Philosophy Now Forum

First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.

Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.

"I taught I thaw a puddy tat"

-Imp

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:24 pm First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.

Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.

We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:30 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:24 pm First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.

Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.

We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?

Think of this like this, X is a tree, and Y is the word for the tree. Thoughts are logistic things. Then you have fruit which grows on the three and the corresponding word etc.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:51 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:30 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:24 pm First, what is thinking? Thinking is a process in which we attempt to fill the gap between two mental states, question and answer for example; or when we want to prove something by which proof is the proper proposition/relation between two other propositions in which one the proposition is accepted as the true and second one we want to prove that is true or false.

Second, how do we think? Through the principle of similarity. But let me explain what this principle is and how does it work. To explain this we need to introduce two sets, X and Y, in which X={X1, XR, X2} and Y={Y1, YR, Y2}, where X1 and X2 are two mental states, question and answer for example, and XR is the reason why X2 follows from X1. X is understood by which I mean that we accepted that X2 is the proper answer to the question, X1, because of XR. We then make a mapping between X1 and Y1 through the principle of similarity. In the same manner, we make a mapping between Y1 and Y2. It then follows that there must be a mapping between XR and YR.

We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?

Think of this like this, X is a tree, and Y is the word for the tree. Thoughts are logistic things. Then you have fruit which grows on the three and the corresponding word etc.

The first experience is simply the fruit, then the concept, then causation.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:56 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:51 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:30 am

We experience. This may be difficult but try looking outside at something and "feel" the experience; look at the tree without labeling it as a tree...just experience the tree. Then we put concepts on our experience, i.e. that, is a tree. Then we time travel. Why did I cut down that tree... I am such an idiot; what could I use that tree for? Then we become philosophers; what is the value of trees?

Think of this like this, X is a tree, and Y is the word for the tree. Thoughts are logistic things. Then you have fruit which grows on the three and the corresponding word etc.

The first experience is simply the fruit, then the concept, then causation.

Yup.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:58 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:56 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:51 am
Think of this like this, X is a tree, and Y is the word for the tree. Thoughts are logistic things. Then you have fruit which grows on the three and the corresponding word etc.

The first experience is simply the fruit, then the concept, then causation.

Yup.

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:58 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:56 am

The first experience is simply the fruit, then the concept, then causation.

Yup.

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

TO make a change.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:20 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:58 am
Yup.

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

TO make a change.

Do you agree that to make the 'change' necessary to make and create the fruit first, then causation was needed BEFORE you experience?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:32 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:20 am

What do you mean with and by the word 'causation'?

TO make a change.

Do you agree that to make the 'change' necessary to make and create the fruit first, then causation was needed BEFORE you experience?

It depends. There is no fruit if there is no tree. SO you first need the tree. Then comes the fruit. But you can make a change, grab the fruit and eat it if you have the tree and the fruit.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:32 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:24 am
TO make a change.

Do you agree that to make the 'change' necessary to make and create the fruit first, then causation was needed BEFORE you experience?

It depends.

This, supposedly, 'depends' on 'what', EXACTLY?

Either 'causation' was NEEDED and IN EXISTENCE FIRST, or it was NOT. To me, there is NO 'depends' here.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am There is no fruit if there is no tree. SO you first need the tree. Then comes the fruit.

AND, BEFORE that you NEEDED some thing else, correct?

Or, are you still under some sort of illusion that " it still 'depends' "?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am But you can make a change, grab the fruit and eat it if you have the tree and the fruit.

So, in ALL Honesty this can NOT be a Truly 'free decision' as 'that' decision was DETERMINED on previous factors, correct?

Your Honest answers, like ALWAYS, are MUCH APPRECIATED.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:32 am

Do you agree that to make the 'change' necessary to make and create the fruit first, then causation was needed BEFORE you experience?

It depends.

This, supposedly, 'depends' on 'what', EXACTLY?

Depends on circumstances.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Either 'causation' was NEEDED and IN EXISTENCE FIRST, or it was NOT. To me, there is NO 'depends' here.

Causation was not needed in existence first.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am There is no fruit if there is no tree. SO you first need the tree. Then comes the fruit.

AND, BEFORE that you NEEDED some thing else, correct?

Sure yes.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Or, are you still under some sort of illusion that " it still 'depends' "?

No.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am But you can make a change, grab the fruit and eat it if you have the tree and the fruit.

So, in ALL Honesty this can NOT be a Truly 'free decision' as 'that' decision was DETERMINED on previous factors, correct?

Of course not. we were talking about causation only and not decision. The reality is that there is a decision is needed for each causation.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Your Honest answers, like ALWAYS, are MUCH APPRECIATED.

I did my best.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am
It depends.

This, supposedly, 'depends' on 'what', EXACTLY?

Depends on circumstances.

WHAT 'circumstances' could affect the FACT that a tree was NECESSARY FIRST, to CAUSE the fruit on that tree?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Either 'causation' was NEEDED and IN EXISTENCE FIRST, or it was NOT. To me, there is NO 'depends' here.

Causation was not needed in existence first.

Well this is A HUGE CLAIM.

Are you able to back up and support this CLAIM?

If yes, then will you?

HOW did 'Existence' come into being if there was NO 'cause'? In fact, HOW could ANY 'thing' come into existence if there was NO cause?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am There is no fruit if there is no tree. SO you first need the tree. Then comes the fruit.

AND, BEFORE that you NEEDED some thing else, correct?

Sure yes.

Great.

This, in and of itself, MEANS that 'causality' HAS TO HAVE ALWAYS been in Existence.

UNLESS, OF COURSE, 'you', "bahman", can PROVE otherwise.

Can you PROVE otherwise "bahman"?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Or, are you still under some sort of illusion that " it still 'depends' "?

No.

Okay great.

So, will you NOT use that unnecessary and diversionary remark "It depends" anymore in relation to 'causality' and 'existence'?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:36 am But you can make a change, grab the fruit and eat it if you have the tree and the fruit.

So, in ALL Honesty this can NOT be a Truly 'free decision' as 'that' decision was DETERMINED on previous factors, correct?

Of course not. we were talking about causation only and not decision.

Did you forget that it was 'you', "bahman", who STARTED talking about 'making a change' through and from 'a decision' here?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am The reality is that there is a decision is needed for each causation.

Did we, or did we NOT, just get through AGREEING that trees were NEEDED FIRST to 'cause' fruit?

If we did AGREE that this is true, then do you also agree that trees and fruit were around BEFORE human beings and decisions EVERY came into Existence?

Your CLAIM that 'a decision' is NEEDED for EACH causation implies that human beings have been in Existence, FOR EVER. Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that there is some 'thing' else that has been making 'decisions' FOR EVER?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Your Honest answers, like ALWAYS, are MUCH APPRECIATED.

I did my best.

If you, supposedly, "did your best" here, then you could have ONLY answered with PURE Honesty.

We are YET to SEE if you answer these current clarifying questions Honestly.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:23 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
This, supposedly, 'depends' on 'what', EXACTLY?

Depends on circumstances.

WHAT 'circumstances' could affect the FACT that a tree was NECESSARY FIRST, to CAUSE the fruit on that tree?

Depends on where and when you are. Depends on what is available. Etc.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:23 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Either 'causation' was NEEDED and IN EXISTENCE FIRST, or it was NOT. To me, there is NO 'depends' here.

Causation was not needed in existence first.

Well this is A HUGE CLAIM.

Are you able to back up and support this CLAIM?

If yes, then will you?

HOW did 'Existence' come into being if there was NO 'cause'? In fact, HOW could ANY 'thing' come into existence if there was NO cause?

This is a long debate. I have to prove two things: 1) There is no God and 2) There was a beginning. Which one do you like to start with?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

AND, BEFORE that you NEEDED some thing else, correct?

Sure yes.

Great.

This, in and of itself, MEANS that 'causality' HAS TO HAVE ALWAYS been in Existence.

That is not correct. Regress is not possible.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am UNLESS, OF COURSE, 'you', "bahman", can PROVE otherwise.

Can you PROVE otherwise "bahman"?

That is the subject of the previous comment.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Or, are you still under some sort of illusion that " it still 'depends' "?

No.

Okay great.

So, will you NOT use that unnecessary and diversionary remark "It depends" anymore in relation to 'causality' and 'existence'?

Of course. There are lots of detail are missing here. For example beginning, decision and experience.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am
So, in ALL Honesty this can NOT be a Truly 'free decision' as 'that' decision was DETERMINED on previous factors, correct?

Of course not. we were talking about causation only and not decision.

Did you forget that it was 'you', "bahman", who STARTED talking about 'making a change' through and from 'a decision' here?

I thought that you missed that part. Everything is alright if you agree that a decision is needed for any causation.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am The reality is that there is a decision is needed for each causation.

Did we, or did we NOT, just get through AGREEING that trees were NEEDED FIRST to 'cause' fruit?

If we did AGREE that this is true, then do you also agree that trees and fruit were around BEFORE human beings and decisions EVERY came into Existence?

Your CLAIM that 'a decision' is NEEDED for EACH causation implies that human beings have been in Existence, FOR EVER. Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that there is some 'thing' else that has been making 'decisions' FOR EVER?

I am not talking about humans but minds in here to be clear. Minds have existed since the beginning.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am Your Honest answers, like ALWAYS, are MUCH APPRECIATED.

I did my best.

If you, supposedly, "did your best" here, then you could have ONLY answered with PURE Honesty.

We are YET to SEE if you answer these current clarifying questions Honestly.

I did my best.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:23 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
Depends on circumstances.

WHAT 'circumstances' could affect the FACT that a tree was NECESSARY FIRST, to CAUSE the fruit on that tree?

Depends on where and when you are. Depends on what is available. Etc.

Without examples, then you just sound like you are 'trying to' DEFLECT.

Are you at all ABLE TO provide an example of where a tree is NOT necessary FIRST for fruit to be bared, depending on WHERE and WHEN 'you' are or 'i' am?

Are you at all ABLE TO explain WHY 'what is available' would depend on the FACT that a tree is NEEDED FIRST BEFORE fruit could come into existence?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:23 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
Causation was not needed in existence first.

Well this is A HUGE CLAIM.

Are you able to back up and support this CLAIM?

If yes, then will you?

HOW did 'Existence' come into being if there was NO 'cause'? In fact, HOW could ANY 'thing' come into existence if there was NO cause?

This is a long debate.

Well I can FINISH 'that debate' ONCE and for ALL.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am I have to prove two things:

I do NOT care how many 'things' you BELIEVE that you HAVE TO PROVE. I suggest just 'doing it'. I will AGAIN suggest to you that if you want to make a CLAIM, then it is BEST that you are able to back up and support that CLAIM with ACTUAL PROOF FIRST.

1) There is no God and 2) There was a beginning. Which one do you like to start with?[/quote]

When you say, "God", what do you mean, what are you referring to, how do you define that word, and what do you identify that word with, EXACTLY?

When you say, "There was a beginning", what are you referring to, what was there 'a beginning' of, EXACTLY?

Also, I have PROVED what thee ACTUAL Truth IS ALREADY. This is done by YOUR INABILITY to answer MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you above here.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
Sure yes.

Great.

This, in and of itself, MEANS that 'causality' HAS TO HAVE ALWAYS been in Existence.

That is not correct. Regress is not possible.[/quote]

This is ANOTHER CLAIM you like to make. YET you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support this CLAIM.

Are you even YET AWARE that I NEED to SEE PROOF FIRST, BEFORE I agree with and accept the CLAIMS made by 'you', human beings.

'you', "bahman", have YET to SHOW ANY PROOF for ANY of YOUR CLAIMS here.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am UNLESS, OF COURSE, 'you', "bahman", can PROVE otherwise.

Can you PROVE otherwise "bahman"?

That is the subject of the previous comment.

If you can PROVE otherwise, then just say YES.

WHY are you making this SO UNNECESSARY HARD and COMPLEX?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
No.

Okay great.

So, will you NOT use that unnecessary and diversionary remark "It depends" anymore in relation to 'causality' and 'existence'?

Of course. There are lots of detail are missing here. For example beginning, decision and experience.

Well WHY are YOU LEAVING these details out for?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
Of course not. we were talking about causation only and not decision.

Did you forget that it was 'you', "bahman", who STARTED talking about 'making a change' through and from 'a decision' here?

I thought that you missed that part. Everything is alright if you agree that a decision is needed for any causation.

BUT OBVIOUSLY ONLY 'you', human beings, make decisions. AND, just as OBVIOUS is the FACT that causation was happening and occurring BEFORE you human beings evolved and came into existence. SO, this makes YOUR CLAIM here beyond RIDICULOUS.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am The reality is that there is a decision is needed for each causation.

Did we, or did we NOT, just get through AGREEING that trees were NEEDED FIRST to 'cause' fruit?

If we did AGREE that this is true, then do you also agree that trees and fruit were around BEFORE human beings and decisions EVERY came into Existence?

Your CLAIM that 'a decision' is NEEDED for EACH causation implies that human beings have been in Existence, FOR EVER. Or, are you 'trying to' suggest that there is some 'thing' else that has been making 'decisions' FOR EVER?

I am not talking about humans but minds in here to be clear. Minds have existed since the beginning.

Okay, now we are STARTING to get SOMEWHERE, although it is BACK to WHERE we first began.

So, to 'you', which is sometimes A 'mind' and sometimes A human being WITH a 'mind', there has been these 'mind' thingies, which have, sometimes, been around FOREVER, and, sometimes, been around SINCE THE BEGINNING, correct?

When our discussions are LOOKED BACK OVER, the amount of times 'you', "bahman", CONTRADICT "yourself" is EXTREMELY HUMOROUS to LOOK AT, NOTICE, and OBSERVE.

Now, what sort of 'decisions' have these 'mind' thingies been making which MUST OF been BEFORE trees and fruit evolved and came into existence?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:40 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:05 am
I did my best.

If you, supposedly, "did your best" here, then you could have ONLY answered with PURE Honesty.

We are YET to SEE if you answer these current clarifying questions Honestly.

I did my best.

You OBVIOUSLY have NOT.

Your LIES and DECEIT are CRYSTAL CLEAR, well to 'me' anyway.