Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **August 28th, 2018, 3:32 pm**

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑ In order for something to happen something must exist.

Not so!

You people make to many misguided assumptions.

What about a creation?

Do you people know the difference between an effect and an Affect?

Accidents have no single direct material cause.

The difficulty of the mind body problem began with and is exaggerated by layman's definition the Religious concept of body and soul, the duality of mind (consciousness) and body.

For the materialist, mind and body are simply different names given to the same entity, which for the Spiritualist exist as a duality, the duality of Mind and Body.

From Chapter one-1, Tao te Ching.

There is one which as it transcends the Darkness issues forth having a dual, two qualities.

These two qualities being given two names, even though these two are the same, are of the same, a single, source.

The only difference between these two, being that one is material, has substance and the other does not, is Transcendental, exists without form, Void.

The two as One being greater either one of the two singularities, and greater even more, than the sum total of the two as Singularities, being the gateway to the Stars.

Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail.

Ye, Amen- Ra -->0/1

Posted: **August 28th, 2018, 3:35 pm**

The One being Three Times Great.

Posted: **August 28th, 2018, 3:40 pm**

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑August 28th, 2018, 2:16 pm As I said, you use the term ‘being’ in an idiosyncratic way.

How do you use the term? Is my way of using it unusual? I have read philosophical texts where it is used in the same way as I use it. Note that my native language is not English.

You may not agree with my statement but it is not jargon, unless, of course, you also choose to use the word jargon in an idiosyncratic way as well.

OK, it is not jargon, but neither is my statement if you get the point.

“Adequate intuition”? Again, the term is used in different ways. What makes an intuition adequate?

Its clarity. I appeal to Spinoza here. Sometimes there are no other sources of knowledge.

If it happened prior to the being of any subject in the physical spacetime then it does not follow that it could only happen in such a universe where there are conscious beings. It happened. The fact that there are now conscious beings capable to talking about what happened has not bearing on the fact that it already happened prior to the being of conscious beings.

This paradox of it happening prior to the being of subjects and its impossibility of happening without the being of subjects can only be solved by concluding that there must necessarily be subjects in the universe.

Are you claiming that ours is the only possible world or that all possible worlds must have subjects? There are various senses in which something can be said to be possible. What is possible in our universe is contingent on the way things are in our universe. It is because there is gravity that pigs can't fly, but not because a restaurant serves pork ribs. A possible world may be one in which the conditions of our universe do not apply. Further, a possible world other than our own may be an actual world. The multiverse is a possibility. What exists in some other possible world is not contingent on what exists in our world, but is contingent on the initial conditions of that world. Since the initial conditions of that world need not be the initial conditions of our world, there is nothing that precludes the absence of observers in that world. That world may be completely removed from anything we will ever be able to observe.

I am not claiming that this is the only possible universe although this may be the case. I claim that a universe where flying unicorns are a usual sight is a possible universe, but a universe without subjects is not possible, if we speak of an alternate universe, so that this universe does not exist but the alternate universe exists instead. Because I claim that the subject-world relationship is the "Archimedean point" of reality, a universe without subjects does not fit into the logical space defined by this basic ontological structure. Ontology precedes logic in this sense.

Yes, so you have said, many times. What you avoid addressing is that what you have said leads to the conclusion that things happened prior to subjects but that nothing existed to happen because there were no observers. Now you may appeal to some questionable notion of time to explain this, but by doing so you will have to reject the concept of time you now make use of when you talk about what was prior to observers.

Now I suspect that none of this really makes a difference to you because above all you wish to retain your “intuition” above all else.

Yes, and this intuition, if correct, solves the problem you present above, because the hypothetical nonexistence of the subjectless world is something else than the nonexistence of an object in the world. Its nonexistence is based on the lack of experiences which makes it absolute nothingness, and therefore impossible. If you try to posit its possibility as actual reality, it immediately loses its possible existence, and it remains an abstraction with an internal inconsistency. The world without subjects would be nonexistent as a whole, whatever properties you imagine it contains. And therefore its existence is impossible.

Now I do not expect you change your mind on this, but maybe there are others who get the point I try to make. I think there have been a couple who got it.

Posted: **August 28th, 2018, 7:07 pm**

Tamminen:

How do you use the term?

It depends on the context.

Is my way of using it unusual?

It is in so far as you claim that there can no being without a subject.

I appeal to Spinoza here.

Mentioning his name does not tell us what you think Spinoza means by intuition, or even what you mean.

Sometimes there are no other sources of knowledge.

There is for Spinoza a hierarchy of knowledge, with intuition at the top. There is only one source of knowledge, reason. Perhaps you are misled by his use of the term ‘adequate’.

This paradox of it happening prior to the being of subjects and its impossibility of happening without the being of subjects can only be solved by concluding that there must necessarily be subjects in the universe.

It is not a paradox, it is a contradiction and a reason for rejecting the claim that being entails a conscious being.

Because I claim that the subject-world relationship is the "Archimedean point" of reality, a universe without subjects does not fit into the logical space defined by this basic ontological structure.

An "Archimedean point" is not established by claiming something. Descartes Archimedean point was something that could not be doubted, something certain. It is certain because it cannot be otherwise. It cannot be otherwise because even if he could be deceived about everything else he cannot be deceived about his existing because he must exist if he is to be deceived. There is nothing about your subject-world claim that is necessarily true. Your “basic ontological structure” is nothing more than an assertion that you cannot show to be true.

Yes, and this intuition, if correct …

Spinoza’s intuition is not based on an 'if'. It is not a hunch or a hypothesis. Descartes Archimedean point is not something that might be true, but something that is necessarily true.

You have not advanced the argument. You simply repeat the same claims, call contradictions in your argument paradoxes, and that your so called “ontology” takes precedence over logic. So, unless you can come up with something more I think we have reached the illogical end.

Posted: **August 29th, 2018, 3:31 am**

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑August 28th, 2018, 7:07 pm There is only one source of knowledge, reason.

Intuition is reason. It is seeing something that cannot be doubted.

An "Archimedean point" is not established by claiming something.

No, but it can be reached by seeing something so clearly that it cannot be doubted.

Spinoza’s intuition is not based on an 'if'.

Nor is mine. But as philosophers we must always be open to change our way of seeing things.

You have not advanced the argument. You simply repeat the same claims, call contradictions in your argument paradoxes, and that your so called “ontology” takes precedence over logic. So, unless you can come up with something more I think we have reached the illogical end.

I think so too. This endless loop cannot be avoided because of the total lack of insight about my central point: the intuition of nothingness. The rest is silence, as Jean Sibelius, the great composer of my country, said when he ended his creative work.

Posted: **August 29th, 2018, 1:13 pm**

This paradox of it happening prior to the being of subjects

There is no paradox, was no happening prior to the being of subjects

Tamminen;

Intuition is reason. It is seeing something that cannot be doubted.

It is seeing something that cannot be doubted.

surly you jest!

Posted: **August 29th, 2018, 6:36 pm**

whatever some see through intuition may or may not be fact.

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 2:59 am**

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑August 29th, 2018, 6:36 pm whatever some see through intuition may or may not be fact.

Of course there can be false intuitions as well as false reasoning. Both can be adequate or inadequate. Intuition is reasoning.

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 4:46 am**

An example of a chain of intuitions:

Imagine you do not exist. What would there be? Nothing.

But now I can say that I exist, and there is obviously something. There is nothing only for you.

Then I can imagine that I do not exist either. And that there is no one existing who can say there is something.

Now there is absolutely nothing, and I cannot appeal to anyone arguing against it.

To say that there is still the material world without subjects has no rational justification. It is a presupposition hanging in the air.

This is what I call the intuition of nothingness. It cannot be described with words in spite of the effort above, but it can be seen very clearly, and the conclusion of this chain of intuitions can be expressed with this unambiguous phrase: Without subjects there is nothing.

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 9:28 am**

Without subjects there is nothing.

True, Without subjects there is nothing that you know of!

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 10:50 am**

quote]nonexistence is based on the lack of experiences which makes it absolute nothingness, and therefore impossible. [/quote]

A predatory creature may pass right pass it's prey and not even see it. the prey not even existing in the eyes of the predator, existing in a state of nothingness.

So it is with the primary Particle, it can not be seen, so it exists as a State of Nothingness.

So how is it that Nothing becomes Something?

Transcendence; by transcending the Darkness of non-existence, nothing, a fully random omnipresent Transcendental (Metaphysical) Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 transcends the Darkness of non-existence, because of a Bump in the Night is converted into a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1 by becoming the first in a series, the beginning of a process, such as The Evolutionary Process, by becoming the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time..

Heretofore having no relative, numerical, having been bumped in the Night, a Random Singularity of Zero-0 being dead in the water, is converted into a Singularity of One-1 having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction thus becoming Readily Apparent, the Reality of First, the Un-Caused Cause.

The First Singularity of Zero-0 to become Readily Apparent, to have Relative, a numerical, value of One-1 being the Single Direct Material Cause of the System of Chaos that has caused the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word to become Manifest Reality.

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 11:18 am**

Consciousness is a State in which the Mind and Body, the two, are One.

The two as One is three time great, is greater even than either of the two on an individual bases.

As above so below, as below so above.

So says I, Hermses Trismegistus, Lord of King Solomon's Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail-->0

Ye, Amen Ra, make it so.

Noli turbare circulos meos

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 11:50 am**

My thoughts go along the same paths as Wittgenstein's. The world is everything that is the case. The world consists of facts. But the facts of the world can be different from the facts of our world. What kind of facts there can be defines the logical space of the world. It defines the totality of possible worlds. But the being of the subject is the ontological precondition for the being of the world. The world is “my world”. The world and the subject are what Wittgenstein calls the “two godheads”, and this is also what I call the subject-world relationship. Now I agree with Wittgenstein also on what he says of logic and the world: logic precedes the facts of the world, the “how”, but not the being of the world, the “what”. All this means that a world without the subject is not a possible world, it does not fit into the logical space of possible worlds.

So if you understand what Wittgenstein writes in Tractatus, you should also understand my views.

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 12:25 pm**

All this means that a world without the subject is not a possible world, it does not fit into the logical space of possible worlds.

You have restated you perception the of World and I agree with you.
I do not agree with anyone saying that it is impossible to conceive of a World without subjects and yet I agree.

There is not such animal a World without subjects.

Nothingness is a state or condition that existed prior to the World, the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the Word; but something did exist that had no mass, that was not readily apparent, was not measurable as to location an momentum in ?

What was it? Pure Unadulterated Energy, existing as a Fully Random omniscient State of Singularity, filled with an Omnipresent unspoken of number, quantity, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

It is not possible for the World, the Universe, the Heavens and the Earth to exist without subjects, without Mass.

By definition the World exists as a Physical Reality.

Posted: **August 30th, 2018, 12:51 pm**

I do not agree with all of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

The world is all that is the case.
What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.
A logical picture of facts is a thought.
A thought is a proposition with a sense.
A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
The general form of a truth-function is [p, E, N(E)]. This is the general form of a proposition.
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).