Comments

  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    Ok this explanation as made the most sense to me.Pretty
    :up: :cool:

    As a cause, it necessary implies the existence of its effect, yes? So let’s take a person who is a parent — surely as a person they exist far before their child, and their child does not have to necessarily exist, but as a *parent*, a causal thing, it is necessarily implied that their effect exists too, which we call the “child.” Is this correct?Pretty
    Cause and effect theory is a scientific concept. If you say A caused B, then whenever there was A, then B must follow in all occasions. Here the important point is that A must produce the exact same state, entity or result or effect condition B on all occasions.

    Therefore your example of a parent X producing the child X1, is not a cause and effect relationship. Because the parent cannot willfully produce the child X1 next time they try to produce X1. No persons in the universe are exactly the same in the universe, and every person is unique in their identity by the law.

    The X might produce another child X2, or may not produce any child at all, or might produce twins next time called X2 and X2a.

    Therefore the offspring X1 is not an effect of the parent X under the eyes of causal relationship. They are a parent and offspring relationship.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    Ok. How about this. Numbers primitively seem to correlate with things. But are there in fact things? Or are there really only processes, whose synchronic slices appear intermittently as things? In which case, numbers would really correlate with processes. Or again, we can only count insofar as we abstractly identify the things being counted. So we count one-hundred peanuts. Be we don't count one-hundred "things" as one-peanut, two-jar, three-house, four-planet, five-universe....etc. Numeracy is itself just the culmination of abstraction. Short of objective correlation, what inherent reality do numbers have except the cumulative set of interrelations which are defined by all the possible mathematical constructs in which they appear?Pantagruel

    Counting can be a process. So, yes, we can see the things being counted as the elements of the process. But you know, you can still count without things. What does it tell you? Numbers are not the things themselves. Numbers are real of course, but they are real in the sense that we know them, use them and apply them to the external world objects, events and motions, as well as we can think about them, and demonstrate them as pure concepts.

    Numbers are not just the culmination of abstractions. Numbers can describe the whole universe as long as you know how they work. You can make up formulas, equations and axioms and replace the variable with the numeric data, from which you can understand the workings of the universe.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    Not really. They're mental in the way of being an interpretation of reality, but the categorization of things still end up in amounts. We can argue about how categories are human constructs, but at some point we get to things like 1 atom, 2 atoms. In relation to what numbers represent you cannot have 2 atoms if you didn't have 1 atom first. The same kind of works the other way around, how can you define something as 1 object if there wasn't the possibility of there being 2?Christoffer
    Counting doesn't have to start from 1 always. It can start from 2n, where n = 1/2. As Pantagruel suggested, if we suppose counting is a process, you don't even need things such as particles. They would be just the elements in the counting process, or sets.

    Likewise, you don't always count each individual object which is 1. When you say 1, it might be 2 in reality. In the case of your shoes, or soaks, you count them as 1 pair of shoes, but there are 2 shoes in the pair.

    . If you have 2, you have 9, and 5 and 4 and 1.Christoffer
    Could your explain what you mean by this?

    The interesting thing, however, is whether or not "0" has a relation. That concept has more of a constructed meaning than single existence. What is "0.5"? Is it half of a one thing, or is it half of nothingness?Christoffer
    0 is just a description of objects or states of nothingness. It is a very handy concept in math.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    I disagree with this, honestly. I think that there are things that are not possible even at the level of theory. I'm a realist about modality: some things are metaphysically impossible. For example, it is metaphysically impossible that demons exist. The same goes for unicorns, basilisks, ghosts, etc. Scientism, to me, is not just a series of epistemic claims, it is also a series of metaphysical claims, and some of the latter use the language of modal logic (i.e., terms like "possible", "impossible", "contingent", "necessary").Arcane Sandwich

    Sure you can disagree. But if you explain logically and understandably where the disagreement comes from, that is perfectly understandable.

    It sounds like you seem to emphasize theoretically demons and ghosts can't exist metaphysically. I don't exactly understand what you mean by that. Why suddenly metaphysically? What does metaphysics have to do with the existence of demons and ghosts?

    Why are they not possible to exist metaphysically? What is your definition of metaphysics, and what and which objects do you mean by demons and ghosts?

    I would like to clarify this point of yours first before progressing further down the line.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?

    I think numbers are like words i.e. adjectives describing the objects such as red apple. The red is an adjective describing the apple's colour. When we say 1 apple. 1 describes the apple's existence i.e. the quantity which is 1.

    If you look at the Hebrew language, they don't have number system. Words are also numbers.
    Numbers are descriptive language of the objects and motions in quantity in existence. It is purely psychological and conceptual descriptive tool.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    It's just an empirical observation for me. But I see no reason to discount the reality of numbers.Pantagruel

    Sure. Some folks believe God is the absolute reality, or the big bang is the absolute truth. One's belief can be real to the believer, but it can be irrational and illogical too.

    I am not saying numbers are false, or unreal. All I am saying is it has different mode of reality i.e. we know numbers as concepts and use them to describe the real world objects, motions or workings. But they don't exist like the physical objects do.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    The sun is yellow. Yellow is not a physical object. But the light being emitted at 510 Terahertz is.Pantagruel

    If you wore a green sunglasses, and look up at the sun, it will look "green". When I measure the light of the sun with the optical light meter, it says f16 1/1000 sec.
  • How can one know the ultimate truth about reality?
    As always, one can only deduce one truth: "I exist", whoever "I" is... :-)A Realist

    You cannot deduce "you exist" as the only truth, if you doubt everything in the reality. You will be doubting your existence is illusion.
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    My go-to example is the use of Fibonacci-sequence timed laser pulses to stimulate atoms into a new phase state of matter. Nature is "resonant" to numerical properties....Pantagruel

    Sure, numbers describe the external objects, events and motions. But it is an illusion to think they are the same, or numbers are the physical reality. Math formulas, equations and functions are descriptions of the physical world. Description is not physical objects.

    For example, the word apple is not the real apple. You cannot eat the word apple. You can only eat the real apple which can be peeled. To say the word apple is same as the real apple is an illusion.

    Physical reality is the things and objects you can see, touch, access and physically handle.
  • How can one know the ultimate truth about reality?
    My senses can deceive me, so if I cannot trust my senses, I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; It's just me and you; but if my senses cannot be always trusted then your existence must also might be an illusion.A Realist

    If you admit and are sure that you doubt everything in the world, then you cannot deny the fact you doubt everything in the world. Therefore you found one thing in the world that you cannot doubt, which is the fact that you doubt everything in the world. So the fact that you doubt everything in the world is your ultimate truth about the reality? Makes sense?
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    can also exist as a mental concept.Pantagruel

    Maybe. I just don't see the point saying mental objects "exist". It is a misuse of language.
    We know, or are aware of the mental objects. They don't exist like the physical objects in the external world.

    I am trying to see the existence of "3" in the external world. I see none. I can see 3 books, 3 cups, 3 trees, 3 cars. But none of them are the pure "3".

    In China, 3 is not the real 3 either. The real 3 is written as "三".
    In Korea, 3 is written "셋".
    Now, which is the real 3?
  • Is the number 1 a cause of the number 2?
    Does this hold? Surely this argument has been made plenty times before, no?Pretty

    No. it doesn't. Number can start from any number you decided to choose to start. Because numbers are the mental concept. There is no physical laws or principles on numbers.

    After 1, counting can go on via the real or rational numbers never reaching 2. Or counting can proceed in the odd numbers skipping 2, and all the even numbers.

    If 1 caused 2, then every time 1 appears immediately 2 must appear, if they have cause and effect relationship. But it doesn't. You order 1 coffee in the caffee, and you don't see 2 coffees served to you unless by mistake or confusion of the maid.

    1 is a property of an object saying it only stands as 1. 2 only appears when there are 2 objects, and counted.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Are scientists sure about this? Time travel is not possible at all? Like, imagine a professional physicist, who understands theoretical physics to the utmost degree. Time travel is not even possible at the level of theoretical physics? Maybe it would be technologically impossible to fabricate a time-travelling machine, but are we really sure that it's completely impossible from a theoretical standpoint?Arcane Sandwich
    Time travel had been discussed before in the forum, but I am not sure what the conclusion or agreement on the topic was.  My thought was that time travel is not possible physically.  Theoretically anything is possible, but to prove it is meaningful you must prove it physically.  As far as I know, no time travel has ever been conducted physically since the beginning of the universe.  Hence my idea on it was,  inductively not a possible or feasible concept.

    But more importantly, my stance is that time is an illusion i.e. it doesn't exist.  Time is like numbers. It is only in the mind of folks, not in the real world.  In the real world, there are only motions, and some motions are regular and constant like the sunrise and sunsets.  From the motions, folks made up the concept of time i.e. the calendar.   Outside of the earth in the other planets, the sunrise and sunsets motions have different intervals, hence they will have different length for 1 year, month, and hours, if any folks lived there.  

    Out of the solar planetary space, in the other stars and galaxies, the sunrise and sunset motions won't be available, hence there is no such thing as time.

    Therefore time doesn't exist.  Time is an illusion, hence it would be sound to conclude that you cannot travel in time.



    But that's what I'm saying. God, if He (or She, or They, or whatever) existed, that (divine) Being could indeed intervene. Think of God like a character in a novel. God is not really a character, but the author. The author can do anything with the novel (with the fictional world that such a Being has authored). I don't believe in God though, I'm an atheist. But is there no scientific equivalent to the notion of "something", whatever that may be, that makes physical time-travel possible?Arcane Sandwich
    If God existed, why do you believe he/she must intervene? It is like saying, if God existed, he must make everyone on the planet, lottery jackpot winner. Why shouldn't? - Well why should he/she? But the point is that God may not exist. Even if he existed, there is no reason why God has to intervene for anything. Especially if God existed, he would have known (being omniscient) time doesn't exist. He would know it would be a total waste of time even talking about time travel.



    And that's the scary part. The Principle of Sufficient Reason, it seems to me (I could be wrong, though), is an "all or nothing" deal. Either it applies to everything, or it applies to nothing. It cannot apply to some things, but not to other things. That just makes no sense to me. It just strikes me as an odd thing to say, from an ontological POV.

    Or can it (apply to some things but not to others)? What is your opinion on that?
    Arcane Sandwich
    The PSR is not something that comes with every event in the universe. That is what the PSR believers seem to believe, which is a groundless and irrational belief.

    When events happen, folks would perceive them, and think about the reasons. That is how reasoning works. It is not the case that reasoning happens and then the corresponding events happen afterwards.

    If we accept that, then you know that on some events in the universe, we know the reasons because we have enough data for the events for us to reason. But in some cases, there is no data available for us to reason such as the beginning of the universe, because no one was standing on the earth observing the event. But we see the universe existing solidly, and things happening in space. We infer on the beginning of the universe suggesting various theories, but none are concrete. We have many reasons for the universe's existence, but at the same time, none are definite reasons. We can only conclude that some events have no reasons.

    Likewise why you were born in 1985 not 1700, has no reason apart from your parents having given birth to you at the year, which is just so obvious. If you accepted that answer, then maybe you were not seeking philosophical answers.

    The squids might suddenly jump and dance in your room. You ask what is the reason for that? Under no circumstances would such an event happen unless someone secretly placed some lively caught squids from the sea, and placed them in your room while you were asleep. This event definitely has reasons, and can be verified by investigation. While the reasons for the beginning of the universe, and birth of you in 1985 cannot be found apart from the fact that some events have no compelling reasons.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Honestly, I don't want to monopolize the Main Page of the Forum. I already started three OP, and I'm actively discussing in about half a dozen or so. So, I'm reluctant to open a new OP, about anything. Besides, why not start that OP yourself? It might be better, since you can start it with your own question, and ask for the best answer to it. I can then contribute to the best of my ability.Arcane Sandwich
    I am too lazy. :D

    There are two modalities that are directly clashing with each other, and those modalities are: contingency, on the one hand, and necessity, on the other hand.Arcane Sandwich
    If you talk about modality, that's interesting.  I did some experiments with modal thinking before. I concluded that all modal thinking is only practical for the future applications in life.  Once the event has passed, and becomes past, modal thinking just becomes imagination.  Even if there were good conclusions from the modal thinking, it was only useful for the lessons for future applications or situations.

    When we are all locked up and bound by space and time and heading forward to the future in a linear universe, doing anything about the past events is not an option.

    What if thinking and stories are not meaningful for human lives once it has passed the event. Even God cannot intervene.

    But modal thinking could be useful for perhaps the other applications such as planting trees, or cutting grass - what if an apple tree was planted instead of birch, what if grass was left uncut for the whole year?  It could be done in real life, and the result will be available in reality.

    But why was I born in 1985 instead of 1700?  Why was I born in South America instead of Australia? These What-If, and Whys will never be altered no matter how you tried (for the reason you are a physically bound being into space and time, I have already told you), and the why questions could only be answered either by Science in the most commonsensical way, or by the religion in the esoteric way. These are some of the factual properties and events in the universe that the PSR doesn't apply by another principle.

    That is just my opinion of course, which might be not true. Whatever the case, I think this is an interesting topic, and we could keep thinking on until the best answer was found and mutually agreed. I am sure someone in the forum will have more to contribute for coming up to better answers for your questions.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    There's scientists working on those sorts of problems, that's all I can say about that, honestly. We don't know the exact, detailed mechanisms of such processes. But scientists do have more or less a general picture of what's going on. We know what parts of the brain are responsible for language, which parts are responsible for memory, which parts are responsible for feelings, etc.Arcane Sandwich
    That's interesting. If you would open a new OP for that topic, and analyse what the details of their findings are, I would be keen to read and jump in.

    I disagree, and not because I want to fight. I disagree here because I think that science does give the answers to those questions, but those answers are "unsatisfactory". As you correctly said, the reason why I have the factual properties that I have, is because of my two biological parents. That's the scientific explanation. But it's unsatisfactory. Why was I born in 1985 and not the Middle Ages, or the Future? It just makes no sense to me, from a First Person Perspective.Arcane Sandwich
    If you are happy accepting the answer as the best answer available even if it is unsatisfactory, then I think we have arrived at somewhat meaningful point of the discussion. And I am happy with that.
    But as all philosophical discussions has dialectical progress side, it might keep continuing for searching and finding better answers.

    For your why question, you could ask first, why do you find the question compelling too i.e. what made you to ask the question first place. If you could answer that, and I am sure, only you could answer that question, then maybe it would help finding the answers for the other question? Just guessing. :)
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    It's option (4). I am effectively saying that your mind is simply what your brain does, because the mind is a process (a neuro-cognitive process) that the brain undergoes.Arcane Sandwich
    I am not sure if it is that simple. I also wonder if it would be much point to say mind is what brain does, when we don't know any details about the "does" part of brain. I mean when you say 2+2=4, what exactly is happening in the brain with which chemicals, which links to what cells.

    Fair enough. Is that what you would like to talk about? Explain your point of view to me, then, if that's what you would prefer to discuss.Arcane Sandwich
    Those are just my main interests, but I would talk about anything if it is philosophical and interesting topic. Not limiting my self to just talk about certain topics at all.

    But my point was that talking about brain as a biological or neurological point of view wouldn't get us very far trying to find out what mind is, and getting back to the OP - answering what the factual properties of a person are, and why the factual properties cannot be altered. Science will simply not be able to answer the questions.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing.Arcane Sandwich

    When you claimed your mind is simply what you brain does. It was not clear. It sounded like,

    1) Your mind is your brain, or
    2) Your brain does something to the mind, or
    3) Your brain tells your mind to do all the things, or
    4) Your mind is simply what your brain does.
    5) So you have your brain, and also the mind which sounded like the Cartesian dualist.
    6) But then you say, your mind is your brain.

    Anyhow, you brought in brain into the discussion, hence my point was we get very little philosophical juice out of brain, because it is not really the central topic of the subject, and also even in the neurology and neurocognitive science, the researches on the hard gap between mind and brain is ongoing without resolute answers yet. Recall what you said on your previous posts?

    No Corvus, brain does not tell mind what to do. Brain does mind. Brain undergoes a process, and that process is mind. And that is what my brain is telling your brain, right now. You are free to disbelieve it. But I am just as free to believe it. Right?Arcane Sandwich

    Hmmm... but my mind is simply what my brain does, just as my digestion is simply what my gut does. Right? Or do you disagree? Feel free to disagree.Arcane Sandwich

    I am more interested in the discussions of perception, consciousness, reasoning, propositions, belief, truth and logical proof in philosophy. Not really into biology or neurology at all.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    You're asking a question that falls within the domain of one of the most cutting-edge sciences of today, cognitive neuroscience. I am not a neuroscientist. I cannot answer that question myself. And I'm not even sure that cognitive neuroscientists have figured that out yet, but there might be some promising research programs in that sense.Arcane Sandwich

    Well, you posited brain as mind saying that brain tells your mind to do things, hence my point is that if you go to that direction, then that is what you are facing. As you say brain as a biological organ is for the neurology and biology, and their interest of the study is different from the philosophical point of view.

    But Philosophy can still examine on all the subjects and topics under the sun, to investigate what they claim to be true is making sense from logical point of view.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    We can deduce a Permanent Eternal Something that rearranges itself to form the temporaries,PoeticUniverse

    My inference that Australia exists is based on the real experience of meeting some folks from the land, that they are from the countries, and they spoke to me with funny English accents in my good old days in the international high school in Jakarta Indonesia when my father was working in the place.

      I recall the tall Australian guy Steve, who used to say Hi to me, then asked to teach him Tae Kwon Do, so I taught him some Tae Kwon Do movements.  In return he taught me some tricks in playing basketball which he was very good at.

    There was also this beautiful blond girl called Ingrid from Australia who came and sat beside me at lunch time, and we used to have sandwiches and hamburgers together.  When we went to Bandung for the school trip, she sat beside me in the bus, and fell asleep with her head on my shoulder, which I still recall.  

     Plus I saw some youtube bits on the places supposedly taken in the places, and they just looked like any place on the earth, but with loads of bushes and fields and some beaches with the folks which looked realistic.  Therefore my belief that Australia exists is as firm and certain as my knowledge that the Earth rotates around the Sun.  However I have no clue what it would be like living in the place under the scorching Sun during the winter months where I am, because still I have never been in the place in real life.

    But in the case of deducing something Permanent and Eternal being, I have no real life experience pertaining to the concept, hence I am not sure what could be the basis for such deduction or inference.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    such that there is a series of events and processes that such object, -the brain-, is undergoing when it is engaged in any cognitive activity, including what you call "consciousness". I don't like the word "consciousness" myself, I prefer the word "awareness".Arcane Sandwich

    Sure, everyone knows that. But problem is what part of the chemistry and neurons in the brain represents your reasoning Socrates is mortal? and under what forms?
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing.Arcane Sandwich

    I read your saying brain tells mind what to do. That sounded like your brain does everything, and even orders your mind to do all the things for you. Your point was not clear at all.

    I have never seen or heard of a brain with mouth and tongue and tells & orders its mind what to do.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Well but it's an odd thing to talk about, innit? (Hold up while I put on my best "King's Slang", if that's even a thing). How on Earth could the Principle of Sufficient Reason be false? That just makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to anyone. And if the PSR is actually false, as you say it is, then what do we make of it? Can my table turn into a swan, for example? Can a squid pop up into existence in my living room? I mean, if there is no reason for anything, then literally anything can happen at any moment? How does that make even a sliver of sense, ey?Arcane Sandwich

    In here, you seem to have misunderstood what I said. I never said that there are no reasons for everything in the universe. What I meant was, there are some events and happenings that you don't know the reasons. And there are SOME events and objects happening and existing in the universe with no particular reasons or unknown reasons.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    You brain doesn't "tell your mind" anything, you brain is what minds, so to speak. For example, when you tell me to "mind my own business", you are giving a direct order to my brain, not to my mind. Does that make sense?Arcane Sandwich

    We seem to have difference in the opinion or ideas whatever you call it, but it is OK. I still don't think the biological organ brain is mind. It is like saying your stomach is hunger, and your eyeballs are the sight. The bodily organs do things for you, so you would keep living biologically, but they are not the functions they carry out themselves.

    In daily life, brain is hidden away from your living. You never perceive the brain itself while you are living ever. That doesn't mean brain is nothing to do with your mind of course. It just is logically not sound to say the physical brain is your mind i.e. feelings, thoughts, imaginations and desires, just like your stomach is not the hunger you feel. You feel hunger because you have a stomach. You have mind because you have a brain.

    This is reflected well in our culture and daily life too. You say, mind your business, but you don't say, brain your business. You say, mind your steps, you never say brain your steps. I never heard of someone saying, open your brain. I heard saying open your mind.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Not only did I not choose to be born, I didn’t even choose to be born in this place instead of that place.Arcane Sandwich

    Well, this question confirms that the PSR is false, and nonsense. There is no reason on some facts. If you still insist that you need answer for your question, then what you will get would be an answer of tautology in nature - because your parents have given birth to you.

    You may feel that is not the answer you were looking for, and it is not an intelligible answer to accept. In that case you must resort to the religious system for the answer. They will give you the answer quite easily and resolutely - well you were destined to be born as you, and it was the act of God, something like that.

    You have to either be religious and accept their answers based on fate or God's will, or you have to accept the fact that some events in the universe have no reasons, or we don't know the reasons why they happened and are happening.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,PoeticUniverse

    Beliefs don't mean they are inferior to knowledge. They are actually precondition of knowledge. If you know something then you also believe in something too. And if you believe in something, then you are possible to know it too. Not necessarily all the time, but the possibility exists.

    I believe that Australia exists, but I have never been in the place. It is only a belief, but I cannot deny it exist, just because I have never been in the place, and never seen any part of the land in my real experience.

    My belief of its existence is as firm as any other knowledge I have for certain.
    Therefore some beliefs have a high certainty as knowledge. It depends on what evidence and reasoning, or just guessing or blind faith the belief is based on.

    Therefore it could be the case that some religious beliefs based on strong and deep faith could offer high certainty of knowledge of God, albeit it might be a false knowledge, illusion or even delusion.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    Unfortunately, for believers, a being cannot be First and Fundamental; look to the more complex future for higher beings, not to the simpler and simpler past.PoeticUniverse

    Beings can be non-existence like from Meinong's beingless objects. They belong to the domain of faith, conjecture, thought and belief.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Yes... this sounds reasonable... but again, my "instinct" just tells me that something about this is... "off"..Arcane Sandwich
    You are welcome to disagree. That is what philosophical debates are about. But it would be better if you could explain why you disagree, rather than just saying you disagree from your "instinct".

    Hmmm... but my mind is simply what my brain does, just as my digestion is simply what my gut does. Right? Or do you disagree? Feel free to disagree.Arcane Sandwich
    Your mind is simply what your brain does? I don't get that at all. Brain is needed for mind to operate, but brain does ??? something? Brain is just a biological organ of physical body, which makes mental events possible. Not sure if it does something.

    Your mind has all the mental events perceptions, feelings, reasoning, thinking, memorizing, willing ... etc. I am not sure if it makes sense your mind is just what your brain does. Because there is a hard gap, the gap between the biological brain and your mind. Perhaps you could explain how your brains tells your mind to have all the mental events and operations, it would be helpful, and then I could decide whether to agree or disagree with your explanation.

    I don't think they would be good drinking partners, if I'm being honest. I think I'd rather talk to Willard van Orman Quine, for example, while I'm drunk.Arcane Sandwich
    Sure, Quine would be an interesting guy to have drinks with. He spoke a few foreign languages, and traveled the world extensively. He wrote many interesting Logic books. And I agree with most of what he said.
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    The furthest and most solid evidence and proof I got on the existence of God was the word God, which I can see, read and type on the computer screen. All else with the existence of God is a matter of conjecture and personal faith.

    It is an illogical statement to say God exists. The correct way of saying that statement is, one believes in God.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    But since I cannot change them, I "experience" them as necessary facts. Actually, "experience" is not the right technical term to use here. It's more like an "awareness". It's like I have a "double awareness": I'm aware that I could have been born somewhere else, and in some other time, but at the same time I'm aware that I can't change "where I was born, in a spatial sense", just as much as I can't change "when I was born, in a temporal sense."

    Does that sound like nonsense to you? It kinda does to me. It just strikes me as odd. Not necessarily "wrong" from a theoretical standpoint, but just plain odd from the POV of plain and simple English.
    Arcane Sandwich

    No, they are not nonsense at all. We all had such questions and ideas at some point in our lives for sure. It is an interesting point, and this is what I think about it.

    The reason that you cannot be born in any other place at any other time is because every particle of your physical body is bound in space and time. Time never allows any physical objects to travel to the past. Hence you are always heading to the future by the law. If you can travel to the past in time, then you could change all the factual properties of you any way you want. But you are bound in time to the present in time heading to the future just like all of us in the universe.

    While your physical body is bound by space and time, your mind is free. Your mind can clock back to the past ancient Greek and Roman empire, meet Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, go to a pub, and have some philosophical chats while drinking beer. But you can only do that in your imagination. When you wake up from the imagination or dream, you will find your body still bound in the space where you were physically, and time which is the present heading towards the future.
  • Ontological status of ideas
    Rather than the idea being a solid "thing" in the mind, I believe the physical manifestation of thoughts can be seen in the specific electrical/chemical reactions happening in a persons brain when they think that thing. So ideas are physically real, but exist as more as an ongoing natural process rather than a concrete object. Imagining an object and looking at an object light up similar parts of the brain in scans, which I think is the closest we can currently get to "seeing" thoughts from the outside.MrLiminal

    Good point. But electrical / chemical reactions in the brain are not ideas themselves. Electrons and chemical particles exist everywhere in the universe, even inside the brain. They react to each other with every possible minuscule physical stimuli and in most times, they react with no particular causes or reasons whatsoever too.

    Seeing the electrical / chemical reactions in the brain via some measuring instruments and saying that must be ideas sounds not quite convincing.

    It is like those folks who think the red light from the traffic lights are identical entity with the instruction to stop, and the green legal contract to "Go". They are just legal contracts between the government and the drivers. They could easily have made pink to stop, and orange to go.

    The physical objects and events in the external world are not the ideas, knowledge, information or concepts themselves. Of course, they can be linked, but they are not the same in ontological sense.
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    True, I agree with that.
    Whether the notion of beauty always has to arise in correlation with rationality or not is an interesting thought.
    Prometheus2

    The reasoned beauty tends to be objective and universal in its quality and value, because that is the prime property of rationality and reason.

    The emotional side of beauty would be subjective and personal. If you are feeling stressed out in your mind due to some daily life problems, then you might not feel the same from the objects which you used to feel beautiful.
  • Is factiality real? (On the Nature of Factual Properties)
    Why is my existence as a person (and as an "Aristotelian substance") characterized by the factual properties that I have, instead of other factual properties? The perplexing thing here is that factual properties are contingent (in a modal sense), even though I experience them as necessary (in a modal sense).Arcane Sandwich

    Could it be space and time which makes every objects and events in the universe unique and contingent? There can be no object which can share the same points of space and the moment of time physically.

    Being in different space and different time as different objects necessitates every events ever taking place in the universe contingent and unique. It is the principle of the physical nature of space and time which limits the facts, experiences, events and properties of the objects. If we were the particles in QM space and time, then the situation might be different.

    If you can swap your particles of the body with someone else's, then you could experience multiple factual properties.
  • Ontological status of ideas
    And the dogmatic slumber to awaken from? To critique the grounding principles for? That to which I wished to direct your attention, but apparently failed miserably?Mww

    When you were talking about the missed opportunity for waking up from Dogmatic Slumber, it reminded me of Kant's position when he rejected Wolff and Leibniz's ideas, having read Hume. That was all. :)
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    Though since usually beauty is seen as a type of feeling, could we still perceive it if we were completely rational beings? Or on the contrary, entirely emotional? Makes me wonder..Prometheus2

    The art critiques would use rationality and reasoning in analysing the art objects such as paintings and sculptures. In this case analysis based on the fine observation on the colours, shapes and themes of the art would be the objects for their analysis for writing their artistic praise or critiques.

    If you are to compare art works of different artists such as Picasso and Dali, or Van Gogh and Gogang, then you would heavily depend on your rationality and reasoning for making the critical analysis to come to the comparative commentaries on their works too.

    But if you are perceiving the art objects or beautiful scenery in ordinary daily life, then I would reckon your aesthetic judgements on them would be more likely based on the emotional responses to the objects or scenes.

    The reasoned beauties could give you the rational reasons why Picasso suits better than Van Gogh for the space with the modern furnishings, however, it might not be able to offer the psychological pleasure, ecstasy and peace of mind you would get from the purely emotional judgements and feelings of the beautiful objects or scenery you encounter in your daily life.
  • What is the (true) meaning of beauty?
    All this thinking about when, why and how we perceive something as beautiful made me question what 'beauty' itself even is or what it really means.
    "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.", is a well-known saying that might come to mind here.
    Prometheus2

    Beauty is a property of the object perceived by mind, and has psychological nature. In that sense, beauty is more subjective judgement rather than objective value.

    If you find a scenery with the sunset or sunrise beautiful, that means your psychology is uniting with the image not just visually but also emotionally positive way because of the various psychological factors such as your past experiences connecting to the scenery, objects or person or personal aesthetic taste or deep religious faith, which reminds the deity or peace of mind from the images you see.

    Of course the visual effect would be a critical factor in the aesthetic judgement, but more importantly the subjective psychological or emotional state responding the the sensory perceptions in aesthetic way plays critical part in judging and feeling beauty on something.

    I am not sure if rationality or reasoning could be also basis for judging something as beautiful. I would guess Kant would say Yes, but Nietzsche or Schopenhauer might say No.
  • Ontological status of ideas
    Same as it ever was……Mww
    Doesn't it sound too pessimistic and prejudging? :D

    One purportedly missed the opportunity to be awakened from “dogmatic slumbers”,Mww
    According to Kant, you fall into dogmatic slumber when you accept groundless ideas and beliefs of others without critical reflection and reasoning.
  • Ontological status of ideas
    Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”.Mww

    Everyone couldn't fail to notice that it was neither a wise nor intelligent choice of the words in philosophical debate.
  • Mythology, Religion, Anthopology and Science: What Makes Sense, or not, Philosophically?
    Humans realise the human imagination and contribute to it, as aspects of the dreaming mind, as part symbolic reality, but whether it exists as an independent realm, as qualia, is a good question.Jack Cummins

    Some folks seem to think the platonic objects do exist in the real world, but it seems to be the cause for the confusion. As you say Platonic objects are imaginable, thinkable and describable as ideas, but they are not solidly existing objects in the real world.

    And sadly some folks seem to confuse the symbols and signs in the external world which are to convey the ideas and information as physical objects, so the ideas must exist in the real world as solid entities.

    But if they are coming from some religious background or upbringings, then maybe the confusion originates from their historical living experiences rather than their thoughts. Therefore would it be reasonable to say that the historical living experiences take priority in judgements over thoughts?
  • Ontological status of ideas
    It is futile. ... There is no reason to continue this discussion. It is a waste of the value in good and necessary dialogue.Mapping the Medium

    Ok, fair enough. I declare the same. Please don't write poems in philosophical debates. That is my advice to you.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.