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

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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: Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:45 pm
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?
Yes, fundamentally all 'things' are mental constructs, but one of the most important distinctions in philosophy (if not the most important) is to be able to tell the difference between the two kinds of mental constructs: the abstract and the concrete. One way to put it is:
concrete = mental constructs that have physical referents (for example three apples)
abstract = mental constructs that have no physical referents (for example three, or for example a set)

unless of course you can show that abstract objects exist
Skepdick
Posts: 6806
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:39 pm unless of course you can show that abstract objects exist
You are talking about them. You are ontologically committed to their existence within the domain of discourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_commitment
Atla
Posts: 3190
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:42 pm
Atla wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:39 pm unless of course you can show that abstract objects exist
You are talking about them. You are ontologically committed to their existence within the domain of discourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_commitment
Hey no fair, at least give me a chance to point out why you're talking nonsense. But you already wrote down why.
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 6:12 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:31 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 1:21 am Scott Mayers wrote:


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.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are saying.(?) The 'symbols' I'm referring to are NOT magical essenses, just labels, like letters and words are.

Sets ARE a form of 'symbol' that points to what is inside its braces, not the braces themselves. When we first learn, others will POINT-to something while simultaneously using some sound/word and BEG us to 'associate' one symbol, the visual image of what is being pointed at, to the word, so that one can later communicate these ideas without requiring to actually DENOTE each thing every time one wants to reference it.

The same goes with our senses. In order for us to consciously recognize things, we require at least TWO simulaneous inputs from different senses. This ties the two in our head as 'symbols' that are used to compare new sensations to. When we then later see the same thing, it triggers the other symbol and adds the new other sensations bit by bit. This simple 'association' is how we interpret the world. Everything is 'symbols' with respect to consciousness and is all that we use to interpret reality.

Thus reality is inferred from these symbols and we 'test' them by sending outputs to 'motors' (mostly muscles for animals) that then wait for feedback information we then use to 'compare' to the expected memory of something. Although this is very simple, this is all that we can infer everything else from.

So the symbols plus our internal mean of associating (our 'meta-logic') is all that we can speak about regarding reality.
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: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:39 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:45 pm
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?
Yes, fundamentally all 'things' are mental constructs, but one of the most important distinctions in philosophy (if not the most important) is to be able to tell the difference between the two kinds of mental constructs: the abstract and the concrete. One way to put it is:
concrete = mental constructs that have physical referents (for example three apples)
abstract = mental constructs that have no physical referents (for example three, or for example a set)

unless of course you can show that abstract objects exist
The 'abstractions' are just the induced 'concrete' experiences that follow some pattern. You are biased to assume that we cannot 'infer' patterns, then every experience would act as though they were EACH absolutely new and unique phenomena without any ability to make sense of anything. We have to postulate that some 'logic' exists to our mental existence without question. Anything else is built upon that and the concrete experiences. That 'abstractions' are merely TWO or MORE 'concrete' experiences.
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: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:33 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 6:12 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 4:31 am
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.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are saying.(?) The 'symbols' I'm referring to are NOT magical essenses, just labels, like letters and words are.

Sets ARE a form of 'symbol' that points to what is inside its braces, not the braces themselves. When we first learn, others will POINT-to something while simultaneously using some sound/word and BEG us to 'associate' one symbol, the visual image of what is being pointed at, to the word, so that one can later communicate these ideas without requiring to actually DENOTE each thing every time one wants to reference it.

The same goes with our senses. In order for us to consciously recognize things, we require at least TWO simulaneous inputs from different senses. This ties the two in our head as 'symbols' that are used to compare new sensations to. When we then later see the same thing, it triggers the other symbol and adds the new other sensations bit by bit. This simple 'association' is how we interpret the world. Everything is 'symbols' with respect to consciousness and is all that we use to interpret reality.

Thus reality is inferred from these symbols and we 'test' them by sending outputs to 'motors' (mostly muscles for animals) that then wait for feedback information we then use to 'compare' to the expected memory of something. Although this is very simple, this is all that we can infer everything else from.

So the symbols plus our internal mean of associating (our 'meta-logic') is all that we can speak about regarding reality.
I agree with you symbols are "labels like letters and words are. I also agree that sets are symbols. Frameworks of belief and frameworks of knowledge are all symbols.

I wrote "Symbols tend to pertain to cultures of belief and practice." I meant specific symbolic forms such as those Renaissance symbolic forms as popularised in that best selling novel by Dan Brown. And 'celebrities' who symbolise sex , socialism, safety, football, wealth, and whatever. Trump is interesting as an image maker ; he has wrangled his image to symbolise for many people, safety.

I am not sure about requirement for one sense to verify another sense. Some people believe in ghosts which are usually detected by sight but not by hearing or touch, or else vice versa. I think you are probably right about (what is usually considered to be civilised sanity) the requirement for at least two senses to verify each other.

The more that concepts , symbolised as always by their forms of expression, are embedded in social consciousness the less they are required to be verified by more than one of the five senses. Some popular concepts are not required to be verified at all, in which case the symbol is believed to be the thing, and that is what idolatry is.
Everything is 'symbols' with respect to consciousness and is all that we use to interpret reality.
I agree.
So the symbols plus our internal mean of associating (our 'meta-logic') is all that we can speak about regarding reality.
But we can and do speak about what might transcend social reality. I say social reality, as I previously claimed symbols are cultural forms.

Some people do believe and trust an order of being that transcends symbols and is the thing itself. Myself included. This does not imply I am sure I know
transcendent reality.
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: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:40 am The 'abstractions' are just the induced 'concrete' experiences that follow some pattern. You are biased to assume that we cannot 'infer' patterns, then every experience would act as though they were EACH absolutely new and unique phenomena without any ability to make sense of anything. We have to postulate that some 'logic' exists to our mental existence without question. Anything else is built upon that and the concrete experiences. That 'abstractions' are merely TWO or MORE 'concrete' experiences.
Again you need to draw the line between 'patterns' that refer to the concrete and 'patterns' that do not refer to the concrete, are just abstract. I mean sure, it must be unpleasant to be told that you've based your insights on this common metaphysical delusion, but you should have figured it out on your own.
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: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:49 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:40 am The 'abstractions' are just the induced 'concrete' experiences that follow some pattern. You are biased to assume that we cannot 'infer' patterns, then every experience would act as though they were EACH absolutely new and unique phenomena without any ability to make sense of anything. We have to postulate that some 'logic' exists to our mental existence without question. Anything else is built upon that and the concrete experiences. That 'abstractions' are merely TWO or MORE 'concrete' experiences.
Again you need to draw the line between 'patterns' that refer to the concrete and 'patterns' that do not refer to the concrete, are just abstract. I mean sure, it must be unpleasant to be told that you've based your insights on this common metaphysical delusion, but you should have figured it out on your own.
But what sort of "line" do you think he should draw? How could he draw a line between 1.stubbing his toe on a stone, 2. perceiving the pain, and the measurable qualities of the stone, and 3. how he conceptualises what happened?
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: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:38 pm
Atla wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:49 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:40 am The 'abstractions' are just the induced 'concrete' experiences that follow some pattern. You are biased to assume that we cannot 'infer' patterns, then every experience would act as though they were EACH absolutely new and unique phenomena without any ability to make sense of anything. We have to postulate that some 'logic' exists to our mental existence without question. Anything else is built upon that and the concrete experiences. That 'abstractions' are merely TWO or MORE 'concrete' experiences.
Again you need to draw the line between 'patterns' that refer to the concrete and 'patterns' that do not refer to the concrete, are just abstract. I mean sure, it must be unpleasant to be told that you've based your insights on this common metaphysical delusion, but you should have figured it out on your own.
But what sort of "line" do you think he should draw? How could he draw a line between 1.stubbing his toe on a stone, 2. perceiving the pain, and the measurable qualities of the stone, and 3. how he conceptualises what happened?
But those are all pretty much concrete.
You can find stones and pain in nature, but you can't find sets. You can only find symbols which in our thinking represent sets.
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: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:59 am
I agree with you symbols are "labels like letters and words are. I also agree that sets are symbols. Frameworks of belief and frameworks of knowledge are all symbols.

I wrote "Symbols tend to pertain to cultures of belief and practice." I meant specific symbolic forms such as those Renaissance symbolic forms as popularised in that best selling novel by Dan Brown. And 'celebrities' who symbolise sex , socialism, safety, football, wealth, and whatever. Trump is interesting as an image maker ; he has wrangled his image to symbolise for many people, safety.
This has nothing to do with the meaning of 'symbols' in this context. And why would you add your 'symbol' of Trump? This is not a political discussion.
I am not sure about requirement for one sense to verify another sense. Some people believe in ghosts which are usually detected by sight but not by hearing or touch, or else vice versa. I think you are probably right about (what is usually considered to be civilised sanity) the requirement for at least two senses to verify each other.

The more that concepts , symbolised as always by their forms of expression, are embedded in social consciousness the less they are required to be verified by more than one of the five senses. Some popular concepts are not required to be verified at all, in which case the symbol is believed to be the thing, and that is what idolatry is.
I think you are not understanding the context of symbols. But note that the symbols themeselves are also real in another context...as 'symbols'.

A 'sense' is minimally as simple as a touch and might be compared to a simple switch that either sends a value of notice, like the '1' in computers that represent an electron flow versus none, as in the '0' of the same. Without a second INPUT at minimal, there is no 'input premise', whether from outside or memory, for a logic the brain would be able to reason with. That is what I was referring to when I said that two senses are minimally needed.
Everything is 'symbols' with respect to consciousness and is all that we use to interpret reality.
I agree.
No you don't. You denied that the symbols exist as realities when I said that these are ALL that we have in response to you dismissing abstractions as 'real'. That is, reality itself can ONLY be known by the 'symbols' of the sensations and memory and ARE 'abstractions' because they are not the literal objective world beyond those sensation data.
So the symbols plus our internal mean of associating (our 'meta-logic') is all that we can speak about regarding reality.
But we can and do speak about what might transcend social reality. I say social reality, as I previously claimed symbols are cultural forms.

Some people do believe and trust an order of being that transcends symbols and is the thing itself. Myself included. This does not imply I am sure I know
transcendent reality.
What does social reality have to do with anything here? I think you are expressing something you think from one of my thread discussion on politics and are off topic.
Skepdick
Posts: 6806
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 4:03 pm You can find stones and pain in nature, but you can't find sets.
Stones are abstract sets.

The pattern-matching exercise that happens in your head which identifies the necessary/sufficient properties of a "stone" is entirely abstract.
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:
What does social reality have to do with anything here? I think you are expressing something you think from one of my thread discussion on politics and are off topic.
The origin of everything is God or some other cause of itself, such as existence or Nature. A cause of itself is not contingent on anything or any event.

We can know nothing of any cause of itself, because all we can know is contingent on something else. What we know is mediated by symbols such as language or body movements. All symbolic systems are social: there is no such thing as private language.

'Social reality' is term that differentiates what we can know from the infinitely larger reality we can never possibly know.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by RCSaunders »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am ...
That's wrong.

Everything that exists at any moment is the orgin of everything that exists the next moment.
Belinda
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:10 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am ...
That's wrong.

Everything that exists at any moment is the orgin of everything that exists the next moment.
So, RCSaunders, everything that exists at any moment is thoroughly embedded in its own necessity.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:12 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:10 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:27 am ...
That's wrong.

Everything that exists at any moment is the orgin of everything that exists the next moment.
So, RCSaunders, everything that exists at any moment is thoroughly embedded in its own necessity.
Don't know what you mean by, "necessity." If you're thinking, "determined," in a physical sense, then no. If you are thinking, whatever is cannot be anything other than what is, then yes.

It doesn't matter what is, what preceded it, whether a human choice or a physical state, what is now is what it is because of what immediately preceded it, that's all.
Post Reply