1. Yet in dividing "perception/gaining awareness" you create a dichotomy...unless I misread it and you are stating there is no division at all to which I would have to agree with you.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:51 pmHow many times do I have to explain this? I didn't expect from you to have great reasoning skills, but I did expect that at least you had renough reading and comprehension skills as to be able to focus on what's being discussed. My statement "no one is talking about dichotomies" was in direct response to the dichotomies you claimed I was proposing: perception/gaining awareness.You said that Y being a subset of X meant that X and Y are not distinct elements, but that's evidently false. That they are related doesn't mean they are one and the same.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm
2. A subset of a set is part of the set it is related to thus shares mutual elements. An eye shares the same nature of cells found in the remaining portions of the visualization portions of the body. The set of mammal contains within it elements found within the subset of dog with dog containing within it elements of the set of mammal. A subset is circle inside another circle with the larger circle being the set. The set and subset have mutual relations, thus similar qualities. All sets show connections, these connections allow for equivocation.
Connection between events doesn't imply simultaneity of events, which is what you were claiming.A series of events imply a succession of events, therefore they are not simulatenous.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm
Dually: A moment is a series of events summated as a singular entity as a moment is composed of further sub-moments. An example would be the moment "x" ate the pie: "X" picked up a piece of the pie with a fork, "x" put the fork to "x's" mouth, "x" put the food in "x's" mouth, "x" chewed, "x" swallowed".Awareness of awareness is a pseudoconcept. Nonsense.The refutation stands: no sophistry and nonsensical philosophical gymnastics will transform an abstract concept into a concrete entity. That's called reification and it doesn't work.You're just confusing abstract singulars and abstract universals. There is the abstraction involved in the concept "horse", but there's also the abstraction of a particular entity I perceive.If the subject has experienced space before, it is because he has had the corresponding sensory inputs. In order to deny this while submitting evidence, you would have to devise conditions where a subject has no previous experiences, but that is not possible.When you refer to the "qualities of consciousness", and things existing "beyond", you're either referring to something that is independent of you, which immediately implies the distinction subject/object and internal/external that you were trying to deny in the first place, or you can instead deny there are such distinctions and refer to something that is dependent of you, a "no-beyond", which immediately puts you in solipsist heaven.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:53 pm
8. I am not peddling solipsism, I am saying there are qualities of consciousness which extend beyond the physical. Me being aware of myself and you being aware of yourself both require a self reflective loop form through which consciousness occurs. If anything I am arguing there is being beyond a set of or singular mind(s).
2. "All sets show connections, these connections allow for equivocation." The dog and cat both equivocate through being subsets of "mammal". Seemingly different phenomena equivocate through a common medium and only through this common medium. Without the common medium they do not equivocate. This common medium is a connection. Dually a set and its subset equate through the common medium which both share, without this common medium they do not equivocate. This is how "dog=mammal", both "mammal" and "dog" share common characteristics. The unity of two distinct elements occurs through a connection.
3. The connection of two different events results in one event as the summation of events. Events "x" and "y", as related, result in event "z". Simultaneousness is the observation of a series of events happening in a moment, a moment is a timeline given all moments can be broken down to further moments. A moment, such as the eating the pie example previously stated, is composed of meta events.
4. How can you call "awareness of awareness" a pseudo concept when you are in fact aware of your own awareness? Now you are just acting stupid.
5. So you are saying abstractions are not the result of concrete physical processes? So you are stating thought, embodied under abstractions, is a not a result of physical processes inside of the brain.
6. The abstract universal of a horse is composed of abstract particulars of horses. The abstract particular of a horse is composed of abstract universals of legs, hair, head, etc. Abstract universals and abstract particulars result in each other thus showing a false dichotomy.
7. A space void of forms does not necessiate knowing space full of forms prior. Only in labeling "space" as "space" one needs experience prior of forms as labeling is comparison through contrasting definitions. The absence of a label does not negate the experience. In experiencing blankness one is experiencing blankness. Space at it's roots is formlessness.
8. The number three as composed of the number one shows that three exists beyond one yet contains as an element "one" thus is connected to "one". A large circle with a smaller circle on the inside shows this same connection. So one can be connected to a phenomenon with that same phenomenon it is connected to existing beyond it. A phenomenon can be both dependent and independent of another phenomenon. Independence and dependence are a false dichotomy.