Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:59 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:56 pm
A slab of concrete is not "a being".
Pretty much all the threads you contrinute to, or start ,are all about this sort of basic abuse of language.

It acts. Being is that which acts. A slab of concrete is a being and as one facet of being it reflects all of being as having a degree of consciousness.

No concrete cannot "ACT". You are once again confusing two different meanings of act, just like you confuse two meanings of being.
If you can't be bothered to think. I can't be bothered to respond to this nonsense.

It cracks and crumbles therefore it acts. Concrete acts this way under pressure.....I can break this down into little baby steps for you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:11 pm

1. Two prior physicals things coming together are being.

Okay.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:11 pm 2. A slab of concrete has form thus "it is".

This reply, however, did NOT answer the ACTUAL CLARIFYING question I posed, to 'you'.

Actually it did, you are just not honest about it being an answer.

OF COURSE your reply is AN answer, but just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that your reply/answer did NOT answer the ACTUAL CLARIFYING question I posed, to 'you'.

Surely, 'you' can SEE this, correct?

LOOK, I am asking 'you', 'Is a slab of concrete a being?'

An answer, which answers the ACTUAL CLARIFYING question, is a 'Yes' or a 'No'.

Saying, " A slab of concrete has form thus "it is" " does NOT inform me of if a slab of concrete is a 'being' or not.

Is it too hard for you to commit to a 'Yes' or a 'No' answer?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:03 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:59 pm

It acts. Being is that which acts. A slab of concrete is a being and as one facet of being it reflects all of being as having a degree of consciousness.

No concrete cannot "ACT". You are once again confusing two different meanings of act, just like you confuse two meanings of being.
If you can't be bothered to think. I can't be bothered to respond to this nonsense.

It cracks and crumbles therefore it acts. Concrete acts this way under pressure.....I can break this down into little baby steps for you.

It is passive. It does not live. It is not a being.
When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong it is time to consider it a possibility
Please refer to the posts I made above.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:46 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:03 am

Okay.



This reply, however, did NOT answer the ACTUAL CLARIFYING question I posed, to 'you'.

Actually it did, you are just not honest about it being an answer.

OF COURSE your reply is AN answer, but just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that your reply/answer did NOT answer the ACTUAL CLARIFYING question I posed, to 'you'.

Surely, 'you' can SEE this, correct?

LOOK, I am asking 'you', 'Is a slab of concrete a being?'

An answer, which answers the ACTUAL CLARIFYING question, is a 'Yes' or a 'No'.

Saying, " A slab of concrete has form thus "it is" " does NOT inform me of if a slab of concrete is a 'being' or not.

Is it too hard for you to commit to a 'Yes' or a 'No' answer?

"It is" is being. From a perspective of all that exists having a degree of consciousness behind it necessitates all that exists as having a being.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:03 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:00 pm

No concrete cannot "ACT". You are once again confusing two different meanings of act, just like you confuse two meanings of being.
If you can't be bothered to think. I can't be bothered to respond to this nonsense.

It cracks and crumbles therefore it acts. Concrete acts this way under pressure.....I can break this down into little baby steps for you.

It is passive. It does not live. It is not a being.
When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong it is time to consider it a possibility
Please refer to the posts I made above.

It acts.

Dually being which is alive and responds to impulses is passive as well. Passiveness cannot be defined as the sole variable in determining whether something is actual or not. That which is passive acts in response to stimulation.

From a perspective where the universe is consciousness, all phenomenon have a degree of consciousness behind them...even the concrete.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:27 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:03 pm

It cracks and crumbles therefore it acts. Concrete acts this way under pressure.....I can break this down into little baby steps for you.

It is passive. It does not live. It is not a being.
When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong it is time to consider it a possibility
Please refer to the posts I made above.

It acts.

NO.

Dually being which is alive and responds to impulses is passive as well. Passiveness cannot be defined as the sole variable in determining whether something is actual or not. That which is passive acts in response to stimulation.

Contradiction

From a perspective where the universe is consciousness, all phenomenon have a degree of consciousness behind them...even the concrete.

But the universe is clearly not conscious.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:27 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:35 am

It is passive. It does not live. It is not a being.
When the rest of the world is telling you that you are wrong it is time to consider it a possibility
Please refer to the posts I made above.

It acts.

NO.

Dually being which is alive and responds to impulses is passive as well. Passiveness cannot be defined as the sole variable in determining whether something is actual or not. That which is passive acts in response to stimulation.

Contradiction

From a perspective where the universe is consciousness, all phenomenon have a degree of consciousness behind them...even the concrete.

But the universe is clearly not conscious.

1. Concrete crumbles therefore it acts in response to stimulus.

2. Being responds to impulses therefore it is passive.

3. It is not clear that the universe is absent of consciousness. Consciousness is action, the universe acts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:49 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:27 pm

It acts.

NO.

Dually being which is alive and responds to impulses is passive as well. Passiveness cannot be defined as the sole variable in determining whether something is actual or not. That which is passive acts in response to stimulation.

Contradiction

From a perspective where the universe is consciousness, all phenomenon have a degree of consciousness behind them...even the concrete.

But the universe is clearly not conscious.

1. Concrete crumbles therefore it acts in response to stimulus.

2. Being responds to impulses therefore it is passive.

3. It is not clear that the universe is absent of consciousness. Consciousness is action, the universe acts.

1. Acts require actors. You are abusing language as per usual.*
2. This is incoherent, and is a contradiction of what you are trying to say at 1.
3. I think that is pretty clear that all evidences, in all instances of consciousness are in the presence of living brain tissue. You might as well say that it is not clear the MacDonald's Chicken nuggets are absent on the far side of Pluto.

* This is not just your wilful mistake, our language is littered with primitive teleologies. Mature reflection, though ought to make you more aware of this problem.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:49 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:28 pm
NO.

Contradiction


But the universe is clearly not conscious.

1. Concrete crumbles therefore it acts in response to stimulus.

2. Being responds to impulses therefore it is passive.

3. It is not clear that the universe is absent of consciousness. Consciousness is action, the universe acts.

1. Acts require actors. You are abusing language as per usual.*
2. This is incoherent, and is a contradiction of what you are trying to say at 1.
3. I think that is pretty clear that all evidences, in all instances of consciousness are in the presence of living brain tissue. You might as well say that it is not clear the MacDonald's Chicken nuggets are absent on the far side of Pluto.

* This is not just your wilful mistake, our language is littered with primitive teleologies. Mature reflection, though ought to make you more aware of this problem.

1. The concrete crumbling necessitates it as an actor, ie that which acts.

2. Response to an impulse is an action. To respond to action necessitates a prior passive state. That which is passive is moved to an active state yet it does not change the fact its continual response to action necessitates even the actions require a dual passive state. Continual response to action necessitates an inherent passive state, which is part of the phenomenon, as always existing.

3. Heart transplants have been found to change the emotional temperaments of the recipient. Consciousness could lie in the heart as well. Dually if all conciousness is found only in tissues then tissues are observing tissues and consciousness is circular. If circular then there is a form which exists beyond the tissues which determine consciousness.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:23 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:49 pm

1. Concrete crumbles therefore it acts in response to stimulus.

2. Being responds to impulses therefore it is passive.

3. It is not clear that the universe is absent of consciousness. Consciousness is action, the universe acts.

1. Acts require actors. You are abusing language as per usual.*
2. This is incoherent, and is a contradiction of what you are trying to say at 1.
3. I think that is pretty clear that all evidences, in all instances of consciousness are in the presence of living brain tissue. You might as well say that it is not clear the MacDonald's Chicken nuggets are absent on the far side of Pluto.

* This is not just your wilful mistake, our language is littered with primitive teleologies. Mature reflection, though ought to make you more aware of this problem.

1. The concrete crumbling necessitates it as an actor, ie that which acts.

You were wrong the first time.

2.

Concrete is not alive
run along now.

Emptiness is liberation from being.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:23 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:08 am

1. Acts require actors. You are abusing language as per usual.*
2. This is incoherent, and is a contradiction of what you are trying to say at 1.
3. I think that is pretty clear that all evidences, in all instances of consciousness are in the presence of living brain tissue. You might as well say that it is not clear the MacDonald's Chicken nuggets are absent on the far side of Pluto.

* This is not just your wilful mistake, our language is littered with primitive teleologies. Mature reflection, though ought to make you more aware of this problem.

1. The concrete crumbling necessitates it as an actor, ie that which acts.

You were wrong the first time.

2.

Concrete is not alive
run along now.

Get over it...concrete acts because it crumbles.

Why the heck is nothing something which is behind being? Why is not being behind nothing, as with Sartre, who asserts that nothingness is supported by being?

Fja1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:29 pm Why the heck is nothing something which is behind being? Why is not being behind nothing, as with Sartre, who asserts that nothingness is supported by being?

Nothingness is the point of differentiation within being and as a point of differentiation is a gap. Through the progression of being through time, nothingness is before and after being considering the change occurs prior to and after a new being is created.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:19 pmNothingness is the point of differentiation within being and as a point of differentiation is a gap. Through the progression of being through time, nothingness is before and after being considering the change occurs prior to and after a new being is created.

To me, all you're saying is that being is conceived as an interval, which defines the unsurpassable limits of its freedom. An argument of epistomology, not ontology. I can not be in place x, and place y, at the same time, but the gap beween place x and y exists only epistemologically. Ontologically, if I am in place x, the void is place y. Ontologically, nothingness is supported by being, not the other way around.