What is your Framework and System of Reality?

[bahman]

If "No," then I don't understand what you were asking re "Does the whole in a specific configuration have a specific property and not any other property? "

Let me give you an example. Let's say that you taste the salt. You perceive the information about salt from your sensory system and your brain goes into a configuration that you feel salty. You don't feel sweet for example.

Hmm, okay, so yeah, you could sense just one thing with a metric like salty versus sweet etc. How does this relate to what we were talking about in your view?

This means that the property of the whole is a function. The function of what? The function of properties of parts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wow, so I am the only one who can stop a chain of causality. Or that is a hallucination too.

If you are not a regular meditator or involved in various spiritual practices and if you insist that is your extra-ordinary claim,
you should at least consult a psychiatrist to eliminate there any nothing wrong from within his expertise and diagnosis.

You never know, there are evidence certain lesion, aberrations, malfunctions [even small ones] can generate a person to perceive extra-ordinary things and views.

There are loads of research findings in supporting the above hypothesis.

Note this again,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

[bahman]

Wow, so I am the only one who can stop a chain of causality. Or that is a hallucination too.

If you are not a regular meditator or involved in various spiritual practices and if you insist that is your extra-ordinary claim,
you should at least consult a psychiatrist to eliminate there any nothing wrong from within his expertise and diagnosis.

You never know, there are evidence certain lesion, aberrations, malfunctions [even small ones] can generate a person to perceive extra-ordinary things and views.

There are loads of research findings in supporting the above hypothesis.

Note this again,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

Oh, thanks. I have seen many of them some of them interestingly believe in spiritual reality.

[Terrapin Station]

Let me give you an example. Let's say that you taste the salt. You perceive the information about salt from your sensory system and your brain goes into a configuration that you feel salty. You don't feel sweet for example.

Hmm, okay, so yeah, you could sense just one thing with a metric like salty versus sweet etc. How does this relate to what we were talking about in your view?

This means that the property of the whole is a function. The function of what? The function of properties of parts.

I'd basically agree with that, with the caveats that it's properties, not just one property, and that it's a function of the parts, period, not just the properties of the parts. Properties and parts are inseparable. The distinction between a property and "what it's a property of" is a conceptual distinction that suggests separability or removability in a manner that's misleading--almost like the part (parts being substances, relations and processes, which are also practically inseparable--you can't have one without the other) is putting on some clothing that can be removed or put on by another part instead. In reality, that's not how it works. Every part, every combination of parts, every aspect of every part and combination of parts is unique and also amounts to properties that are unique and that are just as much the part as anything else/any other aspect is.

[bahman]

Hmm, okay, so yeah, you could sense just one thing with a metric like salty versus sweet etc. How does this relate to what we were talking about in your view?

This means that the property of the whole is a function. The function of what? The function of properties of parts.

I'd basically agree with that, with the caveats that it's properties, not just one property,

True.

and that it's a function of the parts, period, not just the properties of the parts.

No. It is a function of the properties of parts. By property, I mean location, charge, etc.

Properties and parts are inseparable.

A thing and its properties are inseparable. There however could be a change in properties and not the thing though. That is why I stress that the properties of the whole are functions of properties of parts rather than parts since the parts do no change while their properties can change and the whole change accordingly.

[Terrapin Station]

A thing and its properties are inseparable. There however could be a change in properties and not the thing though.

No, that's impossible.

What are you imagining as an example?

[Iwannaplato]

A thing and its properties are inseparable. There however could be a change in properties and not the thing though.

No, that's impossible.

What are you imagining as an example?

You'd need to define 'properties'. If being alone is a property, then one could argue that the block of wood is the same though it is no longer alone. Or if something is visible. A cloud in front of the moon does not change the object, but it is no longer visible. I am not saying these are properties, just trying to say that property probably has to be defined.

[Skepdick]

No, that's impossible.

Please provide proof of impossibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

[Terrapin Station]

A thing and its properties are inseparable. There however could be a change in properties and not the thing though.

No, that's impossible.

What are you imagining as an example?

You'd need to define 'properties'. If being alone is a property, then one could argue that the block of wood is the same though it is no longer alone. Or if something is visible. A cloud in front of the moon does not change the object, but it is no longer visible. I am not saying these are properties, just trying to say that property probably has to be defined.

Properties are simply characteristics or qualities of existents, or we can simply say "ways that they (existents) happen to be." These include relational properties--ways that existents are in relation to other existents, but when they include relational existents, the property isn't solely a property of only one part of what makes the relation obtain. Properties are not ways that existents aren't. They're not absences, or something lacking or anything like that.

Existents (aside perhaps from elementary particles) aren't identical through time. A block of wood at time T1 isn't identical to the block of wood at time T2. Saying that it's "literally the same" block of wood at T1 and T2 is an abstraction.

Relational properties between a block of wood and something else is a property of all of the existents involved in the relation. It's not solely a property of the block of wood.

[Skepdick]

Properties are simply characteristics or qualities of existents,

And now you need to define "qualities" and "existents"

[bahman]

A thing and its properties are inseparable. There however could be a change in properties and not the thing though.

No, that's impossible.

It is possible. It depends on the definition of properties, where a property is what defines the behavior of an entity that is the subject of discussion.

What are you imagining as an example?

A falling apple. The flow of information in the microscopic regime. Etc.

[bahman]

A thing and its properties are inseparable. There however could be a change in properties and not the thing though.

No, that's impossible.

What are you imagining as an example?

You'd need to define 'properties'. If being alone is a property, then one could argue that the block of wood is the same though it is no longer alone. Or if something is visible. A cloud in front of the moon does not change the object, but it is no longer visible. I am not saying these are properties, just trying to say that property probably has to be defined.

A property is what defines the behavior of an entity that is the subject of discussion.

[Terrapin Station]

A falling apple. The flow of information in the microscopic regime. Etc.

With the falling apple, what it the change in properties, first off?

[bahman]

A falling apple. The flow of information in the microscopic regime. Etc.

With the falling apple, what it the change in properties, first off?

Its position.

[Terrapin Station]

A falling apple. The flow of information in the microscopic regime. Etc.

With the falling apple, what it the change in properties, first off?

Its position.

Position is a relational property. It can't only be a property of the apple. It's a property of the apple AND something else, like the ground. If we're ONLY talking about the apple, there's no change in position, right?