simply experience.
Or ultimately we can do both.

dynamically switching between thought and non-thought.

Thought helps us control the world via approximate descriptions of reality.
Non-thought allows us to see the world in all its indescribable nature.

Via meditation we can achieve this state of non-thinking and even transcend te ego itself.

I think all this is well understood by any philosophies.

I think its simple.

2

How is perceiving an illusion a dualism? That doesn’t make sense to me.

“If we free our mind of concepts then we can see reality as it is; without a map.”

Once we have learned a concept, we cannot unlearn it. We can never ‘see reality for what it is’, because all we will ever see are the illusions.

3

I agree with what you say, Finn. But what is the value of non-thought over thought?
Why would it be better to transcend the ego?
And what is done with what is left?

4

In actuality it’s the opposite.

You can only see reality or anything for that matter, for what it is, because all you will ever see is truth.

Ones reality is ones experience and an exprience itself cannot be illusive, after all it’s the fundamental method of validation.

This talk of illusion, lies spoke in confusion, The faith and ignorance keep at bay the enlightening logical intrusion.

5

I still don’t see how this is a dualism. If reality is actually an illusion, then it was never real in the first place. What is real is what is illusive is what we know through the senses. There are no gaps in this logic. Thus, what is real receeds to the realm of metaphysics.

…this doesn’t make sense to me either. :laughing:

We can forget and we can ignore what? What are you referring to? Oh yes, it’s that concept you were trying to forget and ignored, but failed. It’s always there. This is how reality imprints the mind with concepts. The metaphor is actually quite literal here.

Truth is lies spoke in confusion. [-X

:laughing: =P~

6

That would make that statement is a lie, self defeating.

I hope that was a joke statement, it was certainly a Joker like statement. [-(

Joker is not good for your intelligence. #-o

:-k

If you don’t even get the dualistic nature of claiming something is what it cannot be, as that something is opposite in some respect to thing your claiming it is, there is allot of work to be done.

:-$ You might want to;

Check out logic, contradiction and semantics and try and get your head around them.

Or make joker your intellectual role model.

T’morrow lad.

7

Am I the only person here who doesn’t think my senses are some how faulty and incapable of percieving reality?

8

Probably yes, i did but then you just asked you was the only one, so now you have me thinking that your perception of reality is not all that. :unamused:

:smiley:

9

I did and then you rhetorically asked you was the only one, so now you have me thinking that your perception of reality is not all that. :unamused:

:smiley:

10

Not sure exactly what that means, or why you doubt my perception of reality based on a rhetorical question. Seems like there are a lot of threads questioning our ability to percieve reality, and I’m wondering if I’m the only one who doesn’t lack faith in my senses. Seems rather uncalled for to be rude.

11

You’re right; I was half-joking. I wouldn’t claim that a truth is a lie, because I know that it strictly contradicts itself. Though, ‘truth’ can be defined in many ways.

“If reality is actually an illusion, then it was never real in the first place. What is real is what is illusive is what we know through the senses.”

Here’s what I stated: reality is actually not reality; it is something else. What I am saying is that what we should define reality as is: the things that we perceive are illusive–they are illusions. So, that gives reality a completely different meaning altogether. I’m not saying reality is two-seperate things. I’m saying it’s one thing, an illusion.

Now, what was previous thought of as to be ‘real’ is also something different. That so-called thing lies in the realm of metaphysics according to my beliefs. However, it may or may not even exist and thus, is not practical. Therefore, it can’t be considered as part of a dualism until it is explained. That’s another story entirely…

So, there’s no dualism.

12

Ok here goes…

I find this hard to explain.

If we just look at the world without interpreting it or enforcing any concepts on it, then all thatis happening is light is hitting our eyes and causing electrons to bounce around and blah blah blah. If we say this is what is physically happening but what is mentally happening is we are seeing a boat then thats a dualist point of view. If instead we understand that the physical description and the mental description are describing the same thing so in actuality there is no mental/physical dualism. The description of my experience and the description of the physical process are both just descriptions. But if I don’t attempt to describe what I see then all that is happening is reality is occuring. I’m a part of reality and im interacting with the rest of reality. The illusion comes when i attempt to fit reality to some concepts that I have. So in someways its a catch 22 if I wish to understand what I’m seeing I must fit it to some concept and thus create an illusion in my mind. The only way to really sense what is going on is just to except what I see as just stuff and not connect it to a concept I have.

I’m not at all sure. I guess if we can just be happy with our experiences and care less about the desires of our ego we can be happy. Maybe not though. Maybe fullfilling all the desires of the ego will make you much happier than transending it. I haven’t managed to do either so I don’t know which one is better.

I think maybe a healthy balence between the two is good.

Im not really sure on the value of either thought or non-thought.

Not sure I made myself clear. I think if we believe that what comes directly into the mind is an illusion then we must then seperate mind from reality and hence we get to dualism. If we instead say that It is in the mind that the illusion is created by us using concepts to describe what we are taking in directly this is not dualism.

13

Oh, so you’re refering to reality as a mind-body split. Well, then yes, it can be regarded as dualistic in that way. That’s not necessarily what I consider reality though or how people perceive reality.

The problem begins with concepts, like you said, “The illusion comes when i attempt to fit reality to some concepts that I have.”

Why “must” we seperate mind from reality in this instance? If reality is actually an illusion, then there’s no need for dualism. That’s the point I have been getting at.

14

I was kidding.

You are saying its 2 opposing things.
Reality is an illusion, light is in fact dark, heat is feels cool, i get ya but it doesn’t make sense.

You can only know something is an illusion if you know the actual reality. theres nothing greater your experience of reality, so there’s no reason for you to believe reality is an illusion.

Then theres the simple fact is there can be nothing illusive about what is real thats a blatant contradiction.

If you don’t understand that, maybe your thinking overly relativistic about it, understand the words of my statements by their definition and logical implication, look at them tautologically.

15

I don’t see how reality can be an illusion. I don’t see any sense in that idea. reality is what is real hence not an illusion. What do you mean by reality???

I’m defining reality as what is real and an illusion as what appears to be real but infact is not real.

Hence by my definations “reality is an illusion” is a contrdiction in terms.

I said

realunoriginal asked

Beause if there is no mind/brain split what comes into the mind must be of the same substance as the brain as the brain is of the same substance as the rest of reality, if the brain was of different substance to everything else again we’d have a dualist split. If If what comes into the mind is an illusion then at some point before it ever reaches the mind the illusion must take place again this is just an abitary split the substance of reality must give rise to the substance of the illusion which then enters our senses leaving behind reality.

16

Ok, ok, let me try one more time.

Some person long ago stuck their arm in a settled, clear pool of water. That person noticed that when he/she did so, their arm visually appeared to be wavy and distorted under the surface of the water. Now, what was real? Was it real that their arm actually changed shapes under water or that it just appeared that way through the sense? Today, science tells us that its the later.

I’m saying, “not so fast!”

If we define reality as illusive, then we don’t need to begin a dualistic view of the world in the first place.

What ‘actually’ or ‘really’ happened when that person stuck their arm in the water? Based on my definition of ‘reality’, the person who stuck their arm in the water conceptualized their experience by observing the change in shape. The person thought that it appeared as though their arm changed shape through their visual senses. The person then began to describe this experience and share it with others…

Now, this concept and others like it began in this way. People observed what they sensed and made concepts out of them, until science came along. Science is a more advanced way of describing the world, through the same concepts. What science tells us is that our sensual experience is often wrong. However, I’m sure that people already knew this in some regards to how heat rises off the ground or other tricks of the eyes (ie. distance illusions, blind spots, etc.). People already knew that their senses were deceiving, but they had to trust them anyway.

Science tells us that our arm retains its shape when submerged and it appears distorted. Are there two concepts in play or just one? [b]There is just one concept. The arm appears to change shape visually–end of story. So what is real? It is real that what we perceive through the senses is illusive. Our senses are all that we know of the world, because our senses define our concepts. Science expands on them, but that does not mean that they are fundamentally changed.

In the end, the arm appears to change shape visually. Science tells us that there is a more accurate description of events taking place (ie. refraction of light through water), but that doesn’t change the fact that reality has, is, and will remain illusive.[/b]

17

I don’t believe the mind-body split exists.

I think it’s a philosophical error.

Only when the mind-body distinction is blurred can reality be seen for what it is… illusion. Reality is illusive and thus, reality is an illusion. When reality is defined in terms of the mind-body split, it is fundamentally wrong. Reality is false under dualism. Reality is true when it retains one constant definition… that reality is an illusion, and was all along.

It’s a philosophical error.

:evilfun: O:)

18

The experience of it, yes.

19

Oni Omega

Is it cold in here or what? Burn… :unamused:

Tell me Oni Lad :sunglasses: …

Is a book of Shakespeare a representation of the real or non-thought? Simple question. Yes or no?

Is a book of Shakespeare a representation of nature or is it somthing other?

20

I have a hard time believing that all of reality is an illusion too that is why I reduce only some parts of life as illusory.