Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Reflex wrote: It's only logical under the umbrella of strict monism: 1+1=1 because there is no "2."

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You're saying the the "monism" in question is that "'Everything' is one (numerical) thing"?

Yeah, but a bit more than that. It's a strong emphasis on process being the Ultimate Reality to the exclusion of fact. (Personally, I come somewhere down the middle.)

Confucius Say; He who sits on fence gets sore arse!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:You're saying the the "monism" in question is that "'Everything' is one (numerical) thing"?

Yeah, but a bit more than that. It's a strong emphasis on process being the Ultimate Reality to the exclusion of fact. (Personally, I come somewhere down the middle.)

Confucius Say; He who sits on fence gets sore arse!

And Abraham Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Methinks you should take this piece of advice to heart, Hobbes.

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote: Yeah, but a bit more than that. It's a strong emphasis on process being the Ultimate Reality to the exclusion of fact. (Personally, I come somewhere down the middle.)

Confucius Say; He who sits on fence gets sore arse!

And Abraham Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Methinks you should take to heart, Hobbes.

I take heart since it is you that needs heed that message not me. You've made yourself a fool time and again. I need no advice from you or Abe.

Enjoy that fence post up your arse. In your case its okay since Monism provides that your arse is the same as your elbow, and the fence post come to that!!

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote: It was enough to get you to admit God exists. I'll let you work out the details for yourself.

Now that is just childish and reductionist. I do not attribute any consciousness or awareness to existence because only that would make it God. Consciousness and awareness seem to have arisen with life and there is no reason to believe they existed in this universe before that. Existence dose not seem to have willed itself. That doesn't sound like God to me.

What is an effect entirely absent in it cause called? What are act and potency and where do they fit into the scheme of things?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You will have to elaborate.

Let me put my point across. And we can go from there. Existence IS. I think we both agree on that. What we seem to disagree on are the properties of existence. As far as I can see, Existence is a phenomenon. However, it does not seem to have any consciousness or awareness of its own. So it cannot will itself into a particular state. It is probably governed by its own set of laws. Existence seems to change states within the framework of its laws which is governed by the conditions of existence itself and the universe we call our own is the present state of existence that we are aware of. There might or might not be other states of existence but that is irrelevant to us. We are concerned with this present state of existence that we call our universe. What the total frame work of laws of existence are, we cannot know because our own known set of laws break down as we move back in time trying to study the change of state which caused the present universe.

Reflex wrote:sthitapragya,

I know seeing your questions being answered by questions hurts your head because you're not used to thinking, but what better way is there to understand the answer than to understand the process? So, don't be afraid. Answer the questions and we'll move on from there.

See? Now this is the reason one is tempted to put you on ignore. You posted this insult as an afterthought. There was no call for it. We were having a perfectly civil discussion and you ruined it with this pointlessly graceless post.

All your belief in God and having supposedly understood him has done nothing to make you a mature and classy old man. It has not made you happy, or content, because that would show in your replies. That itself raises the question. Is this what belief does to a person? Turn them into bitter people? You sound bitter, angry, and short tempered. Where is the control over your emotions that comes with an understanding of God? Where is your happiness or contentment?

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote:sthitapragya,

I know seeing your questions being answered by questions hurts your head because you're not used to thinking, but what better way is there to understand the answer than to understand the process? So, don't be afraid. Answer the questions and we'll move on from there.

See? Now this is the reason one is tempted to put you on ignore. You posted this insult as an afterthought. There was no call for it. We were having a perfectly civil discussion and you ruined it with this pointlessly graceless post.

All your belief in God and having supposedly understood him has done nothing to make you a mature and classy old man. It has not made you happy, or content, because that would show in your replies. That itself raises the question. Is this what belief does to a person? Turn them into bitter people? You sound bitter, angry, and short tempered. Where is the control over your emotions that comes with an understanding of God? Where is your happiness or contentment?

Did you some investigating with respect to what you are denying (God as defined in classical theism)? Or are you content with your pseudo psychology?

In any event, are you going to answer the questions or not?

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote:sthitapragya,

I know seeing your questions being answered by questions hurts your head because you're not used to thinking, but what better way is there to understand the answer than to understand the process? So, don't be afraid. Answer the questions and we'll move on from there.

See? Now this is the reason one is tempted to put you on ignore. You posted this insult as an afterthought. There was no call for it. We were having a perfectly civil discussion and you ruined it with this pointlessly graceless post.

All your belief in God and having supposedly understood him has done nothing to make you a mature and classy old man. It has not made you happy, or content, because that would show in your replies. That itself raises the question. Is this what belief does to a person? Turn them into bitter people? You sound bitter, angry, and short tempered. Where is the control over your emotions that comes with an understanding of God? Where is your happiness or contentment?

Did you some investigating with respect to what you are denying (God as defined in classical theism)? If not, why is it insulting to be exposed to the truth?

In any event, are you going to answer the questions or not?

I edited my previous post but you seem to have missed it. I will reproduce it here.

Let me put my point across. And we can go from there. Existence IS. I think we both agree on that. What we seem to disagree on are the properties of existence. As far as I can see, Existence is a phenomenon. However, it does not seem to have any consciousness or awareness of its own. So it cannot will itself into a particular state. It is probably governed by its own set of laws. Existence seems to change states within the framework of its laws which is governed by the conditions of existence itself and the universe we call our own is the present state of existence that we are aware of. There might or might not be other states of existence but that is irrelevant to us. We are concerned with this present state of existence that we call our universe. What the total frame work of laws of existence are, we cannot know because our own known set of laws break down as we move back in time trying to study the change of state which caused the present universe.

sthitapragya wrote: Let me put my point across. And we can go from there. Existence IS. I think we both agree on that. What we seem to disagree on are the properties of existence. As far as I can see, Existence is a phenomenon. However, it does not seem to have any consciousness or awareness of its own. So it cannot will itself into a particular state. It is probably governed by its own set of laws. Existence seems to change states within the framework of its laws which is governed by the conditions of existence itself and the universe we call our own is the present state of existence that we are aware of. There might or might not be other states of existence but that is irrelevant to us. We are concerned with this present state of existence that we call our universe. What the total frame work of laws of existence are, we cannot know because our own known set of laws break down as we move back in time trying to study the change of state which caused the present universe.

Very good. Thank you.

My turn. I asked three leading questions: What is an effect entirely absent in it cause called? What are act and potency and where do they fit into the scheme of things? Scientists don't know what energy is, so why do they believe it exists? Are they irrational?

Scientists define energy as the capacity of a physical system to perform work, but that doesn't tell us what it is. Yet, they believe it exists because the concept of energy has explanatory power. But here's the kicker: an effect entirely absent in it cause called magic. The set of classical "laws" is the average of events occurring at the quantum level, but it appears that there is no way of knowing, even in principle, why the average is comprehensible, let alone how consciousness can emerge from something in which it is (supposedly) absent. They just know it does. Therefore, magic is a mythological truth of modern-day science.

Many scientists will be offended and vehemently reject the notion that science as it is practiced today is based on a "myth," but the decision to exclude consciousness as a fundamental feature of the natural universe is a philosophical one that does violence to experience and common sense. There are absolutely no grounds for that decision. "There are aspects of actualities that are simply ignored so long as we restrict thought to these categories." (A. N. Whitehead) Fortunately, there are some courageous scientists who are willing to publicly admit that consciousness may, after all, be inexorably linked to why the universe is the way it is.

That's two, now for the third: What are act and potency and where do they fit into the scheme of things? "Act" is the actual; "potency" is potentiality. What I call "God" is pure act, pure actuality or pure "being-ness. God is existence; everything that has existence, everything that has definable boundaries, is a compound of act and potency. Put another way, God is and we are becoming. The is cannot be less than the becoming; thinking otherwise is magical thinking.

I want you to understand that I am not stating this as the "truth," but to illustrate, at least in part, the thinking process.

Reflex wrote:
Very good. Thank you.

My turn. I asked three leading questions: What is an effect entirely absent in it cause called? What are act and potency and where do they fit into the scheme of things? Scientists don't know what energy is, so why do they believe it exists? Are they irrational?

Scientists define energy as the capacity of a physical system to perform work, but that doesn't tell us what it is. Yet, they believe it exists because the concept of energy has explanatory power. But here's the kicker: an effect entirely absent in it cause called magic. The set of classical "laws" is the average of events occurring at the quantum level, but it appears that there is no way of knowing, even in principle, why the average is comprehensible, let alone how consciousness can emerge from something in which it is (supposedly) absent. They just know it does. Therefore, magic is a mythological truth of modern-day science.

I am sorry but that is a big leap. I looked for this and found nothing on scientists believing that energy exists because the concept of energy has explanatory powers. Energy exists. But it does not explain anything other than the fact that energy exists. And I don't understand what you mean by an effect entirely absent in its cause? What effect are you talking about?

There really is no such thing as magic. Magic has always been a jump to a conclusion for anything unexplained. The existence of energy is unexplained. That alone cannot make it magic. The fact that consciousness has emerged from something in which it is absent is unexplained. You might be right and it might exist in energy. But it is a maybe. Not a certainty. You cannot certainly say that consciousness did not just emerge. It would be another unexplained. We are in the infancy of science. There is a lot to learn. Bringing magic into the picture simply puts paid to all further inquiry.

Reflex wrote:Many scientists will be offended and vehemently reject the notion that science as it is practiced today is based on a "myth," but the decision to exclude consciousness as a fundamental feature of the natural universe is a philosophical one that does violence to experience and common sense.

I don't see why. No one has excluded consciousness as a fundamental feature. It just does not seem to be the case so far. There is nothing to suggest that it is a fundamental feature of the natural universe.

Reflex wrote:There are absolutely no grounds for that decision.

There is absolutely no grounds to assume that consciousness is certainly a fundamental feature of the universe either.

Reflex wrote: "There are aspects of actualities that are simply ignored so long as we restrict thought to these categories." (A. N. Whitehead) Fortunately, there are some courageous who are willing to admit that consciousness may, after all, be inexorably linked to why the universe is the way it is.

There are those who consider it irrational to question why the universe is the way it is. It seems more rational to question HOW the universe is the way it is. We are rationalizing animals and tend to think in terms of reasons for our actions. That does not necessarily mean that the universe itself has a reason to exist. It might be so, but right now we should focus on the how. Once we understand the how, we will probably be able to figure out if there is a why at all.

Reflex wrote:That's two, now for the third: What are act and potency and where do they fit into the scheme of things? "Act" is the actual; "potency" is potentiality. What I call "God" is pure act, pure actuality or pure "being-ness. God is existence; everything that has existence, everything that has definable boundaries, is a compound of act and potency. Put another way, God is and we are becoming. The is cannot be less than the becoming; thinking otherwise is magical thinking.

I want you to understand that I am not stating this as the "truth," but to illustrate, at least in part, the thinking process.

Why not consider that existence has no other option? The other option is non-existence. Only one of the two is possible. Hence existence. Nothing more and nothing less. Or the other option would be in place and there would be non-existence. In which case, we would not be having this discussion at all.

sthitapragya wrote:Energy exists.

It's existence is assumed, the same way you assume there's wind because you see trees see trees moving.

And I don't understand what you mean by an effect entirely absent in its cause? What effect are you talking about?

Think about it. My grandkids understand it.

There really is no such thing as magic.

That's my point.

No one has excluded consciousness as a fundamental feature.

What planet do you live on?

It just does not seem to be the case so far. There is nothing to suggest that it is a fundamental feature of the natural universe.

What universe do you live in?

There is absolutely no grounds to assume that consciousness is certainly a fundamental feature of the universe either.

Yeah. Einstein expressed the same sentiment when he said, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

There are those who consider it irrational to question why the universe is the way it is. It seems more rational to question HOW the universe is the way it is. We are rationalizing animals and tend to think in terms of reasons for our actions. That does not necessarily mean that the universe itself has a reason to exist. It might be so, but right now we should focus on the how. Once we understand the how, we will probably be able to figure out if there is a why at all.

Rational beings demand rational answers. "Just because" doesn't provide that -- especially when it does violence to our common sense, experience and humanness.

Egad. It's like talking to squirrel.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Energy exists.

It's existence is assumed, the same way you assume there's wind because you see trees see trees moving.

So? What does that have to do with what we are discussing?

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:And I don't understand what you mean by an effect entirely absent in its cause? What effect are you talking about?

Think about it. My grandkids understand it.

Well, I have an IQ of 85. Your grandkids are much much smarter than me I assume. So explain it to me. And FYI, you have returned to your condescending and insulting tone again. God, it is tough to continue a civil conversation with you.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:It just does not seem to be the case so far. There is nothing to suggest that it is a fundamental feature of the natural universe.

What universe do you live in?

Why do you resort to these kind of snide remarks? If you have something that suggest that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, tell me what it is.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:There is absolutely no grounds to assume that consciousness is certainly a fundamental feature of the universe either.

Yeah. Einstein expressed the same sentiment when he said, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

That is because Einstein could actually see the moon when he was looking at it. So it is not the same sentiment unless you can show me consciousness in the universe.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:There are those who consider it irrational to question why the universe is the way it is. It seems more rational to question HOW the universe is the way it is. We are rationalizing animals and tend to think in terms of reasons for our actions. That does not necessarily mean that the universe itself has a reason to exist. It might be so, but right now we should focus on the how. Once we understand the how, we will probably be able to figure out if there is a why at all.

Rational beings demand rational answers. "Just because" doesn't provide that -- especially when it does violence to our common sense, experience and humanness.

And where did I say just because? Without knowing the how, how can you know the why? I never said just because. I never even did it to my kids. There is no violence to common sense in asking how before asking why. Humanness? come on, that is melodramatic. And something for you to consider. God's existence is a "just because".

Terrapin Station wrote:I think it's clear that we do have selves and that they're distinct from other human selves though. Noting, of course, that selves are dynamic sets of mental phenomena.

If you have an individual distinct self...and those selves are mental phenomena....isn't that what reflex and Dam have said also, we also stated that the self is just a mentally constructed idea ? ...no one has seen an actual self have they?...that would be like saying a photograph of you is a real actual self?

Reflex wrote:Egad. It's like talking to squirrel.

You last effort at a response was incoherent one line nonsense.

Terrapin Station wrote:Humans are animals. Animals with brains pretty close to human brains more than likely have similar mental content, including the phenomena of a self.

A human maybe an animal but a dog or a cat is not a human. Concepts are fixed. An idea arises in this human mind.. that I am a self here and there is a cat over there who also has a self..but if there's just everything, then where is the divide except in the mind of human thought ? ..more to the point where is the thought that divides here into there?...where is that thought?


I'm assuming other animals don't have thoughts about having a distinct self separate from their kind...are they self conscious?...would they wee and poo in front of each other if they were self conscious?..... How can human know cat world...Can humanness experience catness or dogness?....we could never know how they perceive their reality or if they are thinking ..how could we know that for sure, we'd have to be the dog or the cat to know that....It's obvious they live via instinctive dna programming put there by nature itself, so they automatically know how to live ...but are they self conscious like a human is? ...not really, there is no evidence of that...so really don't think it is correct to say they have a sense of self in the same context a human have a self .. a sense of being alive yes, but not ever close to that of a humans sense of self...the human sense of self is an idea, it's not real. Aliveness is real, but there is no separate self in aliveness...because aliveness is everything.