Surely. I will say denominations of Buddhism have (and will) push away countless people, including ones such as yourself beyond qualified to take this turn, with wrong teaching/dogmatism. You assuredly project the qualities of someone I’d hate to be distasted by the core underlying philosophy. Sorry if I seem evangelical, never my intent. I just see a fellow brother from far away through your words

Cheers to you!! I’m very curious to hear your interpretation of Buddhist philosophy, it very much falls in this realm. This is not the appropriate thread for such overarching topics, but would love to connect personally on deeply challenging topics like emptiness/impermanence and how we can relate to our world with such understanding.

Precisely. It is difficult to reject the seduction of direct experience- it is in some cases self-proving and axiomatic. However, there is the rare occasion that the certain aspects of the truth of experience can be validly called into scrutiny, which many may find a difficult dichotomy to grapple

appreciate the kind words Banno. This specific response was lost on me amongst the many unintentional pages belonging
to this thread, however I view it as a pleasant sign that I brought up something meaningful to a lot of wonderful people such as you all. I very much appreciate the interaction from the community here!

so I’ve understood lol!

so I’ve come to realize although admittedly the various spawned conversation topics have been very interesting.

I really think everyone is over-thinking my initial thought. I mean nothing more to say than that our individual subjective experience of “red” may differ than than the external cause that which gives is “red.” Thus we may agree on what is “red” whilst being none the wiser that our actual experience of red is different, and we'd never know.

Banno I believe we speak the same exact language here. So long as a medium exists which allows us to agree on “red” then the similarity/difference between that experience of red holds no value

I agree, “red” can mean many things, there are many different shades upon the light frequency that would all be considered “red” but have a distinct difference, thus their different “shade” of red.

At a certain point on the spectrum, red starts to become orange looking. It becomes more and more orange, eventually becoming a shade of “orange” rather than a shade of “red.” What draws that line?

Interesting question, but it doesn’t necessarily address my direct point. Any color, not matter the shade, how can we know it’s experience is as shared as the cause of its experience?

perhaps the answer to this takes a realism vs. idealism aspect.

Under the umbrella of realism- red must represent some state of external reality that when manifesting visually becomes “red.” Perhaps this means photon wavelength, or perhaps some other external means we’ve yet to understand. Then red simply exists as a verbal pointer to that specific external state (whatever it may be) that is experienced as red.

Under the umbrella of idealism- this entire question loses its significance. Perhaps reality is solipsistic? Perhaps red is frequency of mind-thought experiencing itself as “red” and we don’t have to worry about subjective discrepancies of whatever “red” is because there’s only one objective/subjective reality? Could go a billion ways with that umbrella. In that sense, red is only an experience whichever direction you want to take it. Asking what the true nature of red is loses all meaning

absolutely. If someone doesn’t understand “wavelength of x is actually what red is” all they are actually speaking of is their visual experience of red when speaking of “red.”

thus the intrigue I have with this question. What is red but a word we’ve agreed to call something that looks red?

From a materialistic perspective, red is a specific light wavelength. This is universal.

But the subjective experience of red may be the same, or perhaps different, and we wouldn’t ever know because we’ve grown up and been conditioned to point to the same wavelength and call it red.

So how do we demarcate the objectivity of “red” from our experience of “red” other than it being merely a word?

certainly, but moreover “red” being merely a word representing an experience that may or may not be the same.

I really do appreciate the time you’ve taken to discuss with me Banno.

we can call red a “color.” The experience of red may differ however.

I’d rather not fall into semantic rabbit holes

color blindness to me is a phenomenon that even more posits my question. Unless put to certain tests specifically designed to determine colorblindness, one may go their entire life not knowing they were ever colorblind.

well, we can switch the word “perception” with “experience,” perhaps that word would be more appropriate. There wouldn’t necessarily be any “implications” despite our calling to question our assuredness of certain seemingly shared agreements.

I agree it wouldn’t have any meaningful impact to how our day-to-day lives work, nor would it ever. It’s more of an interesting thought exercise, which to me, pulls into question the confidence one can have in how similar our experiences may be despite their apparent sharedness. The duality of objective reality and subjective reality may dance with each other, the agreed being obvious to us (our agreeing what is “red”) and the disagreed being hidden from us (the experience of “red”).

the light wavelength that equals “red” is universal- that doesn’t change, and which is why when I ask you for the red pen you would know the exact pen I am asking for.

But, who is to say that we are actually perceiving the same subjective experience of color? If we’ve all been conditioned to say something giving off the same wavelength is “red,” then we would all be able to agree on what red is.

However, it is plausible that the subjective experience of “red” may differ, and we would never know.

I think you know what I’m trying to get at.

We both agree the pen is “red,” but because we’ve been conditioned to agree it is red. But what we actually perceive may be different and we’d be non the wiser.

but our personal experience of the color red may very well differ from the actual experience of the same light wavelength another may have, which we’ve all agreed to call “red.” I am speaking solely on the subjective experience of “redness.”

Agreed. Do you think the relative conveniences a base-12 system would offer could have possibly lubricated our understanding of mathematics/physics to have potentially progressed meaningfully quicker in these disciplines?

I would refute by stating that we have agreed to call a specific light frequency as “red” however the subjective experience of this “red” that others actually experience is entirely unknown to you except your own perception of “red.” For all you know, what you see as “blue” may be what another person actually sees, however we’ve been conditioned to all agree this specific wavelength is “red” and we’d be none the wiser that what we’re actually perceiving is entirely different.

when speaking about base numbers, what advantages do you posit would come from utilizing base 12 over 10?

I think this might be the kind of thing I was looking for!!

is 10 a different type of number compared to 12? Simply by way of it doesn’t split evenly in the same way it’s higher orders do, the way 12 does?

I think my question pervades the specific maths. It’s almost a metaphysical question- how can the pure simple number 10 defy it’s premise of even 1/2’s and 1/4’s at higher orders, while 12 follows the same rules of its higher orders?

Perhaps this is a “why is the sky blue” kind of question. I don’t fully understand why, but for some reason this discrepancy bothers me. It feels like two types of numbers (base-10 and base-12) are playing by a different set of rules, simply because the lowest form of base10 (10) doesn’t split the same way it’s own higher orders can, however base-12 (even at its lowest value 12) sticks to the same rule.

im not sure how else to digest this, I would simply say that why do higher orders of base-10 divide evenly into 1/2 and 1/4 while the number 10 itself does not? However base-12 always divides evenly, exactly into 1/2. 1/4, and 1/3 even at its lowest value (12) or any higher order of it? Is there some metaphysical substantiality that 12 has?

yes, I guess my struggle is with the fact that the smallest unit of base 10 cannot be divided evenly except into 1/2, unless that base 10 unit exceeds its minimum value (10). However base-12 always adheres to even splits whether 1/2, 1/4, or 1/3, whether it be the minimum value (12) or 1200. 10 only seems to create the possibility of 1/2 and 1/4 when exponentiated on itself, while 12 can conform to its own rules regardless.

wow man, I am in no way qualified to even engage with your response, I’m a mere layperson with some questions that popped up pertaining to the attached video, I cannot understand much of what you said. I’ll try to read over a few more times.

That being said I deeply appreciate the thought and effort you’ve chosen to spend on my questions. It’s really a beautiful work of art, thank you so much. The least I can do to show my appreciation is give it a very true attempt to understand everything you’ve laid out here. Thanks again, will get back to you after I chew on this.

as much as I appreciate your insight, I am perplexed at the unnecessarily demeaning tone with which many on this site choose to provide their responses with. It to me posits a deep lack of basic social skills, throughout my schooling in computer sciences I’ve met many man-children who were incredibly smart but held themselves back in life due to their unnecessary behavior and attitude such as this. A sign of being on the autistic spectrum.

Rather than simply communicate to me your explanations, you communicated to me your explanations like one of these man-children needlessly. Instead of respect and appreciation, which would have been the natural consequence if you spoke normally, I instead think negatively of you. I’m sure you don’t care about my opinion of you per se, but I’d bet you aren’t a very likable person in real life and I’d wager you don’t have healthy relationships.

Thank you for your reply however, I hope you one day learn how to interact with others.

not really to me, the art of combat seems fundamentally different than the art of something like soccer. One is to be the symbolic force of your will (I’m better at putting the ball in the goal than you) and the other is a more “real” or objective representation of will (I do anything I can to overcome your will physically, you the same).

that’s a great point! Although that seems more in the realm of strategy (chess etc) rather than contemplation of reality.

I recommend looking into Rupert Spira’s teachings. Ultimately, “I” is something to be demarcated from the idea of one’s self, which is simply a mental construct created by the mind. “I” is rather pure awareness, prior to the concepts our mind attempts to impute onto it. “I” (awareness) does not have a sense of self, it is simply pure subjectivity.

I also very much appreciate this post, Gnomon. I look forward to looking more into your cited works.

Thank you Josh!

Hello, I believe you misunderstood what I meant by infinity. I meant the endless transformation of phenomena, the constantly changing form that phenomena take. It’s deeper than a specific form of phenomena which you would designate as “finite.” The infinite aspect is that which changes form, that which has no name or form in of itself. In science they call this energy (I think?) but I do know in Buddhism they call this emptiness.

Thank you all for your responses. For me, eternity is more of an experience, hence why I “know” it to be true (by “know I simply mean for me, obviously not everyone else will have that experience). It’s almost like I can see it and feel it in every passing moment. At least, that’s the best I can try to explain it. If I were to humbly suggest a lowly excuse for a logical argument for it (which some of you may rip to shreds for all I know), I’d probably say that the fact that the present moment was able to manifest (self evident present experience), no matter what form that present moment may be, is an indication that it must therefore manifest infinitely. An innumerable amount of times for all of what we would call “eternity.” I probably embarrassed myself with that explanation, it just seems very difficult to articulate a direct experience I have into a logical proclamation.

Death isn’t to fear, no, without death there is no life. The constant transformation of phenomena is why life even “is.” There is no such the as life and death. There is only the transformation of phenomena in which our human minds impute notions of “birth” and “death,” “ceasing” and “non-ceasing.” The notion of death is a falsity, an illusion created by the flawed mind of an earthly being. Without “death” there can be no “life.” There’s only the unchanging, untouchable state of eternity. This is what I call God.