6 ms·

The trouble with this idea is that, if there is no unity to the thoughts whatsoever -- as some seem to say -- then any kind of rational thought is impossible.

The trouble with this idea is that, if there is no unity to the thoughts whatsoever -- as some seem to say -- then any kind of rational thought is impossible. If there is no unity to the thoughts, then there is no single principle that unites the thoughts. If there is no single principle that unites them, then there is no single, unchanging person having them. If there is no unchanging person having the thoughts, then there is no connection between the thoughts. If there is no connection between the thoughts, then there is "right" or "wrong" relationship between the thoughts. This makes all logical thought impossible, and means there cannot be correct or incorrect thinking. But if this is the case, then any argument in favour of the position just outlined -- or any other, contrary position -- is neither right nor wrong. So everything becomes absurd. (I don't think this is what the OP link is saying, btw -- he may think that, but his argument seems to discuss experience rather than ontology.)

sctb 2y ago
> This makes all logical thought impossible, and means there cannot be correct or incorrect thinking. No, this is conflating paradigms. If this were true, you would expect the same Buddhist texts not to mention "right" and "wrong", and boy do they ever.
skeks6272 2y ago
That’s Hume and it is indeed devastating. Only Kant had an answer, but not everyone likes it. Simple things like causality break down if you consider events to be discrete and unconnected. I believe modern AI research could do with someone (re)thinking some of this stuff. Kant has a solution, but it requires letting go of ever knowing True Reality(tm).
theptip 2y ago
> If there is no unity to the thoughts, then there is no single principle that unites the thoughts. Not sure what this means. Buddhists would say “everything is a formation” > If there is no single principle that unites them, then there is no single, unchanging person having them. This is the core teaching of Buddhism, so we can just start from here. > If there is no unchanging person having the thoughts, then there is no connection between the thoughts This is a non-sequitur. In the Buddhist view, each thought or mental moment is conditioned upon the previous one(s). There is nothing in “logical thought”, or even illogical/emotional thought that logically requires a self. Thoughts can arise, like pure functions operating on their inputs, and returning some output into the global workspace. Subsequent thoughts can compose those previous ones, or consume new sense percepts that are emitted by the sense organs. Now as a matter of empirical fact this model could be wrong, but I don’t think your attempt to disprove it with logic succeeds.
- geye1234 2y ago
  Thought can't be reduced to a sequence of states, or functions acting on each other. I've tried to explain why in some other comments on HN. But let's grant that it can be so reduced for the sake of argument. I think even then, your position is impossible. >> If there is no unchanging person having the thoughts, then there is no connection between the thoughts > This is a non-sequitur. You're right, I apologise. I should replace 'person' with 'thing' -- then it ceases to be a non-sequitur. I'll try to explain why: > Thoughts can arise, like pure functions operating on their inputs, and returning some output into the global workspace. This presupposes unity. Suppose, in case A, the thought "2+2" leads to the further thought "4". Let's suppose, further, that this is the case of a pure function operating on its input ("2+2") and returning the output ("4"). Suppose, in case B, exactly the same, but it returns the output "5". I assume we agree that A is correct and B is incorrect. You can affirm that the content of case A has some kind of unity underlying it, or you can deny it. (We could argue about the precise nature of the unity, but let us simply say that it is some kind of unity.) If you deny it, then you must say that there is no connection between 2+2 and 4. Connection presupposes something that connects. If there is no connection, then there is nothing that makes case A correct. That obviously undermines the possibility of any argumentation or logical thoughts. Alternatively, you can affirm the proposition. I think your position requires you affirm it, because by positing any kind of sequence, or function operating on an input and returning an output, you are positing unity. A sequence of any kind has a unity to it, otherwise it wouldn't be a sequence. So in positing a sequence, you're positing unity. And in positing unity, you're positing something that unites, and that is different from that which is united. Such a thing must change from having the thought "2+2" to the thought "4", but it must persist as something underlying these changes in order for the changes to have any unity, and therefore for the arithmetic to have any coherence. So we must logically get to the existence of something that persists while changing. Obviously we could argue about what that thing is -- specifically, whether it's a person. We could also argue about when it comes in and goes out of existence. But the fact that there is a thing that persists in one sense, even as it changes in another, is all I'm trying to demonstrate here. I think once that's demonstrated, the position you're arguing is undermined.
enugu 2y ago
Discreteness doesn't imply there is no relation in the sequence. For instance, consider a processor in a robot processing sensations at clock cycle speed. The memory chip or processor cores or software cant be used as a basis for unity, because a relation between successive elements of the sequence is not the same as there being an underlying unity as all parts can be individually swapped out in upgrades (like in the Ship of Theseus). Buddhist vipassana descriptions use the analogy of seeing a line of ants - From afar, they look like a single black line, but on going nearby one sees the discrete nature. Similarly, on becoming adept at mind noting practice, one can see thoughts/sensations this way. (Not saying that I agree with the above take, as I do think there is an underlying consciouness which gives unity, but here I am attempting to steelman the argument. Also, as you indicate, the original article is talking about a different aspect - unity at a single time vs unity across moments, and a discussion of how reflection alters the contents of consciousness.)
carapace 2y ago
> then any kind of rational thought is impossible Yes. Rationality is an illusion. Rational deduction depends on "implication" which is not actually a thing in physical reality. > there is no single, unchanging person having them This is the essential breakthrough that Buddha had: all things are impermanent and if you go looking for yourself you eventually find that there is no "self" there. > there cannot be correct or incorrect thinking Yes, thoughts are totally irrelevant to living. They are just a sort of fun window dressing. It's possible to "switch off" all thinking and still function. The body carries out all it's activities including talking to other people but "you" are not "doing" anything. It's pleasant. (I typically do it while washing the dishes.) > But if this is the case, then any argument in favour of the position just outlined -- or any other, contrary position -- is neither right nor wrong. So everything becomes absurd. No. The above is a description of the situation, not an argument that can be invalidated.
- geye1234 2y ago
  If rationality is an illusion, then rationality is both an illusion and not an illusion, and all things are impermanent and permanent in the same respect, and Buddha both did and didn't have the breakthrough you describe, and you are both right and wrong in everything you write here, and so on.
  - carapace 2y ago
    Are you paraphrasing the Diamond Sutra? (If so, well played!)
    - geye1234 2y ago
      If I am, then it follows that Bill Gates is the only hamster in the world.
      - carapace 2y ago
        That would explain the haircut.
kukkeliskuu 2y ago
Even if most of us do not have a real unity in thoughts, there may be a potential -- i.e. a possibility to attain unity with a long, sustained effort. Because such long, sustained effort is rare, the real unity in thoughts is rare.
zozbot234 2y ago
Of course there is unity to thoughts, but that unity just boils down to ordinary cause-and-effect. There's nothing out there in the real world that points to a "single, unchanging" person or entity having the thoughts, if only because people in general are constantly affected by their surrounding environment, quite far from being "unchanging".
JadeNB 2y ago
> If there is no single principle that unites them, then there is no single, unchanging person having them. If there is no unchanging person having the thoughts, then there is no connection between the thoughts. I don't think either of these implications obviously holds, except possibly by idiosyncratic definition in the first case. (Surely nobody thinks a person having thoughts is unchanged by them, or else we'd all just be static.)

sctb 2y ago

> This makes all logical thought impossible, and means there cannot be correct or incorrect thinking. No, this is conflating paradigms. If this were true, you would expect the same Buddhist texts not to mention "right" and "wrong", and boy do they ever.

skeks6272 2y ago

That’s Hume and it is indeed devastating. Only Kant had an answer, but not everyone likes it. Simple things like causality break down if you consider events to be discrete and unconnected. I believe modern AI research could do with someone (re)thinking some of this stuff. Kant has a solution, but it requires letting go of ever knowing True Reality(tm).

theptip 2y ago

> If there is no unity to the thoughts, then there is no single principle that unites the thoughts. Not sure what this means. Buddhists would say “everything is a formation” > If there is no single principle that unites them, then there is no single, unchanging person having them. This is the core teaching of Buddhism, so we can just start from here. > If there is no unchanging person having the thoughts, then there is no connection between the thoughts This is a non-sequitur. In the Buddhist view, each thought or mental moment is conditioned upon the previous one(s). There is nothing in “logical thought”, or even illogical/emotional thought that logically requires a self. Thoughts can arise, like pure functions operating on their inputs, and returning some output into the global workspace. Subsequent thoughts can compose those previous ones, or consume new sense percepts that are emitted by the sense organs. Now as a matter of empirical fact this model could be wrong, but I don’t think your attempt to disprove it with logic succeeds.

geye1234 2y ago
Thought can't be reduced to a sequence of states, or functions acting on each other. I've tried to explain why in some other comments on HN. But let's grant that it can be so reduced for the sake of argument. I think even then, your position is impossible. >> If there is no unchanging person having the thoughts, then there is no connection between the thoughts > This is a non-sequitur. You're right, I apologise. I should replace 'person' with 'thing' -- then it ceases to be a non-sequitur. I'll try to explain why: > Thoughts can arise, like pure functions operating on their inputs, and returning some output into the global workspace. This presupposes unity. Suppose, in case A, the thought "2+2" leads to the further thought "4". Let's suppose, further, that this is the case of a pure function operating on its input ("2+2") and returning the output ("4"). Suppose, in case B, exactly the same, but it returns the output "5". I assume we agree that A is correct and B is incorrect. You can affirm that the content of case A has some kind of unity underlying it, or you can deny it. (We could argue about the precise nature of the unity, but let us simply say that it is some kind of unity.) If you deny it, then you must say that there is no connection between 2+2 and 4. Connection presupposes something that connects. If there is no connection, then there is nothing that makes case A correct. That obviously undermines the possibility of any argumentation or logical thoughts. Alternatively, you can affirm the proposition. I think your position requires you affirm it, because by positing any kind of sequence, or function operating on an input and returning an output, you are positing unity. A sequence of any kind has a unity to it, otherwise it wouldn't be a sequence. So in positing a sequence, you're positing unity. And in positing unity, you're positing something that unites, and that is different from that which is united. Such a thing must change from having the thought "2+2" to the thought "4", but it must persist as something underlying these changes in order for the changes to have any unity, and therefore for the arithmetic to have any coherence. So we must logically get to the existence of something that persists while changing. Obviously we could argue about what that thing is -- specifically, whether it's a person. We could also argue about when it comes in and goes out of existence. But the fact that there is a thing that persists in one sense, even as it changes in another, is all I'm trying to demonstrate here. I think once that's demonstrated, the position you're arguing is undermined.

enugu 2y ago

Discreteness doesn't imply there is no relation in the sequence. For instance, consider a processor in a robot processing sensations at clock cycle speed. The memory chip or processor cores or software cant be used as a basis for unity, because a relation between successive elements of the sequence is not the same as there being an underlying unity as all parts can be individually swapped out in upgrades (like in the Ship of Theseus). Buddhist vipassana descriptions use the analogy of seeing a line of ants - From afar, they look like a single black line, but on going nearby one sees the discrete nature. Similarly, on becoming adept at mind noting practice, one can see thoughts/sensations this way. (Not saying that I agree with the above take, as I do think there is an underlying consciouness which gives unity, but here I am attempting to steelman the argument. Also, as you indicate, the original article is talking about a different aspect - unity at a single time vs unity across moments, and a discussion of how reflection alters the contents of consciousness.)

carapace 2y ago

> then any kind of rational thought is impossible Yes. Rationality is an illusion. Rational deduction depends on "implication" which is not actually a thing in physical reality. > there is no single, unchanging person having them This is the essential breakthrough that Buddha had: all things are impermanent and if you go looking for yourself you eventually find that there is no "self" there. > there cannot be correct or incorrect thinking Yes, thoughts are totally irrelevant to living. They are just a sort of fun window dressing. It's possible to "switch off" all thinking and still function. The body carries out all it's activities including talking to other people but "you" are not "doing" anything. It's pleasant. (I typically do it while washing the dishes.) > But if this is the case, then any argument in favour of the position just outlined -- or any other, contrary position -- is neither right nor wrong. So everything becomes absurd. No. The above is a description of the situation, not an argument that can be invalidated.

geye1234 2y ago
If rationality is an illusion, then rationality is both an illusion and not an illusion, and all things are impermanent and permanent in the same respect, and Buddha both did and didn't have the breakthrough you describe, and you are both right and wrong in everything you write here, and so on.
- carapace 2y ago
  Are you paraphrasing the Diamond Sutra? (If so, well played!)
  - geye1234 2y ago
    If I am, then it follows that Bill Gates is the only hamster in the world.
    - carapace 2y ago
      That would explain the haircut.

kukkeliskuu 2y ago

Even if most of us do not have a real unity in thoughts, there may be a potential -- i.e. a possibility to attain unity with a long, sustained effort. Because such long, sustained effort is rare, the real unity in thoughts is rare.

zozbot234 2y ago

Of course there is unity to thoughts, but that unity just boils down to ordinary cause-and-effect. There's nothing out there in the real world that points to a "single, unchanging" person or entity having the thoughts, if only because people in general are constantly affected by their surrounding environment, quite far from being "unchanging".

JadeNB 2y ago

> If there is no single principle that unites them, then there is no single, unchanging person having them. If there is no unchanging person having the thoughts, then there is no connection between the thoughts. I don't think either of these implications obviously holds, except possibly by idiosyncratic definition in the first case. (Surely nobody thinks a person having thoughts is unchanged by them, or else we'd all just be static.)