Solving metaphysics

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:48 pm

Eodnhoj wrote:
If we argue that something does not exist by default we prove it exists by the very act of trying to negate it. This questioned existence at minimum must exist as an axiom and as an axiom of act of consciousness / experience is to some degree actualized through the person himself / herself. It is in these respects by forming an axiom that the nature of reality has already expanded through the nature of consciousness if not also physically
Knowledge gradually increases over time but there will still be a point beyond which nothing is known since knowledge can never be absolute

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:32 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:48 pm
Eodnhoj wrote:
If we argue that something does not exist by default we prove it exists by the very act of trying to negate it. This questioned existence at minimum must exist as an axiom and as an axiom of act of consciousness / experience is to some degree actualized through the person himself / herself. It is in these respects by forming an axiom that the nature of reality has already expanded through the nature of consciousness if not also physically
Knowledge gradually increases over time but there will still be a point beyond which nothing is known
since knowledge can never be absolute
Is this absolute knowledge?

How do you KNOW this is absolutely true, as it is proposed here?

Maybe you say this from the perspective of surreptitious57 only, is that what this is in relation to here?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:58 am

ken wrote:
Is this absolute knowledge

How do you KNOW this is absolutely true as it is proposed here

Maybe you say this from the perspective of surreptitious57 only is that what this is in relation to here
No this is not absolute knowledge because it pertains to the future about which I fortunately know very little
What it is is what I THINK may be true not what I KNOW to be true as these are most definitely not the same
And every thing I say is from my perspective only since I can only know how my mind thinks and no one elses
And the word mind here pertains to my brain function and specifically the part that is the pre frontal cortex

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:01 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:58 am
ken wrote:
Is this absolute knowledge

How do you KNOW this is absolutely true as it is proposed here

Maybe you say this from the perspective of surreptitious57 only is that what this is in relation to here
No this is not absolute knowledge because it pertains to the future about which I fortunately know very little
What it is is what I THINK may be true not what I KNOW to be true as these are most definitely not the same
So, then why propose it as it is a known fact that could not be any different?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:58 am
And every thing I say is from my perspective only since I can only know how my mind thinks and no one elses
If, as you say, you can only KNOW how YOUR mind thinks, then HOW does YOUR mind think?

And, is HOW YOUR mind thinks any different to HOW supposedly "other" minds think?

Also, WHO are you in relation to that mind?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:58 am
And the word mind here pertains to my brain function and specifically the part that is the pre frontal cortex
And, the word walking pertains to your leg function and specifically the part that is the feet. BUT this does NOT in any way come close to actually explaining any thing about what walking actually IS.

Thoughts equally are also a function of the brain.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:32 am

ken wrote:
If as you say you can only KNOW how YOUR mind thinks then HOW does YOUR mind think

And is HOW YOUR mind thinks any different to HOW supposedly other minds think

Also WHO are you in relation to that mind
Sometimes my mind thinks emotionally and sometimes it thinks logically. I try to think more logically as I get older for it makes me calm
I do not think my mind generally is that different to other minds but specifically it is because like all minds it is absolutely unique. Even
monozygotic [ identical ] twins who share the same DNA will have different minds. And the relationship between my self and my mind is
that I am my mind. For when I die my mind dies. Because mind is a function of the brain and so if the brain dies then the mind also dies

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:57 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:32 am
ken wrote:
If as you say you can only KNOW how YOUR mind thinks then HOW does YOUR mind think

And is HOW YOUR mind thinks any different to HOW supposedly other minds think

Also WHO are you in relation to that mind
Sometimes my mind thinks emotionally and sometimes it thinks logically. I try to think more logically as I get older for it makes me calm
I do not think my mind generally is that different to other minds but specifically it is because like all minds it is absolutely unique. Even
monozygotic [ identical ] twins who share the same DNA will have different minds. And the relationship between my self and my mind is
that I am my mind. For when I die my mind dies. Because mind is a function of the brain and so if the brain dies then the mind also dies
Finally we are getting somewhere. Thank you for your answers.

However, do you see the contradiction here;
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:32 am
Sometimes my mind thinks emotionally and sometimes it thinks logically. I try to think more logically
'My mind' implies some thing other than you, and, 'it thinks' reinforces this other than you attitude, perspective or reasoning.

'My mind thinks ...' and 'it [my mind] thinks ...' is in complete contradiction to 'I (try to) think ....'

As for the rest you are getting closer to gaining a much better understanding of how to actually answer the question, Who am I?

Because the word 'mind' is such a controversial subject to begin with and finding an accurate definition has not really happened for centuries, that word is up there with 'love','God', et cetera, in causing confusing and being misinterpreted, so then if we exchange the word 'mind' here with the word 'thoughts', then it still makes sense, and will be seen to be even far more correct, and this will all become much clearer in time.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:32 am
I do not think my mind generally is that different to other minds but specifically it is because like all minds it is absolutely unique. Even monozygotic [ identical ] twins who share the same DNA will have different minds. And the relationship between my self and my mind is that I am my mind. For when I die my mind dies. Because mind is a function of the brain and so if the brain dies then the mind also dies
A LOT of this is very true but with just a little bit of tidying up, some clarifying, and a bit of explaining this could make much more sense then it does now and it also would fit in perfectly with a big picture, which answers and solves all those so called mysteries of life .

surreptitious57
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:19 am

Regardless of how I describe my mind it is who I am. The bottom line is that my mind is me I am my mind. Everything I
know or think that I know comes from there. I cannot go outside of it. For all my experiences are mind dependent and
there is nothing I can do about that so I have to accept it unconditionally. Which I do and so it is not a problem for me

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:13 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:19 am
Regardless of how I describe my mind it is who I am. The bottom line is that my mind is me I am my mind.
Do you really still not see the contradiction in saying, 'I am my mind?'

'My', implies ownership, belonging to, or associated with the 'I'. In other words 'my' is in relation to some other thing. The 'my' word separates you or i from the thing you are talking about. You can either be that mind, or be the owner of, relative or belonging to, or associated with that mind. But you can not logically be both 'my' mind and that mind. You can logically say, 'I am a mind, (this mind, that mind, or the mind)' but it is illogical to say 'I am my mind'. Can you see this now?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:19 am
Everything I
know or think that I know comes from there. I cannot go outside of it. For all my experiences are mind dependent and
there is nothing I can do about that so I have to accept it unconditionally. Which I do and so it is not a problem for me
If it is not a problem, then you have nothing to worry about nor further to learn here in this regards.

Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:55 am

You are, to you, the continuity of your attention. You can expand that concept to include your body if you like, or your sensory input, or even your surroundings if you so desire (and have the mental capacity to figure out how), and you are, to others, the apparent continuity of your body and personality.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1865
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:24 pm

ken wrote:
My implies ownership belonging to or associated with the I. In other words my is in relation to some other thing. The my word separates
you or I from the thing you are talking about. You can either be that mind or be the owner of relative or belonging to or associated with
that mind. But you can not logically be both my mind and that mind. You can logically say I am a mind this mind that mind or the mind
but it is illogical to say I am my mind
I was not happy saying I am my mind but I still let it go. I have zero problem with the concept but it was
poorly expressed in my opinion but saying I have a mind is grammatically better even if more impersonal

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by ken » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:34 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:24 pm
ken wrote:
My implies ownership belonging to or associated with the I. In other words my is in relation to some other thing. The my word separates
you or I from the thing you are talking about. You can either be that mind or be the owner of relative or belonging to or associated with
that mind. But you can not logically be both my mind and that mind. You can logically say I am a mind this mind that mind or the mind
but it is illogical to say I am my mind
I was not happy saying I am my mind but I still let it go. I have zero problem with the concept but it was
poorly expressed in my opinion but saying I have a mind is grammatically better even if more impersonal
'I have a mind' is not grammatically better at all, as it is still a huge contradiction in and of itself also.

Just trying to change the words around so that it appears that you know what you are talking about really does not work, and it is just showing that you are unable to describe properly that, which you would love to know, but as of yet do not know. The reason you do NOT yet know is obvious, and this will remain as long as you continue to do what you are doing now.

But, at least, you are closer to seeing how you are no closer to knowing and understanding who the 'I' actually is (and also who the 'you' actually is also by the way) , and hopefully you can also see how you are no closer to understanding how the Mind and the brain actually work either. By the way the four are linked very closely together.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11305
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:23 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am
If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
No, I'd say they nearly have a philosophy but are missing the ethics.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5239
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:40 pm

Advocate wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:37 am
If someone developed a world view which was internally and externally consistent, logically necessary in every respect, used common English for most purposes, could be explained at any level of detail, was perfectly compatible with the best understandings of science, and which answers the vast majority of questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, would you say that had "solved" the latter?
I see that you've attempted to stack the deck, leaving ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics, as only being answered partially. But even so, of course it's possible. If it were also true that those questions in ontology, epistemology, and metaphysics were invalid, as shown to be so, by the logic presented in that which preceded them in your question above.

Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Advocate » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:58 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:23 pm
No, I'd say they nearly have a philosophy but are missing the ethics.
You're saying ethics is a necessary part of metaphysics?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11305
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Solving metaphysics

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:16 pm

Advocate wrote:You're saying ethics is a necessary part of metaphysics?
No, I'm saying that in my opinion what you have described is nearly a philosophy of which a part concerns itself with a metaphysic but to be a full philosophy it'll need an ethic.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest