Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:52 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:21 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 3:23 pm
But shouldn't a 'background' also be part of Totality then, absolute nothing is a lack of any 'background'?
It is. I defined Totality as containing all. There is no 'outside' and so even "false" things fit in it regardless. It is just separated from the rest. But regardless, the 'background' AS 'absolutely nothing' is behind all that is as well as all that is not.

In set theory, they define all things as 'classes'. Then they describe that a class is represented by braces, like (X) or {Y}. The EMPTY class (a set for being a member of Totality but that which 'contains' the meaning of nothing) is defined as "{}" or the for shorthand. Note that they chose this likely to represent that it is both a something AND a nothing using the strikethrough for this.

This , the "empty set" represents this idea. All other sets can be defined by using this a its only 'constant' and various ways of representing different things using only these two symbols: '{' and '}'. This is all that is needed to prove most of all maths. I extend this to reality to the model given at some point, the reality itself HAS to be represent something abstract before it can be considered to 'manifest' space, time, and matter.

Your assumption of a default 'something' is like expecting characters to have meaningful expression WITHOUT a background that is itself ignored without notice....or writing without having a medium that something is 'written' on. The message of meaning of a blank page PRIOR to writing is this 'absolute nothing' by analogy. It means literally 'absolutely nothing' until one uses contrasting ink to represent 'something' as a message. But the 'something' that the writing represents REQUIRES that background FIRST. Absolulely Nothing, like a blank slate, can exit alone and independent of whatever else that can be added, while Absolutely Something is coincidence to the existence of that blank page as 'nothing' OR it is the writing alone. It still cannot mean anything without the blank spaces around characters that help identify the unique meanings of each expressed symbol.
The blank slate, the background are also something, not nothing, it's simply human thinking that automatically uses contrasting. Also, set theory has nothing to do with the real world. Also, totality does not contain "false" things (or "true" things for that matter) because these are judgements made by humans.
These are simple examples of faulty thinking, sort them out and you'll see that nothing as origin is incoherent.
Then there is Nothing futher to talk to you about. (pun intended). I DEFINED Totality. You can't undefine my definition. Also, I pointed out that this background encompasses both itself and the foreground. They are 'manifest' real ONLY when the page is written on.

The use of logic/math is NOT a mere trivial non-existing TOOL. If it is a 'tool' it too has to be as real as a hammer when building a home. If it is not real, then it doesn't exist and cannot be used to 'prove' anything.
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:40 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:52 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:21 pm
It is. I defined Totality as containing all. There is no 'outside' and so even "false" things fit in it regardless. It is just separated from the rest. But regardless, the 'background' AS 'absolutely nothing' is behind all that is as well as all that is not.

In set theory, they define all things as 'classes'. Then they describe that a class is represented by braces, like (X) or {Y}. The EMPTY class (a set for being a member of Totality but that which 'contains' the meaning of nothing) is defined as "{}" or the for shorthand. Note that they chose this likely to represent that it is both a something AND a nothing using the strikethrough for this.

This , the "empty set" represents this idea. All other sets can be defined by using this a its only 'constant' and various ways of representing different things using only these two symbols: '{' and '}'. This is all that is needed to prove most of all maths. I extend this to reality to the model given at some point, the reality itself HAS to be represent something abstract before it can be considered to 'manifest' space, time, and matter.

Your assumption of a default 'something' is like expecting characters to have meaningful expression WITHOUT a background that is itself ignored without notice....or writing without having a medium that something is 'written' on. The message of meaning of a blank page PRIOR to writing is this 'absolute nothing' by analogy. It means literally 'absolutely nothing' until one uses contrasting ink to represent 'something' as a message. But the 'something' that the writing represents REQUIRES that background FIRST. Absolulely Nothing, like a blank slate, can exit alone and independent of whatever else that can be added, while Absolutely Something is coincidence to the existence of that blank page as 'nothing' OR it is the writing alone. It still cannot mean anything without the blank spaces around characters that help identify the unique meanings of each expressed symbol.
The blank slate, the background are also something, not nothing, it's simply human thinking that automatically uses contrasting. Also, set theory has nothing to do with the real world. Also, totality does not contain "false" things (or "true" things for that matter) because these are judgements made by humans.
These are simple examples of faulty thinking, sort them out and you'll see that nothing as origin is incoherent.
Then there is Nothing futher to talk to you about. (pun intended). I DEFINED Totality. You can't undefine my definition. Also, I pointed out that this background encompasses both itself and the foreground. They are 'manifest' real ONLY when the page is written on.

The use of logic/math is NOT a mere trivial non-existing TOOL. If it is a 'tool' it too has to be as real as a hammer when building a home. If it is not real, then it doesn't exist and cannot be used to 'prove' anything.
You mean: 'I define Totality as containing all, including abstract objects'? Platonism is one of the cheapest fallacies, if we treat conceptual/abstract constructs as physical objects, we can pretty much prove or disprove anything we want.

And the background encompassing both itself and the foreground (which of course it does) is just everything, no origin there. Even if we define Totality as the sum of nothing and said everything, still no origin there, why aren't nothing and everything just 'equal', intertwined, interdependent? (For example: for every something that is manifested, there is a nothing, no manifestation.)
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:56 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:40 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:52 pm
The blank slate, the background are also something, not nothing, it's simply human thinking that automatically uses contrasting. Also, set theory has nothing to do with the real world. Also, totality does not contain "false" things (or "true" things for that matter) because these are judgements made by humans.
These are simple examples of faulty thinking, sort them out and you'll see that nothing as origin is incoherent.
Then there is Nothing futher to talk to you about. (pun intended). I DEFINED Totality. You can't undefine my definition. Also, I pointed out that this background encompasses both itself and the foreground. They are 'manifest' real ONLY when the page is written on.

The use of logic/math is NOT a mere trivial non-existing TOOL. If it is a 'tool' it too has to be as real as a hammer when building a home. If it is not real, then it doesn't exist and cannot be used to 'prove' anything.
You mean: 'I define Totality as containing all, including abstract objects'? Platonism is one of the cheapest fallacies, if we treat conceptual/abstract constructs as physical objects, we can pretty much prove or disprove anything we want.

And the background encompassing both itself and the foreground (which of course it does) is just everything, no origin there. Even if we define Totality as the sum of nothing and said everything, still no origin there, why aren't nothing and everything just 'equal', intertwined, interdependent? (For example: for every something that is manifested, there is a nothing, no manifestation.)
Take ANYTHING real. All we can do is to explain what these are as based upon our DESCRIPTION of the phenomena and in ways we hope that other people (where we want to communicate this) can relate using words.

The 'descriptions' themselves ARE the abstractions here and there is NO other further means to PROVE they are MORE than this. That is, the experiences from our senses assign a mental symbol to the phenomena that is 'stored' in our memory and are even LESS certain than the present experiences of them. These memories ARE no different than the symbols we use in logic including the processing of the data used to 'decide' (output) whatever conclusion we interpret this to mean.

So are the phenemena of experience and the memory associated to them MORE or LESS trustworthy for being VARIABLE than to our inner mind's capacity to judge the phenemona as 'real' or not as a CONSTANT that stays with us regardless of external inputs?

If you trust your own capacity to perceive and reason, you'd have to place the reasoning capacity ahead of the ever-changing inputs that give us particular perceptions, correct?
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:21 am
Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:56 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:40 pm
Then there is Nothing futher to talk to you about. (pun intended). I DEFINED Totality. You can't undefine my definition. Also, I pointed out that this background encompasses both itself and the foreground. They are 'manifest' real ONLY when the page is written on.

The use of logic/math is NOT a mere trivial non-existing TOOL. If it is a 'tool' it too has to be as real as a hammer when building a home. If it is not real, then it doesn't exist and cannot be used to 'prove' anything.
You mean: 'I define Totality as containing all, including abstract objects'? Platonism is one of the cheapest fallacies, if we treat conceptual/abstract constructs as physical objects, we can pretty much prove or disprove anything we want.

And the background encompassing both itself and the foreground (which of course it does) is just everything, no origin there. Even if we define Totality as the sum of nothing and said everything, still no origin there, why aren't nothing and everything just 'equal', intertwined, interdependent? (For example: for every something that is manifested, there is a nothing, no manifestation.)
Take ANYTHING real. All we can do is to explain what these are as based upon our DESCRIPTION of the phenomena and in ways we hope that other people (where we want to communicate this) can relate using words.

The 'descriptions' themselves ARE the abstractions here and there is NO other further means to PROVE they are MORE than this. That is, the experiences from our senses assign a mental symbol to the phenomena that is 'stored' in our memory and are even LESS certain than the present experiences of them. These memories ARE no different than the symbols we use in logic including the processing of the data used to 'decide' (output) whatever conclusion we interpret this to mean.

So are the phenemena of experience and the memory associated to them MORE or LESS trustworthy for being VARIABLE than to our inner mind's capacity to judge the phenemona as 'real' or not as a CONSTANT that stays with us regardless of external inputs?

If you trust your own capacity to perceive and reason, you'd have to place the reasoning capacity ahead of the ever-changing inputs that give us particular perceptions, correct?
Sets for example aren't descriptions of phenomena because there are no such phenomena.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:21 am
Atla wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:56 pm
You mean: 'I define Totality as containing all, including abstract objects'? Platonism is one of the cheapest fallacies, if we treat conceptual/abstract constructs as physical objects, we can pretty much prove or disprove anything we want.

And the background encompassing both itself and the foreground (which of course it does) is just everything, no origin there. Even if we define Totality as the sum of nothing and said everything, still no origin there, why aren't nothing and everything just 'equal', intertwined, interdependent? (For example: for every something that is manifested, there is a nothing, no manifestation.)
Take ANYTHING real. All we can do is to explain what these are as based upon our DESCRIPTION of the phenomena and in ways we hope that other people (where we want to communicate this) can relate using words.

The 'descriptions' themselves ARE the abstractions here and there is NO other further means to PROVE they are MORE than this. That is, the experiences from our senses assign a mental symbol to the phenomena that is 'stored' in our memory and are even LESS certain than the present experiences of them. These memories ARE no different than the symbols we use in logic including the processing of the data used to 'decide' (output) whatever conclusion we interpret this to mean.

So are the phenemena of experience and the memory associated to them MORE or LESS trustworthy for being VARIABLE than to our inner mind's capacity to judge the phenemona as 'real' or not as a CONSTANT that stays with us regardless of external inputs?

If you trust your own capacity to perceive and reason, you'd have to place the reasoning capacity ahead of the ever-changing inputs that give us particular perceptions, correct?
Sets for example aren't descriptions of phenomena because there are no such phenomena.
So I hear you saying that you cannot SORT or ORGANIZE your things? Are we all unable to sort "white" clothes needing bleach from "colored" ones? This is a real thing IN ACTION. Sets are means to organize things in time and space.

Also, 'abstraction' is not flawed as unreal but are FORMS or FORMULAS to which to make them 'more completely real' you fill in the blanks with the symbolic representations of constants. We actually first INDUCE them as 'patterns' and then the form is the summarized expression of the logic of the reality. If sets aren't real, then nor is ANYTHING you perceive or think. They are all ONLY SYMBOLS AND your process of decision making from them become the LOGIC that are both REAL even without specifying particular inputs.

You are mistaking the literal expression of words used to communicate things here, not their REFERENTS. My name is "Scott". This is not a direct reprentation of me. So do I not exist? Is whatever I might say about anything here unable to be 'true' nor 'false' because these are just symbols?

And with respect to nature, are you believing that matter has zero consistency such that no one can 'label' anything? An 'electron', for instance is NOT word but what the word refers to. If you don't speak English, these symbols cannot communicate. But does it mean that the it all of a sudden have no REAL referents by the person speaking English?

And for the concepts of quantity, like "nothing", look in your pocket right now. How many real elephants do you have inside it? Hell, how many words can you fill your pockets with before it tears a hole in it?

From only using the reality of your pocket and knowing that elephants exist, you can still empirically determine whether you pocket is 'empty' of those realities. Thus the concept of 'empty' is very real in the same way as "nothing" is.
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:54 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:49 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:21 am
Take ANYTHING real. All we can do is to explain what these are as based upon our DESCRIPTION of the phenomena and in ways we hope that other people (where we want to communicate this) can relate using words.

The 'descriptions' themselves ARE the abstractions here and there is NO other further means to PROVE they are MORE than this. That is, the experiences from our senses assign a mental symbol to the phenomena that is 'stored' in our memory and are even LESS certain than the present experiences of them. These memories ARE no different than the symbols we use in logic including the processing of the data used to 'decide' (output) whatever conclusion we interpret this to mean.

So are the phenemena of experience and the memory associated to them MORE or LESS trustworthy for being VARIABLE than to our inner mind's capacity to judge the phenemona as 'real' or not as a CONSTANT that stays with us regardless of external inputs?

If you trust your own capacity to perceive and reason, you'd have to place the reasoning capacity ahead of the ever-changing inputs that give us particular perceptions, correct?
Sets for example aren't descriptions of phenomena because there are no such phenomena.
So I hear you saying that you cannot SORT or ORGANIZE your things? Are we all unable to sort "white" clothes needing bleach from "colored" ones? This is a real thing IN ACTION. Sets are means to organize things in time and space.

Also, 'abstraction' is not flawed as unreal but are FORMS or FORMULAS to which to make them 'more completely real' you fill in the blanks with the symbolic representations of constants. We actually first INDUCE them as 'patterns' and then the form is the summarized expression of the logic of the reality. If sets aren't real, then nor is ANYTHING you perceive or think. They are all ONLY SYMBOLS AND your process of decision making from them become the LOGIC that are both REAL even without specifying particular inputs.

You are mistaking the literal expression of words used to communicate things here, not their REFERENTS. My name is "Scott". This is not a direct reprentation of me. So do I not exist? Is whatever I might say about anything here unable to be 'true' nor 'false' because these are just symbols?

And with respect to nature, are you believing that matter has zero consistency such that no one can 'label' anything? An 'electron', for instance is NOT word but what the word refers to. If you don't speak English, these symbols cannot communicate. But does it mean that the it all of a sudden have no REAL referents by the person speaking English?

And for the concepts of quantity, like "nothing", look in your pocket right now. How many real elephants do you have inside it? Hell, how many words can you fill your pockets with before it tears a hole in it?

From only using the reality of your pocket and knowing that elephants exist, you can still empirically determine whether you pocket is 'empty' of those realities. Thus the concept of 'empty' is very real in the same way as "nothing" is.
It's not about sorting or organization. Again: 'sets' don't refer to anything in nature, they are purely mental constructs. 'Electrons' do refer to something in nature, they are not purely mental constructs. The 'lack of elephants' doesn't refer to anything in nature, it's a purely mental construct too.

This forum is filled with people who have the rather serious cognitive impairment of being unable to distinguish the conrete (has physical referents) from the abstract (has no physical referents). And so then they came up with all these world-changing theories, that they absolutely must publish before they die, and thus save humanity.
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Belinda »

Atla wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:13 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:54 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:49 am
Sets for example aren't descriptions of phenomena because there are no such phenomena.
So I hear you saying that you cannot SORT or ORGANIZE your things? Are we all unable to sort "white" clothes needing bleach from "colored" ones? This is a real thing IN ACTION. Sets are means to organize things in time and space.

Also, 'abstraction' is not flawed as unreal but are FORMS or FORMULAS to which to make them 'more completely real' you fill in the blanks with the symbolic representations of constants. We actually first INDUCE them as 'patterns' and then the form is the summarized expression of the logic of the reality. If sets aren't real, then nor is ANYTHING you perceive or think. They are all ONLY SYMBOLS AND your process of decision making from them become the LOGIC that are both REAL even without specifying particular inputs.

You are mistaking the literal expression of words used to communicate things here, not their REFERENTS. My name is "Scott". This is not a direct reprentation of me. So do I not exist? Is whatever I might say about anything here unable to be 'true' nor 'false' because these are just symbols?

And with respect to nature, are you believing that matter has zero consistency such that no one can 'label' anything? An 'electron', for instance is NOT word but what the word refers to. If you don't speak English, these symbols cannot communicate. But does it mean that the it all of a sudden have no REAL referents by the person speaking English?

And for the concepts of quantity, like "nothing", look in your pocket right now. How many real elephants do you have inside it? Hell, how many words can you fill your pockets with before it tears a hole in it?

From only using the reality of your pocket and knowing that elephants exist, you can still empirically determine whether you pocket is 'empty' of those realities. Thus the concept of 'empty' is very real in the same way as "nothing" is.
It's not about sorting or organization. Again: 'sets' don't refer to anything in nature, they are purely mental constructs. 'Electrons' do refer to something in nature, they are not purely mental constructs. The 'lack of elephants' doesn't refer to anything in nature, it's a purely mental construct too.

This forum is filled with people who have the rather serious cognitive impairment of being unable to distinguish the conrete (has physical referents) from the abstract (has no physical referents). And so then they came up with all these world-changing theories, that they absolutely must publish before they die, and thus save humanity.

Every claim refers to both physical and mental events.

A concept is a mental event which we presume relates to reality according to its referents. If there were no referents we could not conceptualise referents.

True, some people fantasise and some people dream. Fantasies and dreams are , we presume, less true to reality than are concepts with referents immediate to our senses. Just because we abstract attributes from referents does not imply the referents don't exist.

Also true, we label concepts. We label concepts that are lies, dreams, persons, hallucinations, reveries, axioms, and physical or mathematical theorems. There is no end to the concepts we might name; all that is required for a concept to be named is that the concept is some use to someone somewhere.Thus elephants and electrons are named because it is useful to name them. We name unicorns, ghosts,and God because it is useful to name them.

The difference between the abstracted concept and the immediate concept is one of degree not a difference of kind.
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Atla »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:48 am Every claim refers to both physical and mental events.

A concept is a mental event which we presume relates to reality according to its referents. If there were no referents we could not conceptualise referents.

True, some people fantasise and some people dream. Fantasies and dreams are , we presume, less true to reality than are concepts with referents immediate to our senses. Just because we abstract attributes from referents does not imply the referents don't exist.

Also true, we label concepts. We label concepts that are lies, dreams, persons, hallucinations, reveries, axioms, and physical or mathematical theorems. There is no end to the concepts we might name; all that is required for a concept to be named is that the concept is some use to someone somewhere.Thus elephants and electrons are named because it is useful to name them. We name unicorns, ghosts,and God because it is useful to name them.

The difference between the abstracted concept and the immediate concept is one of degree not a difference of kind.
Dead wrong, familiarize yourself with the abstract/concrete distinction
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Atla wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:13 am
It's not about sorting or organization. Again: 'sets' don't refer to anything in nature, they are purely mental constructs. 'Electrons' do refer to something in nature, they are not purely mental constructs. The 'lack of elephants' doesn't refer to anything in nature, it's a purely mental construct too.

This forum is filled with people who have the rather serious cognitive impairment of being unable to distinguish the conrete (has physical referents) from the abstract (has no physical referents). And so then they came up with all these world-changing theories, that they absolutely must publish before they die, and thus save humanity.
All things are mental constructs. You cannot presume that the PROCESSES in thought are themselves not 'real'; you CAN self-reflect on the means of how you 'conclude' things. And the fact that you assert that the concept of 'organizing' thought as unable to be 'real' tells me that you lack the logical aptitude to reason.

So yes, I agree that this forum (as with the world) may be filled with people who have 'cognitive impairment'. But I think that the more likelihood is that either one is lying to themselves or being intentionally deceptive for some emotional reason. One combined factor would be that most people are simply NOT able to be intellectually fair because the emotional factor takes precedence when even simply being tired, for instance, not itself a mental dysfuction but a temporal state of mental fatigue that animals have by evolution.

You here are being inappropriately 'unfair' in how you yourself are expanding a general probablility regarding people's theorizing on this site because I ASSURE you that you are not here presuming to LEARN anything in absence of some BELIEFS about your own credibility to think and to contribute what you think to others when an opening presents itself.

Now, I ask you to explain how you can reason at all if the act of reasoning is not a reality? You are expressing that thought itself is a delusion because by selecting the PROCESS of thinking IS to 'organize' those perceptions prior to acting. If we don't do this, then we do not need consciousness because our brains could only at best serve to AUTOMATICALLY respond without a need to think at all.

Instead of giving me a short insult as an emotional response, explain how you could expect us to KNOW about electrons at all without being able to first and foremost 'organize' thoughts based on immediate senses?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:48 am ...

The difference between the abstracted concept and the immediate concept is one of degree not a difference of kind.
Now stating a ''degree" exists should require that you can MEASURE this difference. What is your secret?
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Belinda »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:48 am ...

The difference between the abstracted concept and the immediate concept is one of degree not a difference of kind.
Now stating a ''degree" exists should require that you can MEASURE this difference. What is your secret?
The first sort of measurement I thought of is the number of memories, and memories of memories and so on. For instance someone says "horse" and there is no horse in the room so I rely on my memory of horse to make sense of what this person says. My memory of horse includes the heights of several horses I have measured, the colours of several horses I have seen, the speed of one particular horse, the amount of feed it needed, and so on and so forth.Quantifiable attributes of the concept 'horse'.

Second example.Well you did ask! Someone asks "What did you think of the play "Black Narcissus?" . I recall the dizzy height of the cliffs, the cut of the nuns' habits, the sound of the actors' voices. The strength of Sister Ruth's emotion. All quantifiable, and all attributes abstracted from my concept of the play 'Black Narcissus'. I also have a memory of my memory of the concept, when I recall a previous conversation about the symbolism of the name of the play. Each successive event centring on 'Black Narcissus' might be enumerated.

Third example. Nobody in the room has symptoms or signs of covid . We discuss abstracted details of virus load, anatomical foci of infection, comparative merits of different tests, and the age after which a child might be able to produce a sputum sample when requested. All quantifiable data abstracted from our memories. A subsequent conversation on the same topic with somebody else will bring to mind the quantifiable details of the earlier conversation, and so on for subsequent measurable events centring on the same topic.

All abstract attributes of any concept are in theory measurable. All you would have to do is find and measure the concrete attributes of the given event(horses, the play Black Narcissus, covid tests) from which you have abstracted and memorised the attributes.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:48 am ...

The difference between the abstracted concept and the immediate concept is one of degree not a difference of kind.
Now stating a ''degree" exists should require that you can MEASURE this difference. What is your secret?
The first sort of measurement I thought of is the number of memories, and memories of memories and so on. For instance someone says "horse" and there is no horse in the room so I rely on my memory of horse to make sense of what this person says. My memory of horse includes the heights of several horses I have measured, the colours of several horses I have seen, the speed of one particular horse, the amount of feed it needed, and so on and so forth.Quantifiable attributes of the concept 'horse'.

Second example.Well you did ask! Someone asks "What did you think of the play "Black Narcissus?" . I recall the dizzy height of the cliffs, the cut of the nuns' habits, the sound of the actors' voices. The strength of Sister Ruth's emotion. All quantifiable, and all attributes abstracted from my concept of the play 'Black Narcissus'. I also have a memory of my memory of the concept, when I recall a previous conversation about the symbolism of the name of the play. Each successive event centring on 'Black Narcissus' might be enumerated.

Third example. Nobody in the room has symptoms or signs of covid . We discuss abstracted details of virus load, anatomical foci of infection, comparative merits of different tests, and the age after which a child might be able to produce a sputum sample when requested. All quantifiable data abstracted from our memories. A subsequent conversation on the same topic with somebody else will bring to mind the quantifiable details of the earlier conversation, and so on for subsequent measurable events centring on the same topic.

All abstract attributes of any concept are in theory measurable. All you would have to do is find and measure the concrete attributes of the given event(horses, the play Black Narcissus, covid tests) from which you have abstracted and memorised the attributes.
This doesn't help me understand how you measurably distinguish anything without begging you being able to 'organize' things intuitively. I cannot 'classify' (a function of organizing) any distinction between what is real versus unreal without a defaulted intuition TO be able to organize perceptions from the memories and to the means I connect them for meaningful reaction. The act of being able to sort out the perceptions as 'external inputs' and to any memories as 'internal inputs' dervived from them and then to further take any two inputs to draw a decisive conclusion (outputs to other memory or to the 'motors' that communicate back to the outside world), are all functions of 'organization'. If these are deemed unreal, then so is your intuition to be consciously aware of these processes. These PROCESSES are what I understand logic to mean and the data, whether for inputs or outputs, are the abstractions that we ASSUME refer to the real world apart from the data as mere data and the logic (our process of thinking) we use to decide anything.

So to reduce my question, how do you distinguish inputs from the senses from the inputs from memories without simply assuming them 'real' only as data types intiutively?

Then, taking that...
If it is not intuitively real, explain how these are different from abstractions when the ACT of 'abstraction' is just the very conclusions we draw to generalize (classify) things.

To help with an example, do you assume the concept of 'pair' is not real to you for being an abstract
concept of two thing that you cannot literally sense as something universally true just because the meaning requires extending some association of the term 'pair' to sets of REAL pairs-of things by experience? That is, are you not presuming that since you cannot see "a pair" devoid of the particular nouns such an adjective apply to descriptively, that the descriptive adjective is itself not real?

Shouldn't it not mean that the adjective is just not ABLE to completely cover EACH AND EVERY instance of 'pairs' in all of Totality, rather than assuming that the meaning has no reference to reality? The fact that we cannot have a mind to hold of of these particular instances exhaustively of all of totality cannot mean that it is 'unreal' but that they are just the means of classifying things BASED on reducing the sense data to patterns, which are nevertheless real to our mind, ...even if our senses or memory themselves could be giving us potentially false information by some standard ABOUT the actual realities they refer to. These are still all that we have...abstract data that we sort out according to associations of our thoughts to other data that seem to share common features.
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Belinda »

Scott Mayers wrote:
So to reduce my question, how do you distinguish inputs from the senses from the inputs from memories without simply assuming them 'real' only as data types intiutively?
There is no difference in kind between a short term memory of a split second ago or a short term memory of ten minutes ago.

The concept and label of 'a pair' would be meaningless to me unless I had previously experienced an event that had the characteristic of a pair and people had labelled it in the contex as presented, and I had memorised each incident during which pair and 'pair' was a feature.This is how we learn.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:21 am Scott Mayers wrote:
So to reduce my question, how do you distinguish inputs from the senses from the inputs from memories without simply assuming them 'real' only as data types intiutively?
There is no difference in kind between a short term memory of a split second ago or a short term memory of ten minutes ago.

The concept and label of 'a pair' would be meaningless to me unless I had previously experienced an event that had the characteristic of a pair and people had labelled it in the contex as presented, and I had memorised each incident during which pair and 'pair' was a feature.This is how we learn.
Then you have to agree that the process of thought representing a 'logic' and the data involved are as ephemoral as the abstractions I was referring to that you dismiss. You asserted a distinction about abstraction from reality that I find contentious. My arguments above are based ONLY on one's capacity to think alone where the data inputs are only symbolic representations of reality -- but still 'real' as variables -- and any reasoning on this level has to be understood as 'real' processes.

I mentioned 'sets' as a means to help represent my argument that you dismissed as unreal without qualification when these represent the means of us to separate one data input from another. If sets are not 'real' for presuming them as 'abstract', I am saying that neither is anything else because they are all 'abstract' when we ASSOCIATE input data to other inputs from memory OR other senses.

It is necessary to agree to this or you leave me locked out of being ABLE to prove anything to you that I've set out to prove here. And if that is the case, so be it. But I'd rather you take the onus of disapproval based on your own bias and not of my capacity to express something that I can and do argue.
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Proof that Absolutely Nothing absolutely exists as an Origin...

Post by Belinda »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:31 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:21 am Scott Mayers wrote:
So to reduce my question, how do you distinguish inputs from the senses from the inputs from memories without simply assuming them 'real' only as data types intiutively?
There is no difference in kind between a short term memory of a split second ago or a short term memory of ten minutes ago.

The concept and label of 'a pair' would be meaningless to me unless I had previously experienced an event that had the characteristic of a pair and people had labelled it in the contex as presented, and I had memorised each incident during which pair and 'pair' was a feature.This is how we learn.
Then you have to agree that the process of thought representing a 'logic' and the data involved are as ephemoral as the abstractions I was referring to that you dismiss. You asserted a distinction about abstraction from reality that I find contentious. My arguments above are based ONLY on one's capacity to think alone where the data inputs are only symbolic representations of reality -- but still 'real' as variables -- and any reasoning on this level has to be understood as 'real' processes.

I mentioned 'sets' as a means to help represent my argument that you dismissed as unreal without qualification when these represent the means of us to separate one data input from another. If sets are not 'real' for presuming them as 'abstract', I am saying that neither is anything else because they are all 'abstract' when we ASSOCIATE input data to other inputs from memory OR other senses.

It is necessary to agree to this or you leave me locked out of being ABLE to prove anything to you that I've set out to prove here. And if that is the case, so be it. But I'd rather you take the onus of disapproval based on your own bias and not of my capacity to express something that I can and do argue.
The conditions under which A can prove something to B are :

1. They each follow the rules of logic and mathematics.
2. They each agree what degree of probability will constitute proof.
Data are themselves subject to degrees of probability.

Organising ideas into sets some of which overlap is what anyone does who is capable of learning. Learning involves remembering new perceptions and fitting them into old remembered concepts. As we all know, some new perceptions are dissonant and can cause suffering. Some other new perceptions are pleasant surprises.

In order to organise percepts into sets we need to abstract from them attributes such as colour, number, size, shape, bad, good, here, there, true, false, rich, poor, me or not-me, smooth and so forth.

Symbols are go-betweens that connect one thing, event, or idea, with another thing, event, or idea. Symbols tend to pertain to cultures of belief and practice.
Post Reply