Moyo wrote:
I take it you mean i'm mixing up two versions of the same word.All your explanations involve telling me what the relationship is between concepts and reality. You forget that all the terms and phrases in your explanations were conceived.
Please could you answer the above
honestly
Here are your choises.
either
everything conceived is a concept or there are conceptions that are not conceptions. Which is it?
you have two choices
I already answered this. Some concepts are derived of concepts AND some concepts are derived of precepts (those conceived only after they arise by surprise or lack of 'knowing' them beforehand.)
In logic, we call all of these 'concepts' only for the sake that we know that anything we use in though is initially preserved in memory before we use them. They are still distinct if we ask where they come from though. Some concepts come from our memory = ideas saved = concepts; some concepts come from outside (likely all of them in fact) which are the 'ports' to which these things come to us in the first place. Even your own belief that these should come from what you call, "God", is just the same recognition of this. The difference is that you would then simply be logically equating the external world as your personal understanding of the same being that loves and cares like we do as animals.
You are likely interpreting ALL you think OR sense of as derived from sources from ONE UNIQUE place. You might believe that it is either all memory OR all ports but not both. I'm saying that while you might call all of these things "inputs" properly as they are, you CAN and DO have the capacity to distinguish that some inputs are distinctly of different sources to others. You do this by using "outputs", like any behavior you decide to put forth whether instinctively or by careful consideration in prior thoughts. So you can 'test' my understanding of the distinction by doing a simple experiment of many different kinds infinitely.
For instance, to 'test' whether I'm correct or not, look at the following word:
DOG
By seeing that word, if you are still capable of being conscious and aware, this word is placed in your present memory as it transfers from your eyes for seeing it to some location in your internal memory banks. Now, try to forget that word on purpose!
You can't at present if you interpret me correctly, right? This PROVES that this experience has been saved and is available for you as a 'concept' now. But prior to seeing the incidence of that word here, did you predict that I'd use it? If you didn't predict that I'd use that particular word for an example, this alone PROVES that prior to perceiving it by reading this, you had no particular concept of my choice. This proves that some things exist outside of you and some things exist inside of you.
And I KNOW that even
you intended to prove precisely what I've just argued except that you want to beg that WE all only have "concepts" that you are equating with "inputs" regardless of where they are coming from. Then you want to show that since some of these inputs you prefer to call "concepts" have two distinct parts rationally. The parts that you hold certain and can access immediately, you call might prefer to call "you" and the inputs that seem to come about from some source with an infinity of possibilities is what you call, "God". To me, though, I call what you call "you" as our internal capacity to access memory as "concepts" and what you call, "God", is to me what I prefer to call "observation". The difference is only about your preference to use the term "God" because you want to hope then that this can be transferred to also mean the same religious entity you call "God" with a history.
This in NOT a completely irrational approach if you are merely trying to define your "God" in a natural non-religious way. But the association of it with respect to most people is that you are purposely intending to use this later for some intended transference to some particular religious view and why you are met with reasonable suspicion here. Your idea of this "God" is correct only if you restrict your reasoning to assume that "God" himself/herself has the property of belonging to some 'truth' about objective reality. But you'd be mistaken that this means that if others agree that this proves his/her existence as you may interpret beyond nature itself. That is, you can't assume your meaning of such a concept as "God" is any more real than any of the other possible concepts you hold unless you default to assuming there are NO false concepts! But you would then be defeated simply by you disagreeing with me because you'd have to also accept that what I'm saying is never false either.
Does that make
me your "God" now too?
