:up: :cool:Ok this explanation as made the most sense to me. — 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.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
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 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.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
Could your explain what you mean by this?. If you have 2, you have 9, and 5 and 4 and 1. — Christoffer
0 is just a description of objects or states of nothingness. It is a very handy concept in math.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
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
It's just an empirical observation for me. But I see no reason to discount the reality of numbers. — Pantagruel
The sun is yellow. Yellow is not a physical object. But the light being emitted at 510 Terahertz is. — Pantagruel
As always, one can only deduce one truth: "I exist", whoever "I" is... :-) — A Realist
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
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
can also exist as a mental concept. — Pantagruel
Does this hold? Surely this argument has been made plenty times before, no? — Pretty
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.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
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.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
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.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
I am too lazy. :DHonestly, 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
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.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
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.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
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.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
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.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
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.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
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
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
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
We can deduce a Permanent Eternal Something that rearranges itself to form the temporaries, — PoeticUniverse
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
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
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
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
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
Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach, — PoeticUniverse
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
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".Yes... this sounds reasonable... but again, my "instinct" just tells me that something about this is... "off".. — 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.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
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.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Doesn't it sound too pessimistic and prejudging? :DSame as it ever was…… — Mww
According to Kant, you fall into dogmatic slumber when you accept groundless ideas and beliefs of others without critical reflection and reasoning.One purportedly missed the opportunity to be awakened from “dogmatic slumbers”, — Mww
Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”. — Mww
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
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