News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

What is what is?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

AlP

QuoteMy thought while reading this made me think of looking at a chrysalis. It is beautiful and light green with gold stripes. It was a caterpillar slinking around nibbling on leaves. It will be a butterfly after cracking the chrysalis, hanging upside down to dry and flying away. It will not be and never can be a caterpillar again, and if you look at him closely while he's drying out his wings you can't see any remnents of the caterpillar's color or body, it's all in your memory.

VanReal, the first time I read this I only wanted to see whether you understood my point. And the 2nd and the 3rd and the 4th. Then it finally penetrated my shallow rational mind that you said something beautiful. Thank you for saying something beautiful :)
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

#31
Quote from: "AlP"To my mind, a concept is not really "true". Most of my concepts are about understanding what currently is and what possibilities are open to me. So the hammer concept is about understanding what a hammer is, what I can do with it and what the outcome might be. It is the physical object of the hammer plus the possibility of hammering. But I can't think of any sense in which it is "true".

My true is in of the domain of logic. There are different ways of thinking about logic. Logic is a branch of philosophy. That's what it really is. I'm going to try an experiment and invent some phrases. I'm going to invent the phrase in-itself and logic as a branch of philosophy I will call logic in-itself. I also have a concept of logic. As a concept, it is my understanding of what logic is plus my sense of the possibilities logic opens to me. I'm going to invent the phrase to-me-now and call that logic to-me-now. As a species, we have not understood logic until quite recently. Logic is not inherent in our thinking. "True" is only is significant to me when I am using the concepts of logic to-me-now. When I'm doing laundry "true" isn't usually significant to me and there is nothing "true" about the concept of laundry.

A hammer in-itself is a lump of steel or wood and steel. That's the kind you buy at Home Depot. A hammer in-itself is not a stone. A stone in-itself is just a stone composed of a particular kind of molecule. A stone in-itself is not a hammer. A sound in-itself is a pressure wave as defined in the dictionary link you provided.

A hammer to-me-now is anything I can use for hammering. This is the hammer concept. It can be a hammer in-itself or a stone in-itself. A hammer in-itself can be a stake to-me-now when I'm pitching a tent. A sound to-me-now is the concept of what I hear, what that means and what possibilities are open to me. Do I look for the water I hear? Do I run from a predator I hear behind me?

Nothing of the to-me-now is contained in the in-itself. I carry the to-me-now around in my brain. But it seems to me that the brain projects the to-me-now onto the in-itself. The in-itself seems to become the to-me-now. It is hard for me to distinguish between the two. But they are really quite separate. The to-me-now is in my mind.

A hammer in-itself exists independent of whether anyone is observing it or thinking about it. When does a hammer to-me-now exist? It exists for a particular person when they are using the concept of the hammer.

You asked whether a concept would hold true without it being thought. At a particular instant in time the physical world exists in a certain state and certain things are possible. That is independent of whatever people are thinking. Hammering is possible whether or not anyone realizes. But hammering does not exist. Something that might be used as a hammer might exist. But without a person that understands the concept of the hammer, it is not a hammer to-me-now.

So yes there are possibilities that we are unaware of but they do not in any sense exist.

Still disagree.  :pop:
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Hitsumei

Quote from: "Sophus"Still disagree.  :D I don't know how to explain it better than I already have. If we keep going on this subject we probably won't get anywhere. But the way I see it, the mind is a personal reality, not a universal one. Take away the human existence and our (accurate) concepts and ideas would still be, although meaningless, valid.

This is like the old proverb of the tree. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, will it make a sound? The answer is, no. It will not.

"Sound" is an auditory response to vibrations in the air captured by sense organs. Without said sense organs, sound cannot exist. All of the elements that create sound, and the data that the organ would perceive would still be present, but sound cannot exist.

Similarly, the things concepts and ideas are about may have existence, but concepts and ideas themselves are intrinsically, and by their very nature subjective, and require subjects to exist. Everything about the world (barring aspects that rely on the existence of agents) that is used to formulate said concepts and ideas would still exist, but the concepts and ideas would not, and cannot -- by definition.
"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: "Hitsumei"
Quote from: "Sophus"Still disagree.  :D I don't know how to explain it better than I already have. If we keep going on this subject we probably won't get anywhere. But the way I see it, the mind is a personal reality, not a universal one. Take away the human existence and our (accurate) concepts and ideas would still be, although meaningless, valid.

This is like the old proverb of the tree. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, will it make a sound? The answer is, no. It will not.

"Sound" is an auditory response to vibrations in the air captured by sense organs. Without said sense organs, sound cannot exist. All of the elements that create sound, and the data that the organ would perceive would still be present, but sound cannot exist.

Similarly, the things concepts and ideas are about may have existence, but concepts and ideas themselves are intrinsically, and by their very nature subjective, and require subjects to exist. Everything about the world (barring aspects that rely on the existence of agents) that is used to formulate said concepts and ideas would still exist, but the concepts and ideas would not, and cannot.
Well, I brought this up earlier. Basically it comes down to how one defines a sound and we can pull variations that would support either of our sides.

Concepts are not subjective as much as they are either understood or not. Throw some different examples at me, I'm tired of the hammer, lol.

Would you apply this belief to theories as well?
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

QuoteStill disagree. :).

QuoteBut the way I see it, the mind is a personal reality, not a universal one.

I'm going to try and say what I think you just said in my own words and explain why I chose different words. Let's see if I really understand what you're saying. I'll attempt to restate it like this:

What is significant to me differs from what is significant to others.

Is that close? I don't think the mind is a personal reality. There is an objective reality external to us. But the way we perceive it is personal and subjective.

QuoteTake away the human existence and our (accurate) concepts and ideas would still be, although meaningless, valid.

Do you mean this:

Take away the human existence and what is physically possible in the world at any instant in time remains possible, although nobody will perceive any meaning from it.

QuoteAwareness of an object does not determine whether its being exists or its concept functions.

Aha! The concept functions. If I rephrase this as "the concept is possible" and then take away the person, the concept part disappears and I am left with "is possible". Do you see what I mean?
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

Quote from: "AIP"I'm going to try and say what I think you just said in my own words and explain why I chose different words. Let's see if I really understand what you're saying. I'll attempt to restate it like this:

What is significant to me differs from what is significant to others.

Is that close? I don't think the mind is a personal reality. There is an objective reality external to us. But the way we perceive it is personal and subjective.

I would completely agree with that statement, but that's not what I meant exactly by when I said "the mind is a personal reality, not a universal one." What I mean is what may appear to be reality to me might not be reality. Reality would not depend upn what others think but rather what really is.


QuoteDo you mean this:

Take away the human existence and what is physically possible in the world at any instant in time remains possible, although nobody will perceive any meaning from it.
That sounds right.

The concept of what a hammer is would depend upon what hammering is. The theory of "hammering" would not need to be thought in order to remain true; to be distinct from other possible actions. Hammering wouldn't have a name or title without intelligent beings to dub it, but our observation that has noticed when this happens it is hammering. Without our existence when this happens it will still be what we have defined as hammering. The theory of hammering. Thus what a hammer is at heart still is.

However, I absolutely agree that there are some concepts that are completely subject. In fact more of them may be than not. Beauty for example. What makes something beautiful? When your mind interprets it that way. The use of "beauty" rellies on the mind. Without the mind, it cannot function.

QuoteAha! The concept functions. If I rephrase this as "the concept is possible" and then take away the person, the concept part disappears and I am left with "is possible". Do you see what I mean?
Not quite. But I think that's what we've been discussing all along.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

QuoteWhat I mean is what may appear to be reality to me might not be reality.

That sounds like solipsism.

QuoteReality would not depend upn what others think but rather what really is.

But then you qualified with this, which shows that you're not talking about solipsism. I think. Are you? When you say "what really is" are you referring to the empirical universe or perhaps something else outside of some hypothetical virtual reality machine we might be inhabiting, like in The Matrix?

QuoteThe concept of what a hammer is would depend upon what hammering is. The theory of "hammering" would not need to be thought in order to remain true; to be distinct from other possible actions. Hammering wouldn't have a name or title without intelligent beings to dub it, but our observation that has noticed when this happens it is hammering. Without our existence when this happens it will still be what we have defined as hammering. The theory of hammering. Thus what a hammer is at heart still is.

That's because we have memory no? The concept of hammering is stored in our memory. That's where the concept is saved for later application. But that doesn't mean the concept itself exists. The medium in which it is stored (our brains) exists. Furthermore, there is some kind of physical representation of that concept in our brain, like the charged or discharged states of the capacitors in dynamic RAM (I don't know how brains do it).

Here's an example. I write down on a piece of paper the concept of "4 sided triangle". The paper exists. An idea is encoded on the paper and the pattern encoded exists. My brain is like the paper. I can "write" ideas on it.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

Quote from: "AlP"That sounds like solipsism.

Ha ha. No, what I mean is an individual may be wrong in some regard as to what a certain aspect of reality is. We could have perceived it falsely/made incorrect observations.

QuoteThat's because we have memory no? The concept of hammering is stored in our memory. That's where the concept is saved for later application. But that doesn't mean the concept itself exists. The medium in which it is stored (our brains) exists. Furthermore, there is some kind of physical representation of that concept in our brain, like the charged or discharged states of the capacitors in dynamic RAM (I don't know how brains do it).

Here's an example. I write down on a piece of paper the concept of "4 sided triangle". The paper exists. An idea is encoded on the paper and the pattern encoded exists. My brain is like the paper. I can "write" ideas on it.
By application it is to be applied to our own internal minds. It's for our own use. It would not affect its validity in the external world. Theories are, after all, observation of the external world. This is why I said concepts such as beauty would not carry on in our absence. It functions only internally.

Am I making sense? I don't mean "do you agree with me?", I just don't want to accidentally obfuscate you. Communication is not my forte.  ;)
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

QuoteBy application it is to be applied to our own internal minds. It's for our own use. It would not affect its validity in the external world. Theories are, after all, observation of the external world. This is why I said concepts such as beauty would not carry on in our absence. It functions only internally.

Am I making sense? I don't mean "do you agree with me?", I just don't want to accidentally obfuscate you. Communication is not my forte. ;)

Ha ha, after each of the last few posts I've been thinking, "next time I'm going to agree to disagree". And then I don't! It wouldn't be much of a disagreement though. I think we're almost on the same page. And yes I think I understood what you said.

I'm pondering the question of what "is". I'm trying to be quite skeptical about what really "is". I started by throwing out everything but the physical universe and trying to determine whether anything else really "is". I should point out that often I use "is" in a different sense. It's such a common word and it would be rather hard to construct paragraphs without using one on occasion. I'm not so concerned with the semantics of "is" as with what really "is". So far I find no reason to conclude that anything but the physical universe "is".

You say that the hammer concept "is". I prefer to say the hammer concept "can". I see it as a different, but no less important category. Though they seem so similar. Both are dependent on time. It's like the the relation between a function and its first derivative. "Can" governs how "is" changes with respect to time.

As a "can" the hammer concept is independent of a host but only because hammering can. And as a "should" it is not.

At any particular instant in time, the physical universe "is" and certain changes "can". I don't mean what "can be". Just "can" meaning possible.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Tom62

I just wonder how many hammers have read this thread and are now having an identity crisis  ;)
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Sophus

Quote from: "AlP"Ha ha, after each of the last few posts I've been thinking, "next time I'm going to agree to disagree". And then I don't! It wouldn't be much of a disagreement though. I think we're almost on the same page. And yes I think I understood what you said.

I'm pondering the question of what "is". I'm trying to be quite skeptical about what really "is". I started by throwing out everything but the physical universe and trying to determine whether anything else really "is". I should point out that often I use "is" in a different sense. It's such a common word and it would be rather hard to construct paragraphs without using one on occasion. I'm not so concerned with the semantics of "is" as with what really "is". So far I find no reason to conclude that anything but the physical universe "is".

You say that the hammer concept "is". I prefer to say the hammer concept "can". I see it as a different, but no less important category. Though they seem so similar. Both are dependent on time. It's like the the relation between a function and its first derivative. "Can" governs how "is" changes with respect to time.

As a "can" the hammer concept is independent of a host but only because hammering can. And as a "should" it is not.

At any particular instant in time, the physical universe "is" and certain changes "can". I don't mean what "can be". Just "can" meaning possible.

Let's see if I can revise this thread. Sorry for not getting back sooner..


I think I am beginning to agree with you. But let's try to clarify this:

 -  All concepts are products of the mind.
 -  Without the mind concepts do not exist
 -  However our minds are intended to make observation of our environment

Given this I think that the concept of anything, although it can be interpreted differently, has the potential to remain true beyond human existence or observation of any mind. So are we talking about what makes anything what it is or merely what makes man-made things what they are?

I believe in an all-pervading unity. "This" and "that" are not separate entities. They are different forms of the same thing. (Quantum Physics leads to this conclusion) So in a sense what makes a hammer is nothing, thus paradoxically what makes that hammer is everything. Anything the honest mind can wrought it into being it can be. Multiple interpretations can be valid if both thinkers have properly understood a concept (or rather "they're on the same page"). It's not to say that reality changes depending upon how you perceive it, but rather reality is perceivable in many valid ways. Some of those perceptions (and many throughout the course of history) have indeed been faulty with logic.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

Quote- All concepts are products of the mind.

Agreed.

Quote- Without the mind concepts do not exist

Yup. Though I am a little uneasy about using "exist" in this context. It seems a little strong. How about this? Without the mind, concepts cannot be known or believed.

Quote- However our minds are intended to make observation of our environment

Intended by whom?

QuoteGiven this I think that the concept of anything, although it can be interpreted differently, has the potential to remain true beyond human existence or observation of any mind. So are we talking about what makes anything what it is or merely what makes man-made things what they are?

I'm afraid I've changed my mind about what existence means to me since I wrote this. As I use the word now, it is more like the concept of existence used in math. For example 1 does not exist in the set of even numbers but 2 does. Existence statements tend to have the form X exists in Y, but people often don't specify Y. I think this is crucial. If you don't specify what Y is, you can basically show that pretty much anything exists. Does love exist? Sure. It exists in the set of all human emotions, the vocabulary of all English words and in the dialogue of the movie Titanic. Does love exist in the material universe? No.

So that's existence. What "is" something? I'm leaning towards a position that the question is backwards and I have failed to specify Y. Numerous existence statements could be formulated that include the thing.

Here's an example. I'm looking at a coffee mug now. What "is" it? "Is" it a coffee mug? Drinking vessels exist in the material universe and this is one example. Concave rigid bodies exist in the material universe and this is one example. Which "is" it? As I now use the word "is", I'm just using it as shorthand where I haven't bothered to specify Y and I am claiming that the thing that "is" exists as it is in Y.

So getting back to your question... Do you agree with me about the importance of Y? If so, beyond human existence or observation of any mind, and considering what things are, what is Y? It could be the material universe. It would still be here. It would exist in itself? And lets stop thinking about that one too hard... 2 would continue to exist in the set of integers, but no human would know that. Hammers would exist in whatever set you care to invent that includes hammers. But I don't think you'll find any such sets that are particularly interesting beyond human existence.

QuoteI believe in an all-pervading unity. "This" and "that" are not separate entities. They are different forms of the same thing. (Quantum Physics leads to this conclusion) So in a sense what makes a hammer is nothing, thus paradoxically what makes that hammer is everything. Anything the honest mind can wrought it into being it can be. Multiple interpretations can be valid if both thinkers have properly understood a concept (or rather "they're on the same page"). It's not to say that reality changes depending upon how you perceive it, but rather reality is perceivable in many valid ways. Some of those perceptions (and many throughout the course of history) have indeed been faulty with logic.

I don't quite follow.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

Quote from: "AIP"Intended by whom?

Not who. What. I think it's safe to conclude that our minds have evolved to perceive the world.

QuoteI'm afraid I've changed my mind about what existence means to me since I wrote this. As I use the word now, it is more like the concept of existence used in math. For example 1 does not exist in the set of even numbers but 2 does. Existence statements tend to have the form X exists in Y, but people often don't specify Y. I think this is crucial. If you don't specify what Y is, you can basically show that pretty much anything exists. Does love exist? Sure. It exists in the set of all human emotions, the vocabulary of all English words and in the dialogue of the movie Titanic. Does love exist in the material universe? No.

So that's existence. What "is" something? I'm leaning towards a position that the question is backwards and I have failed to specify Y. Numerous existence statements could be formulated that include the thing.

Here's an example. I'm looking at a coffee mug now. What "is" it? "Is" it a coffee mug? Drinking vessels exist in the material universe and this is one example. Concave rigid bodies exist in the material universe and this is one example. Which "is" it? As I now use the word "is", I'm just using it as shorthand where I haven't bothered to specify Y and I am claiming that the thing that "is" exists as it is in Y.

So getting back to your question... Do you agree with me about the importance of Y? If so, beyond human existence or observation of any mind, and considering what things are, what is Y? It could be the material universe. It would still be here. It would exist in itself? And lets stop thinking about that one too hard... 2 would continue to exist in the set of integers, but no human would know that. Hammers would exist in whatever set you care to invent that includes hammers. But I don't think you'll find any such sets that are particularly interesting beyond human existence.

Ah, now this I like. And completely agree.

QuoteI don't quite follow.

Uh-oh. Where did I lose you?
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

AlP

Quote from: "Sophus"
Quote from: "AIP"Intended by whom?
Not who. What. I think it's safe to conclude that our minds have evolved to perceive the world.

I'm uneasy with using the word intent. Intent to me implies a mind to intend. I believe evolution is undirected. In fact I'm close to being comfortable saying I know it is undirected.

Quote
QuoteI'm afraid I've changed my mind about what existence means to me since I wrote this. As I use the word now, it is more like the concept of existence used in math. For example 1 does not exist in the set of even numbers but 2 does. Existence statements tend to have the form X exists in Y, but people often don't specify Y. I think this is crucial. If you don't specify what Y is, you can basically show that pretty much anything exists. Does love exist? Sure. It exists in the set of all human emotions, the vocabulary of all English words and in the dialogue of the movie Titanic. Does love exist in the material universe? No.

So that's existence. What "is" something? I'm leaning towards a position that the question is backwards and I have failed to specify Y. Numerous existence statements could be formulated that include the thing.

Here's an example. I'm looking at a coffee mug now. What "is" it? "Is" it a coffee mug? Drinking vessels exist in the material universe and this is one example. Concave rigid bodies exist in the material universe and this is one example. Which "is" it? As I now use the word "is", I'm just using it as shorthand where I haven't bothered to specify Y and I am claiming that the thing that "is" exists as it is in Y.

So getting back to your question... Do you agree with me about the importance of Y? If so, beyond human existence or observation of any mind, and considering what things are, what is Y? It could be the material universe. It would still be here. It would exist in itself? And lets stop thinking about that one too hard... 2 would continue to exist in the set of integers, but no human would know that. Hammers would exist in whatever set you care to invent that includes hammers. But I don't think you'll find any such sets that are particularly interesting beyond human existence.

Ah, now this I like. And completely agree.

Someone agrees with me! Lol. I missed something. Returning to X and Y as I described above, "is" can be used to specify an X or a Y. For example:

2 + 2 is 4
2 is a number

In the first example 2 and 4 are Xs and Y is not specified but I think it's clear enough that it is a set of numbers (it could be reals or integers or naturals). In the second example 2 is X and Y is explicitly numbers. So "Is" can also be used to classify things.

Quote
QuoteI don't quite follow.
Uh-oh. Where did I lose you?

Lets see...

QuoteI believe in an all-pervading unity. "This" and "that" are not separate entities. They are different forms of the same thing. (Quantum Physics leads to this conclusion)

Link?

QuoteSo in a sense what makes a hammer is nothing, thus paradoxically what makes that hammer is everything.

I'm going to make the Ys explicit. Lets say a hammer exists in Y1. Then say everything exists in (and is all of) Y2. What are Y1 and Y2? Usually when I think of hammers, Y1 would be something like "the things I perceive in the material universe". I'm not sure about Y2 here. It doesn't make sense to me to think about something as broad as "everything" without an idea of what these "things" I'm considering every one of are. Does that make sense?

QuoteAnything the honest mind can wrought it into being it can be. Multiple interpretations can be valid if both thinkers have properly understood a concept (or rather "they're on the same page"). It's not to say that reality changes depending upon how you perceive it, but rather reality is perceivable in many valid ways. Some of those perceptions (and many throughout the course of history) have indeed been faulty with logic.

I think I agree with this. Though personally I would stick to words like "exists" and "is". "Being" and "be" I'm still trying to figure out.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Sophus

Quote from: "AIP"I'm uneasy with using the word intent. Intent to me implies a mind to intend. I believe evolution is undirected. In fact I'm close to being comfortable saying I know it is undirected.

That's understandable. But as for me, I do think evolution is a process intended to help us develop certain things for a reason. Legs to walk, ears to hear, a heart to pump blood. In some ways evolution is random but in others there's clearly a design and a purpose to it. I just don't think there's a god drawing out the charts behind the scenes.

QuoteSomeone agrees with me! Lol. I missed something. Returning to X and Y as I described above, "is" can be used to specify an X or a Y. For example:

2 + 2 is 4
2 is a number

In the first example 2 and 4 are Xs and Y is not specified but I think it's clear enough that it is a set of numbers (it could be reals or integers or naturals). In the second example 2 is X and Y is explicitly numbers. So "Is" can also be used to classify things.

 :headbang:  I like it.

QuoteLink?

Hmmm... there are probably links out there but I read it in a book: The Dancing Wu Li Master (AKA The Bible of New Physics). You can try Googling "Dancing Wu Li Masters summary" or something though if you don't have the time to read the book. Of course some of the results you turn up may just be fundamentalists bashing the author.

QuoteI'm going to make the Ys explicit. Lets say a hammer exists in Y1. Then say everything exists in (and is all of) Y2. What are Y1 and Y2? Usually when I think of hammers, Y1 would be something like "the things I perceive in the material universe". I'm not sure about Y2 here. It doesn't make sense to me to think about something as broad as "everything" without an idea of what these "things" I'm considering every one of are. Does that make sense?

Y1 is a part of the same manifestation that makes up Y2. This concept is actually closely related to some of Nietzsche's philosophy as well as Buddhism. Wu Li Masters can explain it better than I can but if you like I try writing a summary.  :)
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver