The Doves-In-Cages Theory

[Raya]

In the 'Truth and Music' thread, Elucubrator outlines this theory of knowledge:<br /><br />...the mind is compared like an empty space full of cages, and everytime you learn something you place a white dove in one of the cages. Eventually, you have so many cages and doves that there is no way that you can see them all. The earlier cages have been pushed back to make room for the  more recent arrivals.<br /><br />...then he goes on to challenge me:<br />Hey Raya, you know what this means? If Plato is right, then you exist somewhere trapped in a cage inside my head! Can you prove to me that you are free? <br /><br />...and Militio adds:<br />Gosh!  By extension of that logic, everyone here could conceivably exist nowhere but in your head.... and that could extend to the Internet itself, and even the world!  We're all figments of your imagination!  (Now prove to us that we're not!)<br /><br />But what you forget, my dear gentlemen...<br /><br />If I'm caged inside his mind because he knows me, then he is caged inside mine because I know him. So that means he is contained within me and I within him - simultaneously, too!<br /><br />Oh, and don't forget that according to this theory, we're doves. ;D<br /><br />I conclude:<br />What amazing birds! possessed of the ability to contain the place in which they exist...

[benissimus]

This sounds exactly like Solipsism. How can you prove the existence of anyone but yourself? The Matrix has you

[Raya]

Why, benissimus... are you saying you can actually prove your existence? Go on... try to give me some evidence that I cannot refute...<br /><br />I'll tell you frankly that I can't even prove my own existence - but, in the event that I do not exist (which might be the case), I will not let the fact of my nonexistence stop me from holding this conversation! ;D

[benissimus]

You can't actually "prove" your existence to others, but you certainly do exist to yourself. Your own consciousness is what I would define as proof, but only you yourself can observe this. To be more concise, "You can only prove the existence of yourself to yourself". Anyone who cannot at least accept that foundation has a very demanding idea of existence I think.

[Milito]

[quote author=benissimus link=board=13;threadid=127;start=0#604 date=1053929335]<br />You can't actually "prove" your existence to others, but you certainly do exist to yourself. Your own consciousness is what I would define as proof, but only you yourself can observe this. To be more concise, "You can only prove the existence of yourself to yourself". Anyone who cannot at least accept that foundation has a very demanding idea of existence I think.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />But if a "proof" is not verifiable by others, is it really a proof? Furthermore, isn't one's consciousness of one's own self simply a perception? What I perceive about myself is (probably) quite different from what other people perceive! Whose perception is correct? Is perception more correct than reality, or is reality perception, and if so, does reality change from person to person? Which brings us nicely around to the beginning of the question - what is real? <br /><br />(I do like a nice circular arguement!)<br /><br />Kilmeny

[Milito]

[quote author=Raya link=board=13;threadid=127;start=0#596 date=1053802211]<br />Oh, and don't forget that according to this theory, we're doves. ;D<br /><br />I conclude:<br />What amazing birds! possessed of the ability to contain the place in which they exist...<br />[/quote]<br /><br />They are truly amazing birds! Because, according to some wisdom, by my profession I'm also a hawk! And by my nationality, I could be considered a semi-aquatic rodent with a thing for cutting down trees. Which adds to the complexity by making me a hawk (or a beaver) who is also a dove in a cage belonging to someone else who is also a dove which may be some other sort of bird (or animal!) in a cage belonging to me! Assuming I exist at all, which, given the combinatorics going on, may not be true, and that may be a very good thing! (Imagine a buck-toothed dove gnawing off the branch it's currently perching on - assuming there are branches in its cage.)<br /><br />So doves are not only able to contain the place they exist, they're also able to exist as something other than what they are!<br /><br />Kilmeny

[Zeus the Goddess]

O Great Beaver-Dove-Hawk!<br />That is the first post I've seen here which made complete sense!<br /><br />O benissimus!<br />The Matrix must have you, for I think you do not exist.<br /><br />O Raya!<br />So... what about when the magician pulls birds out of his hat? (I know what you will say - not birds, but BUNNIES - but as we have shown, bunnies are doves too!) So... are you telling me that some say that the doves are knowledge of what is in the hat, but you disagree? But then, who knows what is in the hat except the magician who pulls out the metaphorical knowledge-doves...<br /><br />(I hope that made sense...)

[Raya]

HAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, Zeus the Goddess, that doesn't make sense at all... but it was most entertaining to read!<br /><br />Um... this is kinda embarrassing... I can't tell if you really *do* have a serious point in all that... could you kindly clarify?

[jagorev]

About the original doves-in-cages theory. The dove is the representation or image or imitation of an external reality. Memory. Scientifically, some neurons connect in a specific way to contain that memory. So, no, obviously you don't exist trapped in a cage in someone's head, only your image or imitation does.<br /><br />Or am I missing the joke?

[Zeus the Goddess]

O Raya and jagorev!<br />I see that the doves of my humor have not made it into your cages........ ::)<br /><br />The doves are all we know, and you point out that they are not reality. So there IS no external reality (that we know of)!<br />yaaaay! ;D<br /><br />The scientists say this is not so? How can they know any different without any doubt?

[jagorev]

Allright then. How do you know about the doves? How do you even know what doves are?

[benissimus]

Argh! In my absence I have missed an opportunity to debate with someone's counter to my statement <br /><br />The thing about this whole theory of doves which confuses me is the invisible line between physical existence and concept which also seems to be creeping into some other posters' thoughts (whether they know it or not ).<br /><br />I suppose my main argument to this would be that if you become a "dove" in someone else's mind after they create a memory of you, you do not exist solely in their mind. You continue to create many other doves as you maintain contact with them and go on to create doves in others' minds as well. Also, if you only exist in their mind, then you presumably did not exist prior to that and they would never have met you <br /><br />Or am I so lost that I no longer understand the thesis?<br /><br />If I am right, you are always free, but you are creating infinite clones which live their lives in cages... which is a sad thought :'(

[Zeus the Goddess]

O jagorev!<br />Did I SAY I know about the doves?! The THEORY tells about doves in cages - and maybe the theory is ***lying!*** - but even if it is not, it does not say we know that knowledge is doves in cages! (does it now?)<br /><br />What are doves, anyway?<br />(are you sure?)<br /><br />O benissimus!<br />What is there to confuse you about the Line? Physical existence is invisible. Concepts are invisible. So if there is a line between them also IT must be invisible!<br /><br />And why is the thought of the living clones sad? Maybe they are very happy in their cages! How do YOU know?

[Skylax]

[quote author=Raya link=board=13;threadid=127;start=0#601 date=1053874755]<br /> Go on... try to give me some evidence that I cannot refute...<br /><br />[/quote]<br />Can you, solipsist, think you are the only person able to play chess?

[benissimus]

Let's talk about solipsism

[thomist44]

ok....I'm a youngin I know. But I will try to give what little knowledge I have (uh oh...a little knowledge IS a dangerous thing...as will be shown following).<br /><br /> According to Perennial Philosophy (esp. Aristotle) all things are made of matter and form (not the Platonic WORLD of forms....but in itself). For something to be complete, it is both matter and form. When we SEE or remember something....we obvious don't take it ALL in (i.e. matter AND form). But then arises the question. What do we take in? What is matter and form of any given thing (say, a tree). AND, in response to the we don't exist thing I say this. The fact that we can KNOW and PERCEIVE, can prove our existence. If you disagree please give a coherent argument. Now, for unthinking creatures (animals, rocks, etc.) would that mean by my rule they DON'T exist?? I'm not sure, as I'm still feeling this out. Give me what feedback you can on such an incoherent mess as I have written above is. Thank you. ;D ??? ???

[benissimus]

The fact that we think proves our own existence (arguably), but the fact that others think proves their existence only to themselves. How do we know if they are thinking or not?<br /><br />This is apparently going off on a tangent, so perhaps a new topic should be posted.

[Keesa]

[quote author=benissimus link=board=13;threadid=127;start=0#759 date=1055133172]<br /><br /><br />If I am right, you are always free, but you are creating infinite clones which live their lives in cages... which is a sad thought :'(<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Don't cry, Benissimus. Your doves have no cage in my head. They fly free and perch when and where they will. Sometimes they are there, and sometimes they are gone, but I am kind to them, and they always return at night, and dance upon the blue-black meadow of my dreams. <br /><br />Keesa<br /><br />(All of which is just to say, of course, that I'm scatterbrained. ;D)

[thomist44]

I think I've got it (err.....Aristotle got it...) but EUREKA!! I jacked his work. Everything has two things naturally form and matter. The fact that we exist and others exist is self-evident as is shown through our senses. To deny sense-knowledge is to deny the fact that any of us are capable of knowing at all and is thus impossible because the fact that we can communicate shows that we can know. (still with me?) Anyway, this matter and form are essential and found in everthing. matter is WAT we are (human-ness...but not in the Platonic sens) and FORM is wat differentiates us (wat makes me Tom and John JOhn...etc). WHEN we know something we take in it's form and KNOW that as a particular. Because of the faculties of our mind....we are also able to ABSTRACT to the UNIVERSALS (human-ness). We through our senses and by our minds are able to abstract the form leaving it untouched and know something without making CLONES or questioning our knowledge. Through other acts of the intellect we can know other things....if I forgot anything....correct me....I prolly did...I'm young and stupid after all.

[Keesa]

I think, therefore-I have a headache!

[mingshey]

I have a model of "the real world" and the rules (or at least, limitations) of the world. If the world was pure imagination without rules, I would imagine myself a master of greek language and be posting on agora forum by now. But I have to reach for books(imagination or real, whatever it may be) and invest my time to learn them. Or manipulate my "imagination" according to the rules of the model of "the real world". So at least on the scientific basis, the model works. <br /><br />

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen. --Wittgenstein

[threewood14]

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic . php?t=457

i love to post this link. read it

__________
threewood14

[Ken_Teng]

It's quite a simple logical problem:

If A is contained in B and B is contained in A, then, as we can obviously see that, A=B.

I think rather than saying it's something of solipsism, I'm more favorable of a ubiquitous existence of God (something like the 'apeiron' or 'estin').

Perhaps I adopt some ideology by the Stoicism and Bhuddism, both of which insist that the world is 'one' (pretty like the Gaia theory).

Yes, as u would easily agree that, without the outer environment, there'll be no concept of 'ego' at all and vice versa. In this light, I might safely say that I and others and all the outer environment are defined in a circle, i.e. everyone is included in the definition of another.

I'm quite sorry that I can't give any substantial proof towards the existence of the 'ego', or even the 'being' (that is 'sattva' in Sanskrit), but I can say if my existence is ensured, hence yours.

[threewood14]

I guess the doves could be considered ideas...