1
   

I do, therefore I am

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 08:39 am
@Fountofwisdom,
Fountofwisdom wrote:

The material and the ideal are two aspects of the same thing.

Can u prove this point ?





David
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 03:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David,

I notice you ask for "proof" both here and on the "spirituality" thread, but at this level of discourse the very nature of "proof" is open to deconstruction because "reality" is itself being negotiated. Even scientists do not look for "proof" as such, only for best -fit explanations which are "falsifiable in principle".
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 03:54 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

David,

I notice you ask for "proof" both here and on the "spirituality" thread, but at this level of discourse the very nature of "proof" is open to deconstruction because "reality" is itself being negotiated. Even scientists do not look for "proof" as such, only for best -fit explanations which are "falsifiable in principle".

I will attempt another semantic approach:
is there a reason
that we shoud believe that
the material and the ideal are two aspects of the same thing ?





David
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 04:18 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It was not my point, but there are at least two reasons why "body" and "mind" shoud be considered as unified. (1) If they belonged to different levels of existence there is no mechanism for interaction. (Descartes needed to evoke "God" for providing the linkage) (2) What we consider "material" is merely a concept subject to our everyday sensory experience. What is "solid" or "permanent" to humans is relative our physiology and lifespan.
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 06:37 pm
I can prove it: but only to myself: the external world being ficticious is just an annoyance. Look up Euclid on infinite regression. Basically you have to accept some things or you have no foundations to build on.
Suggest one conscious action that requires no thought?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 06:59 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

It was not my point, but there are at least two reasons why "body"
and "mind" shoud be considered as unified.

I am very pleased
to see that u did not jab any Ls into the word shoud,
where thay do NOT belong.
I am trying to decide whether to feel exhilarated.


Quote:

(1) If they belonged
to different levels of existence there is no mechanism for interaction.
(Descartes needed to evoke "God" for providing the linkage)

Do we know that for a FACT ?
Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence ?




Quote:

(2) What we consider "material" is merely a concept
subject to our everyday sensory experience.
What is "solid" or "permanent" to humans is relative our physiology and lifespan.

WoW !
That 's very true.

Few people KNOW that.
Your intellect is illuminated.





David
0 Replies
 
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 08:30 pm
In fact all matter is an illusion E=mcsquared. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Existence and consciousness are conceits brought about by Evolution.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 03:35 am
@Fountofwisdom,
I think we need to be careful in assigning "consciousness" to the category "conceipt" since that might make these very communications meaningless ! It night be better to consider the role of language...the medium of relationship....in giving a false sense of indepemdent reality to concepts.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 03:47 am
@fresco,
......I think the important point is that all concepts (thingness) are a function of relationship between "thinger" and "thinged". Such relationships are encapsulated by "language"...the "medium of relationship"...and the apparent independence of "words" (from time and space) gives a false sense of "reality" independent of particular observers. But in essence all "reality" is mutually co-existent with "its observer". The fact that observers might agree as to the nature of reality is a function of common language and common purpose involved in the specifically human trait of attempting to predict and control such reality.
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 04:34 am
@fresco,
I accept the point that we should understand what we both mean, and the points we are trying to make. From a Mathematical point of view (my strong point) you have to accept some things as true. Pre supposing your own existence and that of the outside world are a good start.
Obviously people who want to get philosophical awards can amuse themselves by making any assumptious they want.
I think linguistic arguments aren't as popular since Heidegger.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 07:49 pm
@Fountofwisdom,
Fountofwisdom wrote:

In fact all matter is an illusion E=mcsquared. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Existence and consciousness are conceits brought about by Evolution.

R u casting doubt upon existence ?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 03:23 am
The problems of "existence" cannot be solved by traditional logical/mathematics since such logic is based on static set theory which already assumes the existence and permanence of "things" independent of observers. and ignores the dynamics of relationships (i.e. the fluidity of "set membership"). Philosophically, this is a basis for "naive realism".

Some progress has been made in formalising the issue , for example, using a "systems theory" approach (see e.g. Capra "The Web of Life") but such a shift requires a re-examination of epistemological issues such as what is meant by "explanation". In general ontology (theories ofexistence) and epistemology (theories of knowledge) are inextricable from each other.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 04:22 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The problems of "existence" cannot be solved by traditional logical/mathematics since such logic is based on static set theory which already assumes the existence and permanence of "things" independent of observers. and ignores the dynamics of relationships (i.e. the fluidity of "set membership"). Philosophically, this is a basis for "naive realism".

Some progress has been made in formalising the issue , for example, using a "systems theory" approach (see e.g. Capra "The Web of Life") but such a shift requires a re-examination of epistemological issues such as what is meant by "explanation". In general ontology (theories of existence) and epistemology (theories of knowledge) are inextricable from each other.

Yes
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It's a scientific fact. E=mc squared. c squared is a constant. Energy and mass are equivilent. Basically you cant talk about space or time-----It is space/time
or matter or energy---------------its mass energy.
Basically all matter is on a knife edge: we could easily be transformed into pure Energy. Ask a scientist to explain De Broglie = lambda = mvh to you.
0 Replies
 
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:28 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
They cannot be solved by logic because they are irrational conceits. The questions of existence are less important as what shall I have for lunch. Its bad news for those who think humans are special. All matter is illusion. However if it keeps you entertained. I am being unfair. Thinking about things is human. And good exercise.
To Fresco, meaning is an another illusion, you are try to anthropromorphasise the universe
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 12:46 am
@Fountofwisdom,
Quote:
meaning is an another illusion, you are try to anthropromorphasise the universe


No ...you have a potential infinite regress problem because I can then ask for the "meaning of illusion". This would imply we cannot communicate at all.

( If you scan my posts over the last four years you will find that I cite Capra and Maturana who attempt to deal with the anthropomorphism problem, and also Wittgenstein who comments on "language games".)
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 05:10 am
@fresco,
I accept your point: I bleieve we basically agree that the problem is a tricky one, and worthy of debate. I approach this from a scientific point of view, which is less poetic. I appreciate that your approach is different. The point I am trying to make is that we can discuss things for our own entertainment regardless of any external meaning.
This is the case for science where we have a concept of pure science. Ironically pure science has proven to have more applications.
I would argue that there is a meaning to our words beyond the sum of their parts which is intangible. I accept this is metaphysical, however I would always take a holistic rather than reductionist approach. I will not argue for the existence of the intangible seeing as I am arguing against the existence of matter. I find that argument amusingly ironic. As per Kant, can we be reasonable.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2009 09:38 am
@Fountofwisdom,
See my reply to you on other thread. Also yoi might care to comment on
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 08:32:11