What is philosophy and what is its purpose?

[uwot]

Could it be true that there is no thing with awareness?
Not if there is some thing aware.

All you've done here is substitute 'thought' for 'awareness' and completely missed the point. It is conceivable that the awareness is the thing it is aware of. It doesn't follow that there has to be a separate thing to be aware of the awareness.

Is there some thing aware of this?

Almost certainly.

If yes, then is this just another proven fundamental premise?

No.

There really is nothing complex nor hard in Life.

The irony is that you have to be simple to miss the complexity.

[PeteJ]

What is the difference between nothing and something?

One of the most rewarding questions in philosophy. Few people ask it.

[Age]

Could it be true that there is no thing with awareness?
Not if there is some thing aware.

All you've done here is substitute 'thought' for 'awareness' and completely missed the point.

But this is not what I have done.

You wrote;
Could it be true that there is no thought?
Whereas I wrote;
Could it be true that there is no thing with awareness?
Are you aware of the difference? Did you not notice that it is different?

Did you miss the point that it is about some thing with awareness? I could now substitute 'awareness' with 'thought' and it would now mean the same. But this is different from what I did write.

It is conceivable that the awareness is the thing it is aware of.

Lots of things are conceivable, but that does not mean one should waste their time conceiving of them. You can conceive that awareness is the awareness that awareness is aware of, but I would not waste my time. You, however, are free to conceive of that or any thing else you may wish and want to.

It doesn't follow that there has to be a separate thing to be aware of the awareness.

So why did you go in that direction? I certainly never did follow that path.

Maybe you follow that silly line of thought because you, for some reason, substituted the word 'thought' with the word 'awareness', which I obviously was not doing.

Is there some thing aware of this?

Almost certainly.

Since there was a reply, some thing was aware of this. Therefore, is it a certainty that there is some thing with awareness?

If yes, then is this just another proven fundamental premise?

No.

If you believe that this is true, then, as I say, logic can not do its work.

Why did you say that what I said is not another proven fundamental premise?

With what I have now shown you can you now see that it is another proven premise, or, do you still say no?

There really is nothing complex nor hard in Life.

The irony is that you have to be simple to miss the complexity.

Is that a proven premise or just your view or belief only?

Also, does it also correlate that you have to be complex to miss the simple?

If so, then I must be extremely simple and not complex at all.

[Age]

What is the difference between nothing and something?

One of the most rewarding question in philosophy. Few people ask it.

Since, the word 'some' means one or more, up to but not including all, and, the word 'no' means none, then with these definitions the difference between nothing and something could just be the distinct barrier which separates one thing from the non thing.

There obviously has to exist no thing, which is in between and around physical thing/s, otherwise there would only be one infinitely compressed, and infinite in size, singular piece of matter thing.

One singular Infinite compression of matter can not change.

There is obviously some thing.
There is obviously thought, and,
There is obviously awareness, of the changing thoughts.
Therefore, the difference between nothing and something is the outer edge of physicality, which can very simply and very easily be observed at the subatomic particle level.

Or, from a direct human being perspective this difference can be very easily and very simply observed at the cosmological level, with the stars and planets and the space or distance between them.

[uwot]

You wrote;
Could it be true that there is no thought?
Whereas I wrote;
Could it be true that there is no thing with awareness?

Yes it could, and for most of the history of the universe, it is quite possible that has been true. It just happens not to be the case now.

Are you aware of the difference? Did you not notice that it is different?

The difference is that the thought 'Could it be true that there is no thought?' cannot be thought without there necessarily being a thought. Strange as it seems, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a thinker.

[RCSaunders]

The difference is that the thought 'Could it be true that there is no thought?' cannot be thought without there necessarily being a thought. Strange as it seems, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a thinker.

Could you explain that last sentence? It looks like you are saying there can be thoughts without a thinker. Is that what you mean?

[Age]

You wrote;
Could it be true that there is no thought?
Whereas I wrote;
Could it be true that there is no thing with awareness?

Yes it could, and for most of the history of the universe, it is quite possible that has been true. It just happens not to be the case now.

If you want to use the logic that it is not a proven premise because of; as far as we are aware for most of the history of the Universe it was quite possibly true, (or not true. We just do not yet know), then that logic also follows for your two quoted proven premises also.

Your first proven premise is even based upon with your belief that the Universe began and is expanding, correct?
For a Universe to begin, then there must be nothing for a thing, which consists of EVERY thing, to begin, so for a part of history there was quite possibly nothing. It just happens to not be the case now that there is something.

And, thoughts, as far as we know, have not always existed as well. It just happens that there are thoughts now. So, if your two premises are proven premises, then this one will have to be also.

So, is it another proven premise?

By the way, if it is another proven premise, and you think that there is some sort of recognition for it, then you are most welcome to take all the credit for the premise, if that is what you would like. I do not want to be known for any thing and, after all, it only came about because of you and what you had wrote and said.

Are you aware of the difference? Did you not notice that it is different?

The difference is that the thought 'Could it be true that there is no thought?' cannot be thought without there necessarily being a thought.

I was NOT talking about that "difference", which can be obviously seen in the words I wrote. The obvious difference that I asked you about, some might suggest that you are trying to deflect from now.

What you are saying here now was clearly obvious, to me, the very first time you write it. That is why I have agreed with it from the outset.

Strange as it seems, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a thinker.

Why did you move, again, onto some off-topic thing?

I NEVER mentioned any thing that even suggested any thing about a thinker. In fact, what I was talking about it the complete opposite of a thinker.

Now, either there is a thing with awareness is a proven premise, or it is not. If it is not, then why not?

But if it is, then as you said;
If you can come up with a third, you will go down in history as one of the greatest philosophers. Best of luck.
And as I said;
You are most welcome to take all the credit for the premise.

That one is, after all, only a miniscule of what is about to come.

[uwot]

The difference is that the thought 'Could it be true that there is no thought?' cannot be thought without there necessarily being a thought. Strange as it seems, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a thinker.

Could you explain that last sentence? It looks like you are saying there can be thoughts without a thinker. Is that what you mean?

To be clear, I don't personally believe there can be thought without thinkers. It's the extreme conclusion of Descartes' method of scepticism and a step the he didn't make himself, stopping at 'I think, therefore I am'. But the only thing that is absolutely certain about the existence of thoughts, is that there are thoughts. It is conceivable that thoughts are all there are, which is the foundation of idealism. My own view is that the most plausible explanation of all the thoughts about thinkers, is that thinkers exist, but that is a theory-laden conclusion that could be wrong. I'll eat my hat if it is, but ya never know.

[RCSaunders]

To be clear, I don't personally believe there can be thought without thinkers.

Good. I really didn't believe you could have meant there could be.

It is conceivable that thoughts are all there are, which is the foundation of idealism.

I think idealism is a little different, depending on what you mean by, "thoughts." Whether something is conceivable or not has always seemed irrelevant to me. Tooth fairies and phoenixes are conceivable, which means just any concept can be synthesized from the attributes of other existents and dreamed up. (Explains of lot of philosophy.)

My own view is that the most plausible explanation of all the thoughts about thinkers, is that thinkers exist, but that is a theory-laden conclusion that could be wrong. I'll eat my hat if it is, but ya never know.

Don't salt and pepper your hat yet. I'm pretty sure you are right.

I do have a question. When you use the word, "thought," do you mean, "the action of thinking," or "an idea which is the product of thinking?" If the former, there could not be thoughts without a thinker, if the latter, unless you believe in "mind independent concepts," ala Kant and the mystics,(which I do not) they could not exist without a thinker either, could they?

[PeteJ]

To be clear, I don't personally believe there can be thought without thinkers. It's the extreme conclusion of Descartes' method of scepticism and a step the he didn't make himself, stopping at 'I think, therefore I am'. But the only thing that is absolutely certain about the existence of thoughts, is that there are thoughts. It is conceivable that thoughts are all there are, which is the foundation of idealism. My own view is that the most plausible explanation of all the thoughts about thinkers, is that thinkers exist, but that is a theory-laden conclusion that could be wrong. I'll eat my hat if it is, but ya never know.

This seems a reasonable and open-minded view. It's a difficult issue best explored by listening to a teacher like Rupert Spira.

To get to the bottom of this it may help to closely examine Descarte's statement. Note that he uses his thoughts to prove his awareness. He does not use his awareness to prove his thoughts.

He uses his awareness of his thoughts to prove the reality of his thoughts in order to prove the reality of his awareness. This is a little tautological of him. If he were not aware of his thoughts they would not exist. They are only thoughts because he is aware of them.

What he does know for certain is 'I Am'. What he's less clear about is what he means by 'I'.

He is not well-informed on this topic. I would suggest letting a good teacher explain this. Non-duality teachers on youtube delve deeply into the nature of the self and the status of the thinker.

[surreptitious57]

You dont know what nothing is

Absolute nothing is the absence of anything or an absolute vacuum
We know what it is because it actually exists at the quantum level
And nothing can also be represented in mathematical terms as zero

[uwot]

It is conceivable that thoughts are all there are, which is the foundation of idealism.

I think idealism is a little different, depending on what you mean by, "thoughts."...

...I do have a question. When you use the word, "thought," do you mean, "the action of thinking," or "an idea which is the product of thinking?"

It's an artefact of Descartes' 'Je pense, donc je suis'. Rather marvellously he cocked a snook at academia of the time and wrote in French, not Latin. If you follow his line of reasoning in the Discourse or Meditations, "thoughts" are any, I dunno, 'mental object'? An experience, sensation, perception, feeling, awareness - pretty much anything that goes on between the ears that shows the lights are on and someone is home. Any cognition as in 'Cogito, ergo sum'. So ideas fall within that scope and it is just an accident of history that 'idealism' got its name. Coulda been 'thoughtism', 'experiencism', 'sensationism'; I'm sure you get the idea.

If the former, there could not be thoughts without a thinker, if the latter, unless you believe in "mind independent concepts," ala Kant and the mystics,(which I do not) they could not exist without a thinker either, could they?

Well you get into all that tosh about 'Hey man, 2+2 is 4 forever!' but I don't think that tells us anything about ontology. Besides, it still needs a thinker to be thought. Probably.

[uwot]

This seems a reasonable and open-minded view.

Here's one of my favourite quotes:
“All this is a dream. Still examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency.” Michael Faraday.

To acknowledge that "Nothing is too wonderful to be true" to me is the essence of open-mindedness. Some people, on the other hand apparently believe that being open-minded means to accept as true some theory they happen to find particularly wonderful.

It's a difficult issue best explored by listening to a teacher like Rupert Spira.

Interesting guy. Who knows? Maybe he's right. I still think there are other wonderful things, and a few terrible ones, that might be true.

To get to the bottom of this it may help to closely examine Descarte's statement. Note that he uses his thoughts to prove his awareness. He does not use his awareness to prove his thoughts.

Well, the argument leading up to the statement, in a nutshell, is 'I am having all these experiences. I can doubt that the experiences correspond to an external world - they could all be illusions. However, I cannot doubt that I am having the experiences. Therefore 'I' exist.'

He uses his awareness of his thoughts to prove the reality of his thoughts in order to prove the reality of his awareness. This is a little tautological of him. If he were not aware of his thoughts they would not exist. They are only thoughts because he is aware of them.

Not really. You don't have to turn your conscious attention to every experience you have to have the experience.

What he does know for certain is 'I Am'. What he's less clear about is what he means by 'I'.

He isn't specific at that point; all he claims is that 'he' exists, if only as a centre of consciousness, or awareness. Take your pick. Most people lose interest when Descartes goes on to use a shonky ontological argument for a good god that wouldn't allow him to be wrong about his "clear and distinct" ideas.

He is not well-informed on this topic. I would suggest letting a good teacher explain this. Non-duality teachers on youtube delve deeply into the nature of the self and the status of the thinker.

Bit late for Descartes.

[Age]

To acknowledge that "Nothing is too wonderful to be true" to me is the essence of open-mindedness. Some people, on the other hand apparently believe that being open-minded means to accept as true some theory they happen to find particularly wonderful.

Yes I know what you mean, there are quite a few people who think/believe that they are open but find particular wonderful, and accept as true, the theory that the Universe began and/or is expanding.

I wonder if they have ever thought about how they could actually be open when they assume and believe some thing already to be true?

[uwot]

Yes I know what you mean, there are quite a few people who think/believe that they are open but find particular wonderful, and accept as true, the theory that the Universe began and/or is expanding.

Well yeah, people believe all sorts of things. Personally I think the evidence that is the case is compelling. I'm still waiting to hear your argument for why it is not so.

I wonder if they have ever thought about how they could actually be open when they assume and believe some thing already to be true?

You'd have to ask them. What about you? Do you believe your mystery theory is true?