Happy Atheist Forum

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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!    

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.

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?

QuoteI 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.

If your attack is only in semantics then I you are not attacking. I was not talking about a hammer as defined in a dictionary. I tried to make that clear. I was talking about whatever thing I perceive as a hammer when I think. I do not think in language. You might say this is circular. It is not. The hammer that I perceive comes from the hammering, not vice-versa. Hammers are so basic to humans that I imagine almost all of us understand it. A hammer is anything we use to batter something with when the possibility arises. There is not just hammering. There is a hammer. The hammer is as much a part of our thinking as the hammering.

QuoteYou'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.

Language again. I agree that a rock is not really a hammer. That is actually my point. But I will sometimes perceive it to be a hammer. That's what interests me. And you're correct that there is no metaphysical essence of a hammer. Hammeryness is an idea.

Quote

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?

No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

QuoteI 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've been trying to make it clear, though I failed in this case, that I am talking about perception of a hammer at a particular instant in time for a particular person. The person who wrote the dictionary might be a different person or the same person at a different time. But that's irrelevant anyway. The person writing the dictionary is defining hammer. I'm only interested in our perception of the hammer.

Edit: Sorry for double posting. I was replying to Sophus here whereas in the previous post I was replying to Hitsumei.

QuoteAn object's potential of what it can become is perhaps more what it is than merely its current state of being.

Yes. A rock can remain stationary or it can be kicked (among other things). There is nothing in the rock that means it will be kicked. It certainly doesn't know it's going to be kicked. What happens is, a person comes along, observes there is currently a rock, remembers that kicking rocks is possible and arbitrarily decides to kick it.

QuoteThoughts are powerful and are meaningless to us without our minds to host them.

By thought do you mean idea or concept? Or something else? I see thinking as a continuous process that I am partially aware of in my own mind at a particular instant in time. It's hard for me to pick two points in time and call my thinking between those points in time a thought. They flow in and out of each other.

QuoteBut I don't think that means the concept would not still hold true even without a mind to think the thought.

It depends on the concept I think. In a sense, 1 + 1 = 2 is true without a host. Displaying my extravagant tail feathers will attract a mate is likely for birds like peacocks but not for humans. And then there are things that are completely subjective, like celery tastes good. I hate celery. Some people like it. It seems most concepts need a host to be true. And true is overloaded. When a mathematician says something is true, I understand what they mean by true. That's my true. But when I speak to my roommate who has post-modernist leanings, I quickly realize she's speaking a different language with a different meaning for true. Her true means to me something like important or significant or desirable. But it is no less practical or potent. Our minds do not appear to work in binary.

So to summarize, most concepts need a host to have significance because they are only significant for a particular host at a particular time. Concepts are not always boolean.

QuoteIt's almost like the old "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?"

This is the problem with language I raised earlier. Because we have a word for sound and it seems real, we think there are sounds in nature. There are no sounds in nature. There are pressure waves. We hear them and interpret them as sounds. Sound needs a host to be realized.

So "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?" It causes a pressure wave regardless of whether anyone hears it. And that is all that ever really happens. But if someone were there they might perceive sound. They brought the sound concept with them and associated it with the experience of hearing the pressure wave.

QuoteIf a thought is true when thought, does it remain true when not? I would answer yes to both of these questions.

I hope I have explained why I disagree in most cases. Math is a case where I do not.

QuoteWhat 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.

I imagine a lot of languages have a broadly accepted definition for hammer, English included. Words are not concepts though. A word can identify a concept just as a name can identify a person but the word is not the concept just as a person is not simply their name. Words are static. Concepts are dynamic. They change with time and they are experienced with time and they are tied to a host. That's why the hammer seems to become a stake. It doesn't. It was never a hammer and never a stake. What happened was, some person at some time viewed it as a hammer. Then that person or a different person, at a different time, viewed it as a stake.

QuoteBut 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.

I will wait to see if you respond to my previous comments before tackling this.

QuoteWhat 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.

You can use something else for hammering. Recently I used my shoe to hammer a nail in the wall. Does that mean that my shoe is now a hammer? A hammer also doesn't have to be a hammer. F.e. being a senior software engineer I've seen many golden hammers, but none of them were hammers.

Quote from: "AlP"No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

Hmm, what do you think in then?

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "AlP"No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

Hmm, what do you think in then?

Where'd language come from if thinking didn't predate it?

Language is entirely unnecessary for thought, its sole purpose is to communicate thoughts to others. I know I hardly ever engage in extensive inner monologue. I have this neat little trick I call conceptual thought.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "AlP"No. I think it is possible to discuss thinking using language, even though thinking is not language.

Hmm, what do you think in then?

Where'd language come from if thinking didn't predate it?

Language is entirely unnecessary for thought, its sole purpose is to communicate thoughts to others. I know I hardly ever engage in extensive inner monologue. I have this neat little trick I call conceptual thought.

You understand your conceptual (critical) thought through language.  Instinct, emotion and experience through the senses do not require thought, and language has been around, not in the current form but in some fashion.  The birds and bees do it too.  Words (language) are names or identifiers we give to concepts which is important in thought.  Without knowing the concept or word of "hammer" there would be no thought process surrounding whether or not the rock was a hammer, we'd be using instinct to see what could smash another object yet small enough to handle.

Oh, and I have inner monologues all of the time, and when I drift I often say to myself "what was I thinking about"....oh and it comes to me in words.

QuoteHmm, what do you think in then?

I'm not an expert on this by any stretch. I'm just sharing how I think I experience thinking.

I sometimes have an inner monologue. But not always. That's why I know that the inner monologue is not the only source of my thought, if it is even a source at all. I think the inner monologue is like a theatre where you put on little plays to see how things might turn out later in the real world with real people.

There's visualization, where I "see" something that is not actually there but which is useful for me to see. Like if I'm driving I might "see" a map.

There's conceptual thought. I visualize that as a graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_(mathematics)), where the vertices are concepts and the edges are relations between the concepts. Conceptual thought is like riding around the graph, changing it as I go. Although some of the concepts can be identified with words, in my experience, most of them have no corresponding word.

There are more parts to this puzzle.

I find this is an interesting little thought experiment. I am thinking and furthermore I am aware that I am thinking. But I unable to be aware that I am aware that I am thinking. Nor am I able to be aware that I am aware that I am aware that I am thinking. Try it . The awareness that I am unable to be aware of is where I am most comfortable. And it doesn't talk.

Quote from: "VanReal"You understand your conceptual (critical) thought through language.  

It is the other way around. It is because I comprehend the concept that I am able to render it intelligibility within a semantic medium.  

QuoteWords (language) are names or identifiers we give to concepts which is important in thought.  

So you then must agree that conceptual throught predates language.

QuoteWithout knowing the concept or word of "hammer" there would be no thought process surrounding whether or not the rock was a hammer, we'd be using instinct to see what could smash another object yet small enough to handle.

Without the concept, we wouldn't be doing anything. We don't have an instinct to use tools. That requires conceptual thought, but not linguistics. Tool use went on for a good million years before language evolved.

QuoteOh, and I have inner monologues all of the time, and when I drift I often say to myself "what was I thinking about"....oh and it comes to me in words.

Should try it without it. Rendering everything unnecessarily into a linguistic format significantly slows things down.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"So you then must agree that conceptual throught predates language.

QuoteNo, language has been around, it may have been in the form of signals, pounding, facial expressions or grunts but there was some form of language/communication.

QuoteShould try it without it. Rendering everything unnecessarily into a linguistic format significantly slows things down.

Come now, I did not say every thought in my head was audible, I'm not here drooling in a cup.  There are thoughts that are quick and needed for reaction or decision making, vague or subconscious, that I don't sit there and play out in my head.  But, conceptual thought makes sense to us through language even if internal and not in a monologue.  I'm not saying it doesn't occur outside of language just that it makes sense to us through language IMO.

Quote from: "VanReal"Come now, I did not say every thought in my head was audible, I'm not here drooling in a cup.  There are thoughts that are quick and needed for reaction or decision making, vague or subconscious, that I don't sit there and play out in my head.  But, conceptual thought makes sense to us through language even if internal and not in a monologue.  I'm not saying it doesn't occur outside of language just that it makes sense to us through language IMO.

We only require language to share ideas and concepts, not to understand them. We need to understand them before they can be rendered into language.

Just a simple reduction demonstrates this, unless the very first description of conceptual thought was handed down from on high, someone would have had to understood it, and then worked to render it intelligibly into language.

Sharing ideas through language is pretty well how we come to understand almost everything, because understanding anything that it hard is a group effort, but each little piece of the puzzle started out as an idea in someone's head, and then they attempted to intelligibly represent it in language.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"We only require language to share ideas and concepts, not to understand them. We need to understand them before they can be rendered into language.

Just a simple reduction demonstrates this, unless the very first description of conceptual thought was handed down from on high, someone would have had to understood it, and then worked to rendered it intelligibly into language.

Sharing ideas through language is pretty well how we come to understand almost everything, because understanding anything that it hard is a group effort, but each little piece of the puzzle started out as an idea in someone's head, and then they attempted to intelligibly represent it in language.

This does make sense but it is debatable and of course is debated under the "do babies think/understand/remember before they learn language" topic that runs through philosophy classes in college.  I don't think we can understand our thoughts until we can "match" those thoughts to something we use as an identifier, my opinion of course.

This is a slightly different topic but still appropriate for the title "what is what is?".

Suppose something is. It "is" at a particular instant in time. That time can only be now. If the time is past then it was. If the time is future then it will be. This isn't an accident of language. They aren't just different words for similar concepts. It was, it is and it will be seem profoundly different to me.

Suppose something was. How would I know that? Perhaps a remnant of what was still is. From what is I can try to infer what was. I might also remember what was and the memory is itself a remnant. I can study records of what was, which are also remnants. Someone might communicate to me their memory of what was, which is a remnant. What was in the past is no more. There are only remnants. "Is" and "was" are not equals. Is means something now. Was is confusing. It is tempting to think that what was still somehow is. It is not.

Remnant isn't a particularly good word. It's fine for talking about what was 1000s of years ago but I'm using it (somewhat inappropriately) for any passage of time. I can't think of a more appropriate word.

Here's an example. I'm sitting at a desk. I can observe that there is a desk. I infer from observing that there is a desk and by recalling from memory that there was a desk a second ago, that there was in fact a desk a second ago. But I am disconnected from that desk. There was a desk a second ago but it is inaccessible to me. It is gone forever. Fortunately the remnant of the desk still is and, being only a second older, is not significantly degraded.

Here's another example. I was sitting at this desk a second ago. I remain and I remember sitting here. From that I infer that I was sitting here a second ago. But that I that was is gone forever. I can never return to him. It seems that I am being continuously extinguished, becoming a remnant of what I was. The I that was is essentially dead and I am his remnant.

What will be cannot be more than prediction based on what is. "Is" and "will be" are not equals. What "is" is, obviously, all that there is. What "was" and what "will be" do not add anything.

I suspect Hitsumei is about to kick my ass.  

VanReal posted while I was writing this. I'll respond here so I don't double post.

QuoteThis does make sense but it is debatable and of course is debated under the "do babies think/understand/remember before they learn language" topic that runs through philosophy classes in college. I don't think we can understand our thoughts until we can "match" those thoughts to something we use as an identifier, my opinion of course.

Concepts have identity but the identity does not have to be a word or phrase. I'm also not convinced that we need to match our thoughts to something we use as an identifier.

You are not asserting this. But if someone were to state that we can only think in language then that would be falsifiable. And Hitsumei and I would just have demonstrated that it is false. I believe Hitsumei. I also do not think in language.

Quote from: "AlP"Suppose something is. It "is" at a particular instant in time. That time can only be now. If the time is past then it was. If the time is future then it will be. This isn't an accident of language. They aren't just different words for similar concepts. It was, it is and it will be seem profoundly different to me.

This is interesting:)

My 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.

Quote from: "AlP"Yes. A rock can remain stationary or it can be kicked (among other things). There is nothing in the rock that means it will be kicked. It certainly doesn't know it's going to be kicked. What happens is, a person comes along, observes there is currently a rock, remembers that kicking rocks is possible and arbitrarily decides to kick it.

Cool. I believe we're on the same page here. This is a tricky concept to articulate well...

QuoteBy thought do you mean idea or concept? Or something else? I see thinking as a continuous process that I am partially aware of in my own mind at a particular instant in time. It's hard for me to pick two points in time and call my thinking between those points in time a thought. They flow in and out of each other.

You're absolutely right. "Idea" or "concept" would be much more appropriate. This reminds me of a book I read called As A Man Thinketh by James Allen. If you're not familiar with it I think you would find it interesting. It's a quick read and is in some ways very closely related to our theory.

QuoteSo to summarize, most concepts need a host to have significance because they are only significant for a particular host at a particular time. Concepts are not always boolean.

To have significance to us they do. But as I said, the concept would hold true without it being thought for the reasons I previously explained. If I remember As A Man Thinketh may explain this as well.

QuoteThis is the problem with language I raised earlier. Because we have a word for sound and it seems real, we think there are sounds in nature. There are no sounds in nature. There are pressure waves. We hear them and interpret them as sounds. Sound needs a host to be realized.

So "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?" It causes a pressure wave regardless of whether anyone hears it. And that is all that ever really happens. But if someone were there they might perceive sound. They brought the sound concept with them and associated it with the experience of hearing the pressure wave.

Well it does come down to the semantics of sound. As you can see we could pull definition variations that would support either of our case: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound

QuoteI will wait to see if you respond to my previous comments before tackling this.

Look forward to it. Fantastic topic, truly is.  

Quote

QuoteSo to summarize, most concepts need a host to have significance because they are only significant for a particular host at a particular time. Concepts are not always boolean.

To have significance to us they do. But as I said, the concept would hold true without it being thought for the reasons I previously explained. If I remember As A Man Thinketh may explain this as well.

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.

Quote

QuoteI will wait to see if you respond to my previous comments before tackling this.

Look forward to it.

I'm going to hold off a little longer and see how you respond to this.

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

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:

Quote from: "Sophus"Still disagree.   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.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Sophus"Still disagree.   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?

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?

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.

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.

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.  

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 just wonder how many hammers have read this thread and are now having an identity crisis  

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.  

Quote from: "Sophus"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.

Found it. Interesting.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"The Dancing Wu Li Masters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics  
Author    Gary Zukav
Country    United States
Language    English
Publisher    William Morrow
Publication date    March 1979
Media type    print (book)
Pages    352
ISBN    0-688-03402-0

The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav is a popular new age book from 1979 about mysticist interpretations of quantum physics.

The phrase Wu Li in the title refers to one possible Chinese translation of the word "physics", as translated by the Tai Chi teacher Al Huang, emphasizing alleged philosophical commonality between western science and eastern mysticism. The chapters of the book are each titled with other alternative translations of Wu Li, such as "Nonsense" and "I Clutch My Principles".

The author participated in a physics conference of eastern and western scientists at Esalen Institute, California, in 1976 and used the occasion as material for his book. The physicist Jack Sarfatti contributed greatly to the content of the book, as well as the Tai Chi teacher and author Al Huang.

I'm on the threshold of ordering one of Richard Feynman's popular science books. One of my friends recommended QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).