Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: Moyo wrote:
Its recursive.

Then it'd have to have a base state and presumably this state is not in the 'mind' of anything?

"Base state" is a concept.

Arising_uk wrote: You take is Armstrongs i see.

No idea? Who is s/he? A mathematical philosopher? If so I'd be interested in their full-name so I can read about their ideas. On the whole my take is more Wittgensteinian.

Armstrong is the contemporary philosopher in the lead of coming up with a realist theory on universals and also on mind and he also beleives that the universe is a collection of "states of affairs" in his own words.

Arising_uk wrote:I think I perceive these things and states of affairs

If "these things and states of affairs" are apparent..then doesn't that make them appearances?

Moyo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:So, yes, you CAN conceive of something that is NOT a concept!

I think we can move no further because of this dishonesty. "A conception thats not a conception. WOW!!!

I capitalized "CAN" for a reason. This is because while our concepts are derived from the senses initially, we still also conceive the memories upon thinking of them in real time too. When we talk of ideas, all concepts are models of ideas that we've stored in our mind of which most, if not all, of them initially were derived from outside of ourselves. So certainly some concepts are also concepts.

A sensation can be conceived. But not upon everything we want to simply for thinking it before hand. That is, if you were blind from birth, you might infer that 'sight' might be 'true' but only because others have sufficiently given you indirect reasons for it. However, the blind person (from birth) is unable to actually 'visualize' what sight is to give it sincere value as a 'concept'. That is, he could not literally grasp the difference between say an eight ball and the cue ball. [I believe they are identical in size, shape, and weight are they not?] But once experienced, the memory of it acts as a model for the purpose of other thoughts. Nor are they perfect 'copies'. If it were, you'd not have a need to eat, for instance, as you would simply take the easy route and 'remember' all the sensations of eating and be satisfied without having to bother actually wasting energy eating it. [This is why drugs like hallucinogenics cause problems for many.]

Scott Mayers wrote:This is because while our concepts are derived from the senses

Senses are concepts...how else would you be able to conceive of them. If they are concepts with a real part. Then real part is allso a concept how else...

Moyo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:This is because while our concepts are derived from the senses

Senses are concepts...how else would you be able to conceive of them. If they are concepts with a real part. Then real part is allso a concept how else...

I understand what you are thinking but are wrong because it is our present state memory to which holds onto what we are perceiving only. This is why anesthesiologists use chemicals that actually only affect the memory. If you cannot save even in part what is being perceived in real time, this is enough to make you lose sense or meaning of it. I'm not one able to handle the strong pot of today's marijuana because when I've taken it, it reduces my memory to such extreme short periods that I can no longer speak a sentence as I'd proceed half-way through and forget what thought I began with. If you reduce this 'short-term' memory to nil, you can no longer conceive anything. [Note though, that some can actually retain trace markers of the action which transfers over to long term memory later for use!)

Note that "per-ceive" means "under held or that which comes before holding in thought" where "con-ceive" means "withheld in thought". You can hold a percept (or precept, as the letters have been rearranged as meaning "before some thought is held") or another concept as a thought too.

Per-ceive is a concept...how else could you have conceived of it.

Ok tell me this;

One thing...and one thing only....

tell me one thing that is not a concept.

only one rule

dont conceive of it.


Tell me , do you think i'm being unreasonable to ask you to not conceive of it first.
And so beleive that there are conceptions that are not conceptions.

Moyo wrote:Per-ceive is a concept...how else could you have conceived of it.

Ok tell me this;

One thing...and one thing only....

tell me one thing that is not a concept.

only one rule

dont conceive of it.


Tell me , do you think i'm being unreasonable to ask you to not conceive of it first.
And so beleive that there are conceptions that are not conceptions.

Imagine a the thought of some variable (one thing but also indeterminate from a range of things not yet thought of) in which you 'conceive' it as variable, but cannot specifically determine what it could be precisely. In this case, it would be like receiving a Christmas present that is all wrapped up. You may know it is a present but not know what is inside it. Note the word, "present" is "pre-sent" (not meaning 'sent as from the past but from the future as derived from an old term we changed to "sense" because they both sound the same in plural.) A "percept" is also spelled "precept" due to some English/French change in order like "center" is to "centre". "Pre-" means before just as "per-" does in this way. A precept is also a name for a person who can predict the future in certain modern science fiction dialect. If you can thus predict what is inside any present (hidden gift) or the present (unknown future time), then you can tell me that you can conceive what you know before receiving it! Or am I coming across as deceiving (taking/stealing something away from) you?

Moyo wrote:"Base state" is a concept.

Not arguing it's not, if you have no base state then are you saying there are an infinite number of 'God's' with each existing in the mind of the recursion before or after depending on which way you go?

Why don't you just go with Bishop Berkeley and call them ideas rather than concepts?

Arising_uk wrote:Armstrong is the contemporary philosopher in the lead of coming up with a realist theory on universals and also on mind and he also beleives that the universe is a collection of "states of affairs" in his own words.

Sounds like he's read Wittgenstein to me. Would this be D.M.Armstrong?

If "these things and states of affairs" are apparent..then doesn't that make them appearances?

It makes them phenomena, do you and a squirrel both perceive the tree? But would the squirrel and you have the same idea or conception of the tree?

Scott Mayers wrote:

Moyo wrote:Per-ceive is a concept...how else could you have conceived of it.

Ok tell me this;

One thing...and one thing only....

tell me one thing that is not a concept.

only one rule

dont conceive of it.


Tell me , do you think i'm being unreasonable to ask you to not conceive of it first.
And so beleive that there are conceptions that are not conceptions.

Imagine a the thought of some variable (one thing but also indeterminate from a range of things not yet thought of) in which you 'conceive' it as variable, but cannot specifically determine what it could be precisely. In this case, it would be like receiving a Christmas present that is all wrapped up. You may know it is a present but not know what is inside it. Note the word, "present" is "pre-sent" (not meaning 'sent as from the past but from the future as derived from an old term we changed to "sense" because they both sound the same in plural.) A "percept" is also spelled "precept" due to some English/French change in order like "center" is to "centre". "Pre-" means before just as "per-" does in this way. A precept is also a name for a person who can predict the future in certain modern science fiction dialect. If you can thus predict what is inside any present (hidden gift) or the present (unknown future time), then you can tell me that you can conceive what you know before receiving it! Or am I coming across as deceiving (taking/stealing something away from) you?

I take it you mean i'm mixing up two versions of the same word.All your explanations involve telling me what the relationship is between concepts and reality. You forget that all the terms and phrases in your explanations were conceived.
Please could you answer the above
honestly

Here are your choises.

either

everything conceived is a concept or there are conceptions that are not conceptions. Which is it?

you have two choices

Moyo wrote:
I take it you mean i'm mixing up two versions of the same word.All your explanations involve telling me what the relationship is between concepts and reality. You forget that all the terms and phrases in your explanations were conceived.
Please could you answer the above
honestly

Here are your choises.

either

everything conceived is a concept or there are conceptions that are not conceptions. Which is it?

you have two choices

I already answered this. Some concepts are derived of concepts AND some concepts are derived of precepts (those conceived only after they arise by surprise or lack of 'knowing' them beforehand.)

In logic, we call all of these 'concepts' only for the sake that we know that anything we use in though is initially preserved in memory before we use them. They are still distinct if we ask where they come from though. Some concepts come from our memory = ideas saved = concepts; some concepts come from outside (likely all of them in fact) which are the 'ports' to which these things come to us in the first place. Even your own belief that these should come from what you call, "God", is just the same recognition of this. The difference is that you would then simply be logically equating the external world as your personal understanding of the same being that loves and cares like we do as animals.

You are likely interpreting ALL you think OR sense of as derived from sources from ONE UNIQUE place. You might believe that it is either all memory OR all ports but not both. I'm saying that while you might call all of these things "inputs" properly as they are, you CAN and DO have the capacity to distinguish that some inputs are distinctly of different sources to others. You do this by using "outputs", like any behavior you decide to put forth whether instinctively or by careful consideration in prior thoughts. So you can 'test' my understanding of the distinction by doing a simple experiment of many different kinds infinitely.

For instance, to 'test' whether I'm correct or not, look at the following word: DOG

By seeing that word, if you are still capable of being conscious and aware, this word is placed in your present memory as it transfers from your eyes for seeing it to some location in your internal memory banks. Now, try to forget that word on purpose!

You can't at present if you interpret me correctly, right? This PROVES that this experience has been saved and is available for you as a 'concept' now. But prior to seeing the incidence of that word here, did you predict that I'd use it? If you didn't predict that I'd use that particular word for an example, this alone PROVES that prior to perceiving it by reading this, you had no particular concept of my choice. This proves that some things exist outside of you and some things exist inside of you.

And I KNOW that even you intended to prove precisely what I've just argued except that you want to beg that WE all only have "concepts" that you are equating with "inputs" regardless of where they are coming from. Then you want to show that since some of these inputs you prefer to call "concepts" have two distinct parts rationally. The parts that you hold certain and can access immediately, you call might prefer to call "you" and the inputs that seem to come about from some source with an infinity of possibilities is what you call, "God". To me, though, I call what you call "you" as our internal capacity to access memory as "concepts" and what you call, "God", is to me what I prefer to call "observation". The difference is only about your preference to use the term "God" because you want to hope then that this can be transferred to also mean the same religious entity you call "God" with a history.

This in NOT a completely irrational approach if you are merely trying to define your "God" in a natural non-religious way. But the association of it with respect to most people is that you are purposely intending to use this later for some intended transference to some particular religious view and why you are met with reasonable suspicion here. Your idea of this "God" is correct only if you restrict your reasoning to assume that "God" himself/herself has the property of belonging to some 'truth' about objective reality. But you'd be mistaken that this means that if others agree that this proves his/her existence as you may interpret beyond nature itself. That is, you can't assume your meaning of such a concept as "God" is any more real than any of the other possible concepts you hold unless you default to assuming there are NO false concepts! But you would then be defeated simply by you disagreeing with me because you'd have to also accept that what I'm saying is never false either.

Does that make me your "God" now too?

Less ambiguous exposition later on.

Scott

Your trying really hard to prove that there are 1st conceptions that are not 2nd conceptions by using 3rd conceptions (i.e. interpretations of reality) to replace the 2nd conceptions in the proof.

And for someones sake can interpretations of reality be anything but concepts? all interpretations of anything are conceptual (unless there are objective "interpretaions".) and so must interpretations of reality. If the interpretations are different from the thing being interpreted then hing being interpreted is also conceptual because it also includes the concept of interpretation.

Meaning resides in minds... do you agree.

If something is not in the mind ...By definition of the above definition of meaning it has to be meaningless.If part of its meaning is outside then that part is meaningless, What would you be reffering to by that parts outside meaning if that meaning is not in your mind?

How can you say something meaningless exists? What would you be reffering to? If it is meaningfull then meaning resides in minds. Any part of it that does not reside in minds is also meaningless by definition *sigh*

Scott Mayers wrote:AND some concepts are derived of precepts (those conceived only after they arise by surprise or lack of 'knowing' them beforehand.)

You are asking where that new knowledge came from? no?

All knowledge is from self.
New knowledge is simply a revelation.
Understand that knowledge is actualy a disposition to think a certain thing.

Whos disposition..the self

how can that disposition come from outside when the disposition is the self's.

If you say you think there are some aspects about that present that dont have anything to do with concepts then that is a lie thinking cannot help but have something to do with concepts.

If the thought was about the aspects then those aspects (which are about the present) have to have something to do with concepts.As soon as you think of an aspect about something that aspect has to have something to do with concepts...which means all aspects about the object i.e the whole thinghave something to do with concepts unless you are not thinking about them. If you are not then how can you say anything about them much less that they have nothing to do with concepts.

That means the whole being of that present is conceptual .

If its the aspects themselves that have nothing to do with concepts and not the thought of them how can you say that given that you can only say what you are thinking about. That means everytime you consider these aspects they are being thought of (by you) So see the bold writing above also that qualifies it for inclusion in the definition. If a man always has a head that is what we define to be part of a man ..the day we see a man without one ....the day we consider an aspect of something without thinking (tell me if this is even possible)...then and only then..

That means the whole being of that present is conceptual.

THE PROBLEM WITH ya'll IS THAT you ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND MY IDEAS..,BUT TOO PATHETIC TO BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE THEM

#Fight_for_your_objective_REALITY

Moyo,

I can't make sense of what you want to accomplish in the least. May I suggest trying over to first define your objective(s)? I had to review your first post in this thread because I can't get what your are trying to say for certain.

All I can infer from you is that for some reason you seem to be trying to 'prove' that you don't think logical "indentity" itself either has no meaning OR that no one should be allowed to use copies of any symbol to convey the same idea because the 'copy' of it when we use it as a model is somehow cheating or something.

If you studied logic, you'd see this is already considered. See "Law of Identity" to begin with and tell me what you are troubled with. What is your concern?