Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 4:38 am
Imo in this context, neither really. Here the physical and the abstract refer to two layers in our thinking, that as a rule shouldn't be mixed (according to many). The distinction itself between them, the rule itself, is rather part of how we think about thinking, how we assess and structure our own thinking.
Point to the rulebook, accepted by the many, where there is the rule that these distinctions cannot and should not be mixed. Then show me the majority that agree with this rulebook and ruling. After you find the rule book, and the rule within it, about how the abstract and physical should not be mixed explain to me how the abstraction of these rules was physicalized into this book without contradicting itself and how the physicality of this book did not result in abstractions of it.
The rulebook is common sense, which you lack. The majority of philosophers of course agree that abstracta and concreta shouldn't be freely mixed, you can google this or ask an AI. If you mix them, you will end up mixing things that have physical referents and things that have no physical referents, and treat them equally, which will lead to the paradoxical, self-contradictory nonsense that you've wasted a decade on.
All abstract thinking is still human thinking, and all human thinking is technically made of physical stuff, no contradiction there.
So all abstractions are human thoughts and all human thinking is made up of the physical...so the distinction between the abstract and physical is contradiction on your part as they are both one and the same...and you accuse me of blurring the line.
Point to the rulebook, accepted by the many, where there is the rule that these distinctions cannot and should not be mixed. Then show me the majority that agree with this rulebook and ruling. After you find the rule book, and the rule within it, about how the abstract and physical should not be mixed explain to me how the abstraction of these rules was physicalized into this book without contradicting itself and how the physicality of this book did not result in abstractions of it.
The rulebook is common sense, which you lack. The majority of philosophers of course agree that abstracta and concreta shouldn't be freely mixed, you can google this or ask an AI. If you mix them, you will end up mixing things that have physical referents and things that have no physical referents, and treat them equally, which will lead to the paradoxical, self-contradictory nonsense that you've wasted a decade on.
All abstract thinking is still human thinking, and all human thinking is technically made of physical stuff, no contradiction there.
So all abstractions are human thoughts and all human thinking is made up of the physical...so the distinction between the abstract and physical is contradiction on your part as they are both one and the same...and you accuse me of blurring the line.
No, the contradiction is on your part. Now you are blurrying the line between what we are thinking with and what we are thinking about.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 5:06 am
The rulebook is common sense, which you lack. The majority of philosophers of course agree that abstracta and concreta shouldn't be freely mixed, you can google this or ask an AI. If you mix them, you will end up mixing things that have physical referents and things that have no physical referents, and treat them equally, which will lead to the paradoxical, self-contradictory nonsense that you've wasted a decade on.
All abstract thinking is still human thinking, and all human thinking is technically made of physical stuff, no contradiction there.
So all abstractions are human thoughts and all human thinking is made up of the physical...so the distinction between the abstract and physical is contradiction on your part as they are both one and the same...and you accuse me of blurring the line.
No, the contradiction is on your part. Now you are blurrying the line between what we are thinking with and what we are thinking about.
"All abstract thinking is still human thinking, and all human thinking is technically made of physical stuff"...you just said all abstract thoughts are physical then blame me for blurring the line when you are arguing my point.
So all abstractions are human thoughts and all human thinking is made up of the physical...so the distinction between the abstract and physical is contradiction on your part as they are both one and the same...and you accuse me of blurring the line.
No, the contradiction is on your part. Now you are blurrying the line between what we are thinking with and what we are thinking about.
"All abstract thinking is still human thinking, and all human thinking is technically made of physical stuff"...you just said all abstract thoughts are physical then blame me for blurring the line when you are arguing my point.
You say I am wrong and then argue my point.
No, you are simply wrong. I'm not sure what it is that makes you unable to process what the "asbtract" is, but your wires seem to be crossed. Could be a side-effect of a past psychosis. If you could process it, you would see that there is no contradiction in what I said.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 5:29 am
No, the contradiction is on your part. Now you are blurrying the line between what we are thinking with and what we are thinking about.
"All abstract thinking is still human thinking, and all human thinking is technically made of physical stuff"...you just said all abstract thoughts are physical then blame me for blurring the line when you are arguing my point.
You say I am wrong and then argue my point.
No, you are simply wrong. I'm not sure what it is that makes you unable to process what the "asbtract" is, but your wires seem to be crossed. Could be a side-effect of a past psychosis. If you could process it, you would see that there is no contradiction in what I said.
You just said abstract thoughts are made of the physical...of course there is no contradiction to what I just said, you are agreeing with me.
"All abstract thinking is still human thinking, and all human thinking is technically made of physical stuff"...you just said all abstract thoughts are physical then blame me for blurring the line when you are arguing my point.
You say I am wrong and then argue my point.
No, you are simply wrong. I'm not sure what it is that makes you unable to process what the "asbtract" is, but your wires seem to be crossed. Could be a side-effect of a past psychosis. If you could process it, you would see that there is no contradiction in what I said.
You just said abstract thoughts are made of the physical...of course there is no contradiction to what I just said, you are agreeing with me.
Again, now you're mixing up what we think with and what we think about. Just because you think about something, doesn't mean that something is real, even though your thoughts exist. Just because you have thoughts about a number, or about a unicorn, doesn't make the number or the unicorn real.
Try this: think of a unicorn. Now try to understand that there is no actual unicorn, even though you are thinking about it.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 5:37 am
No, you are simply wrong. I'm not sure what it is that makes you unable to process what the "asbtract" is, but your wires seem to be crossed. Could be a side-effect of a past psychosis. If you could process it, you would see that there is no contradiction in what I said.
You just said abstract thoughts are made of the physical...of course there is no contradiction to what I just said, you are agreeing with me.
Again, now you're mixing up what we think with and what we think about. Just because you think about something, doesn't mean that something is real, even though your thoughts exist. Just because you have thoughts about a number, or about a unicorn, doesn't make the number or the unicorn real.
Try this: think of a unicorn. Now try to understand that there is no actual unicorn, even though you are thinking about it.
Try this: put your hand out in front of you and then pull it away. The reality of your hand in front of you is merely a thought, a memory. What you base reality on is purely mind. To differentiate the abstract and the physical is purely a thought about thoughts...thought dividing thought as thought. You cannot pinpoint the exact now without reference to a thought.
You just said abstract thoughts are made of the physical...of course there is no contradiction to what I just said, you are agreeing with me.
Again, now you're mixing up what we think with and what we think about. Just because you think about something, doesn't mean that something is real, even though your thoughts exist. Just because you have thoughts about a number, or about a unicorn, doesn't make the number or the unicorn real.
Try this: think of a unicorn. Now try to understand that there is no actual unicorn, even though you are thinking about it.
Try this: put your hand out in front of you and then pull it away. The reality of your hand in front of you is merely a thought, a memory. What you base reality on is purely mind. To differentiate the abstract and the physical is purely a thought about thoughts...thought dividing thought as thought. You cannot pinpoint the exact now without reference to a thought.
That is roughly correct, so? Even though I'm limited to my own mind, doesn't mean that there isn't a (mostly) mind-independent reality "out there".
When something is concrete, like my hand, it's both "out there" and a perception of it is "in here", there are two different hands. When something is abstract, it's only "in here".
But I remembered where this is going. The Buddhist-Kantian solipsistic, evil mind-dependent crap that was thankfully trashed by modern science and psychology.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 5:48 am
Again, now you're mixing up what we think with and what we think about. Just because you think about something, doesn't mean that something is real, even though your thoughts exist. Just because you have thoughts about a number, or about a unicorn, doesn't make the number or the unicorn real.
Try this: think of a unicorn. Now try to understand that there is no actual unicorn, even though you are thinking about it.
Try this: put your hand out in front of you and then pull it away. The reality of your hand in front of you is merely a thought, a memory. What you base reality on is purely mind. To differentiate the abstract and the physical is purely a thought about thoughts...thought dividing thought as thought. You cannot pinpoint the exact now without reference to a thought.
That is roughly correct, so? Even though I'm limited to my own mind, doesn't mean that there isn't a (mostly) mind-independent reality "out there".
When something is concrete, like my hand, it's both "out there" and a perception of it is "in here", there are two different hands. When something is abstract, it's only "in here".
But I remembered where this is going. The Buddhist-Kantian solipsistic, evil mind-dependent crap that was thankfully trashed by modern science and psychology.
The concept of a mind indepedent reality is a concept thus mind.
You claim there is a distinction between abstract and physical and this distinction is thought, but abstract and physicality are both conceptual distinctions thus thought divides thought as thought.
Try this: put your hand out in front of you and then pull it away. The reality of your hand in front of you is merely a thought, a memory. What you base reality on is purely mind. To differentiate the abstract and the physical is purely a thought about thoughts...thought dividing thought as thought. You cannot pinpoint the exact now without reference to a thought.
That is roughly correct, so? Even though I'm limited to my own mind, doesn't mean that there isn't a (mostly) mind-independent reality "out there".
When something is concrete, like my hand, it's both "out there" and a perception of it is "in here", there are two different hands. When something is abstract, it's only "in here".
But I remembered where this is going. The Buddhist-Kantian solipsistic, evil mind-dependent crap that was thankfully trashed by modern science and psychology.
The concept of a mind indepedent reality is a concept thus mind.
You claim there is a distinction between abstract and physical and this distinction is thought, but abstract and physicality are both conceptual distinctions thus thought divides thought as thought.
Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 6:11 am
That is roughly correct, so? Even though I'm limited to my own mind, doesn't mean that there isn't a (mostly) mind-independent reality "out there".
When something is concrete, like my hand, it's both "out there" and a perception of it is "in here", there are two different hands. When something is abstract, it's only "in here".
But I remembered where this is going. The Buddhist-Kantian solipsistic, evil mind-dependent crap that was thankfully trashed by modern science and psychology.
The concept of a mind indepedent reality is a concept thus mind.
You claim there is a distinction between abstract and physical and this distinction is thought, but abstract and physicality are both conceptual distinctions thus thought divides thought as thought.
Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.
I never ask you for it to work on you. Your distinctions are merely thought dividing thought as thought and a paradox within your reasoning ensues from this. If you make the distinction that something is not a thought, that distinction is a thought and a paradox ensues.
The concept of a mind indepedent reality is a concept thus mind.
You claim there is a distinction between abstract and physical and this distinction is thought, but abstract and physicality are both conceptual distinctions thus thought divides thought as thought.
Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.
I never ask you for it to work on you. Your distinctions are merely thought dividing thought as thought and a paradox within your reasoning ensues from this. If you make the distinction that something is not a thought, that distinction is a thought and a paradox ensues.
There is no paradox. Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me. A thought inside the mind can.. (drum roll) refer to the realm outside the mind.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 12:08 pm
Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.
I never ask you for it to work on you. Your distinctions are merely thought dividing thought as thought and a paradox within your reasoning ensues from this. If you make the distinction that something is not a thought, that distinction is a thought and a paradox ensues.
There is no paradox. Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me. A thought inside the mind can.. (drum roll) refer to the realm outside the mind.
The realm outside the mind is thought and a though is a thought by its limits. The realm outside the mind is strictly a thought of the unknown, thought as potentiality as a thought.
I never ask you for it to work on you. Your distinctions are merely thought dividing thought as thought and a paradox within your reasoning ensues from this. If you make the distinction that something is not a thought, that distinction is a thought and a paradox ensues.
There is no paradox. Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me. A thought inside the mind can.. (drum roll) refer to the realm outside the mind.
The realm outside the mind is thought and a though is a thought by its limits. The realm outside the mind is strictly a thought of the unknown, thought as potentiality as a thought.
How much unknown, 100%? Prove this solipsistic, evil, total fucking nonsense if you can. Your thought about the realm outside the mind, is a thought. But again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 6:08 pm
There is no paradox. Again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me. A thought inside the mind can.. (drum roll) refer to the realm outside the mind.
The realm outside the mind is thought and a though is a thought by its limits. The realm outside the mind is strictly a thought of the unknown, thought as potentiality as a thought.
How much unknown, 100%? Prove this solipsistic, evil, total fucking nonsense if you can. Your thought about the realm outside the mind, is a thought. But again, it doesn't follow that there is no mind-independent reality. (This part of) the Kant-Buddhism-FSK doesn't work on me.