I don't exist. According to some philosophers they don't exist and I don't exist... . - Page 6

punshhh · 10th October 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

snip...

The merological nihilist should agree with the materialist in this case, and step into the teleporter without hesitation. Conscious experience has parts, after all; it is made up of perceived separate moments in time, and it's effected by an instrument, the brain, that has more separate parts and more complex parts than just about anything else we have direct experience with. So the nihilist should not be concerned at all about the possible discontinuation of something that never existed in the first place. But then, the nihilist should also be equally unconcerned about stepping in front of a bus, for exactly the same reason. So a seal of approval from the Nihilist Association of America would not and should not be a major selling point, for those contemplating using the teleporter.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thankyou, its a pleasure to discover a philosopher on these boards.

The last one I discovered vacated shortly afterwards. More's the pity, it can be a ruff and tumble place for the refined sensibility.

punshhh · 10th October 2012, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

I didn't read through all the ranting above because the answer to your question is in use of the word "qua." I skimmed and didn't notice anyone using it. (Surprise surprise surprise)

Philosophy is not crap, rather, people having philosophical conversations are corrupting the dialogue because they don't want to put logical parameters around the topic of conversation in order to deconstruct the ideas and learn about them.

Instead they want sound brilliant by cock blocking someone else's contributions to the discussion. (they feel clever when they do this.)

Qua is the key to a legitimate philosophical conversation.

If you are just having a conversation with a bunch of loudmouths espousing their pet theories and going off the rails into "what if" and "how do you know" and "well prove it then, smartypants"

You are not having a philosophical discussion. Philosophers will put parameters around the ideas in order to examine them. They might then change the parameters to examine it from a different perspective.

Perhaps its time to examine "existence".

What can we say?

Myriad · 10th October 2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Perhaps its time to examine "existence".

What can we say?

Seconded. I assumed that this:

Originally Posted by truethat

Before discussing "being" we must first put the parameters around what concept of being we are going to discuss. Hence "being qua being" "being as we accept being to be for the purpose of this discussion."

... would be followed up with a proposed working definition of "being" that would put the discussion on better footing and provide insight into levi's question; that is, that is useful for the purpose of this discussion. There were two links in that post, but since the first asserts some false statements and the second is rather sketchy, some work is clearly needed.

It appears now that no such definition is going to appear. Just a passing threadcrap instead?

Respectfully,
Myriad

tsig · 10th October 2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

There's no evidence that it needs to, so no need for there be a reason. However, it appears evident that it [i]tends to[/i]; that might have a reason but I don't know what it is.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Really? I haven't noticed that the universe is self aware.

Myriad · 10th October 2012, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Really? I haven't noticed that the universe is self aware.

That's odd. Are you not self-aware, or are you not a feature of the universe?

Respectfully,
Myriad

levi · 14th October 2012, 07:28 PM

Here is a link about the lump of clay and the statue. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/

I thought of something new about the lump of clay and the statue. Instead let’s use a living object. Take a brain. For example consciousness exists because it functions. If you smashed all the cells and they appeared in one pile the cells would exist all the time while consiousness exists only when it functions. Also this raises another interesting question about mereological nihilism. Since you function doesn't this prove that you exist? Even if mereological nihilism is true and the cells can be divided into fundamental particles how is consciousness divided?

gurugeorge · 15th October 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

That's odd. Are you not self-aware, or are you not a feature of the universe?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ah, but is he a real feature of the Universe?

j/k

I've been exercised a lot by questions in this area recently, and have been enjoying the thread.

One thing that's becoming clearer and clearer to me is that mereology, the "hard problem" of consciousness, free-will, and all sorts of other questions are knotted together here, and the way to cut the Gordian Knot is to just say, "**** it, the Universe is self-aware (in you and me)".

But of course putting it that way raises a whole bunch of red flags - the bogeyman of Idealism (and especially the many very ancient Asian versions of it), the spectre of Pantheism, the Fallacy of Composition, etc.

The way I'm thinking of it more and more is like this: it's not that the Universe as a whole has consciousness like a scaled-up version of human consciousness; nor does it have some spooky Consciousness with a big 'C' (as per mystical Eastern forms); it's rather that information exchange (which you could view as the ultimate refinement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason - valid for everything from physical causality to logical necessity) is the key concept. IOW, when an atom interacts with another atom, the same "thing" is happening as when I am conscious of you, or when any physical blob bumps into any other physical blob. Or to put it another way, the Universe is everywhere and everywhen doing one high-level, abstract "thing", of which an atom interacting with another atom, and me being conscious of you, are two concrete instantiations, and that one "thing" the Universe is doing is (as it were) the Universe "talking itself into existence" out of a background of some kind of primordial pure potential, by means of an apparent duality.

To tie the above to something concrete in one of your previous posts: a "glider" in LIFE really exists when the reductionalistically-mandated sequence of black and white squares interacts with a human observer. IOW, the presence of a human observer affords the reductionist rules an opporunity to cause something new in the world, that only exists in the interaction between those rules and an outside observer of a certain kind.

(Of course it should go without saying that the self-aware universe concept doesn't require anything woo; if it holds, it holds with pure physicalism - but what physicalism! Another point: if a part of the traditional task of philosophy was to try to aim at a synoptic view, then this task has been somewhat neglected of late, and the above line of thought might be a possible synoptic view that's fully compatible with physicalism, yet explains the appearance of mind, and has a kind of free-will/determinism compatibilism, similar to Dennett's, that falls out of it.)

punshhh · 17th October 2012, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

Seconded. I assumed that this:

... would be followed up with a proposed working definition of "being" that would put the discussion on better footing and provide insight into levi's question; that is, that is useful for the purpose of this discussion. There were two links in that post, but since the first asserts some false statements and the second is rather sketchy, some work is clearly needed.

It appears now that no such definition is going to appear. Just a passing threadcrap instead?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes "being" is not approached much around here, along with "existence" and "what we can't say" about either or anything else.

Folk seem to be under the miss-apprehension that because humanity has worked out a few things about what they have found around them. That they have therefore worked out something fundamental about existence.

A study of what we cannot say and don't know might be a useful exercise and bring some "in light of day" to the discussion.

punshhh · 17th October 2012, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Ah, but is he a real feature of the Universe?

j/k

I've been exercised a lot by questions in this area recently, and have been enjoying the thread.

One thing that's becoming clearer and clearer to me is that mereology, the "hard problem" of consciousness, free-will, and all sorts of other questions are knotted together here, and the way to cut the Gordian Knot is to just say, "**** it, the Universe is self-aware (in you and me)".

But of course putting it that way raises a whole bunch of red flags - the bogeyman of Idealism (and especially the many very ancient Asian versions of it), the spectre of Pantheism, the Fallacy of Composition, etc.

The way I'm thinking of it more and more is like this: it's not that the Universe as a whole has consciousness like a scaled-up version of human consciousness; nor does it have some spooky Consciousness with a big 'C' (as per mystical Eastern forms); it's rather that information exchange (which you could view as the ultimate refinement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason - valid for everything from physical causality to logical necessity) is the key concept. IOW, when an atom interacts with another atom, the same "thing" is happening as when I am conscious of you, or when any physical blob bumps into any other physical blob. Or to put it another way, the Universe is everywhere and everywhen doing one high-level, abstract "thing", of which an atom interacting with another atom, and me being conscious of you, are two concrete instantiations, and that one "thing" the Universe is doing is (as it were) the Universe "talking itself into existence" out of a background of some kind of primordial pure potential, by means of an apparent duality.

To tie the above to something concrete in one of your previous posts: a "glider" in LIFE really exists when the reductionalistically-mandated sequence of black and white squares interacts with a human observer. IOW, the presence of a human observer affords the reductionist rules an opporunity to cause something new in the world, that only exists in the interaction between those rules and an outside observer of a certain kind.

(Of course it should go without saying that the self-aware universe concept doesn't require anything woo; if it holds, it holds with pure physicalism - but what physicalism! Another point: if a part of the traditional task of philosophy was to try to aim at a synoptic view, then this task has been somewhat neglected of late, and the above line of thought might be a possible synoptic view that's fully compatible with physicalism, yet explains the appearance of mind, and has a kind of free-will/determinism compatibilism, similar to Dennett's, that falls out of it.)

Interesting. Modeling with particles/atoms as a link between the physical and the mental realities are an interesting exercise. But cannot address the issue of what aspects of existence as we know it, are unknown to us, unknowable, or inconceivable from our position and therefore what essential ingredient/s in the mix are present or required, for the existence we know to occur or function as it does.

Dancing David · 17th October 2012, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

A study of what we cannot say and don't know might be a useful exercise and bring some "in light of day" to the discussion.

All we can discuss is the appearance of reality, there is no way to determine ontology that has been proposed.

So there is the appearance and that is what can be discussed, until a theory of ontology makes a testable prediction.

punshhh · 17th October 2012, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

All we can discuss is the appearance of reality, there is no way to determine ontology that has been proposed.

So there is the appearance and that is what can be discussed, until a theory of ontology makes a testable prediction.

Yes we cannot test any ontology.

However, one might take the view that the actual reality is present in the appearance and it merely requires the appropriate view or perspective to perceive it. If this were the case, one would see clearly the reality in the light of day. While looking out at the same world as other people who only perceive a dull monotony, or mechanical physicality.

tsig · 18th October 2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes we cannot test any ontology.

However, one might take the view that the actual reality is present in the appearance and it merely requires the appropriate view or perspective to perceive it. If this were the case, one would see clearly the reality in the light of day. While looking out at the same world as other people who only perceive a dull monotony, or mechanical physicality.

One might take that view but then one would be wrong.

levi · 18th October 2012, 07:49 PM

Mereological nihilism is the belief that fundamental particles only exist

Take an atom. You look at the fundamental particles that make up the atom. Either the atom or the fundamental particles exist. But both can’t exist because that would violate Leibniz law. Only one perceptive can exist. Same with consciousness. Consciousness exists because it functions. But consciousness can also be divided into fundamental particles.

It is like looking at a cube and only being able to perceive one side of the cube at a time. But the entire cube exists. Sure the cube can be divided into one of its six sides but it can also be seen as a cube. I guess I am assuming the cube is the universe. Than how does someone decide if the cube or the sides exist (I am assuming sides are fundamental particles) without violating Leibniz law? You can’t possibly add up both because than you would get the cube and one of the sides. So what you would do? If you can perceive the entire cube than you say cube. If you perceive the side and not the entire cube than you say side. Take for example the cube equals 6. Each side equals 1. If you add up the cube and one the sides at the same time you get 7. So the only solution is to pick one perceptive the cube or the sides. You pick whichever one you perceive. If you perceive both (if that is even possible) that causes problems but in the case of humans you don’t have to worry about perceiving both.

So the problem of mereological nihilism is solved like the cube and consciousness it can be divided and as fundamental particles and as a side of the cube. But it can never be both at once to the observer because that would violate Leibniz law.

Does any of this make sense? Can this be applied to a computer program like a glider and the computer code of the game of life? Can you try to keep your answers explained simply?

Thanks

Here are 2 links to mereological nihilism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/

Also are the 2 links above, when mentioning nihilism just possible solutions to the puzzles? And there are other possible answers? And if they show a variety of answers how do you know whch one is correct?

punshhh · 19th October 2012, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by levi

Mereological nihilism is the belief that fundamental particles only exist

Hi Levi,
I don't have time to read through the article right now, but I can give you my view of mereological nihilism as I understand it.

Also what Leibniz law are you referring to?

Firstly I don't see the purpose of referring to it as a belief. Beliefs are theological concepts and have no place in philosophy.

Quote:

Take an atom. You look at the fundamental particles that make up the atom. Either the atom or the fundamental particles exist. But both can’t exist because that would violate Leibniz law. Only one perceptive can exist. Same with consciousness. Consciousness exists because it functions. But consciousness can also be divided into fundamental particles.

What is fundamental about physical particles is something we cannot discover from within the system*. Likewise the significance within this issue of consciousness.

We are stuck with intellectual theorizing and gazing through the goldfish bowl of our minds.

Quote:

It is like looking at a cube and only being able to perceive one side of the cube at a time. But the entire cube exists. Sure the cube can be divided into one of its six sides but it can also be seen as a cube. I guess I am assuming the cube is the universe. Than how does someone decide if the cube or the sides exist (I am assuming sides are fundamental particles) without violating Leibniz law? You can’t possibly add up both because than you would get the cube and one of the sides. So what you would do? If you can perceive the entire cube than you say cube. If you perceive the side and not the entire cube than you say side. Take for example the cube equals 6. Each side equals 1. If you add up the cube and one the sides at the same time you get 7. So the only solution is to pick one perceptive the cube or the sides. You pick whichever one you perceive. If you perceive both (if that is even possible) that causes problems but in the case of humans you don’t have to worry about perceiving both.

Yes the analogy of the cube, while a little clunky does work to a fashion.

The problem with existence, is it cannot be examined logically, the mind cannot go there. Like the way that perceiving the whole cube requires the observer to be outside the cube. Likewise for the mind to perceive the whole (or logical view) of existence requires it to view it from outside. Which is impossible because the mind, by analogy,is a 2 dimensional construct in one flat surface of the cube.

Quote:

So the problem of mereological nihilism is solved like the cube and consciousness it can be divided and as fundamental particles and as a side of the cube. But it can never be both at once to the observer because that would violate Leibniz law.

For a start consciousness and the mind should be regarded as separate phenomena. However the same predicament illustrated by the cube analogy befalls them both. (the same problem for both).

To me mereological nihilism illustrates some of the difficulties of existence, for the human mind. But is inevitably confined within the goldfish bowl of intellectual thought. It cannot analyse, solve, or provide explanations for
issues of existence or anything fundamental about the phenomena of experience.

Although it is not alone in this regard.

*by suggesting that we cannot know from within the system, I am not saying that it cannot be known, that it is unknowable. Only that we as humans are unequipped to discover it ourselves.

Dancing David · 19th October 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Yes we cannot test any ontology.

However, one might take the view that the actual reality is present in the appearance and it merely requires the appropriate view or perspective to perceive it. If this were the case, one would see clearly the reality in the light of day. While looking out at the same world as other people who only perceive a dull monotony, or mechanical physicality.

I am sorry I am not following your train of thought. Reality appears.

Our brains work through many patterns and processes, not all of them appear to be valid predictors of the apparent reality.

Mechanical physicality need not be dull, I find it amazing, especially when gazing at stars or kissing my wife.

tsig · 19th October 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Hi Levi,
I don't have time to read through the article right now, but I can give you my view of mereological nihilism as I understand it.

Also what Leibniz law are you referring to?

Firstly I don't see the purpose of referring to it as a belief. Beliefs are theological concepts and have no place in philosophy.

What is fundamental about physical particles is something we cannot discover from within the system*. Likewise the significance within this issue of consciousness.

We are stuck with intellectual theorizing and gazing through the goldfish bowl of our minds.

Yes the analogy of the cube, while a little clunky does work to a fashion.

The problem with existence, is it cannot be examined logically, the mind cannot go there. Like the way that perceiving the whole cube requires the observer to be outside the cube. Likewise for the mind to perceive the whole (or logical view) of existence requires it to view it from outside. Which is impossible because the mind, by analogy,is a 2 dimensional construct in one flat surface of the cube.

For a start consciousness and the mind should be regarded as separate phenomena. However the same predicament illustrated by the cube analogy befalls them both. (the same problem for both).

To me mereological nihilism illustrates some of the difficulties of existence, for the human mind. But is inevitably confined within the goldfish bowl of intellectual thought. It cannot analyse, solve, or provide explanations for
issues of existence or anything fundamental about the phenomena of experience.

Although it is not alone in this regard.

*by suggesting that we cannot know from within the system, I am not saying that it cannot be known, that it is unknowable. Only that we as humans are unequipped to discover it ourselves.

Then how shall we find it out?

levi · 19th October 2012, 12:14 PM

I am having a little trouble understanding does the idea that I wrote solve the problem of mereological nihilism?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/

Also are the 2 links above, when mentioning nihilism are possible solutions to the puzzles? And there are other possible answers besides nihilism? And if they show a variety of answers how do you know which one is correct?

levi · 20th October 2012, 12:26 PM

Can someone please answer my questions?

Here is a correction to the link that is not working.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/

One more thing I found an article on mereological nihilism and am wondering if there are any flaws. Here it is.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...2/fulltext.pdf

levi · 23rd October 2012, 11:59 AM

Can someone explain existence monism and priority monism? Is either supported by science? Do either support that people or chairs don't exist? I am pretty sure that no one agrees with priority monism and that existence monism allows for chairs and people to exist, correct?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/

dafydd · 24th October 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Then how shall we find it out?

By concentrating on unknown unknowns beyond the event horizon of the formless. How else?

dafydd · 24th October 2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by levi

Can someone explain existence monism and priority monism? Is either supported by science? Do either support that people or chairs don't exist? I am pretty sure that no one agrees with priority monism and that existence monism allows for chairs and people to exist, correct?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/

Who cares?

levi · 26th October 2012, 09:24 PM

I care.

Existence monism is that the world is one object but can't be divided, I think. But how does this differ from priority monism? How can existence monism be argued against?

The link is above for both monism.

Thanks

PixyMisa · 27th October 2012, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by levi

I am having a little trouble understanding does the idea that I wrote solve the problem of mereological nihilism?

It's very, very simple.

Take a mereological nihilist.

Hit him with a baseball bat.

Ask him if the bat exists.

Done.

dafydd · 27th October 2012, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by levi

I care.

Existence monism is that the world is one object but can't be divided, I think.

Everything is divided. I have discovered that my cat is not attached to my CD player.

punshhh · 28th October 2012, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am sorry I am not following your train of thought. Reality appears.

I am simply stating the essential mystical attitude to existence.

1,something exists.

2,what exists is likely inconceivable.

3,what exists is ever present, conscious entities are face to face with it, as there is nothing else.

4,therefore we know(by acquaintance) what exists, while not understanding it and remaining blind to that which is directly before our eyes.

Quote:

Mechanical physicality need not be dull, I find it amazing, especially when gazing at stars or kissing my wife.

Quite so.

dafydd · 28th October 2012, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I am simply stating the essential mystical attitude to existence.

1,something exists.

2,what exists is likely inconceivable.

3,what exists is ever present, conscious entities are face to face with it, as there is nothing else.

4,therefore we know(by acquaintance) what exists, while not understanding it and remaining blind to that which is directly before our eyes.

Quite so.

Something that is inconceivable exists? You don't see a problem there? That means that one can make up any old crap.

levi · 28th October 2012, 10:58 AM

I found a way to refute mereological nihilism.

http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ip-of-theseus/

Can someone explain this paragraph?

"So how does this apply to the Ship of Theseus or the Sorites Paradox? Well, it’s not a problem that can be solved, really, a priori. (Incidentally, this is my problem with the principle of explosion: just write “p AND !p” as an invalid combination into the axioms….) These problems will be solved by language and a posteriori judgments: any distinction is going to be arbitrary and you might as well embrace that. Make it not arbitrary: pick a point at which you’re comfortable no longer calling it the Ship or a mound, and stick to your guns. But… write in a little clause that “this judgment subject to change” or something."

I kinda understand the prinicipal of explosion. But have no idea what priori and posteriori mean. I could just look it up but in this sentence I am not sure the exact definition. Can someone simply explain what the paragraph means. Also what does "!P" mean? Is this just a negative sign?

Also does this person entire post refuted by an earlier post here

Objection 2: How does mereological nihilism account for emergent properties?

"Response: Keep in mind that mereological nihilism is a thesis concerned with identity, not properties. The mereological nihilist can still recognize the existence of complex interactions between atomic simples that give rise to emergent properties (as is often pointed out, individual water molecules are not wet, while large groups of water molecules are), even if those interactions do not give rise to composite identity."

dafydd · 28th October 2012, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by levi

I found a way to refute mereological nihilism.

http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ip-of-theseus/

Can someone explain this paragraph?

"So how does this apply to the Ship of Theseus or the Sorites Paradox? Well, it’s not a problem that can be solved, really, a priori. (Incidentally, this is my problem with the principle of explosion: just write “p AND !p” as an invalid combination into the axioms….) These problems will be solved by language and a posteriori judgments: any distinction is going to be arbitrary and you might as well embrace that. Make it not arbitrary: pick a point at which you’re comfortable no longer calling it the Ship or a mound, and stick to your guns. But… write in a little clause that “this judgment subject to change” or something."

I kinda understand the prinicipal of explosion. But have no idea what priori and posteriori mean. I could just look it up but in this sentence I am not sure the exact definition. Can someone simply explain what the paragraph means. Also what does "!P" mean? Is this just a negative sign?

Also does this person entire post refuted by an earlier post here

Objection 2: How does mereological nihilism account for emergent properties?

"Response: Keep in mind that mereological nihilism is a thesis concerned with identity, not properties. The mereological nihilist can still recognize the existence of complex interactions between atomic simples that give rise to emergent properties (as is often pointed out, individual water molecules are not wet, while large groups of water molecules are), even if those interactions do not give rise to composite identity."

Of the two antithetic terms in the Greek philosophy one only was
real and self-subsisting; and that one was Ideal Thought as
opposed to that which it has to penetrate and mould. The other,
corresponding to our Nature, was in itself phenomenal, unreal,
without any permanent footing, having no predicates that held
true for two moments together; in short, redeemed from negation
only by including indwelling realities appearing through.

levi · 28th October 2012, 12:52 PM

I am sorry I don't really understand that last post. Where did you get your info from? Will you simpyly explain the paragraph with priori and posterior to me?

Thanks

dafydd · 28th October 2012, 12:59 PM

I had got as far as this in thinking the thing out when that 'Types of Ethical Theory' caught my eye. I opened it, and I give you my honest word this was what hit me:

Of the two antithetic terms in the Greek philosophy one only was
real and self-subsisting; and that one was Ideal Thought as
opposed to that which it has to penetrate and mould. The other,
corresponding to our Nature, was ill itself phenomenal, unreal,
without any permanent footing, having no predicates that held
true for two moments together; in short, redeemed from negation
only by including indwelling realities appearing through.

Well -- I mean to say -- what? And Nietzsche, from all accounts, a lot worse than that!

'Jeeves,' I said, when he came in with my morning tea, 'I've been thinking it over. You're engaged again.'

'Thank you, sir.'

I sucked down a cheerful mouthful. A great respect for this bloke's judgement began to soak through me.

'Oh, Jeeves,' I said; 'about that check suit.'

'Yes, sir?'

'Is it really a frost?'

'A trifle too bizarre, sir, in my opinion.'

'But lots of fellows have asked me who my tailor is.'

'Doubtless in order to avoid him, sir.'

'He's supposed to be one of the best men in "London.'

'I am saying nothing against his moral character, sir.'

I hesitated a bit. I had a feeling that I was passing into this chappie's clutches, and that if I gave in now I should become lust like poor old Aubrey Fothergill, unable to call my soul my own. On the other hand, this was obviously a cove of rare intelligence, and it would be a comfort in a lot of ways to have him doing the thinking for me. I made up my mind.

'All right, Jeeves,' I said. 'You know! Give the bally thing away to somebody!'

He looked down at me like a father gazing tenderly at the wayward child.

'Thank you, sir. I gave it to the under-gardener last night. A little more tea, sir ?'

dafydd · 28th October 2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by levi

I found a way to refute mereological nihilism.

http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ip-of-theseus/

"So how does this apply to the Ship of Theseus or the Sorites Paradox? Well, it’s not a problem that can be solved, really, a priori. (Incidentally, this is my problem with the principle of explosion: just write “p AND !p” as an invalid combination into the axioms….) These problems will be solved by language and a posteriori judgments: any distinction is going to be arbitrary and you might as well embrace that. Make it not arbitrary: pick a point at which you’re comfortable no longer calling it the Ship or a mound, and stick to your guns. But… write in a little clause that “this judgment subject to change” or something."

I don't understand philosophical waffle either.

Twiler · 29th October 2012, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I don't understand philosophical waffle either.

If you're not interested in the subject, why are you talking about it?

Merton · 29th October 2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by levi

I am sorry I don't really understand that last post. Where did you get your info from? Will you simpyly explain the paragraph with priori and posterior to me?

Thanks

The simplest way to distinguish a priori from a posteriori is that the latter requires experience, the former does not. For instance, you know that married people are not bachelors even if you have no experience of married people or bachelors; they are incompatible because of the definitions of the terms. On the other hand, the claim that married people are more satisfied in life than the unmarried is an a posteriori claim (one which requires experience).

Finally, !P (also written ~P) is read "not P" and is the negation of P. For example, if P is the proposition that dogs like bones, !P is the proposition that dogs do not like bones. I hope this helps!

dafydd · 29th October 2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

If you're not interested in the subject, why are you talking about it?

Why do you think I am not interested in it?

Twiler · 29th October 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why do you think I am not interested in it?

You seemed rather dismissive.

dafydd · 29th October 2012, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

You seemed rather dismissive.

I find philosophical waffle amusing. It's more of a pastime than a discipline.

Every child who has the use
Of their senses knows a goose.
See them underneath the tree
Gather round the goose-girl's knee,
While she reads them by the hour
From the works of Schopenhauer.

How patiently the geese attend!
But do they really comprehend
What Schopenhauer's driving at?
Oh, not at all; but what of that?
Neither do I; neither does she;
And, for that matter, nor does he.-Oliver Herford

PixyMisa · 30th October 2012, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by levi

I found a way to refute mereological nihilism.

Bat.

Quote:

I kinda understand the prinicipal of explosion. But have no idea what priori and posteriori mean. I could just look it up but in this sentence I am not sure the exact definition.

Before and after, respectively.

Quote:

Also what does "!P" mean? Is this just a negative sign?

It means "not P", the inverse of proposition P.

Quote:

Also does this person entire post refuted by an earlier post here

Objection 2: How does mereological nihilism account for emergent properties?

"Response: Keep in mind that mereological nihilism is a thesis concerned with identity, not properties. The mereological nihilist can still recognize the existence of complex interactions between atomic simples that give rise to emergent properties (as is often pointed out, individual water molecules are not wet, while large groups of water molecules are), even if those interactions do not give rise to composite identity."

He's saying what I said to you before: Mereological nihilism doesn't say anything about reality, it says something about language. What is real is still real. You exist whether you accept mereological nihilism or not, just as you exist whether you speak English or Swahili. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

PixyMisa · 30th October 2012, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I am simply stating the essential mystical attitude to existence.

1,something exists.

2,what exists is likely inconceivable.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

dafydd · 30th October 2012, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You noticed that too? The word ''infinity'' foxed him as well.

levi · 30th October 2012, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

.

He's saying what I said to you before: Mereological nihilism doesn't say anything about reality, it says something about language. What is real is still real. You exist whether you accept mereological nihilism or not, just as you exist whether you speak English or Swahili. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

I am pretty sure that the person is saying that mereological nihilism denies that I exist and that emergence is not a good way to prove that I exist. Is there any merit to what he is saying? Here is the quote below

"Response: Keep in mind that mereological nihilism is a thesis concerned with identity, not properties. The mereological nihilist can still recognize the existence of complex interactions between atomic simples that give rise to emergent properties (as is often pointed out, individual water molecules are not wet, while large groups of water molecules are), even if those interactions do not give rise to composite identity.”

Also the fundamental particles must combine in a way to create a brain, specifically thought In other words consciousness. Does this mean that I exist because of how the fundamental particles must combine? Even if we are a bunch of fundamental particles let’s call them “atoms”. The atoms must combine in a way to create consciousness proving that I exist. Is this called emergence? This is not even assuming there is more than one fundamental particle. Is it possible for there to be one fundamental particle? Does this change the answer in anyway?

Is consciousness working and a house computer functioning different than a chair? Or are all of them the same if you look at the fundamental particles? If you look at a computer running and consciousness working it performs a task the fundamental particles must combine in a different way than just a chair? Maybe the wood in the chair is different but the actual shape of the wood is just arranged in a shape of an object making chairs not exist, but people and computers do exist. Is this correct?

If you had the ability to perceive fundamental particles could you say I don’t exist, or would I exist because of what was said above? This is taken into consideration that myriad post about processing power is not taken into account.

10th October 2012, 02:45 PM	#203
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,198	Originally Posted by punshhh Perhaps its time to examine "existence". What can we say? Seconded. I assumed that this: Originally Posted by truethat Before discussing "being" we must first put the parameters around what concept of being we are going to discuss. Hence "being qua being" "being as we accept being to be for the purpose of this discussion." ... would be followed up with a proposed working definition of "being" that would put the discussion on better footing and provide insight into levi's question; that is, that is useful for the purpose of this discussion. There were two links in that post, but since the first asserts some false statements and the second is rather sketchy, some work is clearly needed. It appears now that no such definition is going to appear. Just a passing threadcrap instead? Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

10th October 2012, 05:39 PM	#205
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,198	Originally Posted by tsig Really? I haven't noticed that the universe is self aware. That's odd. Are you not self-aware, or are you not a feature of the universe? Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

14th October 2012, 07:28 PM	#206
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Here is a link about the lump of clay and the statue. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/ I thought of something new about the lump of clay and the statue. Instead let’s use a living object. Take a brain. For example consciousness exists because it functions. If you smashed all the cells and they appeared in one pile the cells would exist all the time while consiousness exists only when it functions. Also this raises another interesting question about mereological nihilism. Since you function doesn't this prove that you exist? Even if mereological nihilism is true and the cells can be divided into fundamental particles how is consciousness divided?
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

15th October 2012, 12:48 PM	#207
gurugeorge Scholar Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 53	Originally Posted by Myriad That's odd. Are you not self-aware, or are you not a feature of the universe? Respectfully, Myriad Ah, but is he a real feature of the Universe? j/k I've been exercised a lot by questions in this area recently, and have been enjoying the thread. One thing that's becoming clearer and clearer to me is that mereology, the "hard problem" of consciousness, free-will, and all sorts of other questions are knotted together here, and the way to cut the Gordian Knot is to just say, "**** it, the Universe is self-aware (in you and me)". But of course putting it that way raises a whole bunch of red flags - the bogeyman of Idealism (and especially the many very ancient Asian versions of it), the spectre of Pantheism, the Fallacy of Composition, etc. The way I'm thinking of it more and more is like this: it's not that the Universe as a whole has consciousness like a scaled-up version of human consciousness; nor does it have some spooky Consciousness with a big 'C' (as per mystical Eastern forms); it's rather that information exchange (which you could view as the ultimate refinement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason - valid for everything from physical causality to logical necessity) is the key concept. IOW, when an atom interacts with another atom, the same "thing" is happening as when I am conscious of you, or when any physical blob bumps into any other physical blob. Or to put it another way, the Universe is everywhere and everywhen doing one high-level, abstract "thing", of which an atom interacting with another atom, and me being conscious of you, are two concrete instantiations, and that one "thing" the Universe is doing is (as it were) the Universe "talking itself into existence" out of a background of some kind of primordial pure potential, by means of an apparent duality. To tie the above to something concrete in one of your previous posts: a "glider" in LIFE really exists when the reductionalistically-mandated sequence of black and white squares interacts with a human observer. IOW, the presence of a human observer affords the reductionist rules an opporunity to cause something new in the world, that only exists in the interaction between those rules and an outside observer of a certain kind. (Of course it should go without saying that the self-aware universe concept doesn't require anything woo; if it holds, it holds with pure physicalism - but what physicalism! Another point: if a part of the traditional task of philosophy was to try to aim at a synoptic view, then this task has been somewhat neglected of late, and the above line of thought might be a possible synoptic view that's fully compatible with physicalism, yet explains the appearance of mind, and has a kind of free-will/determinism compatibilism, similar to Dennett's, that falls out of it.)
gurugeorge Scholar Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 53

17th October 2012, 04:31 AM	#210
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by punshhh A study of what we cannot say and don't know might be a useful exercise and bring some "in light of day" to the discussion. All we can discuss is the appearance of reality, there is no way to determine ontology that has been proposed. So there is the appearance and that is what can be discussed, until a theory of ontology makes a testable prediction.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

10th October 2012, 12:10 PM	#201
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Myriad snip... The merological nihilist should agree with the materialist in this case, and step into the teleporter without hesitation. Conscious experience has parts, after all; it is made up of perceived separate moments in time, and it's effected by an instrument, the brain, that has more separate parts and more complex parts than just about anything else we have direct experience with. So the nihilist should not be concerned at all about the possible discontinuation of something that never existed in the first place. But then, the nihilist should also be equally unconcerned about stepping in front of a bus, for exactly the same reason. So a seal of approval from the Nihilist Association of America would not and should not be a major selling point, for those contemplating using the teleporter. Respectfully, Myriad Thankyou, its a pleasure to discover a philosopher on these boards. The last one I discovered vacated shortly afterwards. More's the pity, it can be a ruff and tumble place for the refined sensibility.

10th October 2012, 12:19 PM	#202
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by truethat I didn't read through all the ranting above because the answer to your question is in use of the word "qua." I skimmed and didn't notice anyone using it. (Surprise surprise surprise) Philosophy is not crap, rather, people having philosophical conversations are corrupting the dialogue because they don't want to put logical parameters around the topic of conversation in order to deconstruct the ideas and learn about them. Instead they want sound brilliant by cock blocking someone else's contributions to the discussion. (they feel clever when they do this.) Qua is the key to a legitimate philosophical conversation. If you are just having a conversation with a bunch of loudmouths espousing their pet theories and going off the rails into "what if" and "how do you know" and "well prove it then, smartypants" You are not having a philosophical discussion. Philosophers will put parameters around the ideas in order to examine them. They might then change the parameters to examine it from a different perspective. Perhaps its time to examine "existence". What can we say?

10th October 2012, 05:17 PM	#204
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by Myriad There's no evidence that it needs to, so no need for there be a reason. However, it appears evident that it [i]tends to[/i]; that might have a reason but I don't know what it is. Respectfully, Myriad Really? I haven't noticed that the universe is self aware.

17th October 2012, 03:43 AM	#208
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Myriad Seconded. I assumed that this: ... would be followed up with a proposed working definition of "being" that would put the discussion on better footing and provide insight into levi's question; that is, that is useful for the purpose of this discussion. There were two links in that post, but since the first asserts some false statements and the second is rather sketchy, some work is clearly needed. It appears now that no such definition is going to appear. Just a passing threadcrap instead? Respectfully, Myriad Yes "being" is not approached much around here, along with "existence" and "what we can't say" about either or anything else. Folk seem to be under the miss-apprehension that because humanity has worked out a few things about what they have found around them. That they have therefore worked out something fundamental about existence. A study of what we cannot say and don't know might be a useful exercise and bring some "in light of day" to the discussion.

17th October 2012, 03:52 AM	#209
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by gurugeorge Ah, but is he a real feature of the Universe? j/k I've been exercised a lot by questions in this area recently, and have been enjoying the thread. One thing that's becoming clearer and clearer to me is that mereology, the "hard problem" of consciousness, free-will, and all sorts of other questions are knotted together here, and the way to cut the Gordian Knot is to just say, "**** it, the Universe is self-aware (in you and me)". But of course putting it that way raises a whole bunch of red flags - the bogeyman of Idealism (and especially the many very ancient Asian versions of it), the spectre of Pantheism, the Fallacy of Composition, etc. The way I'm thinking of it more and more is like this: it's not that the Universe as a whole has consciousness like a scaled-up version of human consciousness; nor does it have some spooky Consciousness with a big 'C' (as per mystical Eastern forms); it's rather that information exchange (which you could view as the ultimate refinement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason - valid for everything from physical causality to logical necessity) is the key concept. IOW, when an atom interacts with another atom, the same "thing" is happening as when I am conscious of you, or when any physical blob bumps into any other physical blob. Or to put it another way, the Universe is everywhere and everywhen doing one high-level, abstract "thing", of which an atom interacting with another atom, and me being conscious of you, are two concrete instantiations, and that one "thing" the Universe is doing is (as it were) the Universe "talking itself into existence" out of a background of some kind of primordial pure potential, by means of an apparent duality. To tie the above to something concrete in one of your previous posts: a "glider" in LIFE really exists when the reductionalistically-mandated sequence of black and white squares interacts with a human observer. IOW, the presence of a human observer affords the reductionist rules an opporunity to cause something new in the world, that only exists in the interaction between those rules and an outside observer of a certain kind. (Of course it should go without saying that the self-aware universe concept doesn't require anything woo; if it holds, it holds with pure physicalism - but what physicalism! Another point: if a part of the traditional task of philosophy was to try to aim at a synoptic view, then this task has been somewhat neglected of late, and the above line of thought might be a possible synoptic view that's fully compatible with physicalism, yet explains the appearance of mind, and has a kind of free-will/determinism compatibilism, similar to Dennett's, that falls out of it.) Interesting. Modeling with particles/atoms as a link between the physical and the mental realities are an interesting exercise. But cannot address the issue of what aspects of existence as we know it, are unknown to us, unknowable, or inconceivable from our position and therefore what essential ingredient/s in the mix are present or required, for the existence we know to occur or function as it does.

17th October 2012, 06:00 AM	#211
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Dancing David All we can discuss is the appearance of reality, there is no way to determine ontology that has been proposed. So there is the appearance and that is what can be discussed, until a theory of ontology makes a testable prediction. Yes we cannot test any ontology. However, one might take the view that the actual reality is present in the appearance and it merely requires the appropriate view or perspective to perceive it. If this were the case, one would see clearly the reality in the light of day. While looking out at the same world as other people who only perceive a dull monotony, or mechanical physicality.

18th October 2012, 05:02 PM	#212
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by punshhh Yes we cannot test any ontology. However, one might take the view that the actual reality is present in the appearance and it merely requires the appropriate view or perspective to perceive it. If this were the case, one would see clearly the reality in the light of day. While looking out at the same world as other people who only perceive a dull monotony, or mechanical physicality. One might take that view but then one would be wrong.

18th October 2012, 07:49 PM	#213
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Mereological nihilism is the belief that fundamental particles only exist Take an atom. You look at the fundamental particles that make up the atom. Either the atom or the fundamental particles exist. But both can’t exist because that would violate Leibniz law. Only one perceptive can exist. Same with consciousness. Consciousness exists because it functions. But consciousness can also be divided into fundamental particles. It is like looking at a cube and only being able to perceive one side of the cube at a time. But the entire cube exists. Sure the cube can be divided into one of its six sides but it can also be seen as a cube. I guess I am assuming the cube is the universe. Than how does someone decide if the cube or the sides exist (I am assuming sides are fundamental particles) without violating Leibniz law? You can’t possibly add up both because than you would get the cube and one of the sides. So what you would do? If you can perceive the entire cube than you say cube. If you perceive the side and not the entire cube than you say side. Take for example the cube equals 6. Each side equals 1. If you add up the cube and one the sides at the same time you get 7. So the only solution is to pick one perceptive the cube or the sides. You pick whichever one you perceive. If you perceive both (if that is even possible) that causes problems but in the case of humans you don’t have to worry about perceiving both. So the problem of mereological nihilism is solved like the cube and consciousness it can be divided and as fundamental particles and as a side of the cube. But it can never be both at once to the observer because that would violate Leibniz law. Does any of this make sense? Can this be applied to a computer program like a glider and the computer code of the game of life? Can you try to keep your answers explained simply? Thanks Here are 2 links to mereological nihilism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ Also are the 2 links above, when mentioning nihilism just possible solutions to the puzzles? And there are other possible answers? And if they show a variety of answers how do you know whch one is correct?
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 18th October 2012 at 08:13 PM.

19th October 2012, 12:48 AM	#214
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by levi Mereological nihilism is the belief that fundamental particles only exist Hi Levi, I don't have time to read through the article right now, but I can give you my view of mereological nihilism as I understand it. Also what Leibniz law are you referring to? Firstly I don't see the purpose of referring to it as a belief. Beliefs are theological concepts and have no place in philosophy. Quote: Take an atom. You look at the fundamental particles that make up the atom. Either the atom or the fundamental particles exist. But both can’t exist because that would violate Leibniz law. Only one perceptive can exist. Same with consciousness. Consciousness exists because it functions. But consciousness can also be divided into fundamental particles. What is fundamental about physical particles is something we cannot discover from within the system. Likewise the significance within this issue of consciousness. We are stuck with intellectual theorizing and gazing through the goldfish bowl of our minds. Quote: It is like looking at a cube and only being able to perceive one side of the cube at a time. But the entire cube exists. Sure the cube can be divided into one of its six sides but it can also be seen as a cube. I guess I am assuming the cube is the universe. Than how does someone decide if the cube or the sides exist (I am assuming sides are fundamental particles) without violating Leibniz law? You can’t possibly add up both because than you would get the cube and one of the sides. So what you would do? If you can perceive the entire cube than you say cube. If you perceive the side and not the entire cube than you say side. Take for example the cube equals 6. Each side equals 1. If you add up the cube and one the sides at the same time you get 7. So the only solution is to pick one perceptive the cube or the sides. You pick whichever one you perceive. If you perceive both (if that is even possible) that causes problems but in the case of humans you don’t have to worry about perceiving both. Yes the analogy of the cube, while a little clunky does work to a fashion. The problem with existence, is it cannot be examined logically, the mind cannot go there. Like the way that perceiving the whole cube requires the observer to be outside the cube. Likewise for the mind to perceive the whole (or logical view) of existence requires it to view it from outside. Which is impossible because the mind, by analogy,is a 2 dimensional construct in one flat surface of the cube. Quote: So the problem of mereological nihilism is solved like the cube and consciousness it can be divided and as fundamental particles and as a side of the cube. But it can never be both at once to the observer because that would violate Leibniz law. For a start consciousness and the mind should be regarded as separate phenomena. However the same predicament illustrated by the cube analogy befalls them both. (the same problem for both). To me mereological nihilism illustrates some of the difficulties of existence, for the human mind. But is inevitably confined within the goldfish bowl of intellectual thought. It cannot analyse, solve, or provide explanations for issues of existence or anything fundamental about the phenomena of experience. Although it is not alone in this regard.* *by suggesting that we cannot know from within the system, I am not saying that it cannot be known, that it is unknowable. Only that we as humans are unequipped to discover it ourselves.
	Last edited by punshhh; 19th October 2012 at 12:54 AM.

19th October 2012, 09:22 AM	#215
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,702	Originally Posted by punshhh Yes we cannot test any ontology. However, one might take the view that the actual reality is present in the appearance and it merely requires the appropriate view or perspective to perceive it. If this were the case, one would see clearly the reality in the light of day. While looking out at the same world as other people who only perceive a dull monotony, or mechanical physicality. I am sorry I am not following your train of thought. Reality appears. Our brains work through many patterns and processes, not all of them appear to be valid predictors of the apparent reality. Mechanical physicality need not be dull, I find it amazing, especially when gazing at stars or kissing my wife.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

19th October 2012, 09:27 AM	#216
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,718	Originally Posted by punshhh Hi Levi, I don't have time to read through the article right now, but I can give you my view of mereological nihilism as I understand it. Also what Leibniz law are you referring to? Firstly I don't see the purpose of referring to it as a belief. Beliefs are theological concepts and have no place in philosophy. What is fundamental about physical particles is something we cannot discover from within the system. Likewise the significance within this issue of consciousness. We are stuck with intellectual theorizing and gazing through the goldfish bowl of our minds. Yes the analogy of the cube, while a little clunky does work to a fashion. The problem with existence, is it cannot be examined logically, the mind cannot go there. Like the way that perceiving the whole cube requires the observer to be outside the cube. Likewise for the mind to perceive the whole (or logical view) of existence requires it to view it from outside. Which is impossible because the mind, by analogy,is a 2 dimensional construct in one flat surface of the cube. For a start consciousness and the mind should be regarded as separate phenomena. However the same predicament illustrated by the cube analogy befalls them both. (the same problem for both). To me mereological nihilism illustrates some of the difficulties of existence, for the human mind. But is inevitably confined within the goldfish bowl of intellectual thought. It cannot analyse, solve, or provide explanations for issues of existence or anything fundamental about the phenomena of experience. Although it is not alone in this regard.* *by suggesting that we cannot know from within the system, I am not saying that it cannot be known, that it is unknowable. Only that we as humans are unequipped to discover it ourselves. Then how shall we find it out?

19th October 2012, 12:14 PM	#217
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	I am having a little trouble understanding does the idea that I wrote solve the problem of mereological nihilism? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ Also are the 2 links above, when mentioning nihilism are possible solutions to the puzzles? And there are other possible answers besides nihilism? And if they show a variety of answers how do you know which one is correct?
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 19th October 2012 at 01:27 PM.

20th October 2012, 12:26 PM	#218
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Can someone please answer my questions? Here is a correction to the link that is not working. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...-constitution/ One more thing I found an article on mereological nihilism and am wondering if there are any flaws. Here it is. http://www.springerlink.com/content/...2/fulltext.pdf
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 20th October 2012 at 01:59 PM.

23rd October 2012, 11:59 AM	#219
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Can someone explain existence monism and priority monism? Is either supported by science? Do either support that people or chairs don't exist? I am pretty sure that no one agrees with priority monism and that existence monism allows for chairs and people to exist, correct? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	Last edited by levi; 23rd October 2012 at 12:00 PM.

24th October 2012, 01:10 PM	#220
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by tsig Then how shall we find it out? By concentrating on unknown unknowns beyond the event horizon of the formless. How else?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

24th October 2012, 01:11 PM	#221
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by levi Can someone explain existence monism and priority monism? Is either supported by science? Do either support that people or chairs don't exist? I am pretty sure that no one agrees with priority monism and that existence monism allows for chairs and people to exist, correct? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/ Who cares?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

26th October 2012, 09:24 PM	#222
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	I care. Existence monism is that the world is one object but can't be divided, I think. But how does this differ from priority monism? How can existence monism be argued against? The link is above for both monism. Thanks
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

27th October 2012, 05:02 AM	#223
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,910	Originally Posted by levi I am having a little trouble understanding does the idea that I wrote solve the problem of mereological nihilism? It's very, very simple. Take a mereological nihilist. Hit him with a baseball bat. Ask him if the bat exists. Done.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

27th October 2012, 09:19 AM	#224
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by levi I care. Existence monism is that the world is one object but can't be divided, I think. Everything is divided. I have discovered that my cat is not attached to my CD player.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th October 2012, 01:49 AM	#225
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Dancing David I am sorry I am not following your train of thought. Reality appears. I am simply stating the essential mystical attitude to existence. 1,something exists. 2,what exists is likely inconceivable. 3,what exists is ever present, conscious entities are face to face with it, as there is nothing else. 4,therefore we know(by acquaintance) what exists, while not understanding it and remaining blind to that which is directly before our eyes. Quote: Mechanical physicality need not be dull, I find it amazing, especially when gazing at stars or kissing my wife. Quite so.

28th October 2012, 05:01 AM	#226
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by punshhh I am simply stating the essential mystical attitude to existence. 1,something exists. 2,what exists is likely inconceivable. 3,what exists is ever present, conscious entities are face to face with it, as there is nothing else. 4,therefore we know(by acquaintance) what exists, while not understanding it and remaining blind to that which is directly before our eyes. Quite so. Something that is inconceivable exists? You don't see a problem there? That means that one can make up any old crap.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th October 2012, 10:58 AM	#227
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	I found a way to refute mereological nihilism. http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ip-of-theseus/ Can someone explain this paragraph? "So how does this apply to the Ship of Theseus or the Sorites Paradox? Well, it’s not a problem that can be solved, really, a priori. (Incidentally, this is my problem with the principle of explosion: just write “p AND !p” as an invalid combination into the axioms….) These problems will be solved by language and a posteriori judgments: any distinction is going to be arbitrary and you might as well embrace that. Make it not arbitrary: pick a point at which you’re comfortable no longer calling it the Ship or a mound, and stick to your guns. But… write in a little clause that “this judgment subject to change” or something." I kinda understand the prinicipal of explosion. But have no idea what priori and posteriori mean. I could just look it up but in this sentence I am not sure the exact definition. Can someone simply explain what the paragraph means. Also what does "!P" mean? Is this just a negative sign? Also does this person entire post refuted by an earlier post here Objection 2: How does mereological nihilism account for emergent properties? "Response: Keep in mind that mereological nihilism is a thesis concerned with identity, not properties. The mereological nihilist can still recognize the existence of complex interactions between atomic simples that give rise to emergent properties (as is often pointed out, individual water molecules are not wet, while large groups of water molecules are), even if those interactions do not give rise to composite identity."
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

28th October 2012, 11:18 AM	#228
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by levi I found a way to refute mereological nihilism. http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ip-of-theseus/ Can someone explain this paragraph? "So how does this apply to the Ship of Theseus or the Sorites Paradox? Well, it’s not a problem that can be solved, really, a priori. (Incidentally, this is my problem with the principle of explosion: just write “p AND !p” as an invalid combination into the axioms….) These problems will be solved by language and a posteriori judgments: any distinction is going to be arbitrary and you might as well embrace that. Make it not arbitrary: pick a point at which you’re comfortable no longer calling it the Ship or a mound, and stick to your guns. But… write in a little clause that “this judgment subject to change” or something." I kinda understand the prinicipal of explosion. But have no idea what priori and posteriori mean. I could just look it up but in this sentence I am not sure the exact definition. Can someone simply explain what the paragraph means. Also what does "!P" mean? Is this just a negative sign? Also does this person entire post refuted by an earlier post here Objection 2: How does mereological nihilism account for emergent properties? "Response: Keep in mind that mereological nihilism is a thesis concerned with identity, not properties. The mereological nihilist can still recognize the existence of complex interactions between atomic simples that give rise to emergent properties (as is often pointed out, individual water molecules are not wet, while large groups of water molecules are), even if those interactions do not give rise to composite identity." Of the two antithetic terms in the Greek philosophy one only was real and self-subsisting; and that one was Ideal Thought as opposed to that which it has to penetrate and mould. The other, corresponding to our Nature, was in itself phenomenal, unreal, without any permanent footing, having no predicates that held true for two moments together; in short, redeemed from negation only by including indwelling realities appearing through.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 28th October 2012 at 11:20 AM.

28th October 2012, 12:52 PM	#229
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472	I am sorry I don't really understand that last post. Where did you get your info from? Will you simpyly explain the paragraph with priori and posterior to me? Thanks
levi Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 472

28th October 2012, 12:59 PM	#230
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	I had got as far as this in thinking the thing out when that 'Types of Ethical Theory' caught my eye. I opened it, and I give you my honest word this was what hit me: Of the two antithetic terms in the Greek philosophy one only was real and self-subsisting; and that one was Ideal Thought as opposed to that which it has to penetrate and mould. The other, corresponding to our Nature, was ill itself phenomenal, unreal, without any permanent footing, having no predicates that held true for two moments together; in short, redeemed from negation only by including indwelling realities appearing through. Well -- I mean to say -- what? And Nietzsche, from all accounts, a lot worse than that! 'Jeeves,' I said, when he came in with my morning tea, 'I've been thinking it over. You're engaged again.' 'Thank you, sir.' I sucked down a cheerful mouthful. A great respect for this bloke's judgement began to soak through me. 'Oh, Jeeves,' I said; 'about that check suit.' 'Yes, sir?' 'Is it really a frost?' 'A trifle too bizarre, sir, in my opinion.' 'But lots of fellows have asked me who my tailor is.' 'Doubtless in order to avoid him, sir.' 'He's supposed to be one of the best men in "London.' 'I am saying nothing against his moral character, sir.' I hesitated a bit. I had a feeling that I was passing into this chappie's clutches, and that if I gave in now I should become lust like poor old Aubrey Fothergill, unable to call my soul my own. On the other hand, this was obviously a cove of rare intelligence, and it would be a comfort in a lot of ways to have him doing the thinking for me. I made up my mind. 'All right, Jeeves,' I said. 'You know! Give the bally thing away to somebody!' He looked down at me like a father gazing tenderly at the wayward child. 'Thank you, sir. I gave it to the under-gardener last night. A little more tea, sir ?'
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th October 2012, 01:02 PM	#231
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by levi I found a way to refute mereological nihilism. http://unfspb.wordpress.com/2010/03/...ip-of-theseus/ "So how does this apply to the Ship of Theseus or the Sorites Paradox? Well, it’s not a problem that can be solved, really, a priori. (Incidentally, this is my problem with the principle of explosion: just write “p AND !p” as an invalid combination into the axioms….) These problems will be solved by language and a posteriori judgments: any distinction is going to be arbitrary and you might as well embrace that. Make it not arbitrary: pick a point at which you’re comfortable no longer calling it the Ship or a mound, and stick to your guns. But… write in a little clause that “this judgment subject to change” or something." I don't understand philosophical waffle either.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th October 2012, 12:11 PM	#232
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by dafydd I don't understand philosophical waffle either. If you're not interested in the subject, why are you talking about it?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

29th October 2012, 01:18 PM	#233
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Montana, USA Posts: 576	Originally Posted by levi I am sorry I don't really understand that last post. Where did you get your info from? Will you simpyly explain the paragraph with priori and posterior to me? Thanks The simplest way to distinguish a priori from a posteriori is that the latter requires experience, the former does not. For instance, you know that married people are not bachelors even if you have no experience of married people or bachelors; they are incompatible because of the definitions of the terms. On the other hand, the claim that married people are more satisfied in life than the unmarried is an a posteriori claim (one which requires experience). Finally, !P (also written ~P) is read "not P" and is the negation of P. For example, if P is the proposition that dogs like bones, !P is the proposition that dogs do not like bones. I hope this helps!
	__________________ "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin Last edited by Merton; 29th October 2012 at 01:19 PM. Reason: Fixed typo

29th October 2012, 02:26 PM	#234
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,448	Originally Posted by Twiler If you're not interested in the subject, why are you talking about it? Why do you think I am not interested in it?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

29th October 2012, 02:35 PM	#235
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by dafydd Why do you think I am not interested in it? You seemed rather dismissive.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494