What is your Framework and System of Reality?

[attofishpi]

I'm not saying anything technical about the word "thing."

I think you are going to have to.

Think of "thing" as functioning like a variable or just being a "whatever."

eh?

Time and space aren't things in themselves.

So you are a closet Kantian.

Time is motion or change of matter. Space is the extension of and the extensional relations of matter.

Re politics, or any sort of abstract like that, it's a set of mental content (of course about particular behavior)--that is, a (sub)set of brain states. In this regard, I'm a nominalist. There are no objective abstracts. Abstraction refers to a manner of thinking about things (thinking being a subset of brain states).

So what is a thing?

I'm not saying anything like "time and space aren't real," or "time and space aren't objective" etc.

I'm saying that time is the motion/change of matter--or more broadly, it's processes or dynamicism in general, which is very real and objective. And space is the extension of and extensional relations of matter, which is also very real and objective.

Re "thing," I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. We can just use "existent" or "that which obtains" or whatever, so that there are no restrictions on the sort of existent that we're referring to. Time and space exist as above--as motion/change and as extension/extensional relations.

All very well, but consciousness is the thing that screws everyone up - it's one thing to have a universe ticking over with events throughout matter, then it gets to the biological point of matter, and then we as 'beings' perceive things, ticking over.

Of course, it's no problem to an atheist such as Sculptor. Perhaps it's no big deal to an average theist.

It gets interesting when one thinks in terms of rearranging atoms and whatever is required to sub-atomically replicate YOU.

Strange that 'matter' when arranged a certain way...can then PERCEIVE a sensation. Scratch the back of your hand - how UNIQUE in the ENTIRE universe is that?

What do we then have if we replicate all the matter that makes U? U in two places in spacetime? Nah.

This matter arranged in a certain way that then perceives a sensation - indeed has UNIQUE consciousness (to it) is rather amazing.

To me, it's akin to a pointer in a computer program - sort of - recursing a pointer (your soul) through matter (your body) - reincarnating YOU through time.

[Terrapin Station]

I think you are going to have to.

eh?

So you are a closet Kantian.


So what is a thing?

I'm not saying anything like "time and space aren't real," or "time and space aren't objective" etc.

I'm saying that time is the motion/change of matter--or more broadly, it's processes or dynamicism in general, which is very real and objective. And space is the extension of and extensional relations of matter, which is also very real and objective.

Re "thing," I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. We can just use "existent" or "that which obtains" or whatever, so that there are no restrictions on the sort of existent that we're referring to. Time and space exist as above--as motion/change and as extension/extensional relations.

All very well, but consciousness is the thing that screws everyone up - it's one thing to have a universe ticking over with events throughout matter, then it gets to the biological point of matter, and then we as 'beings' perceive things, ticking over.

Of course, it's no problem to an atheist such as Sculptor. Perhaps it's no big deal to an average theist.

It gets interesting when one thinks in terms of rearranging atoms and whatever is required to sub-atomically replicate YOU.

Strange that 'matter' when arranged a certain way...can then PERCEIVE a sensation. Scratch the back of your hand - how UNIQUE in the ENTIRE universe is that?

What do we then have if we replicate all the matter that makes U? U in two places in spacetime? Nah.

This matter arranged in a certain way that then perceives a sensation - indeed has UNIQUE consciousness (to it) is rather amazing.

To me, it's akin to a pointer in a computer program - sort of - recursing a pointer (your soul) through matter (your body) - reincarnating YOU through time.

I'm a nominalist. You can't actually have numerically distinct things that are identical.

I also don't buy identity through time. X at T1 is not identical to x at T2.

(I'm also an atheist if you didn't know.)

Aside from this, I'm not sure what you're thinking consciousness has to do with my view expressed in the post above. Some of your comment isn't that clear to me.

[attofishpi]

I'm not saying anything like "time and space aren't real," or "time and space aren't objective" etc.

I'm saying that time is the motion/change of matter--or more broadly, it's processes or dynamicism in general, which is very real and objective. And space is the extension of and extensional relations of matter, which is also very real and objective.

Re "thing," I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. We can just use "existent" or "that which obtains" or whatever, so that there are no restrictions on the sort of existent that we're referring to. Time and space exist as above--as motion/change and as extension/extensional relations.

All very well, but consciousness is the thing that screws everyone up - it's one thing to have a universe ticking over with events throughout matter, then it gets to the biological point of matter, and then we as 'beings' perceive things, ticking over.

Of course, it's no problem to an atheist such as Sculptor. Perhaps it's no big deal to an average theist.

It gets interesting when one thinks in terms of rearranging atoms and whatever is required to sub-atomically replicate YOU.

Strange that 'matter' when arranged a certain way...can then PERCEIVE a sensation. Scratch the back of your hand - how UNIQUE in the ENTIRE universe is that?

What do we then have if we replicate all the matter that makes U? U in two places in spacetime? Nah.

This matter arranged in a certain way that then perceives a sensation - indeed has UNIQUE consciousness (to it) is rather amazing.

To me, it's akin to a pointer in a computer program - sort of - recursing a pointer (your soul) through matter (your body) - reincarnating YOU through time.

I'm a nominalist. You can't actually have numerically distinct things that are identical.

I also don't buy identity through time. X at T1 is not identical to x at T2.

(I'm also an atheist if you didn't know.)

Aside from this, I'm not sure what you're thinking consciousness has to do with my view expressed in the post above. Some of your comment isn't that clear to me.

A nominalist atheist? I knew you were an atheist - now I gotta look up nominalist. (sounds boring)

I do love how everyone has to identify with groups\ideologies. (not really)

1st off - I was addressing your point that time is change (U should refer it as events) - and that events are occurring throughout matter - hence we have time - matter congeals to make us - biological dudes that made up the concept of measurement of said events AND called it TIME.

Beyond that, I was just making philosophical -woteverness.


...ok just looked up nominalist - matter - does it exist beyond a conscious perception>?

...hey on a further read - looks like I will be caught up in a bunch of typical philosophical "stuff" that really should be put on the bottom shelf of boverdom.

[Terrapin Station]

All very well, but consciousness is the thing that screws everyone up - it's one thing to have a universe ticking over with events throughout matter, then it gets to the biological point of matter, and then we as 'beings' perceive things, ticking over.

Of course, it's no problem to an atheist such as Sculptor. Perhaps it's no big deal to an average theist.

It gets interesting when one thinks in terms of rearranging atoms and whatever is required to sub-atomically replicate YOU.

Strange that 'matter' when arranged a certain way...can then PERCEIVE a sensation. Scratch the back of your hand - how UNIQUE in the ENTIRE universe is that?

What do we then have if we replicate all the matter that makes U? U in two places in spacetime? Nah.

This matter arranged in a certain way that then perceives a sensation - indeed has UNIQUE consciousness (to it) is rather amazing.

To me, it's akin to a pointer in a computer program - sort of - recursing a pointer (your soul) through matter (your body) - reincarnating YOU through time.

I'm a nominalist. You can't actually have numerically distinct things that are identical.

I also don't buy identity through time. X at T1 is not identical to x at T2.

(I'm also an atheist if you didn't know.)

Aside from this, I'm not sure what you're thinking consciousness has to do with my view expressed in the post above. Some of your comment isn't that clear to me.

A nominalist atheist? I knew you were an atheist - now I gotta look up nominalist. (sounds boring)

I do love how everyone has to identify with groups\ideologies. (not really)

1st off - I was addressing your point that time is change (U should refer it as events) - and that events are occurring throughout matter - hence we have time - matter congeals to make us - biological dudes that made up the concept of measurement of said events AND called it TIME.

Beyond that, I was just making philosophical -woteverness.


...ok just looked up nominalist - matter - does it exist beyond a conscious perception>?

It's not an issue of "needing to identify as an X-ist"--it's simply that for many issues, one can have the view that P or that not-P, where the two options exhaust the possibilities, and there's a name for both positions. Referencing the name for the position is an abbreviated way of relaying that one has a particular view rather than another view (as long as one is familiar with the terms and what they conventionally refer to).

Time isn't the same thing as the measurement of time. Time is what we're measuring. Not the measurement. What we're measuring is motion or change (relative to other motions or changes).

Yes, matter exists beyond a conscious perception.

[Skepdick]

It's not an issue of "needing to identify as an X-ist"--it's simply that for many issues, one can have the view that P or that not-P, where the two options exhaust the possibilities, and there's a name for both positions.

The two options never exhaust the possibilities.

For undecidability between P and -P is always a third.

[attofishpi]

Terrapin - ultimately I was addressing the thread title:- What is your Framework and System of Reality?

- hopefully within the confines of your statement.

[Sculptor]

I'm not saying anything technical about the word "thing."

I think you are going to have to.

Think of "thing" as functioning like a variable or just being a "whatever."

eh?

Time and space aren't things in themselves.

So you are a closet Kantian.

Time is motion or change of matter. Space is the extension of and the extensional relations of matter.

Re politics, or any sort of abstract like that, it's a set of mental content (of course about particular behavior)--that is, a (sub)set of brain states. In this regard, I'm a nominalist. There are no objective abstracts. Abstraction refers to a manner of thinking about things (thinking being a subset of brain states).

So what is a thing?

I'm not saying anything like "time and space aren't real," or "time and space aren't objective" etc.

I'm saying that time is the motion/change of matter--or more broadly, it's processes or dynamicism in general, which is very real and objective. And space is the extension of and extensional relations of matter, which is also very real and objective.

Re "thing," I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. We can just use "existent" or "that which obtains" or whatever, so that there are no restrictions on the sort of existent that we're referring to. Time and space exist as above--as motion/change and as extension/extensional relations.

So you are happy to make distinctions between things and properties, and are happy to try to say that space and time are not things, but you are not brave enough to say what you mean by "thing".
That is a pretty poor state of affairs. Unless you know yourself what you mean by these words you cannot expect to have people pay regard to what you claim.
A property is also a thing.
So it is there is such a thing as a thing with only one property. A property has only one thing.

[Terrapin Station]

I think you are going to have to.

eh?

So you are a closet Kantian.


So what is a thing?

I'm not saying anything like "time and space aren't real," or "time and space aren't objective" etc.

I'm saying that time is the motion/change of matter--or more broadly, it's processes or dynamicism in general, which is very real and objective. And space is the extension of and extensional relations of matter, which is also very real and objective.

Re "thing," I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. We can just use "existent" or "that which obtains" or whatever, so that there are no restrictions on the sort of existent that we're referring to. Time and space exist as above--as motion/change and as extension/extensional relations.

So you are happy to make distinctions between things and properties, and are happy to try to say that space and time are not things, but you are not brave enough to say what you mean by "thing".
That is a pretty poor state of affairs. Unless you know yourself what you mean by these words you cannot expect to have people pay regard to what you claim.
A property is also a thing.
So it is there is such a thing as a thing with only one property. A property has only one thing.

Again, I'm not saying anything about "things," especially not in any technical, well-defined sense of that term. I have no interest in using "thing" in some technical way. In the post you're quoting above the only time I used the word "thing" was to announce that I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. So who knows why you're responding to that post via claiming that I'm making distinctions between "things" and other sorts of existents. Talk that hinges on technical uses of "thing" always seems really stupid to me.

[Sculptor]

I'm not saying anything like "time and space aren't real," or "time and space aren't objective" etc.

I'm saying that time is the motion/change of matter--or more broadly, it's processes or dynamicism in general, which is very real and objective. And space is the extension of and extensional relations of matter, which is also very real and objective.

Re "thing," I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. We can just use "existent" or "that which obtains" or whatever, so that there are no restrictions on the sort of existent that we're referring to. Time and space exist as above--as motion/change and as extension/extensional relations.

So you are happy to make distinctions between things and properties, and are happy to try to say that space and time are not things, but you are not brave enough to say what you mean by "thing".
That is a pretty poor state of affairs. Unless you know yourself what you mean by these words you cannot expect to have people pay regard to what you claim.
A property is also a thing.
So it is there is such a thing as a thing with only one property. A property has only one thing.

Again, I'm not saying anything about "things," especially not in any technical, well-defined sense of that term. I have no interest in using "thing" in some technical way. In the post you're quoting above the only time I used the word "thing" was to announce that I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. So who knows why you're responding to that post via claiming that I'm making distinctions between "things" and other sorts of existents. Talk that hinges on technical uses of "thing" always seems really stupid to me.

You don't know what a thing is , yes I get that.
THis means that you are not qualified to say that things cannot have just one property.

[Terrapin Station]

So you are happy to make distinctions between things and properties, and are happy to try to say that space and time are not things, but you are not brave enough to say what you mean by "thing".
That is a pretty poor state of affairs. Unless you know yourself what you mean by these words you cannot expect to have people pay regard to what you claim.
A property is also a thing.
So it is there is such a thing as a thing with only one property. A property has only one thing.

Again, I'm not saying anything about "things," especially not in any technical, well-defined sense of that term. I have no interest in using "thing" in some technical way. In the post you're quoting above the only time I used the word "thing" was to announce that I have no interest in building a technical definition of that term. So who knows why you're responding to that post via claiming that I'm making distinctions between "things" and other sorts of existents. Talk that hinges on technical uses of "thing" always seems really stupid to me.

You don't know what a thing is , yes I get that.
THis means that you are not qualified to say that things cannot have just one property.

If there's some technical definition of "thing" that you use that you think is important for discussions like this, you can share the definition and why you think it's important.

Otherwise we can just stick with "existent" or "that which obtains" or whatever. There's no existent that has just one property, for example.

[bahman]

While we must always ask questions of reality, we cannot simply jump to hasty conclusions because there are no justified reasons.

As I had stated,

• What is most practical and realistic is to work downward [justified empirically and philosophically] reducibly to the deepest point of
  1. what is known,
  2. knowable and
  3. of possible experience.
  
  Then we take Wittgenstein's advice,
  “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”,
  i.e. literally shut up and do not insist there is something further than whereof one cannot speak.

I simply disagree with him and you. One should always investigate any situation. What is the point of being intellectual otherwise?

I did not state we must stop questioning and investigation, note I stated above,
"While we must always ask questions of reality, we cannot simply jump to hasty conclusions because [where] there are no justified reasons."

What Wittgenstein implied in the quote above [in the context of his Book PI] is we should not jump hastily to a conclusion as in your case, i.e. there is a soul that survives beyond physical death.

In fact, he is hasty in his conclusion when he does not consider other alternatives that could be coherent.

You on the other hand is jumping to conclusion based on very crude pseudo reasoning, i.e. because we are conscious, therefore there must be a source of consciousness.

Your system of belief is incoherent because it cannot answer many things one of them being the hard problem of consciousness. The reality is that there is no problem in here once you change your system of belief. You are left on the field once you kill the opponent thought. There are other problems like Libet result of free will.

My system of belief is realistic i.e. confined to what is real.

As I stated above, we can continue to ask questions regarding the hard problem of consciousness, but we should not be hasty in jumping to conclusion on what is 'hard' consciousness without sound arguments and proof.

The point is what is to be believed must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK.]

What you believed is not verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK.] You are relying the metaphysical approach where the conclusions are illusory.

Consciousness is the state of begin aware.

Therefrom you cannot justify your conclusion empirically and philosophically.

Empirically? I experience mind once. Philosophically I have arguments in favor of my ideas

.
Personally I have various so-called altered states of consciousness. There are many reports of experiences of altered stated of consciousness, soul, God, the absolute, oneness, unity consciousness, etc. by those who meditate, pray, took hallucinogens, has mental illness, has brain damage, etc. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
Research has indicated all those altered states of consciousness are merely brain activities within the person and not that there is something real [an essence] that is experienced.

Philosophers of the past, and modern has realized the above delusional tendency. Here is where Kant critiqued Plato hastiness [read it carefully];



I have stated, why you and gang are so hasty in jumping to conclusion is due to a psychological drive to eliminate the existential dissonance.
I suggest you try to research and understand this point which is happening within your psyche.

I have many mental states that you are not aware of it.

As mentioned above, those mental states if extra-ordinary are more likely to be hallucinations.
If you are not engaging in some spiritual practices or took hallucinogenic drugs, it could be due to temporal epilepsy, or otherwise.

And where is the source of hallucination? I mean what causes it?

I am not sure of your question.
You'll need to elaborate with more details.

I believe in 'causality' which is conditioned upon the human conditions and there is no ultimate cause that can be known experientially.

Think of the situation when you are following a chain of causality, chain of thoughts for example. Couldn't you stop thinking whenever you wish?

It is impossible to deliberately and consciously stop thinking, i.e. to think of "stopping thinking" is thinking itself.

I have been meditator for MANY years and have done various types of meditation.
In mantra meditation, one in a state of relaxation focus on a sound to its source but at some point, all thinking [consciously aware] will disappeared and one is suspended in 'nothingness' with extra-ordinary experiences.
In that case, it is not willing and deliberately stopping the thinking process, but the loss of thinking is merely spontaneous.

But whatever is experienced in that state is not "of-something" i.e. an essence but rather is it merely a manifestation of brain activities.
Even though there is "no" conscious thinking, the brain is still active and neurons are still firing in its various parts. See image below;

See the work of Andrew Newberg;

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.

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

[bahman]

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but say an electron orbiting a proton is going to have different properties than either an electron in isolation or a proton in isolation simply because an electron orbiting a proton is different (it's a different dynamic relation) than either particle in isolation. Differences in materials, relations and processes make differences in properties.

Does the whole in a specific configuration have a specific property and not any other property? I think the answer to this question is yes, the whole show a very specific property any time that you bring the whole in that configuration.

Are you asking if things only have one property? No. Of course not. Nothing only has one property.

No.

[Terrapin Station]

Does the whole in a specific configuration have a specific property and not any other property? I think the answer to this question is yes, the whole show a very specific property any time that you bring the whole in that configuration.

Are you asking if things only have one property? No. Of course not. Nothing only has one property.

No.

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? "

[bahman]

Are you asking if things only have one property? No. Of course not. Nothing only has one property.

No.

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.

[Terrapin Station]

No.

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?