Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Mething Nothing

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    Mary, That s my surmise as well. Wil ... From: Mary To: existlist Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 10:07 pm
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 24, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      That's my surmise as well.

      Wil




      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 10:07 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Mething Nothing





      So then, back to square-less-than-one, with nothing as the only logical condition for the appearance of something. What's wrong with that? Because it can't be measured? In this case, nothing isn't even theoretical; it's logically necessary.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Knott,
      >
      > Yes, that is Krauss' view as well. In fact, he says that contemporary physics has shown that that Nothing has a quantum instability and an energy -- and that it even has something like a weight to it. I have no dispute with that, and I find the physics interesting.
      >
      > What I am saying is that that is not the Ontological issue behind the 'why is there Being?'; it is the cosmological question of 'what is the nature of extension?' (i.e., does extension need stuff to be, and can stuff be thus secondary to our cosmological origin at a singularity, etc.).
      >
      > But the Ontological question has a logical priority, and in that sense it has an urgency to it, to answer an earlier objection. Thus, when Krauss demotes the philosophical questions as so much quasi-religion that have been dismissed by the above physics, I am saying that HE is playing know-it-all, as it were, and has missed the more radical issue.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: fictiveparrot <knott12@...>
      > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Sun, Mar 24, 2013 4:44 pm
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Mething Nothing
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > Oh I see now, not at all similar but opposite.
      >
      > It was indeed my suggestion that nothing was an absolute state of rest... perhaps beyond what is considered 0° kelvin and more or less than Planck... or somewhere on the far end between the two where there seems to be difficulty measuring. A change of state, or where a change of state might be necessary. temperatures freeze where states change... but if we have not observed the change to what they change to perhaps we dont know what that is. We didn't know there was America till it was discovered either.
      >
      > The problem with idiot humans is that there is some sense that 5 senses are enough, or that those 5 can translate everything, or that they not only digest everything but digest it infallibly. I, of course, am not human, though I am bound by my at-least as limited imagination to being one. But nothing, one would assume, and from my perspective, has no energy of any type -- positive or negative. It has not volume or space or "thing". Strictly speaking by the understanding of observation and science -- which can be ridiculous.
      >
      > However, as not to necessarily counter the brilliant observations of those who know better, I don't know that I concede that nothing doesn't exist, even amidst us. in fact there may be a bout as much nothing as something -- depending how you count it. And like a table where you consider the space between the particles as space and not volume, there might indeed be more nothing than something -- well, or an equal amount possibly as well.
      >
      > All these people that know... it is like they smoke a drug of deception. They are worms in Alice's world changing the rules for their own good. And then they are so sure they are right and angry that all you are left with is an echo and pile of shoes where their feet used to be.
      >
      > I. Doubt
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • fictiveparrot
      ... lets not be totally stupid... I think Descartes had an interesting proposition as far as the historical bent, but had I gotten that far I could not have
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 26, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > 'why is there Being?'

        lets not be totally stupid... I think Descartes had an interesting proposition as far as the historical bent, but had I gotten that far I could not have resisted making additional jumps -- and not to gawd...

        If there is a tree in the forest, and who cares if it falls or not, is it there if you don't exist?

        I am not saying exist in the "here and now" because that has far more difficulty. I am saying, well, if there were no point of perception, the thing cannot exist. Perhaps there is a selfish side to that which I do not see... but there is nothing -- at least from my perspective -- if I have not been here. the rest of you are theoretical.

        Wil... If you didn't 'be' is there anything?

        no... not even nothing... which takes a lot of thought to try and define.

        Knotts Knott
      • wsindarius
        Knott, Well, that is part of the existential problem. But, after all, I only came to be, at least as a discrete individual, at a certain time. I have it on
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 26, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Knott,

          Well, that is part of the existential problem. But, after all, I only came to be, at least as a discrete individual, at a certain time. I have it on pretty good authority that the world was here before then. My mother told me so, and her advise seems to be supported by subsequent investigation.

          Your enigma is involved with the problem of presence. What is it? To what is there a presencing? Is my pure presence, as it were, different from my consciousness and from my thought? What are the distinctions? Is Being a self-present becoming to which we, and all beings, are in presentation with?

          These existential-ontological questions are always lurking in European philosophy. Being, thus understood, has been called God (the "God" of ontology) since Aristotle, and Descartes and Spinoza (and Aquinas' "5 Ways") follow suit. But, as much as I regret that traditional concept, it really isn’t much of a God. It hardly rates as the Deistic one. As Derrida and others have underscored, this God is a metaphysical shorthand for presence. Ontology as Presence.

          So your question comes down to this, for me: is your presence really yours? I am inclined to go along with such as Schelling and Hegel on this score say that Being is a self-presencing that becomes the ontological by the development of its Idea as Nature, life being one inevitability of that Idea. That is, of course, a speculation, but I am persuaded of it, with a few reservations.

          I would find it hard to believe that consciousness, and thinking, too, are unique to us; and if they are not, I would find it difficult to believe that they aren't integral to what they mirror.

          But, these speculations are just that, speculations.

          Wil






          -----Original Message-----
          From: fictiveparrot <knott12@...>
          To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tue, Mar 26, 2013 2:31 pm
          Subject: [existlist] Re: Mething Nothing





          > 'why is there Being?'

          lets not be totally stupid... I think Descartes had an interesting proposition as far as the historical bent, but had I gotten that far I could not have resisted making additional jumps -- and not to gawd...

          If there is a tree in the forest, and who cares if it falls or not, is it there if you don't exist?

          I am not saying exist in the "here and now" because that has far more difficulty. I am saying, well, if there were no point of perception, the thing cannot exist. Perhaps there is a selfish side to that which I do not see... but there is nothing -- at least from my perspective -- if I have not been here. the rest of you are theoretical.

          Wil... If you didn't 'be' is there anything?

          no... not even nothing... which takes a lot of thought to try and define.

          Knotts Knott










          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • fictiveparrot
          ... Do you ever have your own thought? Eidone Sayit
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 26, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > My mother...European philosophy...Aristotle...Descartes...
            > Spinoza...Aquinas...Derrida...Schelling...Hegel

            Do you ever have your own thought?

            Eidone Sayit
          • fictiveparrot
            ... Prove that you are not playing yourself in a video game because you are bored with eternal life in the real one. Fook Hugh
            Message 5 of 24 , Mar 26, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > after all, I only came to be,
              > at least as a discrete individual,
              > at a certain time.

              Prove that you are not playing yourself in a video game because you are bored with eternal life in the real one.

              Fook Hugh
            • wsindarius
              Okay, that s it. I done with you. FU2 ... From: fictiveparrot To: existlist Sent: Tue, Mar 26, 2013 4:25 pm
              Message 6 of 24 , Mar 26, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Okay, that's it. I done with you.

                FU2







                -----Original Message-----
                From: fictiveparrot <knott12@...>
                To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tue, Mar 26, 2013 4:25 pm
                Subject: [existlist] Re: Mething Things





                > after all, I only came to be,
                > at least as a discrete individual,
                > at a certain time.

                Prove that you are not playing yourself in a video game because you are bored with eternal life in the real one.

                Fook Hugh









                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mary
                Years ago I had a dream in which I understood that appearing in this reality was the only way to escape eternity. Nothing might be eternal, and the only way
                Message 7 of 24 , Mar 26, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Years ago I had a dream in which I 'understood' that appearing in this reality was the only way to escape eternity. Nothing might be eternal, and the only way to 'be' is to appear as something. I told myself I needed to remember this but of course have generally forgotten. I don't know that I can claim any originality with this thought experience, but why does it matter?

                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:

                  Prove that you are not playing yourself in a video game because you are bored with eternal life in the real one.
                • fictiveparrot
                  ... Hahahahah. You are such a baby. If someone doesn t listen to you like you are incredibly important you get all soft in the under-belly. Doesn t do a thing
                  Message 8 of 24 , Mar 29, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Okay, that's it. I done with you.

                    Hahahahah. You are such a baby. If someone doesn't listen to you like you are incredibly important you get all soft in the under-belly.

                    Doesn't do a thing for me to hear your condescending name-dropping...

                    Sew B. Done
                  • fictiveparrot
                    ... Well, if you think it, it is necessarily yours. How do you think someone else s thoughts? Thatkant B. Wright
                    Message 9 of 24 , Mar 29, 2013
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > I don't know that I can claim any originality
                      > with this thought experience, but why does it matter?

                      Well, if you think it, it is necessarily yours. How do you think someone else's thoughts?

                      Thatkant B. Wright
                    • Jim
                      Knott, I think what you write here is ambiguous between types of thought (individuated by content) and thought tokens (individuated by the person who has the
                      Message 10 of 24 , Mar 30, 2013
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Knott,

                        I think what you write here is ambiguous between types of thought (individuated by content) and thought tokens (individuated by the person who has the thought and by time).

                        To give an example. You and I can both think the thought `2+2=4'. Here there is one thought content: that 2+2=4, but two individual thoughts, one had by me at approx 09.16 UK time on 30 March in Nottingham, England, and one had by you somewhere in America when you read this.

                        So there is both a sense in which you and I can think the same thought (entertain the same thought content) and a sense in which we cannot think the same thought (your thought tokens are yours and even by swapping brains I cannot own your thought).

                        Similarly, suppose I thought yesterday `David Cameron is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', and I think the same thought today. Counting thought contents there is only one: that David Cameron is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but counting thought tokens (thinking occurrences) there are two thoughts here – the one I had yesterday and the one I had today. And there is the same ambiguity: in one sense I can have the same thought I had yesterday (if we are talking about thought contents) and another sense in which I cannot have the same thought I had yesterday (I cannot go back in time and relive my life again from 24 hours ago.)

                        Jim



                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > I don't know that I can claim any originality
                        > > with this thought experience, but why does it matter?
                        >
                        > Well, if you think it, it is necessarily yours. How do you think someone else's thoughts?
                        >
                        > Thatkant B. Wright
                        >
                      • Mary
                        Well then, how are Wil s thoughts not his own? Mary
                        Message 11 of 24 , Mar 30, 2013
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Well then, how are Wil's thoughts not his own?

                          Mary

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:

                          > Well, if you think it, it is necessarily yours. How do you think someone else's thoughts?
                        • fictiveparrot
                          ... I don t agree, I think. I don t know if you think of 2 and 4 and it is blue or a sound in your understanding when compared to how I process thought. You
                          Message 12 of 24 , Mar 31, 2013
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > So there is both a sense in which you and I can
                            > think the same thought (entertain the same thought
                            > content) and a sense in which we cannot think the
                            > same thought (your thought tokens are yours and
                            > even by swapping brains I cannot own your thought).

                            I don't agree, I think. I don't know if you think of 2 and 4 and it is blue or a sound in your understanding when compared to how I process thought. You have no idea how I process mine, so it is a pretty big claim to think at all that we have the same anything. If you intuit 4 as blue and 2 as orange it might make more sense when you cant add 2 + 2, and some people can't (orange + orange = blue?).

                            You are not really showing much imagination by coming to solid conclusions. It also seems to be taking quite a lot for granted. You have clearly not understood what I think my thought model is here, because if you did, you would agree with me...

                            I neither have your thought at the same or different times, and I likely don't think it in exactly the same way, with the same dimensions, or similar associations. When I have a thought, it is me that digests it and attempts to reiterate it -- it is not a thing that I duplicate and put on a conveyor belt.

                            My guess is that any time you are pretty sure, you are probably wrong.

                            Geddit Wrong
                          • fictiveparrot
                            ... Did you think you had cleverly cornered me? I believe that was exactly what I was suggesting. His ideas are his and he should stop blaming other people for
                            Message 13 of 24 , Mar 31, 2013
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > > Well, if you think it, it is necessarily yours.
                              > > How do you think someone else's thoughts?

                              > Well then, how are Wil's thoughts not his own?

                              Did you think you had cleverly cornered me?

                              I believe that was exactly what I was suggesting. His ideas are his and he should stop blaming other people for them and be prepared to defend them. He is giving his ideas false glory and grandeur by attributing them to someone else who has a more respected name -- and dissuading argument. It's a sorta cheap trick. I don't care what he thinks Hegel might have said via his interpretation.

                              If you are going to stand on the shoulder of gnats, you might as well go ahead and squash them.

                              Mihaithoughtz Mihone
                            • wsindarius
                              I do not mention other writers to give my own thoughts credence. I mention them so as to give those I am having a conversation with a reference. Only if I am
                              Message 14 of 24 , Mar 31, 2013
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I do not mention other writers to give my own thoughts credence. I mention them so as to give those I am having a conversation with a reference. Only if I am asked what I think X said about Y will I try to speak for that author, and it is always understood that such interpretations are both my own and are subject to criticism.

                                Wil


                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: fictiveparrot <knott12@...>
                                To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sun, Mar 31, 2013 8:04 pm
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: Meanderthings





                                > > Well, if you think it, it is necessarily yours.
                                > > How do you think someone else's thoughts?

                                > Well then, how are Wil's thoughts not his own?

                                Did you think you had cleverly cornered me?

                                I believe that was exactly what I was suggesting. His ideas are his and he should stop blaming other people for them and be prepared to defend them. He is giving his ideas false glory and grandeur by attributing them to someone else who has a more respected name -- and dissuading argument. It's a sorta cheap trick. I don't care what he thinks Hegel might have said via his interpretation.

                                If you are going to stand on the shoulder of gnats, you might as well go ahead and squash them.

                                Mihaithoughtz Mihone









                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Mary
                                Knott, I have no need to corner nor prove to be clever. Regardless of the interpretation I make, if I ve never thought about something until I ve read someone
                                Message 15 of 24 , Apr 1 12:32 PM
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Knott,

                                  I have no need to corner nor prove to be clever.

                                  Regardless of the interpretation I make, if I've never thought about something until I've read someone else's thought about it, I don't feel I should take credit for it.

                                  Mary

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > > Well, if you think it, it is necessarily yours.
                                  > > > How do you think someone else's thoughts?
                                  >
                                  > > Well then, how are Wil's thoughts not his own?
                                  >
                                  > Did you think you had cleverly cornered me?
                                  >
                                  > I believe that was exactly what I was suggesting. His ideas are his and he should stop blaming other people for them and be prepared to defend them. He is giving his ideas false glory and grandeur by attributing them to someone else who has a more respected name -- and dissuading argument. It's a sorta cheap trick. I don't care what he thinks Hegel might have said via his interpretation.
                                  >
                                  > If you are going to stand on the shoulder of gnats, you might as well go ahead and squash them.
                                  >
                                  > Mihaithoughtz Mihone
                                  >
                                • fictiveparrot
                                  ... You cannot think someone else s thoughts. What you can do in a fair sense is say when I was reading XYZ, it seemed to me that he was saying... but all
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Apr 1 1:44 PM
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > Regardless of the interpretation I make,
                                    > if I've never thought about something until
                                    > I've read someone else's thought about it,
                                    > I don't feel I should take credit for it.

                                    You cannot think someone else's thoughts. What you can do in a fair sense is say "when I was reading XYZ, it seemed to me that he was saying..." but all you are doing is apologizing for interpreting someone else's words -- i.e., having a thought.

                                    Thoughtless Monk
                                  • Jim
                                    Mary, Thank you for your reply. I have felt all along with our discussion of being and nothing that I have been intellectually at my limit. As Wil has said
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Apr 1 2:35 PM
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mary,

                                      Thank you for your reply.

                                      I have felt all along with our discussion of being and nothing that I have been intellectually at my limit. As Wil has said this topic is of the utmost difficulty, and at a certain depth understanding gives out for everyone.

                                      With regard to the current discussion with Knott, I very much agree with what you write:

                                      "Regardless of the interpretation I make, if I've never thought about something until I've read someone else's thought about it, I don't feel I should take credit for it."

                                      In fact honest philosophers and scientists always acknowledge in footnotes ideas which they have taken from other writers. And students have to acknowledge ideas they take from others, otherwise they can be charged with plagiarism. In Knott's world plagiarism could not exist, unless it was a case of just copying out the words of another thinker.

                                      Jim
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.