Sorry, double post.

lobawad wrote:

jamest wrote:

lobawad wrote:To postulate an essential difference between abstract and concrete is to affirm an external world, using different words.

No. The term abstract actually applies to perceived bodies, also, because there's nothing concrete about perceived bodies. The concepts of substance and concreteness have been abused [in an ontological sense] by naive realists. At this metaphysical level of debate, the concept of substance is something [which should be] reserved for that which actually exists.

What would you say is an example of that which actually exists?

Well, everyone knows what I think exists, but that is not the point. What's important is that substance be reserved for that which does exist. At this juncture, this rules out the 'things' we perceive/discern (which is the only issue worth discussing, since that's what I initially related it to).

Two important aspects of 'existence':

1) Whatever it is, it cannot be absolutely nothing.
2) For something itself to exist, it cannot be reducible to something else (irreducible being). It must have a stand-alone existence. This ultimately means that the existence of something cannot be contingent upon something else, for contingent existence = reducible existence.


a) Whatever thoughts about things are, they are not those things themselves. (The thought of a tree is not a tree).
b) 'The world' [we are privy to] is thus reducible to something else - thought.
c) Said world (the one we are actually privy to) does not exist, then - it is reducible to something else.

Also, the existence of 'thoughts' is contingent upon something else. They emerge within The Thinker, who embraces and orders individual thoughts together for the purpose of interconnected meaning for that individual. Several thoughts go into every sentence... and several sentences into every post. Thoughts come and go, but The Thinker remains, ready to utilise thought at its own discretion: ready to cause thought to emerge or dissipate and 'play it' as the will dictates. Of course, posts such as this are demonstrations of how such a process occurs. Hence, abstractions (thoughts) do not actually exist as stand-alone entities and are reducible to something else.

There is no substance, then, to thought itself. The substance belongs to that which thinks, which should be obvious - as that which itself does not exist, cannot think.

I think, therefore I am.

... 'Tis true. Only the identity of the thinker eludes us... for now.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:
... now you're resorting to the boring and disingenuous political rhetoric which we get around here from many members, but primarily from Cito. However, Cito's a bit of a treasure around these parts. He's a bit like the moaning old codger who keeps farting in the corner - we think that we want him out, but we'd miss him really.

You've got several years of moaning and farting ahead, I would suggest, before you can even hope to achieve such acclaim. In the meantime, I'll just tend to ignore all but the best of your posts... if you don't mind.

It amused me at the time.

jamest wrote:

lobawad wrote:

jamest wrote:
No. The term abstract actually applies to perceived bodies, also, because there's nothing concrete about perceived bodies. The concepts of substance and concreteness have been abused [in an ontological sense] by naive realists. At this metaphysical level of debate, the concept of substance is something [which should be] reserved for that which actually exists.

What would you say is an example of that which actually exists?

Well, everyone knows what I think exists, but that is not the point. What's important is that substance be reserved for that which does exist. At this juncture, this rules out the 'things' we perceive/discern (which is the only issue worth discussing, since that's what I initially related it to).

Two important aspects of 'existence':

1) Whatever it is, it cannot be absolutely nothing.
2) For something itself to exist, it cannot be reducible to something else (irreducible being). It must have a stand-alone existence. This ultimately means that the existence of something cannot be contingent upon something else, for contingent existence = reducible existence.


a) Whatever thoughts about things are, they are not those things themselves. (The thought of a tree is not a tree).
b) 'The world' [we are privy to] is thus reducible to something else - thought.
c) Said world (the one we are actually privy to) does not exist, then - it is reducible to something else.

Also, the existence of 'thoughts' is contingent upon something else. They emerge within The Thinker, who embraces and orders individual thoughts together for the purpose of interconnected meaning for that individual. Several thoughts go into every sentence... and several sentences into every post. Thoughts come and go, but The Thinker remains, ready to utilise thought at its own discretion: ready to cause thought to emerge or dissipate and 'play it' as the will dictates. Of course, posts such as this are demonstrations of how such a process occurs. Hence, abstractions (thoughts) do not actually exist as stand-alone entities and are reducible to something else.

There is no substance, then, to thought itself. The substance belongs to that which thinks, which should be obvious - as that which itself does not exist, cannot think.

I think, therefore I am.

... 'Tis true. Only the identity of the thinker eludes us... for now.

"I think therefore I am" does not follow from what you just described. What you said was "I am, therefore it is possible that I may think".

Interestingly, the license to exist which you've given your "I am" is that he's the only game in town that's made of real and unbreakable stuff.

I must take my hat off to you, James (seriously). You've presented the most materialistic cosmology I've ever heard.

lobawad wrote:
Interestingly, the license to exist which you've given your "I am" is that he's the only game in town that's made of real and unbreakable stuff.

'He'?

I must take my hat off to you, James (seriously). You've presented the most materialistic cosmology I've ever heard.

I don't know how you've reached that conclusion. Please explain.

Oh my God! Ladies and Gentleman! No one can believe that lobawad did that! The crowd is groaning ... james looks..
stunned...his knee are buckling ladies and gentleman! He didn't see THAT coming! lobawad calls him a Materialist!.... no one can believe what happened here tonight...

Here's a challange for you non-faith-based rationalists:

Can you prove that you are not crazy or do you have faith in your own sanity?

Well the evidence on this is that everyone I know has called me crazy at a least a half dozen times so I can have no faith in my sanity. I will have to recuse myself on this one.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well the evidence on this is that everyone I know has called me crazy at a least a half dozen times so I can have no faith in my sanity. I will have to recuse myself on this one.

This should be interesting.

You do realize that such a proof is impossible since you must assume that you are not crazy before you start.

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well the evidence on this is that everyone I know has called me crazy at a least a half dozen times so I can have no faith in my sanity. I will have to recuse myself on this one.

This should be interesting.

You do realize that such a proof is impossible since you must assume that you are not crazy before you start.

In my view of what proof is, no this is not the case. We can prove we are sane with evidence. Courts actually do this all the time.

You do offer a good example of the true meaning of faith though. For the most part we don't know exactly how and why we are sane because it is such a fuzzy thing to define. We have intuitions and intuitions are like little calculators that sum up many bits of information into an elective whole.

I would contrast this sort of thing with say the belief in christian fairy god where there is zero evidence. No bits of information. No reason to believe other than an attitude or some appeal to authority. That I would call a belief with a capital B.

Look under the hood here Who on why you are offering this. You will find that you are appealing without naming a colloquial idea, an urban legend of sorts, about how 'what if I were so crazy that none of this was really happening'.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
In my view of what proof is, no this is not the case. We can prove we are sane with evidence. Courts actually do this all the time.

If a man is crazy, then he will draw an irrational conclusion and sincerely believe it is right. None of his conclusions can be trusted since they are corrupt at the source. All proofs rest on the assumption of sanity. If you are not sane, then no reasoning is correct.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

You do offer a good example of the true meaning of faith though.

Thanks. I think this gets to the core of what I mean.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

I would contrast this sort of thing with say the belief in christian fairy god where there is zero evidence. No bits of information. No reason to believe other than an attitude or some appeal to authority. That I would call a belief with a capital B.

Sure it's different. It's a necessary presupposition for reasoning, but belief in the gods are not a necessary presuppostion for reasoning.

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well the evidence on this is that everyone I know has called me crazy at a least a half dozen times so I can have no faith in my sanity. I will have to recuse myself on this one.

This should be interesting.

You do realize that such a proof is impossible since you must assume that you are not crazy before you start.

The real problem with your question is that sanity & insanity are arbitrary/relative values - unless they correlate with reality. So, to prove that one was absolutely sane, or insane, a proof for the nature of reality would first be required.

... I would present this proof, but you're all insane and wouldn't understand.

jamest wrote:
... I would present this proof, but you're all insane and wouldn't understand.

That's funny, that's what I've been thinking about you. :

DrWho wrote:Here's a challange for you non-faith-based rationalists:

Can you prove that you are not crazy or do you have faith in your own sanity?

The definition of insanity is experiencing the world in a fashion that is incompatible with one's society (not quite but that is what is boils down to).
So you can play this a number of ways:

1. No one is insane - it is just an artificial construct.
2. Insanity is other peoples view of a person, not their own - hence individuals cannot prove their sanity.
3. Insanity is present when your understanding of reality lacks reliable descriptive or even moderate predictive accuracy - in this instance you still need outside observers to provide objective evidence.

PS I am using psychosis as the model of insantiy - not neurosis.

Faith is not rational because of:-

1. Lack of evidence
2. Lack of mechanism, or incredible mechanism.

Voyager wrote:Faith is not rational because of:-

1. Lack of evidence
2. Lack of mechanism, or incredible mechanism.

Good point - if it wasn't for societal acceptance - 'faith' (not as in trust, rather trust without/in spite of evidence) would be a version of insanity.

Voyager wrote:Faith is not rational because of:-

1. Lack of evidence
2. Lack of mechanism, or incredible mechanism.

faith in reason is necessary since reason cannot prove its own axioms without assuming what is yet to be proved.

Pebble wrote:

DrWho wrote:Here's a challange for you non-faith-based rationalists:

Can you prove that you are not crazy or do you have faith in your own sanity?

The definition of insanity is experiencing the world in a fashion that is incompatible with one's society (not quite but that is what is boils down to).
So you can play this a number of ways:

1. No one is insane - it is just an artificial construct.
2. Insanity is other peoples view of a person, not their own - hence individuals cannot prove their sanity.
3. Insanity is present when your understanding of reality lacks reliable descriptive or even moderate predictive accuracy - in this instance you still need outside observers to provide objective evidence.

One type of insanity is drawing irrational conclusions and yet believing them to be rational.

One cannot prove one's own sanity without assuming it.

DrWho wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
In my view of what proof is, no this is not the case. We can prove we are sane with evidence. Courts actually do this all the time.

If a man is crazy, then he will draw an irrational conclusion and sincerely believe it is right. None of his conclusions can be trusted since they are corrupt at the source. All proofs rest on the assumption of sanity. If you are not sane, then no reasoning is correct.

And yet you know that you are not crazy with great certainty. Some crazy people don't. I don't know how to make this clear to you but let's try again. No matter what propositional argument you come up with I can poke holes in your proof. There is an imagined possibility. That is the nature of reality and it's relationship to how we think. But those imagined holes in sound common sense are nonsense. There is not one spec of evidence for any of these possibilities. When you run into these things I do not think it is faith that you need to deal with them at all. You need to stop considering nonsense.

Faith is for complex data sets that have fuzzy character yet they have a very clear ultimate likelihood. If you think you have faith in nonsense you do not. You may have a belief in nonsense. The powerful emotion of faith is only brought forth with overwhelming evidence.