There Are No Such Things As Objects

[bahman]

There are no such things as objects, there are but conditions within conditions and that which is commonly called an object is the relation between conditions; object is manifest due to the nature of the conditions involved. There are objects only to a subject condition as it is affected by another condition or conditions. Nothing can exist in this manner, but it is relative to another condition and this field of endlessness condition might be called the non-totality. This non-totality is never closed, never contained, and never a thing. It is an endless condition, a dreamy moving condition, only the illusion/object is the grasp of the ring. Object you might say is a biological condition's reaction to condition/s. What is considered the universe is but condition ever connected in its own endlessness.

You can never tell! The stuff you experience is caused by other minds. That is for sure true. It seems that there is a link between what exists in the external world what we call objects, your perception, your brain, and your experience. The physical world seems coherent in other words so they might be true. They might be a coherent dream though. So you cannot tell!

[popeye1945]

skipdick,
OK!

[popeye1945]

There are no such things as objects, there are but conditions within conditions and that which is commonly called an object is the relation between conditions; object is manifest due to the nature of the conditions involved. There are objects only to a subject condition as it is affected by another condition or conditions. Nothing can exist in this manner, but it is relative to another condition and this field of endlessness condition might be called the non-totality. This non-totality is never closed, never contained, and never a thing. It is an endless condition, a dreamy moving condition, only the illusion/object is the grasp of the ring. Object you might say is a biological condition's reaction to condition/s. What is considered the universe is but condition ever connected in its own endlessness.

You can never tell! The stuff you experience is caused by other minds. That is for sure true. It seems that there is a link between what exists in the external world what we call objects, your perception, your brain, and your experience. The physical world seems coherent in other words so they might be true. They might be a coherent dream though. So you cannot tell!

It is metaphysics, that in itself infers unrestrained wonder. This is not directed at you bahman, but I am not going to put much effort into defending myself from hostile criticism unless I feel that the individual at least grasps the concept.

[bahman]

There are no such things as objects, there are but conditions within conditions and that which is commonly called an object is the relation between conditions; object is manifest due to the nature of the conditions involved. There are objects only to a subject condition as it is affected by another condition or conditions. Nothing can exist in this manner, but it is relative to another condition and this field of endlessness condition might be called the non-totality. This non-totality is never closed, never contained, and never a thing. It is an endless condition, a dreamy moving condition, only the illusion/object is the grasp of the ring. Object you might say is a biological condition's reaction to condition/s. What is considered the universe is but condition ever connected in its own endlessness.

You can never tell! The stuff you experience is caused by other minds. That is for sure true. It seems that there is a link between what exists in the external world what we call objects, your perception, your brain, and your experience. The physical world seems coherent in other words so they might be true. They might be a coherent dream though. So you cannot tell!

It is metaphysics, that in itself infers unrestrained wonder. This is not directed at you bahman, but I am not going to put much effort into defending myself from hostile criticism unless I feel that the individual at least grasps the concept.

Did you put any effort to understand what I said?

[popeye1945]

You can never tell! The stuff you experience is caused by other minds. That is for sure true. It seems that there is a link between what exists in the external world what we call objects, your perception, your brain, and your experience. The physical world seems coherent in other words so they might be true. They might be a coherent dream though. So you cannot tell!

It is metaphysics, that in itself infers unrestrained wonder. This is not directed at you bahman, but I am not going to put much effort into defending myself from hostile criticism unless I feel that the individual at least grasps the concept.

Did you put any effort to understand what I said?

Things/objects and/or circumstances are all caused by relative conditions, yours is just a different way of saying the same thing. This non-totality I suggest is our reality, and things/objects are only real to a subject condition, for a condition is what we are.

[bahman]

It is metaphysics, that in itself infers unrestrained wonder. This is not directed at you bahman, but I am not going to put much effort into defending myself from hostile criticism unless I feel that the individual at least grasps the concept.

Did you put any effort to understand what I said?

Things/objects and/or circumstances are all caused by relative conditions, yours is just a different way of saying the same thing. This non-totality I suggest is our reality, and things/objects are only real to a subject condition, for a condition is what we are.

No, not all things/objects are caused by something else, mind for example.

[popeye1945]

Did you put any effort to understand what I said?

Things/objects and/or circumstances are all caused by relative conditions, yours is just a different way of saying the same thing. This non-totality I suggest is our reality, and things/objects are only real to a subject condition, for a condition is what we are.

No, not all things/objects are caused by something else, mind for example.

There is no such thing as an independent existence, the mind is a function of the physical organ of the brain/body and the mind is totally dependent for its existence on the physical world as its object being the fuel of the mind. All of these things are conditions relative to other conditions and again there is no such thing as independent existence.

[bahman]

Things/objects and/or circumstances are all caused by relative conditions, yours is just a different way of saying the same thing. This non-totality I suggest is our reality, and things/objects are only real to a subject condition, for a condition is what we are.

No, not all things/objects are caused by something else, mind for example.

There is no such thing as an independent existence, the mind is a function of the physical organ of the brain/body and the mind is totally dependent for its existence on the physical world as its object being the fuel of the mind. All of these things are conditions relative to other conditions and again there is no such thing as independent existence.

You are wrong. I have an argument for the existence of mind. Interested?

[popeye1945]

No, not all things/objects are caused by something else, mind for example.

There is no such thing as an independent existence, the mind is a function of the physical organ of the brain/body and the mind is totally dependent for its existence on the physical world as its object being the fuel of the mind. All of these things are conditions relative to other conditions and again there is no such thing as independent existence.

You are wrong. I have an argument for the existence of mind. Interested?

VERY!

[bahman]

There is no such thing as an independent existence, the mind is a function of the physical organ of the brain/body and the mind is totally dependent for its existence on the physical world as its object being the fuel of the mind. All of these things are conditions relative to other conditions and again there is no such thing as independent existence.

You are wrong. I have an argument for the existence of mind. Interested?

VERY!

Actually, there are two arguments here: (A) Argument for the necessity of mind and (B) Mind is an irreducible substance.

A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise, everything is simultaneous instead of temporal therefore there is a gap between X and Y. In reality, X has to vanish in order to leave room for Y to take place. The gap however does not allow X turns into Y since there is no X between the gap. Therefore, there must be a mind that makes a connection between X and Y, namely experiencing X and causing Y.

B: Consider X that is reducible which means the existence of X depends on something else. We are dealing with a regress if we accept that all entities in the vertical chain of causation (by vertical I mean that something creates something else or the existence of something depend on something else) are reducible. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, there must be something irreducible in the vertical chain of causality. This thing we call mind.

[popeye1945]

You are wrong. I have an argument for the existence of mind. Interested?

VERY!

Actually, there are two arguments here: (A) Argument for the necessity of mind and (B) Mind is an irreducible substance.

A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise, everything is simultaneous instead of temporal therefore there is a gap between X and Y. In reality, X has to vanish in order to leave room for Y to take place. The gap however does not allow X turns into Y since there is no X between the gap. Therefore, there must be a mind that makes a connection between X and Y, namely experiencing X and causing Y.

X changing to Y involves a transformation not a replacement by something else, X becomes Y through transformation and transformation does not occur in isolation. When you say change in a system, I assume you are drawing a line around a certain condition/functional system -- yes! In the evolution of a given system like that there may be time intervals for such transformations to occur. If you are inferring that the non-totality, I spoke of is the mind or consciousness; I remember a famous physicist saying once that the cosmos was more like a gigantic thought than anything else, so who knows.

B: Consider X that is reducible which means the existence of X depends on something else. We are dealing with a regress if we accept that all entities in the vertical chain of causation (by vertical I mean that something creates something else or the existence of something depend on something else) are reducible. Regression is not acceptable. Therefore, there must be something irreducible in the vertical chain of causality. This thing we call mind.
[/quote]

Perhaps Spinoza's god might fit here which is stated as substance/God infinite out of which all things come, the one becoming the many. Just fumbling around here; I am finding your premise difficult to digest. Vertical chain of causation, well causation doesn't have to be vertical. Sorry I guess I am just not getting it. I'll ponder it some more and perhaps make a more intelligent response afterward.

[bahman]

VERY!

Actually, there are two arguments here: (A) Argument for the necessity of mind and (B) Mind is an irreducible substance.

A: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise, everything is simultaneous instead of temporal therefore there is a gap between X and Y. In reality, X has to vanish in order to leave room for Y to take place. The gap however does not allow X turns into Y since there is no X between the gap. Therefore, there must be a mind that makes a connection between X and Y, namely experiencing X and causing Y.

X changing to Y involves a transformation not a replacement by something else, X becomes Y through transformation and transformation does not occur in isolation. When you say change in a system, I assume you are drawing a line around a certain condition/functional system -- yes! In the evolution of a given system like that there may be time intervals for such transformations to occur. If you are inferring that the non-totality, I spoke of is the mind or consciousness; I remember a famous physicist saying once that the cosmos was more like a gigantic thought than anything else, so who knows.

I exactly argue that the transformation is not possible without mind, if you paid any attention to my argument.

B: Consider X that is reducible which means the existence of X depends on something else. We are dealing with a regress if we accept that all entities in the vertical chain of causation (by vertical I mean that something creates something else or the existence of something depend on something else) are reducible. Regression is not acceptable. Therefore, there must be something irreducible in the vertical chain of causality. This thing we call mind.

Perhaps Spinoza's god might fit here which is stated as substance/God infinite out of which all things come, the one becoming the many. Just fumbling around here; I am finding your premise difficult to digest. Vertical chain of causation, well causation doesn't have to be vertical. Sorry I guess I am just not getting it. I'll ponder it some more and perhaps make a more intelligent response afterward.

I already mentioned what I mean by vertical causation. And there is no God. I have an argument against the act of creation: Any act has before and after. This means that we need time for the act of creation. Time in another hand is one element of creation. This means that you need time to create time. This is regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

[popeye1945]

You need a little more patience before getting frustrated, perhaps if you tried reworking it, it is not as self-evident as you seem to think it is. Remember what old Albert said if you cannot explain it plainly to your grandmother you do not know it well enough.

[bahman]

You need a little more patience before getting frustrated, perhaps if you tried reworking it, it is not as self-evident as you seem to think it is. Remember what old Albert said if you cannot explain it plainly to your grandmother you do not know it well enough.

Which part do you need more explanation about?

[Sculptor]

There are no such things as objects, there are but conditions within conditions and that which is commonly called an object is the relation between conditions; object is manifest due to the nature of the conditions involved. There are objects only to a subject condition as it is affected by another condition or conditions. Nothing can exist in this manner, but it is relative to another condition and this field of endlessness condition might be called the non-totality. This non-totality is never closed, never contained, and never a thing. It is an endless condition, a dreamy moving condition, only the illusion/object is the grasp of the ring. Object you might say is a biological condition's reaction to condition/s. What is considered the universe is but condition ever connected in its own endlessness.

i.e. What we seem to be saying is that "objects" are what we say they are. They are nominated by out interests. In this way they are a derivative of the subject. In fact so is everything pretty much from our own POV.
This thinking, though ought to result in saying that "objects" do not exist, but for us to reflect upon just how they exist, what is it to say "objective" and "subjective". And the answer seems to be a thing which is seen subjectively can become an "object" where others agree as to its value and existence.
It's about agreement with other people.
It's a clearer way of thinking about objects as most people seem to arrive by different means and simple assume that an object is a thing that exists regardless of our observation of it.
This is plausible and an attractive proposition, and it is often re-inforced with experience such as when new exo-planets are found or simply when you look under a rock to find a bug and correctly assert that it already existed before you lifted the rock.
There is not problem with that.
The problem comes when someone believes in something agreed by other but NONE of them have any evidence for such a thing.
Into this category we may place UFOs, fairies and God.

It is worth remembering that all object are selections from what we are interested in. They are not simply "objectively" true, but have come within our perview and within the limits of our perception. For that reason, all things though of as objective are best described as "inter-subjective".