Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:36 pm
the universe is finite, had a beginning, and will end

In concept only, aka narrative, and story telling, but never as your actual direct experience. You are the universe, else you would not be able to conceive of it as a concept.

There is no known beginning or ending that can be of the knowers actual direct experience, there is the actual experience of being, but there is no experience of beginnings or endings of that being... except as concept known by the only knowing there is, one without a second.

How can ONE THING ever begin or end, infinity is right here and now, the only place there is. A place that never moves or ages. Time is a concept known, it's a story, likened to a dream.

Infinite and in-finite are indistingishably one and the same phenomena. Where the dreamer is only known in the dream, and the dreamer and dream are one inseparable event. The dreamer =(Infinity) the dream = ( In finite) the dream being couched within the dreamer as a known concept.

In other words, In finite is the contents of Infinity...in a dualistic manner of speaking, which is what conception is...aka knowing.


.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:22 am...the relevant neural network responsible for specific functions are not located in a specific location but spread all over the different parts of the brain.

It doesn't matter how the neural network is distributed. Your belief appears to be that every human has the same specific physical structures, presumably spread over the same "different parts of the brain". Given what is known about how neural networks develop, that is vanishingly unlikely.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:22 amThe problem of consciousness is much more complex than the impulse for philosophy-proper [continual improvement re well being] as such the latter will be easier to trace via the HCP.

I have the confidence the HCP can answer the 'hard problem of consciousness' but it should narrow our ignorance-gap in the issue.

Then you don't understand the hard problem. It may well be that the HCP will show the exact location of consciousness, even if it is spread about. The hard problem is not where any critical neurons are, but how they result in experience.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:22 amBtw, your talk of 'surprise' 'don't know,' resistance to explore, infer, speculate and know' and pessimism are based on your present ignorance and failure to do the relevant readings and research.

Well, let's remind ourselves about what I don't know and that would surprise me:

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:06 am...I would be surprised to find out that "philosophy proper" is some tangle of neurons.

If you can cure my ignorance in this regard by pointing me to the research that has discovered the neural network specific to what you call "philosophy proper", I would be grateful.

You are the universe

of course I'm not: and neither are you

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:24 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:36 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:02 pm
So, WHY AGAIN, do you keep RE-REPEATING 'this thing', which NO one DISAGREES with?

I disagree with age: the universe is finite, had a beginning, and will end

It depends on what you mean by, "universe."

If, "universe," means, "all there is," then that universe would include, if there were any, any or all gods. If the universe were finite and had a beginning, every part of that universe would be finite and have a beginning, including any god or gods.

You either do not mean, "everything there is," by the word universe, or believe your God is finite and has a beginning. But, if the universe is not all there is, why call it, "the universe." It's not the universe, just part of what exists, if you believe gods or such exist.

when I say universe I mean all there is

when I say God I mean The Creator of all there is

I don't believe God is in the universe

I could cobble together a science fictiony soundin' explanation for His bein' outside, but -- meh -- I'd be wastin' your time

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:17 pm You are the universe

of course I'm not: and neither are you

Ok, maybe I'm not and neither are you, but what about knowing the concept, you know the concept ''universe'' right?

So to me, that means the knower of the concept has created the knowledge that there is a universe.

That's what I'm trying to say about you are the universe. Also, it may look like the universe is out there, but it's also right here inside our brain, as the seen image of it is inseparable from the one that is looking at it...isn't that weird. We are the knowledge that the universe exists. And what's even weirder is that the image of the universe we are looking at, existed long before we even evolved to be able to look at it and know it exists. It's like it's existed, then along came this evolved consciousness that was able to know it exists, as a concept of it's own making.


.

So to me, that means the knower of the concept has created the knowledge that there is a universe.

I prefer to say we discovered a fact

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:24 pm when I say universe I mean all there is

when I say God I mean The Creator of all there is

I don't believe God is in the universe

"Is," means, "exsts."

"All there is," means, "all that exists," so "there isn't anything else."

Something is either part of, "all there is," or it, "doesn't exist."

I just don't see how, "universe," can mean, "all there is," and exclude something else that is. In your use, "universe," would have to mean, "all there is except God," if God exists, wouldn't it?

If that's what you mean, fine, but you need to specify that, I think, when saying something like, "the universe is finite," because you do not mean, "everything that exists," is finite, only part of what exists is finite--the part that is not God.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:24 pm when I say universe I mean all there is

when I say God I mean The Creator of all there is

I don't believe God is in the universe

I could cobble together a science fictiony soundin' explanation for His bein' outside, but -- meh -- I'd be wastin' your time

So when you say "all there is" do you mean "all there is"; or do you mean "all there is, EXCEPT God" ?

Rc, skep,

*sigh*

I got no interest in nitpickin' with either of you on sumthin' neither of you believes in

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:25 am I got no interest in nitpickin' with either of you on sumthin' neither of you believes in

Don't worry about what I do; or don't believe. I am not looking to debate you either (that is always futile).

I am just pointing out the implication of your own definition - they give rise to two categories:

Category 1: All that exists.
Category 2: God.

God is NOT in Category 1 (ALL that exists). Therefore God doesn't exist.

There's the Creator and there's the Creation.

The Creation is, as RC put it, all there is (except for Hisself, as you say)

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 9:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:22 am...the relevant neural network responsible for specific functions are not located in a specific location but spread all over the different parts of the brain.

It doesn't matter how the neural network is distributed. Your belief appears to be that every human has the same specific physical structures, presumably spread over the same "different parts of the brain". Given what is known about how neural networks develop, that is vanishingly unlikely.

All humans are "programmed" with the same basic brain structures and basic functions.
The basic functions are located in certain specific parts of the brain while some are distributed within different parts.
Do you deny all humans has the same very fundamental specific physical neural network for the 4Fs, Food, Fight, Flight and Fuck?
There are also many other basic functions that inherent in all humans i.e. as human nature.
There are also inherent basic functions where they are active in some and not active in the majority.

For example note the evolution of living things and humans, there is core trend of one-up better than prior in all living things and very evident in humans. This fundamental one-up impulse [active in some not so in the majority] for the optimal well being of the individual[s], is the fundamental of philosophy-proper.
Since this very basic function, i.e. the fundamental of philosophy-proper is inherent, [like others of the 4Fs], it would not be a problem for the HCP to trace the core neural networks and its connections to other parts of the brain and functions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:22 amThe problem of consciousness is much more complex than the impulse for philosophy-proper [continual improvement re well being] as such the latter will be easier to trace via the HCP.
I have the confidence the HCP can answer the 'hard problem of consciousness' but it should narrow our ignorance-gap in the issue.

Then you don't understand the hard problem. It may well be that the HCP will show the exact location of consciousness, even if it is spread about. The hard problem is not where any critical neurons are, but how they result in experience.

Don’t be too hasty. I have already stated the hard problem of consciousness is much more complex.
As I had stated the HCP will not give us a definite answer but at least can narrow our ignorance-gap to trace the physical neurons and their connectivities that enable human consciousness as an emergent.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:22 amBtw, your talk of 'surprise' 'don't know,' resistance to explore, infer, speculate and know' and pessimism are based on your present ignorance and failure to do the relevant readings and research.

Well, let's remind ourselves about what I don't know and that would surprise me:

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:06 am...I would be surprised to find out that "philosophy proper" is some tangle of neurons.

If you can cure my ignorance in this regard by pointing me to the research that has discovered the neural network specific to what you call "philosophy proper", I would be grateful.

I have already explained above.
I have defined ‘philosophy-proper’ as an inherent and fundamental impulse which is very basic as close to breathing and the 4Fs. You are ignorant of this point and you connect ‘philosophy’ with academic philosophy and other bastardized forms of philosophy.
There is no need for research but rather it is a simply inference from basic knowledge of the neurosciences.
What research you need to update is on the HCP and its potential and optimism [in future generations] when it has achieved sufficient progress.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:02 am There's the Creator and there's the Creation.

The Creation is, as RC put it, all there is (except for Hisself, as you say)

Don't sound rational to me.

IF, There's the Creator and there's the Creation.
then there must be an 'all-there-is' that contains the Creator[is] and Creations[are].
Otherwise you are implying the 'creator' is not an "is" [exists] i.e. which imply the creator does not exist.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:02 am There's the Creator and there's the Creation.

Yes. I get that!

In that taxonomy, and given your definitions...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 5:24 pm when I say universe I mean all there is

when I say God I mean The Creator of all there is

Category 1: The Creation (ALL there is, ALL that exists,)
Category 2: The Creator.

It follows (since The Creator is NOT in category 1) then The Creator does not exist.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:09 pm So to me, that means the knower of the concept has created the knowledge that there is a universe.

I prefer to say we discovered a fact

I prefer to say knowledge informed as and through concept known an image of the universe as it is conceived by that which is inconceivable. And what this knowing informs is that knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of existence, in that prior to the conscious entity that is the human brain, the external universe existed absolutely without ever knowing it did. And since we cannot separate ourselves from the concepts we know, aka the knowledge, then this knowledge is just an appearance of what can only be described as an optical and auditory illusion of existence itself, that is one without a second.

Imho.