John Page

Hi Witt!
Some points....
Hmmmm. Change continues though we see others die and I thus presume it will be the same for you and me. Time, or perception thereof, is I think a mental thing where we assume a fixed or standard rate of change (rising of the sun, passing of the seasons, oscillation of the crystal) against which to mentally compare other changes.
Yes, if one takes the essence of our ontology to be fixed and unchanging.
I agree the last point, but what do you mean when you say they are "just as real"? I cannot actually hit my desk with a number but I can hit it with a hammer (altering it in a direct physical manner).
I'm not sure I agree - it depends exactly what we mean by fiction. In one sense 2+2=4 is a mathematical truth invented by humans and therefore fictional, in another sense humans do not control quantification.

Cheers, John

Witt

Hi Witt!
Some points....


Hi John!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Witt
Of course, the rest of the world continues on, with or without mind.
Even time, which some people consider to be a mental thing, continues without mind!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John:
Hmmmm. Change continues though we see others die and I thus presume it will be the same for you and me. Time, or perception thereof, is I think a mental thing where we assume a fixed or standard rate of change (rising of the sun, passing of the seasons, oscillation of the crystal) against which to mentally compare other changes.

It is concievable that before people-animals, time is still present.
Time is essentially 'in' everything. There cannot be things without time, even abstract things.
The idea of time beginning seems to me absurd, for theists or for scientists.

Surely there were other things in the world before there were minds. Else, we have the problem of something from nothing.

What is it that you believe to be timeless?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Witt
I would say our reality, then, derives from our essential ontology and, how we reason about those given situations (facts).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John: Yes, if one takes the essence of our ontology to be fixed and unchanging.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Witt
I consider abstract objects just as real as concrete objects. I do not think that abstract objects are ficticious. e.g. numbers and sets are necessarily existent abstract objects.

Their possibility ensures their necessity..i.e. they are analytic objects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John:
I agree the last point, but what do you mean when you say they are "just as real"? I cannot actually hit my desk with a number but I can hit it with a hammer (altering it in a direct physical manner).

Abstract objects have no physical qualities.

You cannot add 1 to a hammer either, but, 3+1=4 is an abstract truth that affims the existence of its participants in the same way that hitting your desk does for the evident physical objects.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Witt
Certainly all fictions are mental objects, but, it is not the case that all mental objects are fictions. 2+2=4, is a part of our knowledge no matter how tautologous it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John: I'm not sure I agree - it depends exactly what we mean by fiction. In one sense 2+2=4 is a mathematical truth invented by humans and therefore fictional,

This is what I don't agree with. I don't see a 'therefore' here.
Fictions are deliberate concoctions of mind which have no meaning outside of their intended context (story).

Santa Clause, in the context of the world, wears black boots ..is false.
Santa Clause, in the context of the story, wears black boots ..is true.
Fictional objects only have secondary predications, that are true.

Numbers have primary predications, eg. 3>1.

Numbers are: abstract, non-fictional, non-physical, objects.

Witt

John Page

Hi Witt!
Miscommunication here. I didn't say that some things were "timeless". I'm saying substitute the word "change" where you mention "time", time being the human mind's rationalization of relative changes.

IOW, it is change and the difference(s) that result that are the "primary properties" that appear to us following detection by the senses. We can place them in (our local reference version of) time, which helps our mind collate/correlate the changes.
I equate abstract objects to mental objects, both requiring some sort of mind to realize them. The unseen stone may still exist, but the unthought thought does not.

3+1=4 is a repeatable operation of arithmetic and becomes true when performed. 3+1=4 only happens when the abstract concepts involved are manipulated by a physical mind/brain. No transcendentals, please.
Whoa! 2+2=4 is a concoction of the human mind which has no meaning out side of their intended context (story) which is Arabian numeral representations of quantities within the decimal numbering system and the numerical result of summing two and two.

This arithmetic operation is carried out within the mind/brain using abstract objects (mental concepts). Numbers are abstract objects, the arithmetic operations are mental processes. We come to know that 2+2=4 by idealizing such situations as counting two sets of two (actual) blocks then counting all the blocks together.

Cheers, John

Witt

Witt:
It is concievable that before people-animals, time is still present.
Time is essentially 'in' everything. There cannot be things without time, even abstract things.
The idea of time beginning seems to me absurd, for theists or for scientists.

Surely there were other things in the world before there were minds. Else, we have the problem of something from nothing.

What is it that you believe to be timeless?
------------------------------------------------------

John:
Miscommunication here. I didn't say that some things were "timeless". I'm saying substitute the word "change" where you mention "time", time being the human mind's rationalization of relative changes.

IOW, it is change and the difference(s) that result that are the "primary properties" that appear to us following detection by the senses. We can place them in (our local reference version of) time, which helps our mind collate/correlate the changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps I did misunderstand, I have been known to do that from time to time.

Witt:
Abstract objects have no physical qualities.

You cannot add 1 to a hammer either, but, 3+1=4 is an abstract truth that affims the existence of its participants in the same way that hitting your desk does for the evident physical objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

John:
I equate abstract objects to mental objects, both requiring some sort of mind to realize them. The unseen stone may still exist, but the unthought thought does not.

3+1=4 is a repeatable operation of arithmetic and becomes true when performed. 3+1=4 only happens when the abstract concepts involved are manipulated by a physical mind/brain. No transcendentals, please.
-------------------------------

What do you mean by 'transcendentals' here?

Witt:
John: I'm not sure I agree - it depends exactly what we mean by fiction. In one sense 2+2=4 is a mathematical truth invented by humans and therefore fictional,

This is what I don't agree with. I don't see a 'therefore' here.
Fictions are deliberate concoctions of mind which have no meaning outside of their intended context (story).
.
.
.
Numbers are: abstract, non-fictional, non-physical, objects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John: Whoa! 2+2=4 is a concoction of the human mind which has no meaning out side of their intended context (story) ..

I don't see a story attached to numbers do you?
There is no myth attached to numbers.
Numbers have application to all stories and to physical reality, in some interpretation of their meaning.
The generality and wide application of logical objects, eg. numbers, is what makes them useful.
They are not restricted to any particular myth, imo.

eg. If the theists god is restricted to the bible (story) then that god is fictional.

John: ..which is Arabian numeral representations of quantities within the decimal numbering system and the numerical result of summing two and two.

OK.

John: We come to know that 2+2=4 by idealizing such situations as counting two sets of two (actual) blocks then counting all the blocks together.

I don't agree here.
It is true that we use physical instances of actual blocks to illustrate the generality of '2+2=4', but, 2+2=4 is true even if there are no bocks to demonstate its truth.
We do not 'idealize' physical situations to arrive at numbers at all.

Numbers are logical constructions, not physical constructions.

0={null set}
1={unit sets}
2={couple sets}
3={triple sets}
etc.

Addition and equality are also defined within the context of logic.
The variables involved include all objects, concrete and abstract.

2+2=4, implies, 2(blocks) + 2(blocks) = 4(blocks). But, they are not equivalent, even when idealized, imo.

Witt

John Page

A transcendental is supposedly primary, absolute, irreducible, the thing-in-itself.
OK, but some stories are non-fiction, an accurate (perhaps) reportage of events in reality. Numbers tell stories about the quantities of things. They are useful in building a mental picture of the world, like bricks are useful in building a physical house.

Numbers reside in the minds of humans, (and some other animals, I am told). They are useful concepts that can be shared between minds to reach a common understanding of and accounting for reality. They provide degrees of quantity, analagous to the colors providing degrees of wavelength in the visible electromagnetic spectrum.

Numbers and colors are generated within the mind as part of its "story" about the world.
I disagree. Math is a formal system and, if all minds subscribe to it, mathematical truths will appear to have some other-worldly permanence. A proposition can only be determined as true if there is a truth-telling process. Given the a priori's of a formal math then mathematical truths will result. Same with axioms of logic.
Would it make any difference if I said "conceptualize" as opposed to "idealize". I mean the same thing by both terms - to transmogrify from the physcial to the abstract, the latter being a mental state containing the "concept" or "ideal" against which we compare other things.
Yes, but the mental resides upon the physical, the informational dimension of our grey matter. To this extent Meinong was right and we're only arguing about the form of the existence of a number.

Cheers, John

Philosoft

Because I don't believe Christianity (or Judaism) is true, thus putting it way down on the list of philosophies that might have legitimate insight into the nature of existence.

Nowhere357

I may have missed something, but this statement caught my eye.

Why the assumption that "spiritual" must mean "non-mental"? I agree that if we define it that way, that the term loses all meaning - so why define it that way?

Witt

Witt:
Any definition/description that includes 'that spiritual object such that' is termed meaningless, unless of course, they can show that these non-mental -- non-physical things do exist.

Nowhere357:
I may have missed something, but this statement caught my eye.
Why the assumption that "spiritual" must mean "non-mental"? I agree that if we define it that way, that the term loses all meaning - so why define it that way?


Hi Nowhere357,

Surley theists believe that 'spiritual' must mean more than just mental imagery.

I think that the ontological commitment of theists is different from non-theists, in that theists require a category of 'spiritual entities' which may or may not exist.

Non-theists do not require this category.

I don't see any properties of spiritual things that can be confirmed, do you?

Knowledge requires the confirmability of proposed truths doesn't it?

For me, existence necessitates at least one confirmable property.

Witt:
Their ontology is different from many other views in that they admit spiritual things (demons, souls, gods, angels, etc.) and I do not.

By Occam's razor .. unnecessary entities, such as those without confirmability, sould not be entertained.

Any definition/description that includes 'that spiritual object such that' is termed meaningless, unless of course, they can show that these non-mental -- non-physical things do exist.

IMHO, God cannot be described or defined, in my ontology, without contradiction.

If some sort of 'spirit' is part of their definition then my view is agnostic with regard to spiritual things, i.e. they have no sense.. i.e. they have neither truth nor falsity.

What is your view as to the existence of spiritual entities?

Witt

Nowhere357

Frankly, it pisses me off that theistic mythology has corrupted what I believe to be a useful word.

I agree.

No, it's not required, just convenient.

Yes, I do. (read on)

Yes, and I agree.

The existence of mental subjective awareness - the mind - is not in doubt, only the nature of mind is questionable. I think the default position is that the mind arises or emerges from the brain/body. Each of us is able to confirm the existence of our own mind.

This is the spirit. "Spiritual growth" is expanding the mind. "Good for the spirit" is harmony with the mind. And so on. It is not necessary to accept the theistic baggage that usually comes with the word. No afterlife need be implied. No ghosts, no angels, no gods and demons and disembodied souls.

It's not necessary to use this word of course, and in this place I've learned to avoid it. But it is useful, and poetic, and I like it.

And it's easier to type than "subjective mental awareness".

As we can see below, my use of the word is consistent and valid.
See #4.

This is just a bit of a peeve of mine. Thanks, Witt, for hearing me out.

(Btw, accepting the word makes communication with theists a hell of a lot easier, imo.)

Merriam/Webster
Main Entry: 1spir·it
Pronunciation: 'spir-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French or Latin; Old French, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe
Date: 13th century
1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2 : a supernatural being or essence: as a capitalized : HOLY SPIRIT b : SOUL 2a c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically : GHOST 2 d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being
3 : temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated <in high spirits>
4 : the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
5 a : the activating or essential principle influencing a person <acted in a spirit of helpfulness> b : an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind : MOOD
6 a : a special attitude or frame of mind <the money-making spirit was for a time driven back -- J. A. Froude> b : the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something <undertaken in a spirit of fun>
7 : a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person's actions
8 : a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature
9 : a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness <denied the charge with spirit>
10 a : DISTILLATE 1: as (1) : the liquid containing ethyl alcohol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash -- often used in plural (2) : any of various volatile liquids obtained by distillation or cracking (as of petroleum, shale, or wood) -- often used in plural b : a usually volatile organic solvent (as an alcohol, ester, or hydrocarbon)
11 a : prevailing tone or tendency <spirit of the age> b : general intent or real meaning <spirit of the law>
12 : an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance <spirit of camphor>
13 : enthusiastic loyalty <school spirit>
14 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b

John Page

Ain't no such thing (by definition). IMO this is merely an observer's hypothesis that there is some working part of an animal that can't be touched. Like Maxwell who supposed the existence of demons in sulphur that when rubbed, set it alight.

Just because we haven't got it all figured out doesn't mean the spiritualists are right.

Cheers, John