Mr. Sammi

Keith Russell,

I'll have to get back to you on this one. For now the absence of thing would still yield an infinity BUT as you have noted there would be nothing to count and noone to count it.

What does this mean? Is it that nothing is a virtual concept?


You seem to have my head on your platter here, OR so it seems.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thieving Magpie

T.S. Eliot does, in a way further my own point with that quote as well.

In a duality of good/evil, war/peace, order/chaos, friend/enemy and so on, neither 'contrasting' idea stands on it's own. Our conceptions of these ideas only arise through the conflict they create, and not by their own autonomous accord.

What is good without evil; war without peace; order without chaos; friends without enemies?

The conflict, by nature, does not evenly distribute favour among warring members so at times things may seem good, or peaceful, or orderly, or friendly, though the 'opposite' is always evident, and could at times or under certain circumstances appear to be more true than it's antithesis.

Perhaps life is fairly orderly, but there is much chaos involved as well. There is not complete order, and there certainly is not complete chaos in life, so I am inclined to believe that a combination of these two ideals is present.

As people we recognize conflict in such situations, but we do not recognize the theoretical partners that make such conflict a reality. What would absolute chaos be like? It would be indeterminable. Actually, it would not even be that. And what would absolute order be like? Much like absolute chaos, I would imagine. 'One needs the enemy.'

You are right though, Keith, nothing is not nothing - but when I say nothing, I mean that I consider it to be irrelevant (which is an entirely different matter completely).

Keith Russell

Sammi:

When a scientific experiment yields 'infinity' as a result, scientists generally assume they've done something wrong, and conduct the experiment again.

Keith.

eh

Yeah I know, it's just that English can cause confusion. What I meant by saying nothing exists, is to reify the nothing. As the statement "nothing exists" is a negative, some people take it to mean a positive and come out beleiving there is a "nothing" that has existence like everything else.

Keith Russell

eh:

Don't reify the nothing.

Saying 'nothing does not exist' is the same as saying the opposite: 'something does exist'.

Keith.

Theli

Keith...

Interesting...
Nothing cannot objectivly exist, ofcourse (a paradox). But "nothing" is a concept refering to lack of thing(s).
If we were to assume that fliping a coin was random (even if it isn't), what would make the coin flip on one side or the other? nothing. But how can nothing cause a change? Wouldn't this mean that "random" cannot have objective existence? This concerns me as if we assume that there is no actual chaos (randomism), then the universe must have an infinite past. And by that logic there is no set parameters to form it's current existence, and the universe should not exist at all.
Do you see my headache?

Keith Russell

Theli:

There is no reason to assume that nothing causes one side of a coin to land up, rather than the other.

How one grips the coin, how much force is exerted when throwing it, the actual distance between the coin and its landing site, prevailing winds, the weight of the coin, etc., all influence--if not determine--which side will face up when the coin lands.

It's certainly not a metaphysical--let alone an epistemological--problem.

Keith.

sweep

what causes a person to will? Think of something, anything; 'conjure' (AS if by magic) up a memory, or put yourself anywhere in your known universe. What comes to mind?

I asked this question a while back here and got some interesting feedback. The following was the most satisfying response I got from one of those who posted:

This tells me a lot but it doesn't tell me what triggers the will. How do I will? (different story)

well, picture a wheel (if you will) spinning constantly, with all the thoughts at points on the wheel. then picture a finger at the top of the wheel. The finger chooses to press down and the wheel stops at a memory. This is random, and the thing that makes it random is time. when we will, arguably dictated by events outside of the organism, neural activity is called forward. By choosing a thought form, for nostalgic reasons, or for experimental purposes, we call forward what ever activity comes to light in 'the processing centre?'.

Keith Russell

Will.

What, really, is it?

I think all sorts of things, all the time--awake or asleep.

Images race through my head-- possible actions, possible choices. I probably choose to actually do less than one percent of the things I think about doing--and (given the nature of some of my thoughts) that's probably a very good thing.

When I should be studying, or working, and I choose to goof off, I know what I should be doing.

Why aren't I doing it?

And, when I do decide to work--but I'd rather be goofing off--why am I not doing what I'd rather do?

What is the difference between thinking about moving my arm when my arm does not move, and the thoughts that take place when I want to move my arm, and my arm does move?

That's 'will'--but naming it, in no way explains what it is.

Keith.

sweep

This made me think, and up popped the memory of when I fell to sleep but paranoid because my throat was too dry and I held on to the thought that I couldn't go to sleep because I would choke. I fell to sleep and started dreaming about my throat and choking and needing a drink. I knew, in my sleep, that I had a glass of water by my bedside, but couldn't move my arm even though I tried. What happened was that I willed myself awake, and my arm shot out knocking the water everywhere and bashing my arm. There must be some sort of block in sleep. but where?

As you put, it doesn't explain how we will, and whether neural activity is random.