News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

What is what is?

Started by AlP, March 21, 2009, 06:32:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AlP

In the philosophical tradition of fixating over hammers and God...

Edit: This has to be one of the most cryptic things I have ever written. Sorry. This first paragraph I stand by but if you're interested I explained the idea much more clearly in later posts. It was through debating with Hitsumei that I became better able to explain it. Thanks Hitsumei. The second paragraph was an experiment. It's completely fallacious. I wanted to see what would happen. It wasn't very interesting.

I'm looking at a hammer. I say it is a hammer. What does that mean? This is what makes sense to me. Empirically it's a rubber coated steel shaft with a weighted head, one side flat and the other claw shaped. Empirically, I could also measure it's conductivity, determine its molecular composition and weigh it among other things. Is it also a hammer? Not empirically. I cannot draw that conclusion empirically. It is a hammer because, at this instant in time, I perceive a relation between the steel object and the possibility of hammering. The possibility of hammering is necessary. Without the possibility of hammering, it is not a hammer. It is just a steel object. Furthermore, it is a hammer only with respect to time. At times when I do not perceive the possibility of hammering, it is not a hammer. It is just a steel object. Lastly, it is a hammer only with respect to me. If someone else were to simultaneously observe it, we would see the same steel object but different hammers because our possibilities with regard to hammering are different. The hammer is only in my thought.

What is God? Empirically, He is nothing. Is nothing God? Not empirically. But nothing is God because, at this instant in time, I perceive a relation between nothing and the possibility of praying. Nothing is God relative to the possibility of praying. Without the possibility of taking some religious action, nothing is not God. Nothing is God only at the instant in time I perceive the possibility of praying and relate it to nothing, calling nothing God. If someone else were to perceive the possibility of praying, to them nothing is God and to me nothing is God but They are different Gods because our possibilities with regard to praying are different. God is only in my thought.

Am I an atheist? Only when I perceive the possibility of denying that God is. Am I always nihilist?
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

An object is a hammer semantically -- when its parameters meet the definitional requirements to constitute a hammer. It doesn't matter if you brush your teeth with the hammer, it will not cease being a hammer for as long as it meets the definitional parameters. This goes for all of the other things you suggested could be done with, to, and about the hammer.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with the god stuff.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

AlP

QuoteAn object is a hammer semantically -- when its parameters meet the definitional requirements to constitute a hammer. It doesn't matter if you brush your teeth with the hammer, it will not cease being a hammer for as long as it meets the definitional parameters. This goes for all of the other things you suggested could be done with, to, and about the hammer.

That an object is a hammer semantically is helpful in communicating with other people. If I say "hammer" to an English speaker they will know what I am referring to.

That's not how I think though. What something is, in my own thoughts, depends on what exists now and what is possible. If it is possible to bang a nail into a piece of wood then the steel object is a hammer. If through clumsiness I break the hammer, a nearby stone becomes a hammer, when before it was simply a stone.

I suppose the difference is between a semantic "is" and a more conceptual "is" that I perceive while thinking.

Semantically the stone is a stone. But when I think of hammering, the stone is a hammer. When I think of throwing, the stone is a projectile. What a thing is depends on what is now and possibility. That's how I think.

QuoteI have no idea what you are trying to say with the god stuff.

I substituted "God" for "hammer" and "nothing" for "steel object". It is actually how I think about God sometimes but I don't expect many people will agree.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

Quote from: "AlP"That an object is a hammer semantically is helpful in communicating with other people. If I say "hammer" to an English speaker they will know what I am referring to.

So?

QuoteThat's not how I think though. What something is, in my own thoughts, depends on what exists now and what is possible. If it is possible to bang a nail into a piece of wood then the steel object is a hammer. If through clumsiness I break the hammer, a nearby stone becomes a hammer, when before it was simply a stone.

Firstly, this sounds like solipsism to me, and secondly, you merely seem to be saying that you have a loose definition of "hammer", and nothing more.  

QuoteI suppose the difference is between a semantic "is" and a more conceptual "is" that I perceive while thinking.

I don't see the difference.

QuoteSemantically the stone is a stone. But when I think of hammering, the stone is a hammer. When I think of throwing, the stone is a projectile. What a thing is depends on what is now and possibility. That's how I think.

Yup, that is how semantics work. They mean what we want them to.

QuoteI substituted "God" for "hammer" and "nothing" for "steel object". It is actually how I think about God sometimes but I don't expect many people will agree.

Can't be done. You said that god was "nothing" a hammer is something, has utility, can be perceived, and objects within the environment can meet its definitional parameters. What you said about "god" precludes all of those, so I can't just substitute "hammer" without ignoring the entire paragraph.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

AlP

Quote
QuoteThat an object is a hammer semantically is helpful in communicating with other people. If I say "hammer" to an English speaker they will know what I am referring to.

So?

I was specifically not disagreeing with you on that point.

QuoteFirstly, this sounds like solipsism to me, and secondly, you merely seem to be saying that you have a loose definition of "hammer", and nothing more.

It's not solipsism. I accept that nature exists. And although I am occasionally suspicious, I am convinced that other people and animals experience thought in much the same way I do.

With regard to your second point, I will try and make my point this way. When I think, what I consider something to be can change with time. It is not static and not synchronized with other people might think. How much it changes seems to depend on how grounded the thing is in nature. In my opinion, what was a rock last year is still a rock. I suspect you will broadly agree with me about what a rock is. A rock is a simple natural object that we are all familiar with. But my empirical view of nature only gets me so far. In nature, I can find no justification for what I should do. It simply exists now and imposes restrictions on what is possible.

So I find myself arbitrarily assigning significance to objects, arbitrarily assigning significance relations between objects and sometimes outright inventing abstract objects that don't even exist in nature. This significance, being so arbitrary and unjustified by nature, is subject to change. Nature does not justify hammering. It allows hammering. We justified it. It's arbitrary. But because I can hammer, in my mind, a stone becomes a hammer.

Suppose I didn't have a definition for hammer. Maybe I was brought up by wolves. I might well learn to use a stone as a hammer. I would have a concept of a hammer that is simply a reflection of the possibility of hammering. All I need is to be aware that hammering is a possibility that nature leaves open to me and a stone becomes a hammer, even though I have no word for it.

Consider a dog. It doesn't have a woof woof word for bone. But it understands that chewing is a possibility. It assigns a significance to bones that is a reflection of the possibility of chewing. That's the "is" relation I'm talking about. The one I have in common with dogs. The one I use when I think.

I think dogs have a way of conceptualizing "chewy stick". I'll use "chewy stick" as my English translation. I don't see bones in the way dogs may see bones as "chewy sticks". I see a bone as part of the remains of an animal. Dogs see them as something they can chew. The "is" relation is different. If dogs became extinct, bones would not be "chewy sticks" because that needs dogs to understand that they could chew them. Our word "bone" will in a sense outlive us because it describes what a bone really is in nature: a part of an animal. On the other hand, our word "hammer" will not because it simply reflects the possibility of hammering. The hammers will be simply what they are in nature: lumps of steel.

QuoteYup, that is how semantics work. They mean what we want them to.

Agreed.

QuoteCan't be done. You said that god was "nothing" a hammer is something, has utility, can be perceived, and objects within the environment can meet its definitional parameters. What you said about "god" precludes all of those, so I can't just substitute "hammer" without ignoring the entire paragraph.

I said God was empirically nothing. I mean the intersection of God and nature is nothing. I was referring to a supernatural God. I was not saying He is nothing at all, just not present in nature. Just like what in nature is simply a stone can become a hammer in our minds because we can hammer, something that is nothing in nature can become God in our minds because we can take part in all kinds of religious activity and God is a reflection of that activity.

I'm an agnostic atheist. But I am arguing that people can say that something that does not exist in nature (because it is supernatural) is a God and I am giving it legitimacy by saying that they are do so as a reflection of a possibility that nature leaves open to them, which is to pray or worship, which they see as significant. Who am I to dictate what they see as significant? I make equally arbitrary decisions without justification from nature. Like hammering. If I deny that there is a God, should I not also deny hammers? They're really just lumps of steel.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

You appear to be laboring under the false apprehension that the specific words we use hold significance, when they do not. The function of language is to communicate concepts and ideas to other agents, the specific medium by which we convey these concepts and ideas is entirely unimportant, and meaningless. Being a wolf man, a dog, or any other thinking agent doesn't preclude holding concepts and ideas, and "definitions" are merely semantic representations of these concepts and ideas, so whether you have a word for it, or a formalized definition of what constitutes a hammer, that in no way precludes the holding of the concept that semantics exists to convey, so removing the semantics removes nothing of substance in this context.

Hammers are not supernatural, and are empirical objects, so your god stuff is still meaningless. I'm a physicalist, in , and limited to the sense that I do not believe that any meaningful definitions or descriptions of anything beyond the physical exist, so I don't know what you mean by "supernatural", "non-empirical" and things of that nature.  

Whether a hammer, god, or anything else exists or not depends on whether or not the word has a referent in reality.

Whether whatever the case may be if that should make one tell others what they can or cannot worship...well...My position on that precludes giving an opinion about whether one ought or ought not tell others what they ought or ought not do.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

Sophus

QuoteI'm an agnostic atheist. But I am arguing that people can say that something that does not exist in nature (because it is supernatural) is a God and I am giving it legitimacy by saying that they are do so as a reflection of a possibility that nature leaves open to them, which is to pray or worship, which they see as significant. Who am I to dictate what they see as significant? I make equally arbitrary decisions without justification from nature. Like hammering. If I deny that there is a God, should I not also deny hammers? They're really just lumps of steel.

I believe I understand what you're trying to say and appreciate your sharing it. It's a wonderful concept. However I think this idea is a bit of a stretch. What makes a hammer is much more than the words we use to describe it, as you have expressed. But ultimately what makes a hammer is its intent of use or what it is used for. An object not intended as a hammer can technically become a hammer by means of ones use of it. God on the other hand, if made or witnessed only through ones own actions would have to meet more than ones own perception of nature but ones understanding of it. Faith tends to do the opposite. They forge explanations for nature that are unknown. The Aztecs would sacrifice humans to energize the sun god. And yet without the ritual bloodshed we find that the sun continues to go around the earth. What makes a hammer is the concept of its function. We do not impose laws on what it is, we understand it. If you argue a hammer acts like a screw instead of driving something into place, you have simply misunderstood the definition of a hammer.

Many theists also do not know of psychological explanations for the attraction toward God. Without this the impulse or desire alone may be justified as reason for god. Ultimately it comes down to awareness, understanding and knowledge that serve as important tools in discovering the being of something. Arguments for any god or faith are easily stripped when one becomes aware. Of course the opposite could be true should science (especially Quantum Physics) come to discover something that suggests something different.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

QuoteYou appear to be laboring under the false apprehension that the specific words we use hold significance, when they do not. The function of language is to communicate concepts and ideas to other agents, the specific medium by which we convey these concepts and ideas is entirely unimportant, and meaningless.

That's not quite what I mean. I have not really been arguing about words. You brought semantics and language into the debate :)

QuoteBeing a wolf man, a dog, or anything else doesn't preclude holding concepts and ideas, and "definitions" are merely semantic representations of these concepts and ideas, so whether you have a word for it, or a formalized definition of what constitutes a hammer, that in no way precludes the holding of the concept that semantics exists to convey, so removing the semantics removes nothing of substance in this context.

Right, that's what I was getting at. Hammer is not just a definition. The definition followed the concept of the hammer. The concept of the hammer is a reflection of the possibility of hammering allowed by nature.

Some concepts simply express something that exists in nature like a stone. Other concepts are enhanced beyond what exists in nature to also account for what nature allows to happen. It's like adding a 4th dimension for time, realizing that there is a now and that time is progressing and that there are possibilities open to us and enhancing our concepts beyond what can exist to account for what can happen.

The stone can be viewed as a hammer. But it is being viewed as a hammer by a particular person at a particular time. In what sense is it a hammer if nobody is viewing it as a hammer? According to its state, it's just a stone. It was never really a hammer. It has no additional state beyond that of an ordinary stone that makes it a hammer. Someone just conceptualized it that way to account for possibilities.

As you say language and semantics doesn't change anything. But it can be confusing. Having a word for hammer could lead one to conclude that hammers exist in nature. What exists in nature is the natural part of the hammer: the stone or steel. The concept of the hammer reflecting hammering exists only in our minds and is abstract and temporal.

QuoteHammers are not supernatural, and are empirical objects, so your god stuff is still meaningless. I'm a physicalist, in , and limited to the sense that I do not believe that any meaningful definitions or descriptions of anything beyond the physical exist, so I don't know what you mean by "supernatural", "non-empirical" and things of that nature.

I have no reason to believe in supernatural things. I'm an atheist. But some religious people do. If I want to understand them I have to take that into account. However I don't think I've learned anything by substituting God for hammer. It was interesting though.

QuoteWhether whatever the case may be if that should make one tell others what they can or cannot worship...well...My position on that precludes giving an opinion about whether one ought or ought not tell others what they ought or ought not do.

Agreed :)
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

AlP

QuoteI believe I understand what you're trying to say and appreciate your sharing it. It's a wonderful concept. However I think this idea is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah I agree. I'm backing down on the substituting God for hammer thing. It was fun though :)
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

Quote from: "AlP"Concepts can be understood without language.

They can't be conveyed without language. So you can sit at home silently understanding the concept, but you can't convey it to others without being able to intelligibly represent it in language.

QuoteHammer is not just a definition.

Following you.

QuoteThe definition followed the concept of the hammer.

Still see you.

QuoteThe concept of the hammer is a reflection of the possibility of hammering allowed by nature.

Lost.

QuoteSome concepts simply express something that exists in nature like a stone. Other concepts are enhanced beyond what exists in nature to also account for what nature allows to happen. It's like adding a 4th dimension for time, realizing that there is a now and that time is progressing and that there are possibilities open to us and enhancing our concepts beyond what can exist to account for what can happen.

Concepts exist in relation to objects, extrapolations, inferences, and abstractions.

QuoteThe stone can be viewed as a hammer. But it is being viewed as a hammer by a particular person at a particular time. In what sense is it a hammer if nobody is viewing it as a hammer? According to its state, it's just a stone. It was never really a hammer. It has no additional state beyond that of an ordinary stone that makes it a hammer. Someone just conceptualized it that way to account for possibilities.

A hammer isn't a hammer if no one views it as such. What do you mean "its state"? What do you mean "it was never really a hammer"? In what sense? Are you saying that when we create concepts and definitions that reflect reality, and the potential utility of objects and phenomena within reality that it has no empirical, or objective affect over the ontology of the things in question? If so then I don't disagree.  

QuoteAs you say language and semantics doesn't change anything. But it can be confusing. Having a word for hammer could lead one to conclude that hammers exist in nature.

Really? Wouldn't lead me to believe that. In fact, I would go as far as to say that anyone who knows the common definition of a "hammer" would know that they are of artificial origins, and cannot be found in nature.

QuoteWhat exists in nature is the natural part of the hammer: the stone or steel. The concept of the hammer reflecting hammering exists only in our minds and is abstract and temporal.

No it isn't, I own a hammer. There is absolutely nothing that is abstract about the definition of a hammer. A hammer is a tool consisting of a solid head, usually of metal, set crosswise on a handle, used for beating metals, driving nails, etc. You are creating a false dichotomy, and over complicating things. All because something isn't found in nature does not mean that it must be an abstraction, or only exists in our minds. Many things start out as abstractions, but then are constructed and become objects. We call these things artificial, as opposed to natural. Hammers may not have existed always, or came about naturally, but now they do exist. They are objects, and have referents.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

AlP

Quote
QuoteConcepts can be understood without language.

They can't be conveyed without language. So you can sit at home silently understanding the concept, but you can't convey it to others without being able to intelligibly represent it in language.

Agreed.

Quote
QuoteThe concept of the hammer is a reflection of the possibility of hammering allowed by nature.

Lost.

It's a metaphor. I'll stop doing that then. Nature allows us to hammer. I'm personifying nature but all I mean is we can hammer. We discover hammering. We hammer enough and, at particular instants in time, we see the possibility of hammering as available and to view certain objects as hammers, even if they are actually e.g. stones. I think most people understand the concept of the hammer before they understand language. Watch an infant battering one thing with another and tell me they don't understand the hammer concept.

QuoteA hammer isn't a hammer if no one views it as such. What do you mean "its state"? What do you mean "it was never really a hammer"? In what sense? Are you saying that when we create concepts and definitions that reflect reality, and the potential utility of objects and phenomena within reality that it has no empirical, or objective affect over the ontology of the things in question? If so then I don't disagree.

I have a computer science background. By "its state" I mean what it is in nature at a particular instant in time.

By "it was never really a hammer" I mean it was really a stone the whole time and the hammeryness was not part of its state in nature but an additional abstract idea of hammering that existed for some person at some time.

And yes you're interpretation of what I said is what I meant.

QuoteReally? Wouldn't lead me to believe that. If fact, I would go as far as to say that anyone who knows the common definition of a "hammer" would know that they are of artificial origins, and cannot be found in nature.

But it's not because they are artificial! Articificial things exist in nature. The Eiffel tower exists in nature. The full concept of hammer does not fit in nature. The natural part fits in nature. The abstract (hammering) part exists only in our mind and is inferred whenever we see something we identify as a hammer. There are no hammers in nature but there are hammer shaped lumps of steel.

QuoteNo it isn't, I own a hammer. This is absolutely nothing that is abstract about the definition of a hammer. A hammer is a tool consisting of a solid head, usually of metal, set crosswise on a handle, used for beating metals, driving nails, etc. You are creating a false dichotomy, and over complicating things. All because something isn't found in nature does not mean that it must be an abstraction, or only exists in our minds. Many things start out as abstractions, but then are constructed and become objects. We call these things artificial, as opposed to natural. Hammers may not have existed always, or came about naturally, but now they do. They are objects, and have referents.

I won't disagree but I actually do think the definition itself is abstract. What it defines is not. But you're returning to language. The concept of the hammer is partially abstract and partially natural and possibly partially x. I didn't mean to make a false dichotomy. Out of interest, do you have an idea of what x might be?

Abstractions cannot be constructed, though items conveying the idea can.

The hammer as a tool designed for hammering makes the distinction between the natural and the abstract more difficult to perceive but I still see it. You're right, even when nobody views the lump of steel as a hammer, it is a hammer as defined by a dictionary. But I already said I wasn't concerned with semantics. I want to understand thinking, not talking or writing.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

Quote from: "Hitsumei"No it isn't, I own a hammer. There is absolutely nothing that is abstract about the definition of a hammer. A hammer is a tool consisting of a solid head, usually of metal, set crosswise on a handle, used for beating metals, driving nails, etc. You are creating a false dichotomy, and over complicating things. All because something isn't found in nature does not mean that it must be an abstraction, or only exists in our minds. Many things start out as abstractions, but then are constructed and become objects. We call these things artificial, as opposed to natural. Hammers may not have existed always, or came about naturally, but now they do exist. They are objects, and have referents.

I don't think you've understood the concept completely. A hammer does not have to be what you buy at Home Depot. You can create one; improvise an object to use as a hammer. The purpose a tool serves is in many ways more what it is than the material that it is composed of. Meaning when does an object become a hammer? When it is used as one? When it is designed with the intent of hammering? An object's potential of what it can become is perhaps more what it is than merely its current state of being. I may not be completely grasping what AIP is trying to convey either but I believe it's suggesting that something becomes something by its perception of the mind. I have postulated that these methods for perceiving these things are indeed products of tools or systems the mind has created, however do not exist in the mind alone. Thus there is an absolute truth that can be discovered through knowledge, understanding and awareness. The mind makes use of our senses which perceive the outside world. What we conclude from this should be treated as reality.

We can only know a hammer if we know what it is to hammer. We can only know (more or less) of God's existence or lack there of, if we have knowledge and understanding of the necessary Fields; if the attributes that make up God suffice when tested against concepts we grasp. Concepts that are not subject to preference or opinion.

Even leaving the God part out of the equation this idea makes for interesting thought on what makes anything what it is. Good thoughts on the subject Hitsumei and AIP.  :beer:
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

QuoteMeaning when does an object become a hammer? When it is used as one? When it is designed with the intent of hammering?

In the instant in time when we realize we can hammer and consider an object to be suitable as a hammer. That is a hammer.

QuoteI have postulated that these methods for perceiving these things are indeed products of tools or systems the mind has created, however do not exist in the mind alone. Thus there is an absolute truth that can be discovered through knowledge, understanding and awareness.

I think absolute truth is going too far. Nature exists now and we have possibilities. Hammering might be one possibility. And when we consider it we look for a hammer. In these cases we will view numerous objects that are not really hammers to be potential hammers. If we have a Home Depot hammer we might prefer it. But understand that the Home Depot hammer as defined by language is different from the concept of the hammer. The hammer is a concept that predates hammer as a designed object. But that is not important. It applies to an extent to designed objects too.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Hitsumei

Quote from: "AlP"It's a metaphor. I'll stop doing that then. Nature allows us to hammer. I'm personifying nature but all I mean is we can hammer. We discover hammering. We hammer enough and, at particular instants in time, we see the possibility of hammering as available and to view certain objects as hammers, even if they are actually e.g. stones. I think most people understand the concept of the hammer before they understand language. Watch an infant battering one thing with another and tell me they don't understand the hammer concept.

I think you are confusing a hammer, with the act of hammering. A hammer is an object that is designed for optimal hammering. A rock can be used to hammer, but it is not a hammer with regard to the common definition of a hammer.

QuoteI have a computer science background. By "its state" I mean what it is in nature at a particular instant in time.

By "it was never really a hammer" I mean it was really a stone the whole time and the hammeryness was not part of its state in nature but an additional abstract idea of hammering that existed for some person at some time.

You're conflating the possible utility of a thing, with what it is. A rock is not a hammer, even if it can be used to hammer, as it does not meet the definitional parameters of a hammer, even if you can in fact beat stuff with it. A "hammer" is not defined as just anything that can be used to beat stuff, it has physical a parameters that have to be met. There is no "hammeryness", no metaphysical essence of a hammer that can be bestowed upon objects by means of intent.

As I said from the beginning, you just seem to have an exceptionally loose definition of "hammer".

QuoteBut it's not because they are artificial! Articificial things exist in nature.

By definition they do not:  "1)made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural ): artificial flowers." -dictionary.com.

QuoteI won't disagree but I actually do think the definition itself is abstract. What it defines is not. But you're returning to language.

I haven't left language -- are you proposing a mind-meld?

QuoteAbstractions cannot be constructed, though items conveying the idea can.

I didn't say that the abstractions were constructed, I said that "many things start out as abstractions", as in all existing artificial creations.

QuoteThe hammer as a tool designed for hammering makes the distinction between the natural and the abstract more difficult to perceive but I still see it. You're right, even when nobody views the lump of steel as a hammer, it is a hammer as defined by a dictionary.

I never said that! I said the opposite. That doesn't even make sense, if no one views it as a hammer -- then who wrote the dictionary? I think you just proved god!  :shock:  

QuoteBut I already said I wasn't concerned with semantics. I want to understand thinking, not talking or writing.

Again, mind-meld? Barring that I am kind of limited to conveying, and receiving ideas and conceptions through a semantic medium.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

Sophus

Quote from: "AlP"In the instant in time when we realize we can hammer and consider an object to be suitable as a hammer. That is a hammer.

Right. I phrased it this way though because I don't think a human mind needs to draw a connection in order for it to become something: An object's potential of what it can become is perhaps more what it is than merely its current state of being. Thoughts are powerful and are meaningless to us without our minds to host them. But I don't think that means the concept would not still hold true even without a mind to think the thought. It's almost like the old "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?". If a thought is true when thought, does it remain true when not? I would answer yes to both of these questions.

QuoteI think absolute truth is going too far. Nature exists now and we have possibilities. Hammering might be one possibility. And when we consider it we look for a hammer. In these cases we will view numerous objects that are not really hammers to be potential hammers. If we have a Home Depot hammer we might prefer it. But understand that the Home Depot hammer as defined by language is different from the concept of the hammer. The hammer is a concept that predates hammer as a designed object. But that is not important. It applies to an extent to designed objects too.

Right. The idea of the hammer is precisely what I've been trying to get at. I would differ on absolute truth though...

What makes a hammer could be disputed but is not the definition of hammering agreed upon? If we realize a hammer is something that hammers we know a hammer. Thus the hammer may also identify with something else if its use changes. If I give a hammer to someone unfamiliar with the purpose it was designed for and they use it as a stake to support their tent, it becomes a stake. And by the potential of its being, it is still a hammer. I suppose it is many things, which is why words cannot truly describe an object. But the understood concepts that is associated with a tool or things being is indisputable. The act of hammering, when understood properly, we have clarity and truth as to what makes a hammer a hammer. I may be veering from your crux in my attempt to relate this to knowing the state of god by knowing the functionality of his attributes.

Another question is do we have absolute truth as to what makes the act of hammering?
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver