Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

If I recall correctly I was the one who was AGREEING WITH the 'basic principles'.

So WHY would I even WANT TO BEGIN to offer ANY arguments AGAINST?

Then why require proof of something understood?

You seek some sort of additional verification for something already accepted?

[Age]

If I recall correctly I was the one who was AGREEING WITH the 'basic principles'.

So WHY would I even WANT TO BEGIN to offer ANY arguments AGAINST?

Then why require proof of something understood?

Did you REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND what I have been getting AT here?

If you want "others" to LISTEN TO you, AND TO UNDERSTAND you, then PROVIDING PROOF is ACTUALLY REQUIRED.

In case you are STILL UNAWARE "others“ will NOT just take 'your word' for some 'thing' just because 'you say 'it' is true'.

You seek some sort of additional verification for something already accepted?

I am just seeking out what ACTUAL PROOF "others" ACTUALLY HAVE, for what they SAY and CLAIM, so that I can then USE that ACTUAL PROOF, AS WELL.

Although I ALREADY HAVE PROOF, gathering and obtaining MORE PROOF will NEVER be unhelpful.

By the way THANK YOU for the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here.

[daniel j lavender]

If you want "others" to LISTEN TO you, AND TO UNDERSTAND you, then PROVIDING PROOF is ACTUALLY REQUIRED.

In case you are STILL UNAWARE "others“ will NOT just take 'your word' for some 'thing' just because 'you say 'it' is true'.

I am just seeking out what ACTUAL PROOF "others" ACTUALLY HAVE, for what they SAY and CLAIM, so that I can then USE that ACTUAL PROOF, AS WELL.

What sort of “actual proof” are you expecting? Are you able to provide any of this “actual proof” of which you speak?

Certain subject matter by nature cannot actually be proven. At least not to the satisfaction of many.

However substantial evidence can be provided, insight presented, discussion had and argumentation exchanged. That is what I seek to accomplish here.

[Age]

If you want "others" to LISTEN TO you, AND TO UNDERSTAND you, then PROVIDING PROOF is ACTUALLY REQUIRED.

In case you are STILL UNAWARE "others“ will NOT just take 'your word' for some 'thing' just because 'you say 'it' is true'.

I am just seeking out what ACTUAL PROOF "others" ACTUALLY HAVE, for what they SAY and CLAIM, so that I can then USE that ACTUAL PROOF, AS WELL.

What sort of “actual proof” are you expecting?

I am NEITHER 'expecting' NOR 'not expecting' ANY 'actual proof'.

I am just ASKING if one HAS ANY ACTUAL PROOF for what they SAY and CLAIM here, in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

If ANY one has ACTUAL PROOF, then great. Let us SEE 'it'. BUT, if they do NOT ACTUALLY have ANY PROOF AT ALL, then so be it. I just THEN suggest that it would be MUCH BETTER, FOR THEM, if they OBTAIN ACTUAL PROOF, FIRST, for what they want to SAY and CLAIM here, publicly, is true, right, or correct.

Certain subject matter by nature cannot actually be proven.

Do you have ACTUAL PROOF for this CLAIM of YOURS here?

Because to me there is NO subject matter, which I CLAIM to be True, Right, or Correct, that can NOT be PROVED True.

Even the subject matter, which you speak of here, I ALREADY HOLD and POSSESS ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR.

Also, would you like to list the 'certain subject matter' that you CLAIM, by nature, cannot actually be proven?

If no, then WHY NOT?

At least not to the satisfaction of many.

But ACTUAL PROOF IS SATISFACTORY FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, that is; who does NOT BELIEVE otherwise.

However substantial evidence can be provided, insight presented, discussion had and argumentation exchanged. That is what I seek to accomplish here.

Okay.

1. Define 'existence'.

2. Provide the so-called and alleged 'substantial evidence', which you CLAIM to have that 'existence', itself, IS INFINITE.

3. Define 'infinite'.

4. Also be AWARE that ANY argument OTHER than a sound AND valid argument is NOT even worth repeating.

5. If you HAVE a sound AND valid argument, then there is NOTHING to 'argue' ABOUT NOR AGAINST anyway.

6. If you KNEW that 'existence' IS 'infinite', as you call 'it', then WHY would you want to EXCHANGE 'argumentation' FOR anyway? It appears now that you might just want to WIN some 'thing'. Is this at all true or correct?

I have presented a solid, extensive text outlining the general parameters of existence.

REALLY?

If yes, then from WHOSE perspective are you referring to here, EXACTLY?

Have you produced anything similar you’d like to reference?

NO.

I ALREADY AGREE that 'Existence', 'Life', and the Universe ARE ETERNAL.

Are you able to provide this “actual proof” of which you speak?

YES.

[daniel j lavender]

Are you able to provide this “actual proof” of which you speak?

YES.

If ANY one has ACTUAL PROOF, then great. Let us SEE 'it'.

Agreed. And still waiting.

1. Define 'existence'.

2. Provide the so-called and alleged 'substantial evidence', which you CLAIM to have that 'existence', itself, IS INFINITE.

3. Define 'infinite'.

See original text.

4. Also be AWARE that ANY argument OTHER than a sound AND valid argument is NOT even worth repeating.

Fair enough.

5. If you HAVE a sound AND valid argument, then there is NOTHING to 'argue' ABOUT NOR AGAINST anyway.

As you conceded earlier:

You fail to offer any direct, solid argument against basic principles presented in the original text and here in discussion.

If I recall correctly I was the one who was AGREEING WITH the 'basic principles'.

So WHY would I even WANT TO BEGIN to offer ANY arguments AGAINST?

6. If you KNEW that 'existence' IS 'infinite', as you call 'it', then WHY would you want to EXCHANGE 'argumentation' FOR anyway?

To discuss the ideas. To help clarify the ideas. To demonstrate their validity. Just to simply discuss philosophy out of appreciation for philosophy and what is, existence.

If one is confident in an idea they don’t have issue presenting it for others to assess.

[Age]

Are you able to provide this “actual proof” of which you speak?

YES.

If ANY one has ACTUAL PROOF, then great. Let us SEE 'it'.

Agreed. And still waiting.

Are you AWARE that if you WANT some 'thing', then the BEST, SIMPLEST, EASIEST, and QUICKEST WAY to get 'it' is to just ASK for 'it'?

1. Define 'existence'.

2. Provide the so-called and alleged 'substantial evidence', which you CLAIM to have that 'existence', itself, IS INFINITE.

3. Define 'infinite'.

See original text.

SAW so-called 'original text', I think, I can NOT SEE the A definition of the 'existence' word, ANY 'substantial evidence' that 'existence' IS INFINITE, NOR ANY definition for the 'infinite' word.

AND, if you do NOT like to PROVIDE 'them' here, then END OF STORY.

4. Also be AWARE that ANY argument OTHER than a sound AND valid argument is NOT even worth repeating.

Fair enough.

5. If you HAVE a sound AND valid argument, then there is NOTHING to 'argue' ABOUT NOR AGAINST anyway.

As you conceded earlier:

You fail to offer any direct, solid argument against basic principles presented in the original text and here in discussion.

If I recall correctly I was the one who was AGREEING WITH the 'basic principles'.

So WHY would I even WANT TO BEGIN to offer ANY arguments AGAINST?

By the way and just out of CURIOSITY here, are the 'basic principles' the EXACT SAME, TO me, as they ARE, TO you?

6. If you KNEW that 'existence' IS 'infinite', as you call 'it', then WHY would you want to EXCHANGE 'argumentation' FOR anyway?

To discuss the ideas. To help clarify the ideas. To demonstrate their validity. Just to simply discuss philosophy out of appreciation for philosophy and what is, existence.

How do you DEFINE the 'philosophy' word here?

you appear to have USED 'that word' IN and FROM TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.

If one is confident in an idea they don’t have issue presenting it for others to assess.

AND, if one KNOWS what they are talking ABOUT, then they ALSO HAVE NO FEAR of being QUESTIONED AND CHALLENGED OVER 'their ideas' AS WELL AS absolutely NO HESITATION in CLARIFYING, ELABORATING, AND PROVING 'that', what they SAY they CLAIM TO KNOW.

[daniel j lavender]

See original text.

SAW so-called 'original text', I think, I can NOT SEE the A definition of the 'existence' word, ANY 'substantial evidence' that 'existence' IS INFINITE, NOR ANY definition for the 'infinite' word.

As you said earlier:

Are you DEAF AND BLIND?

I assume not as you pick through comments quite efficiently.

AND, if one KNOWS what they are talking ABOUT, then they ALSO HAVE NO FEAR of being QUESTIONED AND CHALLENGED OVER 'their ideas' AS WELL AS absolutely NO HESITATION in CLARIFYING, ELABORATING, AND PROVING 'that', what they SAY they CLAIM TO KNOW.

Precisely.

Are you seeking clarification? Do you wish to actually challenge the original text?

[Age]

See original text.

SAW so-called 'original text', I think, I can NOT SEE the A definition of the 'existence' word, ANY 'substantial evidence' that 'existence' IS INFINITE, NOR ANY definition for the 'infinite' word.

As you said earlier:

Are you DEAF AND BLIND?

I assume not as you pick through comments quite efficiently.

AND, if one KNOWS what they are talking ABOUT, then they ALSO HAVE NO FEAR of being QUESTIONED AND CHALLENGED OVER 'their ideas' AS WELL AS absolutely NO HESITATION in CLARIFYING, ELABORATING, AND PROVING 'that', what they SAY they CLAIM TO KNOW.

Precisely.

Are you seeking clarification?

What do you MEAN?

I ASKED you SPECIFICALLY to DEFINE the words 'existence' AND 'infinite'.

HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS could it get that I AM SEEKING CLARIFICATION?

Do you wish to actually challenge the original text?

Maybe, AFTER I HAVE READ 'it'.

I WILL LET you KNOW.

But, THEN AGAIN, from what you have SHOWN here SO FAR, are you SURE you are CAPABLE of BEING CHALLENGED?

[Age]

OH, I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, you DID, ALREADY, DEFINE those words.

[Age]

Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit.

Can trees or flowers recognize 'patterns'?

If yes, then does this mean that they are 'intelligent' or have 'intelligence', to you?

But if no, to the first question, then WHY do some of 'them' move, following a 'pattern'? If 'they' can NOT recognize 'patterns', then HOW do 'they' KNOW 'to move', in a 'regular pattern', or HOW do 'they' MOVE, in a 'regular pattern'?


What you wrote in the first three sentences seemed to be enough.

If this was the 'basic principle', then as I STATED earlier - I AGREE WITH you here.

The word 'Creation', as in stories WITHIN religious context MEANS and REFERS TO the Universe, Life, or even Existence, Itself. BUT, NOT in relation to 'once upon a time 'it' ALL began', but rather to the Fact that Existence, the Universe, AND Life, Itself, is IN an ALWAYS-CONSTANT CONTINUALLY EVOLVING-CREATION PROCESS. EVERY 'action' CAUSES a 'reaction', and the CONSTANT 'reaction', which Existence IS IN is just 'Creation', Itself.

The word 'creation', itself, has NEVER implied ANY 'thing'. The writer IMPLIES, while the reader INFERS. AND, even if the word 'creation' is TAKEN TO MEAN, or REFER TO, 'a point of being created, a beginning point', this still does NOT take away from the Fact that at EVERY MOMENT is A 'beginning point' AND A 'point of being created'. This is HOW Creation IS, ALWAYS, and, ALWAYS IS.

'you' SAY, 'we possess intelligence, at least to some degree'. 'you', human beings, possess Intelligence, Itself. It is 'this', which is what SEPARATES 'you', human beings, FROM EVERY OTHER known animal. Now, 'you' ALL possess ABSOLUTE Intelligence, and there is NOT a one of 'you' who is LESS NOR MORE Intelligent than "ANOTHER". 'you' ALL possess Intelligence, EQUALLY. That is; you EITHER HAVE Intelligence, or you do NOT, and EVERY human being is born an ABSOLUTELY Intelligent being. Sadly though, because of THIS ABILITY, and the human brain, which is able to GATHER and STORE information/knowledge, no matter how Right OR Wrong that information/knowledge IS, AND BELIEVE 'that information/knowledge' IS true, right, and/or correct, all of this LEADS TO and ALLOWS 'you' to BECOME STUPID, which is just the OPPOSITE of being Intelligent. 'you' were and are ALL born Truly Intelligent beings, but as can be CLEARLY OBSERVED 'this Intelligence' can DIMINISH WITH and OVER 'time', 'knowledge', AND 'information'.

'you' CLAIM, 'we create purpose'. Like 'what', for example?

you keep just re-repeating, more or less, what you just said in those first three sentences, and so the rest is REALLY, to me, UNNECESSARY.

I have ALREADY discussed 'Life' being ETERNAL ALSO WITH you want to BELIEVE and want to CLAIM that 'Life', Itself, is NOT eternal. So, I have ALREADY left you WITH 'that'.

I now KNOW WHY I NEVER read this before, past the first three sentences. The repetitiveness of 'this' is 'BORING me TO TEARS', as some might say.

you CONTRADICT YOUR OWN CLAIM that 'something and nothing cannot coexist', with your OWN two points prior. Which ALSO CONTRADICTS with the last point here.

I could NOT be bothered reading past the sub-heading - Existence is Eternal. As I have heard this REPEATED, and REPEATED in different words too many times now.

[iambiguous]

How "for all practical purposes" is this applicable to the behaviors you choose from day to day in interacting with others? And, in particular, when your value judgments come into conflict with others? That is my own main interest in philosophy: "How ought one to live morally in a world that is awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

As previously stated this is not an ethical or moral treatise. That can be gleaned from other texts. This is a comprehensive, comprehensible expression of the nature, of the structure, of the parameters of existence.

Okay, if you are focused in on the laws of nature then, perhaps, they are what they are. But once that matter evolves into a human brain that "somehow" acquired autonomy when "somehow" matter acquired biological life here on planet Earth, then over and over and over again given human interactions down through the ages there have been, are now and almost certainly always will be endless gaps between the way things are thought to be and the way others think that they ought to be instead. Human existence as it is here is, in fact, what generates most of the newspaper headlines. And most of the conflicts and most of the wars and much of the human pain and suffering that few are able to just shrug off as "that's just the way it is".

That said, such an understanding of existence could allow individuals to reach a better understanding of our commonality, of what we all share which could perhaps help lead to a better community as expressed in Conclusions.

It could allow this "someday" perhaps, but the species is nowhere near that point yet. In fact, my own argument here is that this commonality is philosophically beyond the reach of mere mortals in a No God world. That, optimally, within any particular community, an agreement can be reached whereby moderation, negotiation and compromise are accepted as the "best of all possible worlds". Given all the contexts in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict.

From my frame of mind, religion revolves first and foremost around connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Religion, at least organized religion, often merely revolves around routine ostentation. In extreme cases idol admiration along with other various condemnable activities.

What many consider holy texts, including the Bible, contain more than just supposed historical accounts, moral manuals and outlandish occurrences. They contain certain basic philosophical principles such as eternity, being eternal or eternal being (1 Timothy 1:17). The impossibility of nothing, of no thing, of nonexistence (Luke 1:37).

Again, the philosophy is intended to steer clear of religion. However those two basic principles, those two basic concepts are fundamentally philosophical, not religious. They are retained, they are contained in what many consider religious texts.

As noted, my own main interest in religion, given what is at stake here...moral Commandments on this side of the grave, immortality and salvation on the others side...is less in regard to what is professed to be true [in or out of a particular Scripture] and more regarding what those who profess a denominational creed are able to actually demonstrate to, in fact, be true. Instead, many are willing to accept a "leap of faith" to God or a spiritual path such that they acknowledge they cannot demonstrate the existence of their God or show why they own religion is the One True Path; but they do have faith...and that is enough.

It's not enough for me though. After all, with all of these spiritual paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...leaps of faith can be professed.

Thus...

So, what is of most importance to me here is not what others believe… but what they are actually able to demonstrate empirically, experientially is in fact true about it.

Would you agree we experience? I suppose so. That certainly concerns existence. It involves interacting with other things.

The philosophy is posted for discourse and debate, in part to demonstrate its validity through rational discussion. Anyone can argue any aspect of the philosophy. Ultimately individuals shall contemplate and decide for themselves.

The philosophy with respect to what actual experiences, however. From my own frame of mind, to the extent philosophy is not intertwined in my life is the extent to which it can become a mere intellectual contraption "in my head". And my perspective revolves around the assumption that given all of the vastly different lives we might have lived and live now, there are going to be any number moral and political and spiritual prejudices we might come to embody as individuals that come into dispute. And when that happens either those with the most power will prevail, or an agreement might be reached regarding the most rational and virtuous "rules of behavior" or one or another rendition of democracy and the tule of law will prevail.

Allow me to elaborate on my earlier statement:

This is not my philosophy. This is philosophy. The philosophy. I did not invent it. Supposing all detailed in the original essay is accurate no one would have contrived or invented this philosophy or this description of what is. It would be eternal knowledge, existent and present forever. Individuals discover it, they stumble upon it from time to time throughout eternity and express it for others to contemplate.

Yes, if this is an important component of how you yourself are now able intertwine "in my head" and "out in the world", fine. It works for you. It works for others along many different paths...mentally, emotionally and psychologically...to anchor them to one or another ontological and teleological and spiritual and deontological font.

But philosophy does not work that way for me. Or not anymore. For most, it is either intertwined socially, politically and economically in the world that we encounter day after day "in the news" or it becomes a scholastic, academic, intellectual, spiritual concoction that we "think up" into existence in order to anchor I to one or another objectivist font. What I call the "psychology of objectivism" in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

But that's just me. It's just what "here and now" seems to be a reasonable way to understand myself out in what I presume to be a No God world.

It is similar to the mathematical concept pi. The parameters of pi are always valid, always existent. They do not change, regardless if a conscious entity is around to discover them, acknowledge them or record them in a notebook. In other words parameters of existence, the parameters of the knowledge would always be; what may fluctuate would concern life, or would concern conscious awareness and acknowledgment of the parameters.

This is all too abstract from my frame of mind. Pi and the moral conflagrations that rent the species? Pi and the political conflicts that pummel us? Pi and the religious confrontations that circle the globe? Pi and the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in the is/ought world?

Perhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. All that is, is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

Same here. For each of us one by one we run out of time on this side of the grave. And to the extent that we have accumulated loved ones and things that bring us enormous pleasure and satisfaction, running out of time means losing them forever.

Which, from my current vantage point, explains why so many Gods and religions and all manner of philosophical/spiritual narratives are "thought up" and invented: to comfort and console us by imagining that oblivion is not the case at all.

And, sure, maybe it's not. But then given all of the religious and spiritual paths that have been "discovered" or "thought up" down through the ages, why one and not another? That's why my own orientation here revolves more around not what someone does believe in their head here but what they can in fact demonstrate is true. Even to themselves.

Again, this...

All that is simply is. Simply being. Being. The fact that life is, that knowledge is an expression of existence is also a reflection and acknowledgement of its timelessness. Existence transcends measure, existence transcends time. Existence transcends number, existence transcends word. Existence just is.

...works for you. And it doesn't work for me.

And we may or may not be able to close that gap.

[daniel j lavender]

EVERY MOMENT is A 'beginning point' AND A 'point of being created'.

For particulars, perhaps.

Existence, generally speaking, is not created. Existence is eternal. As you agree.

This is the defining characteristic which differentiates existence from things. Which demonstrates the superiority of existence to things.

Things can move around. Things can change. Things begin and things end.

Things are at the mercy of other things, inclement environments for example.

Existence always is. Existence does not change, it does not move or go away. Existence does not begin or end.

Existence is not at the mercy of other things. Existence is all there is and all there will be.

'you' SAY, 'we possess intelligence, at least to some degree'. 'you', human beings, possess Intelligence, Itself. It is 'this', which is what SEPARATES 'you', human beings, FROM EVERY OTHER known animal. Now, 'you' ALL possess ABSOLUTE Intelligence, and there is NOT a one of 'you' who is LESS NOR MORE Intelligent than "ANOTHER". 'you' ALL possess Intelligence, EQUALLY. That is; you EITHER HAVE Intelligence, or you do NOT, and EVERY human being is born an ABSOLUTELY Intelligent being.

No disagreement here. That’s essentially acknowledged in the text.

The “we” in

…existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.

is referring to humans, to conscious individuals of Earth generally. Essentially all organisms. The statement also implicates artificial intelligence and other sentient systems as, after all, the statement is conveyed through the internet, through advanced systems technology. The point being, intelligence is acknowledged.

However it’s another case entirely to argue that all people, especially all organisms or entities are of comparable intelligence. Are all athletes of the same skill? Can they all reach the same goals? Likewise can all minds achieve the same achievements? Do you mean to imply bovine have the same mind, the same intelligence as a chemist, a composer or a rocket engineer?

Intelligence is intelligence. However there are subtleties.

'you' CLAIM, 'we create purpose'. Like 'what', for example?

Conscious individuals create purpose. Individuals create purpose even if it simply involves sustenance of their basic needs. People create goals and strive to achieve them. Individuals develop personal beliefs concerning spiritual or religious purpose.

Individuals create purpose for themselves and for other individuals. The child creates purpose for the parent. The patient creates purpose for the aspiring doctor or medical technician.

Ultimately purpose is something we create. Something that involves us, that extends from us as conscious beings.

you CONTRADICT YOUR OWN CLAIM that 'something and nothing cannot coexist', with your OWN two points prior.

How so? You cannot make a valid accusation without valid argumentation.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. If a certain point of existence was identified that certain point would be something. So would all related points from which that particular point was extracted.

Immateriality is part of existence as much as materiality is part of existence. Immateriality, nonphysicality is immateriality or nonphysicality. Immateriality, nonphysicality is not nonexistence or nothing.

[daniel j lavender]

…if you are focused in on the laws of nature…

Existence transcends all we know and all we understand. That includes said laws of nature.

What are laws of nature? They are principles based on events and phenomena we’ve observed within the observable universe which appear to be consistent.

These laws extend from our observation and understanding of the observable universe. In other words these laws extend from a limited perspective. These laws are based on limited observation and on limited understanding.

With theoretical physics and applied sciences we know certain aspects of existence can be manipulated. This relates to some of the basic principles and core tenets of these laws. With advances in both technology and understanding do these “laws of nature” actually hold?

Are such laws really ubiquitous?

As mentioned earlier some claim there are alternate universes

there are SOME human beings who SAY and CLAIM there are MORE than one Universe

so perhaps they are not.

And we may or may not be able to close that gap.

There is no gap. There is no separation, anywhere. To assert separation is futile as that between connects that separated.

See “gap of nonexistence”: viewtopic.php?t=40269

This may be of interest: viewtopic.php?t=39651

[Age]

EVERY MOMENT is A 'beginning point' AND A 'point of being created'.

For particulars, perhaps.

Existence, generally speaking, is not created.

As I said, 'Existence' was NOT 'created', once upon a time, nor ALL at once. But, 'It' is in a never-ending continual state of CHANGE, and thus in a continual state of CREATING, and CREATION AS WELL.

AND, EVERY moment IN and OF 'Existence' can be seen as A 'beginning point', right? Or, do you DISAGREE?

Existence is eternal. As you agree.

This is the defining characteristic which differentiates existence from things. Which demonstrates the superiority of existence to things.

In 'that head'.

There is NOTHING that is so-called 'superior' to another here, from the views within 'this head'.

To me, 'Existence' is just ANOTHER conceptualized SEPARATED 'thing', within the One and ONLY 'Thing'.

Things can move around. Things can change. Things begin and things end.

BUT the 'things' called 'life' and 'Universe', among other 'things' do NOT begin NOR end, NEITHER.

Things are at the mercy of other things, inclement environments for example.

Existence always is. Existence does not change, it does not move or go away. Existence does not begin or end.

Existence is not at the mercy of other things. Existence is all there is and all there will be.

Just so you become completely AWARE, what you ALREADY BELIEVE true here we ALREADY KNOW.

you KEEP RE-REPEATING the SAME 'thing' over and over here.

'you' SAY, 'we possess intelligence, at least to some degree'. 'you', human beings, possess Intelligence, Itself. It is 'this', which is what SEPARATES 'you', human beings, FROM EVERY OTHER known animal. Now, 'you' ALL possess ABSOLUTE Intelligence, and there is NOT a one of 'you' who is LESS NOR MORE Intelligent than "ANOTHER". 'you' ALL possess Intelligence, EQUALLY. That is; you EITHER HAVE Intelligence, or you do NOT, and EVERY human being is born an ABSOLUTELY Intelligent being.

No disagreement here. That’s essentially acknowledged in the text.

It is the VERY DIFFERENT.

you say, 'we possess intelligence, to a certain DEGREE'.

Whereas,

I say, 'you', human beings, possess intelligence, in the EXACT SAME degree. FULL STOP'. Although nearly EVERY adult human being, in the days when this was being written, BELIEVED otherwise.

The “we” in

…existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.

is referring to humans, to conscious individuals of Earth generally. Essentially all organisms. The statement also implicates artificial intelligence and other sentient systems as, after all, the statement is conveyed through the internet, through advanced systems technology. The point being, intelligence is acknowledged.

However it’s another case entirely to argue that all people, especially all organisms or entities are of comparable intelligence.

Yes it would be ANOTHER CASE to argue 'this', but considering absolutely NO one here is arguing 'this', making this comment here was COMPLETELY REDUNDANT.

Are all athletes of the same skill?

NO. But this here also has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'intelligence', itself.

For example, just because that body might be able to 'walk better' than one that is crippled, in absolutely NO WAY means that the thinking in that that in body is 'better'.

All human bodies having differing varies levels of 'skills', just like within ALL human bodies there are differing levels of 'knowledge' or 'intellect' has in NO WAY absolutely ANY 'thing' to do with 'intelligence', itself. Which, by the way, is the EXACT SAME within EVERY human body.

Can they all reach the same goals? Likewise can all minds achieve the same achievements? Do you mean to imply bovine have the same mind, the same intelligence as a chemist, a composer or a rocket engineer?

Intelligence is intelligence. However there are subtleties.

REALLY?

If yes, then besides explaining WHERE, HOW, and WHY will you also list these ALLEGED subtleties?

'you' CLAIM, 'we create purpose'. Like 'what', for example?

Conscious individuals create purpose. Individuals create purpose even if it simply involves sustenance of their basic needs. People create goals and strive to achieve them. Individuals develop personal beliefs concerning spiritual or religious purpose.

Individuals create purpose for themselves and for other individuals. The child creates purpose for the parent. The patient creates purpose for the aspiring doctor or medical technician.

Does the 'child' and 'patient', "themselves", CREATE 'purpose', or does the 'parent' and 'doctor' IMAGINE there there is, now, a 'purpose' FOR 'them'?

Ultimately purpose is something we create. Something that involves us, that extends from us as conscious beings.

Okay, if 'this' is what 'you' HAVE CREATED, then so be it.

But for "others" there is an INNER, UNDERLYING, ETERNAL, or INSTINCTUAL 'purpose' for 'them' being HERE, in Life, Existence, and the Universe, Itself. Which they, OBVIOUSLY, did NOT 'create', "themselves".

you CONTRADICT YOUR OWN CLAIM that 'something and nothing cannot coexist', with your OWN two points prior.

How so?

By 'them' being 'mutually opposed' and 'inconsistent'.

You cannot make a valid accusation without valid argumentation.

But can you make a 'valid claim' without a 'valid argument?

If you can NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION, in your OWN writings, then the CONTRADICTION IS CLAIMING:

immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences.

And then CLAIMING:

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

If you STILL NEED this CLARIFIED or ELABORATED ON, then just let me know, okay?

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

ACTUALLY the VERY OPPOSITE IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

If a certain point of existence was identified that certain point would be something.

Just like ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing', which was/is identified IS some 'thing', correct?

So would all related points from which that particular point was extracted.

Okay, but you are MISSING WHERE the CONTRADICTION IS here, EXACTLY.

Immateriality is part of existence as much as materiality is part of existence.

you REALLY DO like to KEEP RE-REPEATING "yourself", right?

Also, just so you become AWARE you DO 'this' WITHOUT even providing ANY 'valid NOR sound argument' FOR.

Immateriality, nonphysicality is immateriality or nonphysicality. Immateriality, nonphysicality is not nonexistence or nothing.

Yes we ARE AWARE that 'this' is what you 'currently' BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY True.

[Age]

How "for all practical purposes" is this applicable to the behaviors you choose from day to day in interacting with others? And, in particular, when your value judgments come into conflict with others? That is my own main interest in philosophy: "How ought one to live morally in a world that is awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

As previously stated this is not an ethical or moral treatise. That can be gleaned from other texts. This is a comprehensive, comprehensible expression of the nature, of the structure, of the parameters of existence.

Okay, if you are focused in on the laws of nature then, perhaps, they are what they are. But once that matter evolves into a human brain that "somehow" acquired autonomy when "somehow" matter acquired biological life here on planet Earth, then over and over and over again given human interactions down through the ages there have been, are now and almost certainly always will be endless gaps between the way things are thought to be and the way others think that they ought to be instead.

And this is WHERE and WHY to just STOP 'thinking' can come in VERY HANDY when seriously WANTING TO FIND OUT and SEE what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS HERE, EXACTLY.

But 'this' is some 'thing' that IS REVEALED further ON, 'down the line', as some might say.

Human existence as it is here is, in fact, what generates most of the newspaper headlines. And most of the conflicts and most of the wars and much of the human pain and suffering that few are able to just shrug off as "that's just the way it is".

ACTUALLY 'this' is NOT AT ALL UNSURPRISING, REALLY, especially considering the way that 'you', adult human beings, 'think', and 'view things', in the days when this is being written.

That said, such an understanding of existence could allow individuals to reach a better understanding of our commonality, of what we all share which could perhaps help lead to a better community as expressed in Conclusions.

It could allow this "someday" perhaps, but the species is nowhere near that point yet. In fact, my own argument here is that this commonality is philosophically beyond the reach of mere mortals in a No God world.

But what about the so-called 'God world'?

That, optimally, within any particular community, an agreement can be reached whereby moderation, negotiation and compromise are accepted as the "best of all possible worlds". Given all the contexts in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict.

From my frame of mind, religion revolves first and foremost around connecting the dots between morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Religion, at least organized religion, often merely revolves around routine ostentation. In extreme cases idol admiration along with other various condemnable activities.

What many consider holy texts, including the Bible, contain more than just supposed historical accounts, moral manuals and outlandish occurrences. They contain certain basic philosophical principles such as eternity, being eternal or eternal being (1 Timothy 1:17). The impossibility of nothing, of no thing, of nonexistence (Luke 1:37).

Again, the philosophy is intended to steer clear of religion. However those two basic principles, those two basic concepts are fundamentally philosophical, not religious. They are retained, they are contained in what many consider religious texts.

As noted, my own main interest in religion, given what is at stake here...moral Commandments on this side of the grave, immortality and salvation on the others side...is less in regard to what is professed to be true [in or out of a particular Scripture] and more regarding what those who profess a denominational creed are able to actually demonstrate to, in fact, be true. Instead, many are willing to accept a "leap of faith" to God or a spiritual path such that they acknowledge they cannot demonstrate the existence of their God or show why they own religion is the One True Path; but they do have faith...and that is enough.

It's not enough for me though. After all, with all of these spiritual paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...leaps of faith can be professed.

Thus...

So, what is of most importance to me here is not what others believe… but what they are actually able to demonstrate empirically, experientially is in fact true about it.

Would you agree we experience? I suppose so. That certainly concerns existence. It involves interacting with other things.

The philosophy is posted for discourse and debate, in part to demonstrate its validity through rational discussion. Anyone can argue any aspect of the philosophy. Ultimately individuals shall contemplate and decide for themselves.

The philosophy with respect to what actual experiences, however. From my own frame of mind, to the extent philosophy is not intertwined in my life is the extent to which it can become a mere intellectual contraption "in my head". And my perspective revolves around the assumption that given all of the vastly different lives we might have lived and live now, there are going to be any number moral and political and spiritual prejudices we might come to embody as individuals that come into dispute. And when that happens either those with the most power will prevail, or an agreement might be reached regarding the most rational and virtuous "rules of behavior" or one or another rendition of democracy and the tule of law will prevail.

Allow me to elaborate on my earlier statement:

This is not my philosophy. This is philosophy. The philosophy. I did not invent it. Supposing all detailed in the original essay is accurate no one would have contrived or invented this philosophy or this description of what is. It would be eternal knowledge, existent and present forever. Individuals discover it, they stumble upon it from time to time throughout eternity and express it for others to contemplate.

Yes, if this is an important component of how you yourself are now able intertwine "in my head" and "out in the world", fine. It works for you. It works for others along many different paths...mentally, emotionally and psychologically...to anchor them to one or another ontological and teleological and spiritual and deontological font.

But philosophy does not work that way for me. Or not anymore. For most, it is either intertwined socially, politically and economically in the world that we encounter day after day "in the news" or it becomes a scholastic, academic, intellectual, spiritual concoction that we "think up" into existence in order to anchor I to one or another objectivist font. What I call the "psychology of objectivism" in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

But that's just me. It's just what "here and now" seems to be a reasonable way to understand myself out in what I presume to be a No God world.

It is similar to the mathematical concept pi. The parameters of pi are always valid, always existent. They do not change, regardless if a conscious entity is around to discover them, acknowledge them or record them in a notebook. In other words parameters of existence, the parameters of the knowledge would always be; what may fluctuate would concern life, or would concern conscious awareness and acknowledgment of the parameters.

This is all too abstract from my frame of mind. Pi and the moral conflagrations that rent the species? Pi and the political conflicts that pummel us? Pi and the religious confrontations that circle the globe? Pi and the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in the is/ought world?

Perhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. All that is, is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

Same here. For each of us one by one we run out of time on this side of the grave. And to the extent that we have accumulated loved ones and things that bring us enormous pleasure and satisfaction, running out of time means losing them forever.

Which, from my current vantage point, explains why so many Gods and religions and all manner of philosophical/spiritual narratives are "thought up" and invented: to comfort and console us by imagining that oblivion is not the case at all.

And, sure, maybe it's not. But then given all of the religious and spiritual paths that have been "discovered" or "thought up" down through the ages, why one and not another? That's why my own orientation here revolves more around not what someone does believe in their head here but what they can in fact demonstrate is true. Even to themselves.

Again, this...

All that is simply is. Simply being. Being. The fact that life is, that knowledge is an expression of existence is also a reflection and acknowledgement of its timelessness. Existence transcends measure, existence transcends time. Existence transcends number, existence transcends word. Existence just is.

...works for you. And it doesn't work for me.

And we may or may not be able to close that gap.