Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That was my question - in what sense can an abstraction exist in the absence of abstracting entities? Does this mean that abstractions are timeless things requiring no representation? that an idea someone once had, that was never recorded or passed on, still exists? do abstractions not yet conceived already exist?In my view, number exists even if only as an abstraction, regardless of whether the abstracting entities still exist, or will in the future, etc. That is, regardless of whether entities exist to realize or understand that basic idea.
Nonetheless, you agree that this 'living thing' still generates an artifical concept(?)A living thing, not necessarily a mind.SelfSim said:Well I'm glad to see you're getting around to acknowledging that it takes a living being to come up with the concept of objectivity .. It is therefore, an artificial concept.
What makes the call of 'physical system' or not 'physical system'? What basis is used for making such distinctions?variant said:Once things start to be physically systems that perpetuate boundary's like life does, it separates from the rest of the universe that simply exists as is.
Not wishing to cite a 'rudism' (and appear as being obnoxious) .. but this just appears as word-salad to me .. (devoid of usefulness).variant said:I think this is where perspective, and the self come from, where the abstract comes from.
(Sure looks like it) .. which would be untestable then, yes?variant said:We've not got to something I would call a mind though, so I think we're still in the realm of the mind independent realities.
But the human brain/body is a testable concept in science. My test then provides an objective test for mind (and it generates abundant evidence supporting the MDR hypothesis, too).variant said:It is separate, that's the point. Life perpetuates itself and maintains boundaries, that's what it is. Well before life can ever produce something as complex as "concept".
This means that minds as we know them are a byproduct of this external, Independent, physical reality that they depend on for their most basic concept.
Nonetheless, you agree that this 'living thing' still generates an artifical concept(?)
Can you provide an objective test for this 'living thing' so as to enable us to distinguish it from us?
Also 'as is' is a truism. Its meaning relies on the 'truth exists', which is objectively untestable. This creates circular reasoning and is fallacious under the same principles of logic used therein.
Not wishing to cite a 'rudism' (and appear as being obnoxious) .. but this just appears as word-salad to me .. (devoid of usefulness).
I can accept it as being a belief though .. which is fine by me .. (we all have 'em .. I have lots, myself)!
(Sure looks like it) .. which would be untestable then, yes?
But the human brain/body is a testable concept in science. My test then provides an objective test for mind (and it generates abundant evidence supporting the MDR hypothesis, too).
Are you saying that your mind is separate from your brain/body and it exists in the untestable mind independent reality?
(Now that just sounds outright weird to me .. I'm afraid)
I think number is one such, having an absolute form, before anyone understands it.That was my question - in what sense can an abstraction exist in the absence of abstracting entities? Does this mean that abstractions are timeless things requiring no representation? that an idea someone once had, that was never recorded or passed on, still exists? do abstractions not yet conceived already exist?
How does an abstraction have form without representation?I think number is one such, having an absolute form, before anyone understands it.
.. (yet discovery is a (scientific) process that we follow which depends on our mind's observations .. its easily demonstrable and I have done this numerous times in this thread .. but you have to look to see it).If the abstraction is undiscovered, it still exists, waiting for possible discovery. The laws of physics are evidently like this -- in an absolute sense existing independently of whether we discover them.
'True' before 'we discovered' it, eh? .. Or was it only relatively recently that it entered into our knowledge? (see here for an example on where the evidence on this actually takes us .. as opposed to assertion of 'truth' followed by circularity around the untestable existence of such a 'thing').Halbhh said:A famous example: E=mc^2 meaning that rest mass can be converted into energy: this is true whether or not we discover it, and it remains precise and accurate, regardless of our culture, or ability to understand or not.
Its our 'law' (a human is historically documented as having conceived it) .. and 'nature' is our word and not something which was miraculously floating around out there to apply it to what we see around us. (Because that's where the objective evidence takes us).Halbhh said:and it remains precise and accurate, regardless of our culture, or ability to understand or not. The rest mass converts to energy in fusion or fissions reactions of certain elements in exact and consistent ways that are utterly and totally independent of whether we know, and remain precisely the same regardless of which researcher or culture is discovering this already-existing firm and fixed law of nature.
Funny, that did remind me of Plato's perfect form stuff. No, I don't generally think that way. Only some abstractions are about absolutely fixed forms, that I know of, and those are all of math and physics i think, to my understanding. (I'm not thinking of beings or objects as being abstractions)How does an abstraction have form without representation?
What is 'absolute form' - is this a Platonic ideal? are you a Platonist?
It's almost like you have decided to misunderstand me, it seems like. I merely say the findings of science in physics are in part (some) about absolute fixed truths. You might not like that, but you ought not have a preference, ideally... (yet discovery is a (scientific) process that we follow which depends on our mind's observations .. its easily demonstrable and I have done this numerous times in this thread .. but you have to look to see it).
So you base the laws of physics upon a fundamentally untestable belief in the existence of something independent from the minds that clearly devised those laws, and which based them on those minds' observations, then?
And you see no inconsistencies in that?
'True' before 'we discovered' it, eh? .. Or was it only relatively recently that it entered into our knowledge? (see here for an example on where the evidence on this actually takes us .. as opposed to assertion of 'truth' followed by circularity around the untestable existence of such a 'thing').
Its our 'law' (a human is historically documented as having conceived it) .. and 'nature' is our word and not something which was miraculously floating around out there to apply it to what we see around us. (Because that's where the objective evidence takes us).
All you're doing here, is restating your belief in the existence of some untestable 'truth' .. which is fine by me .. so long as you state it as being such .. and not science.
So how does an abstraction have form without representation?Funny, that did remind me of Plato's perfect form stuff. No, I don't generally think that way. Only some abstractions are about absolutely fixed forms, that I know of, and those are all of math and physics i think, to my understanding. (I'm not thinking of beings or objects as being abstractions)
An example of absolute form is the number 2. In physics we have found the reliable E=mc^2, at minimum an expression of a fixed absolute reality. That reality, that prefect reality in nature, exists independently of our understanding.So how does an abstraction have form without representation?
What is 'absolute form'?
So I presume you're invoking Evolution there, (which is fine by me .. its well evidenced (tests out well) and is part our our scientific objective reality), however Evolution theory was also developed by human minds. Therefore can you give me a test which excludes the influence of the human mind, which would be a necessary component of pursuing the existence of something truly mind independent?Well we are a living thing, but yes we have objective evidence that living things have existed for quite some time.
So, the first living things would be distinct from us now by billions of years of time and evolution.
Ok .. looking back, perhaps you were invoking Thermodynamics in creating the distinction of life from the non living elements of 'the universe' then (which is also fine by me because there's clearly plenty of objective testing supporting the theory, which is useful as the distinction). However, claiming 'the universe' also exists 'as is', is untestable as its sole basis is a truism.variant said:In this case the distinction was indicating that part the universe doesn't relay information in an abstract manner with representative systems.
.. and that doesn't require some human developed model which also makes use of our concept of time (and presumably, of space)?variant said:Nope, it's quite easy to demonstrate, we can definitely see that this was happening when we weren't around.
No need at the moment .. you confirmed my understanding of what you were saying, below.variant said:I have no idea what your getting at here could you rephrase?
.. and yet you have no evidence or test that I can do for the bit you added at the end of that sentence: 'their basis precedes them in a mind independent reality', so all I can conclude is that this component (upon which you claim as being their basis 'minds' existence) is just another belief in my bookvariant said:I am saying that minds are the direct result of how life is structured and that their basis precedes them in a mind independent reality.
So I presume you're invoking Evolution there, (which is fine by me .. its well evidenced (tests out well) and is part our our scientific objective reality), however Evolution theory was also developed by human minds. Therefore can you give me a test which excludes the influence of the human mind, which would be a necessary component of pursuing the existence of something truly mind independent?
Ok .. looking back, perhaps you were invoking Thermodynamics in creating the distinction of life from the non living elements of 'the universe' then (which is also fine by me because there's clearly plenty of objective testing supporting the theory, which is useful as the distinction). However, claiming 'the universe' also exists 'as is', is untestable as its sole basis is a truism.
.. and that doesn't require some human developed model which also makes use of our concept of time (and presumably, of space)?
.. So your idea about minds is based on an untestable fundamental belief then ... how is that different from any other religion?
I can see I'm just not getting through .. an example might help to illustrate(?) I'll use the one I posted before:We have copious evidence for when human minds didn't exist, and how they came into being.
I do not claim we can remove our own situation as an observer, but rather, that it is rationally incomprehensible to think that we always need to exist for something to exist. That something is a reality whether we can observe it or not.
There was a mind independent reality before there were minds, and it gave rise to them.
Yet I just gave an example above which hopefully, shows that there is no reason for invoking truisms which miraculously zap mind independent 'things' into existence (at will), with absolutely no exposure of how that comes about (other than by way of invoking 'truisms').variant said:As is, is meant to be opposed to the divided way a mind or a living creature would assess it. It just exists.
The reasoning behind this would be the lack of a mechanism to carve it up into separate ideas, or things.
'Time' and 'space' are both concepts we've developed using science. There is no reason to pretend that we didn't also develop those concepts ourselves (eg: their meanings have also even been changed by us, over our lifetimes) .. therefore there is no reason to pretend that they miraculously 'zapped' into existence.variant said:No, It would require the thing that we're describing as space and time to exist and predate us.
Yes .. there are many religiously minded rational folk who also believe in 'zap' type miracles.variant said:No I've presented you with the obvious evidence of a mindless universe pre-existing our minded one that would satisfy any rational person.
If you assert true mind indepedence then it must be truly independent of minds. If it requires a mind to conceive it, then by the definition of what mind independence means, it cannot involve a mind, (for goodness sake)!variant said:The idea that I need to remove myself as an observer to demonstrate that is just your faf.
One might equally say that if you discuss those planets you must have a planet dependent mind. For one who is fond of identifying the assertions of of others as beliefs you are singularly myopic when it comes to recognising them in yourself.So, say I talked about planets that form, have rivers cut canyons on them, and then freeze into oblivion as their stars die, and no mind ever knows anything about those planets. Those are not mind independent planets .. because it was my mind that just told you about such hypothetical entities, and hence my mind gave meaning to everything I just said.
Claiming to have an objective test is not the same as actually having one. You have not demonstrated any objective way to distinguish reality, you have merely used sophistry and misunderstandings in a failed attempt to do so.and I have cited my test and produced the resulting evidence in dozens of posts now .. but you have to actually look at them to see it ..
What this means is that I at least have a test for distinguishing reality which produces objective evidence, whereas you demonstrate above, by way of your declination, that you don't. Therefore I claim to know what's real (and can show it) ... and you apparently can do neither!
A planet has an objectively testable defintion. It is not something I hold as being true for any reason. A planet is therefore not a belief.One might equally say that if you discuss those planets you must have a planet dependent mind. For one who is fond of identifying the assertions of of others as beliefs you are singularly myopic when it comes to recognising them in yourself.
I just did the objective semantic test of the MDR hypothesis and demonstrated the results in post #253.Claiming to have an objective test is not the same as actually having one. You have not demonstrated any objective way to distinguish reality, you have merely used sophistry and misunderstandings in a failed attempt to do so.
You believe that the decision to declassify Pluto as a planet was objective?A planet has an objectively testable defintion.
Where's the objective test? Your whole premise is based on the assumption that semantics and mind dependence are correct. That's not objective.I just did the objective semantic test of the MDR hypothesis and demonstrated the results in post #253.
I have not claimed to have such a test. You're reverting to your old habit of not reading what I write but choosing to see what you want me to have written.Where's you test for mind independence? I'm still waiting for it! Stop dodging the question!
I was after a definition rather than an example.An example of absolute form is the number 2.
That's certainly not a scientific view. That equation is our current best description of observable reality, as a special case of the relativistic energy-momentum relation. However, we know that Einsteinian relativity is incomplete, so your statement is hyperbole.In physics we have found the reliable E=mc^2, at minimum an expression of a fixed absolute reality. That reality, that prefect reality in nature, exists independently of our understanding.
You didn't answer to how an abstraction can have form without representation.Not sure if I'm talking to your question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?