"Project Logic" #3

[wleg]

Felasco,

It appears you are attempting to do too much philosophy at one time. Select the one subject, that if you can not understand it, it is impossible to understand any thing else. I believe this subject is the nature of existence. If we don't first understand the nature of existence what else would it be possible to understand. Philosophers never have understood the nature of existence which is very easy to understand using the argument: If a thing or a condition is itself and not some other thing or condition, then it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing, else every thing and condition that exist would be the only existing thing. Thus it follows; It is possible to understand the existence of any thing by recognizing and remembering which attributes relate to the existence of which things.

By expanding this argument slightly we can also understand the nature of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and understand the process of realistic thinking.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

It appears you are attempting to do too much philosophy at one time.

Ha, ha! Boy, you figured me out pretty fast. No shit, it took me decades to get that.

Select the one subject, that if you can not understand it, it is impossible to understand any thing else. I believe this subject is the nature of existence.

I believe I've done that. According to my Felasco Fiasco Theory (FFT), the nature of existence is that there is only one thing, which has the attribute "everything".

Thus it follows; It is possible to understand the existence of any thing by recognizing and remembering which attributes relate to the existence of which things.

Things? According to the FFT, there is only one thing. Unless you are referring to the conceptual world, where there can be an infinite number of things. Agree? Disagree? Additions or subtractions?

By expanding this argument slightly we can also understand the nature of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and understand the process of realistic thinking.

According to the FFT, knowledge is an infinite number of conceptual things which all refer to the one and only real world thing. There are an infinite number of conceptual things because the nature of thought, the medium in which knowledge exists, is inherently divisive.

I believe I've addressed your question squarely, and would be happy to receive a response. Whether I qualify for any prize money is another question of course.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

Ginkgo: Wayne, are you saying that the mind is able to grasp the essential attribute of a thing?

Wayne: Yes, memory gives us the ability to understand the existence of a thing (grasp the essential attribute of a thing) by remembering the attributes that relate to the state of a things existence. And since this process of distinguishing one thing from another is the same process no matter what thing, this explains the nature of existence, the nature of knowledge, the process of constructing knowledge, and the process of realistic thinking.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

Well, I guess that answers your question as to why philosophers never understood the simple logic.

Some philosophers over the centuries have rejected essentialism. Many still do.


Ginkgo

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

Ginkgo: "Well, I guess that answers your question as to why philosophers never understood the simple logic.Some philosophers over the centuries have rejected essentialism. Many still do."

Wayne: You are labeling a simple argument existentialism. Can you direct me in the literature demonstrating that existentialism was aware of this argument? The Project will pay $10.00 if you can.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[wleg]

Felasco,

In the process of doing your philosophical thinking you have come to the point where it appears to you it is possible to explain everything with one theory (ToE or FFT as you call it). I suspect most if not all of us arrive at this point in our philosophical thinking. If I remember correctly, the idea occurred to me about the time it also appeared that mathematics could be used to develop philosophical knowledge.

The reason we think the ToE is possible is because as we figure things out, what we are doing is recognizing the other things or attributes that relate to the existence of the thing we are attempting to understand. This causes us to think; because things are related to the existence of each other and every thing is related to everything that exist, there has to be a single theory that explains how every thing is related. The reality is we don’t need to deal with everything as a whole; we only need to deal with understanding how to deal with the individual parts of the whole in a rational way. The process of dealing with the whole in a rational way is by dealing with each individual part in a rational way. The ToE is exciting but it is really a philosophical trap that some philosophers get permanently caught in. Evidence of this is philosophers thinking that quantum mechanics is the way to have a ToE.

A realistic definition of existence is all that is needed for philosophers to begin to think realistically.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

In the process of doing your philosophical thinking you have come to the point where it appears to you it is possible to explain everything with one theory (ToE or FFT as you call it).

The theory doesn't attempt to explain everything. You asked about the nature of existence, and I attempted to define the nature of existence.

The reason we think the ToE is possible is because as we figure things out, what we are doing is recognizing the other things or attributes that relate to the existence of the thing we are attempting to understand.

If you wish for folks to participate in your threads, you might try engaging the points they make in response to your invitations. You keep saying "things" over and over, without offering any evidence of the existence of "things" ie. separate entities.

This causes us to think; because things are related to the existence of each other and every thing is related to everything that exist, there has to be a single theory that explains how every thing is related.

I've not offered a single theory of how everything, all the different things, are related. I've instead proposed that there is only one thing.

The reality is we don’t need to deal with everything as a whole; we only need to deal with understanding how to deal with the individual parts of the whole in a rational way.

We do that by recognizing that the equipment we're using to make the observations, thought, creates the illusion that there are individual parts, due to it's inherently divisive nature. You're insisting on discussing individual parts, that don't exist, except inside of our minds.

The process of dealing with the whole in a rational way is by dealing with each individual part in a rational way.

Individual parts, which you have yet to prove exist, except conceptually.

A realistic definition of existence is all that is needed for philosophers to begin to think realistically.

As best I can tell, you aren't actually interested in a realistic definition of existence.

[wleg]

Felasco,

Sorry, it is apparent that i misinterpreted you, happens too often. Let's try again. Summarize in a sentence or two exactly what it is you want me to understand that is most important.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

No worries wleg, sorry to get impatient, that happens too often too. My bad. I was responding to this...

If a thing or a condition is itself and not some other thing or condition, then it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing or condition, else every thing and condition that exist would be the same and only existing thing or condition.

The underlying premise of the above statement appears to be that there are separate "things". I was challenging Socrates to demonstrate that this is so.

My proposal is that the existence of separate things is an illusion created by the equipment we are using to make the observation.

If Socrates disagrees with this challenge, I welcome a rebuttal. If Socrates agrees, then I would have seemed to have helped Socrates clarify it's proposition.

It's entirely possible that I don't really understand where you are trying to go here, and am just indulging one of my pet rants. Could be that too.

[wleg]

Felasco,

Fleasco: "My proposal is that the existence of separate things is an illusion created by the equipment we are using to make the observation."

Wayne: Maybe the best way to deal with the situation of having two opposite theories, frankly I don’t know how to deal with this situation. But maybe the best way is to ask ourselves; is it more beneficial to believe the whole is the sum of its’ parts, or to believe the whole has no parts. Socrates has always believed the whole is the sum of it’s’ parts and greater that its’ parts. I always believed this was his recognition of the importance of individual responsibility to having a whole good society.

I recognize the mind is divisive but that is the reason for having a mind, to distinguish those things and conditions that are beneficial to our existence from the things and conditions that are not beneficial. Therefore, if theories can be either beneficial or not beneficial, I can’t understand how the theory that; nothing exist but the whole, can be beneficial.

Felasco, support your theory, give it your best shot.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Felasco]

But maybe the best way is to ask ourselves; is it more beneficial to believe the whole is the sum of its’ parts, or to believe the whole has no parts.

The mind created illusion of division, separation, boundaries and "things" is surely a useful device, no argument there.

It also seems useful to try to understand the nature of reality, and to attempt to take in to account any distortions that the equipment we are using may be introducing.

Socrates has always believed the whole is the sum of it’s’ parts and greater that its’ parts. I always believed this was his recognition of the importance of individual responsibility to having a whole good society.

Individual responsibility would include the recognition that we are not separate. If I dump poisonous waste on my property it inevitably will affect more people than me, because everything is connected to everything else.

As we all now know, in the real world, the Earth is actually one thing. The boundaries we create between properties, states, nations etc are useful illusions. This understanding of the difference between the conceptual world and real world is beneficial to our continued existence, is it not?

I recognize the mind is divisive but that is the reason for having a mind, to distinguish those things and conditions that are beneficial to our existence from the things and conditions that are not beneficial.

Yes, the mind helps us distinguish food from trash, and this extends our existence. Of course.

However, the major threat to our existence is actually us. I propose this is because our division-centric minds create the experience that all of reality is divided between "me" and "everything else". This illusion creates a sense of isolation and fear, leading to anger, violence, nuclear weapons etc.

We confuse the inner conceptual world, where division reigns, with the real world where as the saying goes "all is one". If it is true that in reality "all is one" then we aren't separate, alone and vulnerable. Such an insight would seem to be rather beneficial.

Felasco, support your theory, give it your best shot.

Ok, I will. But please recall it's Socrates assertion of "things" that I am responding to. So Socrates should feel free to support it's theory as well.

You've asked us to try to defeat Socrates, and until Socrates stands up and defends it's assertion of "things" I suggest that I have succeeded in pulling the rug out from under the proposition stated at the top...

If a thing or a condition is itself and not some other thing or condition, then it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing or condition, else every thing and condition that exist would be the same and only existing thing or condition.

If Socrates can demonstrate the existence of separate things in the real world, please proceed to do that. If it can not so demonstrate, the proposition can be amended to make clear that it is referring to conceptual objects, not real ones.

In either case, I propose I've made a useful contribution to the project and you owe me some huge sum. I'll settle out of court for 17 cents.

[wleg]

Felasco,

The knowledge we have of material objects is stored in memory as concepts that represent the material objects we have knowledge of. The knowledge we have of concepts i.e. long, short, wide, true, false, pretty, ugly, fat, thin, est. is also stored in memory as concepts of concepts. So, all knowledge is concepts that represent material objects or conceptual conditions. This may be why you believe that different things do not exist, because knowledge is stored in memory as concepts. But in the material world every thing that exists is different from every other material thing, at least in one way. This explanation is the only reason I can imagine for you not believing that things exist. And, if this explanation is not the reason, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

Ginkgo: "Well, I guess that answers your question as to why philosophers never understood the simple logic.Some philosophers over the centuries have rejected essentialism. Many still do."

Wayne: You are labeling a simple argument existentialism. Can you direct me in the literature demonstrating that existentialism was aware of this argument? The Project will pay $10.00 if you can.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

Hello Wayne,

I am still looking, but I would be surprised if at least on existentialist philosophers wasn't aware of essentialism.

However, I am not really sure I was drawing a parallel. I think it was more of a comparison with science. In other words, pointing out the difference between ontology and science.

If I were a scientist ( I am not) or if I were Daniel Dennett ( I am not) I would probably reject the ontology of essences on the basis that rather than trying to find out what something 'is' we are better off just giving attributes syntaxic labels. In other words, finding out what labels we can put on certain attributes.

Be that as it may (or may not) I think there is an interesting parallel, now that you mention it. I guess it would depend a lot on the existentialist philosopher. But most seem to to asking, How is it possible for a person to live and make sense of this irrational world?

The existentialist would probably answer that we cannot exist without some essential understanding of our life. I think I am right in saying that an existentialist would claim that we invent our own essential understandings. Where as an essentialist would say that it exists there in is objectivity for everyone to discover.

So it is probably true to say that essentialism claims that essences preceded existence. While the existentialist would say that existence preceded essences.

Ginkgo

[Felasco]

The knowledge we have of material objects is stored in memory as concepts that represent the material objects we have knowledge of.

Yes, but what you're not addressing is that the mechanism we use to make these conceptual representations of the real world introduces a significant distortion. The conceptual objects are obviously very useful, but they are not very accurate.

Let's take an example, say an astronomer. The first thing the astronomer does is understand his telescope, so he can account for any distortions this device may introduce in to his observations. Philosophers seem to have little interest in this.

So, all knowledge is concepts that represent material objects or conceptual conditions.

Agreed. You seem to be assuming these concepts are accurate representations, while I do not.

This may be why you believe that different things do not exist, because knowledge is stored in memory as concepts.

You keep asserting that different things exist, but have yet to defend this assertion. You seem impatient that we won't simply accept it because you said it.

But in the material world every thing that exists is different from every other material thing, at least in one way. This explanation is the only reason I can imagine for you not believing that things exist.

Separate things would require boundaries, right? If you take the time to examine these boundaries, you will see they are arbitrary inventions of the human mind. Here's another example..

When does the air you breathe become you? When does the food you eat become you? Please show us a boundary line between "you" and "air" that is uncontestably fixed in the real world, and is not a debatable human proposition.

And, if this explanation is not the reason, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm ok with that, but wish to go on record as observing that Socrates is not capable of defending it's assertions.

[wleg]

Ginkgo,

Your reply is as much appreciated as a breeze in 95 degree heat here in Georgia. Who can’t appreciate a well written and thoughtful post.

You would think that by now everyone would recognize the “Problems of Philosophy” are caused when philosophers use conceptual words without realistic comprehensive definitions i.e. existence, essence, reality, knowledge, est. to do philosophy. Felasco points this out in his last post to me. Quote: Yes, but what you're not addressing is that the mechanism we use to make these conceptual representations of the real world introduces a significant distortion. The conceptual objects are obviously very useful, but they are not very accurate.

Let's take an example, say an astronomer. The first thing the astronomer does is understand his telescope, so he can account for any distortions this device may introduce in to his observations. Philosophers seem to have little interest in this. End Quote

This philosophical distortion caused by doing Philosophy using conceptual words that do not have realistic definitions is the reason for Project Logic. Thus, the reason for presenting the argument below, to understand the nature of existence leading to a realistic definition of the conceptual word existence:

If a thing is itself and not some other thing, then it must have attributes that are different from the attributes of any other thing, else every thing that exist would be the same and only existing thing. And it follows; the existence of any thing is a construct of its’ unique attributes and if it’s attributes change, the state of its’ existence changes.

Thus, a realistic definition of existence: A thing in a state of being as defined by its’ attributes.

It would appear, if there is not a more logical argument to support a more realistic definition of existence, and philosophers accepted this argument and definition then doing philosophy would get on the right track. It doesn't matter to The Project whether this definition is accepted; it only matters that a realistic definition be accepted. It is ridicules for philosophers to continue to debate the nature of existence and the nature of the other philosophical concepts when all they have to do is accept a realistic definition of existence to get doing philosophy on the right track. This is why The Project is offering to pay anyone who can construct a more logical argument leading to a realistic definition of existence. They don’t even have to start from scratch, they can use the argument presented as an example to construct a more realistic argument. When is the senselessness of doing philosophy without realistic definitions going to stop?

Again, appreciate your thoughtful post.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[wleg]

Felasco,

Felasco: Yes, but what you're not addressing is that the mechanism we use to make these conceptual representations of the real world introduces a significant distortion. The conceptual objects are obviously very useful, but they are not very accurate.

Let's take an example, say an astronomer. The first thing the astronomer does is understand his telescope, so he can account for any distortions this device may introduce in to his observations. Philosophers seem to have little interest in this.

Wayne: You describe exactly what the problem is that makes doing philosophy so senseless.

Felasco: You seem to be assuming these concepts are accurate representations, while I do not.

Wayne: No, this where I agree with you and is the reason for Project Logic.

Felasco: You keep asserting that different things exist, but have yet to defend this assertion. You seem impatient that we won't simply accept it because you said it.

Wayne: I haven’t attempted to defend my belief in the existence of things because I thought there was just some misinterpretation or misunderstanding somewhere and it would get worked out in the end. The Project is all about establishing realistic definitions of the conceptual words used to do philosophy and arguing to support the existence of many things is outside of that interest.

That aside; you did an excellent job of describing what is causing the problems of Philosophy. Put it in a single propositional sentence, support it with a simple logical argument and The Project will pay $10.00. In case you are not familiar with constructing this type of argument; you identify a condition, if it is true, there is some other condition that also must be true, and you continue this process until it is obvious that the condition of your propositional statement is true. It does take some practice but once one gets the hang of it, not too difficult.

It appears to me that we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing and the disagreement about whether many things exist or not will solve itself.

Wayne Leggette Sr.