Mr. Sammi

Theli,

with you having proposed THING as recognisable pattern/attribute based on sensory data, HOW would you position yourself on the IDEA of INTERNAL SENSORY DATA?

This would mean memory patterns which we sense internally. As an aside philosophy has completely forgotten this sense of the internal. As a philosopher(!) I place emphasis of this internal sense as the 6th sense, a major sense, apart from the external to internal transfer of data through sensory apparatus.

The sensing of the internal positions and the relaying of this information to the thought-complex OR the use of the internal positions WHICH seems to me to be brought about by a sensing of itz complexity (magnitudes & elemental makeup) IS QUALIFIABLE as a recognisable pattern WHICH in the end makes things out of CONCEPTS and IDEAS.

Do you think this internal extension is valid? OR would you propose to restrict the use of thing to simulated objective reality which is the transfer from the external to the internal.


Sammi Na Boodie (just thinking on new media)

Keith Russell

Theli, this is what you said:

"But electricity (like water and air) is not a thing, for electricity to be a thing we must have a shape, form or amount to limit it to."

The above means that you believe that we do not have a 'shape, form, or amount' to limit electricity--

--not limit; unlimited; infinite

--which means that you view electricity as 'unlimited'--or at least, you did while you were typing the above.

Maybe you didn't post what you meant, or maybe you now think you were wrong--

--but you can't honestly say you didn't post what you posted.

Keith.

Theli

Keith Russell...

No, because measurements are human inventions and exists only in our interpretation of our world. There is no objective measurement in wich to divide the total amount of electricity into.
And on another note, "electricity" ofcourse is a human concept refering to an identifiable phenomenan. Again, there is no objective "rule" that says "here does electricity start, and here it ends".

I never said unlimited. Measurements doesn't create what they "limit", they describe it. The limitation by measurements and words in general is conceptual, not actual. That's what I meant by "the universe does not objectivly consist of things".

I have never said I didn't post what I posted. I must by definition have posted what I posted.

Keith Russell

Tricky, Theli--

--but I'm not buying a word of it.

You clearly stated:
"But electricity (like water and air) is not a thing, for electricity to be a thing we must have a shape, form or amount to limit it to."

I disagree, and I have explained why.

All you have done is tried to redefine every concept in your statement, above, so that you can say you didn't mean what you said.

Again, tricky...

Keith.

Theli

Mr. Sammi...

I'm not sure, what is internal sensory data?
About your thoughts on the sixth sense, are you suggesting that after detecting and remembering pattens from "external" sensory data and creating/(adding to) a concept, we then begin yet another process that detects patterns and relationships in the concepts themself (our memory). And this you call a "sixth sense". have I understood this correctly? I agree with that process, but I'm abit curious to how this is an actual sense.

The problem here is that a concept cannot be objectivly considered a "thing" either. Because if it's fragmented and apperant "liquid" nature I don't think we can even make a subjective thing out of it.



Keith...

When you say you disagree, what are you disagreeing with? Me keeping the same opinion, or the quoted statement about electricity?
And, how are you supposed to know what my first intentions were?
I never redefined any concepts, I simply stated them in different words. There was a missunderstanding, so I thought this was the propper way to deal with it. Now, if you have anything vital to add to the subject beside accusations then please do.

Keith Russell

Theli:

I've said everything I care to say on the matter.

Onward and upward...

Keith.