No. Concepts are mental "objects", and the subtraction process is entirely a mental activity. — Relativist

But you still need data to subtract from outside of you? You must know what you are to subtract from what. That what must come from outside of you? If you say, no, then how do you know what to subtract from what?

I don't see how there could be any. Nothingness is a concept that is mentally constructed by subtraction, but it has no real-world analogue. — Relativist

But isn't the subtraction external to your mind? Surely you must have subtracted something from something else from the objects external to youself. You couldn't possibly subtract a concept from the concept, or did you?

Or is it also an internal mental event?

The bold part seems equivalent to:
Absolute nothingness is impossible because something exists.
and
Something exists: therefore absolute nothingness is impossible — Relativist

What are the connections / relations between something and absolute nothingness?

the logico-mathematical structure of the universe — 180 Proof

aka "the laws of nature — 180 Proof

That sounds like the substance of Spinozan God is purely mental, conceptual and immaterial. Would it be correct?

But again, if Spinoza is translated as saying there is one real Subject or Being, I think it conveys his meaning better than saying there is a single substance. — Wayfarer

Then would it be the God in Christianity or Judaism with emotions and passions like those of humans'?
That would be the God usually normal religious folks think of, and are familiar with. It wouldn't be the Spinozan God for the usual religious folks believe in, which is supposed to be substance, infinite, cause-proof, effect-proof, and unknown. They wouldn't have even a faint idea what it is in actuality.

It is very close in spirit to some forms of Indian Vedanta philosophy. — Wayfarer

Not familiar with Indian Hinduism, but aren't they a religion founded in polytheism?

Related to Aristotelian, but mostly how philosophers of the time were using it, basically: something that exists.
“By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.”
— SEP — Lionino

Wouldn't it be the case, then to relate / attribute God to substance seem an ambiguous attempt in logical connection.

Very in line with Descartes' use, he influenced Spinoza. — Lionino

In what sense did he?

I did some reading in the link and the published books on substance and God, but I couldn't quite see what the true existence of substance at all. Spinoza seems to be saying that Substance is infinite. It exists on its own, and knows itself. It is independent from causal effect.

In Aristotle, it seems to be anything which is not compound. Therefore even a human can be a substance. In Descartes, body is substance, because it has mass which can be measured in size and weight. It persists through time. Mind is substance, because it thinks. But God is not substance, unlike Spinoza's view. Hence Spinoza's God is not a traditional religious God in Christianity or Judaism. His God seems to be nature itself. But then what is the point of God? Why not just call it nature rather than God?

My question is still is there anything which represents "substance" in the actual world? If there is, then what is it? Or is it some deduced or inferred object in the mind via reasoning?

With all this bs in mind, I am looking for some objections. Does anybody know of a philosopher or philosophical project/ question that is more interesting or important? Who addresses the above issues better than Neitzsche? — SatmBopd

Heidegger wrote on Nietzsche in 4 volumes, and they look cool. I am sure Heidegger covers most of the topics listed in the OP in his own philosophy.

Monotheism, on the contrary, the rigid consequence of the doctrine of one normal human being—consequently the belief in a normal God, beside whom there are only false, spurious Gods—has perhaps been the greatest danger of mankind in the past: — Vaskane

But then, most of the major religions in the world have been Monotheism. Would it mean that, the majority of population in the societies in history preferred the monotheism? Or could it mean that monotheism was used for some other purposes than pure religious practices viz. control of the society and population through the enforced educations and political means?

Glaucon has the last word. “Look at everything.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chorus:

When looking glass looks at looking glass, not only is what they see not local, it’s not localizable. — ucarr

You seem to have been confused between your mind and the objects of your perception. What you see and hear, the content of your perception is not your mind. There must be far more than just the content of your perception in your mind.

In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God?
If my previous post is not clear enough, then you ought to either read Spinoza's Ethics, part one "Of God" or, at least, read this summary

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?
Again, Corvus, read the Ethics or this article — 180 Proof

Thanks for the link. Spinoza has been in my reading list, but still haven't managed to start.
When I opened the "Ethics", and read a page or two, I could see Spinoza starting the book with a title "Concerning God". So God or the concept of God seems to have had been a main part of Spinoza's philosophy. He seems to be using the concept of "Substance" to attribute the concept of God.
Any idea what the "substance" meant in Spinoza? Could it be Aristotelian? Or something else?

Not really clear what might be meant by that... — noAxioms

It is just one of the different scenarios of what the nature of time might be.

We seem to have gone off on a supernatural tangent. Not my problem. — noAxioms

That wasn't anything to do with a supernatural tangent. It was just an expression to emphasise that you cannot reverse time, and no one in the whole universe can. No one said that was your problem.

And BTW, 'object' is very much just an ideal. There seem to be anything physical about what constitutes an object.
I'm getting pretty far off topic here. — noAxioms

You have been for sure. OK, please carry on. I am bowing out here.

The Orchid relies upon deception in order to mate with other orchids. — Vaskane

Does it then imply Nietzsche's idea was that a living agent cannot overcome / transcend its biological foundation i.e. DNA, inherent characters, features, natures and destinies within its physical and biological build of body, no matter what the mental makeups might be?

In this perspective, freedom for each individual agent in the society or nature wouldn't be possible. Would it be kind of a determinism? What does Nietzsche say about freedom and determinism?

Why would any of that occur? I mean, sure, if one was to travel to 1990, they'd find me there, but without 2024 memories, but why would the teleporter leave you in a different state when it by definition doesn't? — noAxioms

If time is some physical entity running itself somewhere in the universe, and if there were different timelines running in different physical spaces, then perhaps you could get into the space via the teleport or whatever bending spacetime and what have you, maybe then you could say your  mind and body of 2024 can travel to whatever year you choose without losing the memory, thoughts or consciousness.

But if time is just a mental concept for measuring the intervals between the start and end of changes of the objects in the physical world, then the whole topic would be just a fiction.  Even if you accept whatever premises for time travel hypothetically and keep speculating what you would do in the past or future in time travel, you still have to accept the most foundational universal law, that all minds and bodies are subject to change through time. 

Under the law that even God cannot intervene, your mind will be that of the people who lived in the world of whatever year you travel to, and you body as well.  Perhaps your body will need a few deaths, resurrections and new births to reach the time you are supposed to travel to if it is a few hundred years away from the present moment.

You remind me of the fate of Icarus, whose wax wings melted during his flight towards the sun, sending him to his death below. I shall approach the sun in the cave. No, I shall not find the sun. Who can find the sun without finding death first? Instead, I shall chase the sun with my torches, pretending to be the sun I can never find." — ucarr

It seems to be the case that at this stage, your incumbent job is to define what mind is. What does mind mean to you? Please define.

The particle is lumped onto various headings of 'exotic matter' (including various virtual particles), and exotic matter is seemingly a hard requirement for time travel. — noAxioms

I didn't mention 'exact matter'. Perhaps you misread 'exotic'. One can simply google 'exotic matter' for a more specific list. — noAxioms

Yep, got the description for "exotic matter", but you still need to explain why and how exotic matter is required for time travel. How does it supposed to work?

I didn't mention 'exact matter'. Perhaps you misread 'exotic'. One can simply google 'exotic matter' for a more specific list. — noAxioms

Yes, it must have been my mistyping. I try not to google too much if I can help it. The underlying implication for asking the question was not just the meaning of the concept, but also your explanation on how it works with time travel.

So does it not prove that the whole story is just a fiction itself?
Not really. CTCs are allowed, and might actually exist at quantum scales. Their existence is not inherrently contradictory. To open one at a classical scale probably leads to necessary contradictions, and since all the time travel stories are classical, I'd have to actually answer that such stories are necessarily fiction. — noAxioms

Not saying they are not allowed, but trying to focus more on the possibility of the travel before what one can do in the past or future when arrived there.

One can scan a person down to the biochemical level: the location of every cell and connection, the chemical makeup of all fluids everywhere. That's still a classical measurement. It's trying to scan down to the atomic level where things get impossible. — noAxioms

But there are loads of the other aspects that you must think of such as the mental contents = memories, thoughts and the consciousness of the past, such as if you travelled to 1761, would you still contain the present mind, or would the content of your mind be wiped out, and replaced by the 1761 mind, or would it become total blank due to the travel?

Shouldn't how one could change the past events follow after fictitious successful time travel has been achieved, rather than before the travel? Have you achieved fictitious time travel into the past or future in actuality?
— Corvus
I cannot parse this. How does something follow something that is fictitious? — noAxioms

Fictitiously.

Not saying time travel is total baloney, but I am interested in how it might be possible, as well as what you could do in the past or future when you arrived there.

As to the Deacon, again, you aren't really familiar with the work so it isn't fair of you to form conclusions about it. Teleonomy doesn't prove panpsychism, but it could certainly be viewed to be congruent with such an hypothesis. — Pantagruel

I do admit I am not familiar with Deacon. I only did read synopsis of his theory. But still I don't recall the synopsis mentioning anything about God. Does Deacon's Incomplete Nature also define what God is?

All I did was provide some evidential bases for my perspective. — Pantagruel

I stated that human consciousness displays an evident spectrum both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. This is a statement of fact, entrenched in both developmental psychology and evolutionary biology and archaeology. So yes, it is a scientific fact. My hypothesis is congruent with known scientific facts. It is not itself a scientific fact. — Pantagruel

It appears to be not enough detail of the evidence for the claims, hence was asking for more details.

No. Simply put, Spinoza argues that nature (i.e. infinite & eternal (i.e. completely immanent) substance) excludes the existence of a 'transcendent, supernatural person' (e.g. the God of Abraham, the OOO-deity of theology, etc). Thus for most Spinozists, nature itself counts as strong evidence against all forms of theism (& deism (except maybe pandeism)). — 180 Proof

Does it mean then, Spinoza was an atheist? Perhaps would it be the reason why he had been excommunicated from his religious authorities?

In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God? How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?

Well, you can start with human consciousness, which clearly evolves both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. — Pantagruel

This sounds more scientific theory than philosophical or metaphysical statements. If it is a science theory, what supporting evidence does the claim have?

Which therefore also links unproblematically (for me) with consciousness in other species. If you research the nature of consciousness in the natural world, you can read examples of how primitive colony organisms exhibit purposive behaviours (in The Global Brain, by Howard Bloom, for example). — Pantagruel

But could it not also be viewed as biological survival instinctive behaviours which has nothing to do with human intelligence, reasoning and thoughts?

Indeed, you can even pursue the concept to the limits of the animate-inanimate boundary and discover how natural systems can be seen as instantiating teleonomic properties (Incomplete Nature, by Deacon). The spectrum of organic consciousness alone is sufficient warrant however. — Pantagruel

How can you or Deacon prove the instantiation of the teleonomic properties of the nature is related to human consciousness? And indeed how human consciousness is related to God, if God is something that you cannot define, but something that have to presume or deduce from the natural world? It sounds like a serious circular reasoning going on in your explanations.

The Orchid does mind truth. — Vaskane

The Orchid is synonymous with "Woman" in Nietzsche's eyes. "Woman" isn't the same as woman/women. — Vaskane

In fact, could you elaborate on these statements with more details, viz. in what sense the orchid does mind truths, and the orchid is synonymous with "Woman" rather than woman/women? Thanks.

I see. Thank you for your clarification. It sounded like the natural world is your God. I recall some folks saying that. Could it be Spinoza?

Anyhow, still there seem to be some problems for deducing a vast spectrum of consciousness from the natural world. Because some folks like Heidegger would say the natural world is a myth, and humans are alienated from the world. We really don't know the world. If the world is related to consciousness then it should provide good knowledge of the universe. Does it?

Do you have argument for the natural world provides us a vast spectrum of consciousness? In what sense and evidence?

Who says it is a god's role to intercede or interfere with the unfolding of events? That's a presupposition. A hurricane is just a weather feature that is endemic to the ecological health of our planet. I certainly don't assume that human preoccupations are necessarily universal values. — Pantagruel

The question was forwarded to you because you claimed that the natural world is ample evidence for your God.

For me, "god" is an heuristic that I see no reason to forgo. The natural world provides ample, ample evidence of a huge spectrum of consciousnesses correlative with a spectrum of teleologies. — Pantagruel

If the natural world is ample evidence of God, then how do you explain the mindless, irrational and unpredictable natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods which cause destructions and damages to innocent people?

To people like Nietzsche and Jung, "God" can be understood, psychologically, as one's supreme guiding principle. — Vaskane

An interesting point.

Also an important reason as to why atheism and theism share the same starting point: they come out of the same psychological drives. — Vaskane

Who were the first people started atheism and theism? When you say they share the same starting point, does it mean in time, or on the ideas of ground?

You say when you are blocked off from the world you are mindless? You say when you are blocked off from the world and mindless you don't see or hear anything? — ucarr

You said you know the mind very well. So I asked you what is your mind? You said, what you see is your mind. I said that cannot be true, because if you closed your eyes and blocked your ears, then you don't see, and you can't hear. Does it mean that you become a mindless when you closed your eyes and blocked your ears? So, what you see and hear cannot be your mind itself. What is your mind that you claimed to know?

When you do see and hear things, it's because you have a mind in contact with the world? — ucarr

What you were saying here seems to be a Circular Fallacy. The evidence used to support your statement is just a repetition of the statement itself.

Tachyon is a hypothetical object which is in the domain of a fiction.
— Corvus
It is a hypothetical object in the domain of science. Can't help it if the fiction folks are the ones that latched onto it.
The particle is lumped onto various headings of 'exotic matter' (including various virtual particles), and exotic matter is seemingly a hard requirement for time travel. — noAxioms

What is exactly the 'exact matter' including various virtual particles?

None of this rewinds reality, but actual retro-causal (or FTL) information transfer opens things up to paradoxes. — noAxioms

So does it not prove that the whole story is just a fiction itself?

Yet another thread about time. I was thinking yesterday of a very vague idea that I'd like opinions on. So then if we took a "snapshot" of this very moment with it's totality, that being: The position of every single object, cell and et cetera. And had the ability to manipulate matter in such a way that we can reposition new "environmental" circumstances into the ones that we have snapshotted, would that not be considered time travel? If anybody ever has watched "Watchmen" and know of Dr.manhattan I ask this question as regarding his fictional abilities. Those being the ability to manipulate a surrounding environment to a total extent, whatever that may be. — unintelligiblekai

The OP seems to have already taken into account of time travel is a fiction, but asked how it could be possible even hypothetically. Shouldn't how one could change the past events follow after fictitious successful time travel has been achieved, rather than before the travel? Have you achieved fictitious time travel into the past or future in actuality?

Davu, calm and unperturbed by Jabari’s vehemence, took a long time to respond, saying finally, “It’s no good my talking to you directly. That is my mind. You have your own mind. When it sees the world directly, or sees the world through a story, you must learn to listen when you hear it talking to itself.” — ucarr

A story that you hear, or the world you see is not your mind itself. You seem to be misunderstanding the content of your perception with your mind. It is like saying the coffee in the mug is as same as the mug.

When you say "the mind", it must have a referent that "the mind" is referring to. But if you say the stories that your hear, and the world you see is "the mind itself", it just doesn't make sense. Because when you closed your eyes or bloked your ears, you lose all your mind. You don't see or hear anything. You become a mindless. Do you? Really?

Ok, let's suppose that is the case. How does it explain your mind and the body problems?

Democritus did not know what an atom was, he just identified a general concept he was able to intuit using a word. — Pantagruel

Does it mean that Democritus made up a word for atom for something he didn't know what he identified with or intuit about? In that case isn't the word atom vacuous?

In the case of God, who personified with what object? There must had been an object or existence for the personification. Would it be a fair inference?

But dispensing with the idea of god (the ultimate consciousness) because of the failings of a few fallible humans is throwing out one big baby with some very dirty bathwater. — Pantagruel

But do we know what "God" is?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck it must be a duck. — ucarr

The new born pup lost its bitch getting born, but the little girl took the dying whelp to her bed and her warm stomach. Next morning the pup squealed from under the covers vivid with life and a new, two-legged mother. — ucarr

What do they have anything to do with the knowledge of your mind?

Physics mathematically allows for tachyons, which can 'go backwards' in time, but nobody has ever found a tachyon or other necessary exotic matter such as things with negative mass and such. — noAxioms

Tachyon is a hypothetical object which is in the domain of a fiction.

I suppose in the end it would matter how it works, before we go about presuming the properties and possible interpretations of the thing. — noAxioms

In Modal Logic, when you say X is possible, it implies that X was possible in real sense. For example,
X = I can order wine instead of beer.
X =I can have pizza instead of sandwich or McDonald.
X = I can read Hume instead of Kant. These are all possible options that can happen in real life. It is just a matter of one's choice, hence legitimate ground for being premises for further discussions.

But if X = I can walk on the planet Jupiter, or I can fly faster than light. then it would be rejected by most people unless there were some explanations on how that would be possible, because there is no logical ground or scientific possibilities for that statement to make sense on their own out of blue. Therefore it is not fit for being a premise for any intelligible discussions.

The blind flower girl touched the little tramp’s face carefully, telling him his day would be a good one. She knew this she explained by telling him she could see his smile. Puzzled, he asked her, “How do you know I’m smiling? You’ve never seen a smile.” Smiling, she said, “Here at the flower stand I see smiles because I perceive with eyes forever closed.” — ucarr

It seems to be your futile tactics to revert back to some poetic nonsense, when you have no idea what you were even asking about.

Are you claiming, then a blind man has no mind?
— Corvus

You’re driving in your car. You suddenly stop at a green lit intersection where you see a blind man in dark glasses slowly making his way through the crosswalk. Do you conclude the blind man has no mind? — ucarr

I was asking you the questions, and you are supposed to give your answers.
You are not supposed to answer questions with your questions.

:cool: :ok:

Apart from my mind, where is my… perception? — ucarr

So, if you are watching TV comedy show, then is the TV comedy show your mind?
If you close your eyes, then you see nothing but darkness. Is the darkness your mind?
Are you claiming, then a blind man has no mind?

When I awoke this morning, looking up through my concave skylight, I saw a palette of swirling, subtle grays hovering like thought-balloons with glowing, white cracks of lightning.

As I leaned over the side of the bed and looked down I saw my black leather slippers with roasted- cashew feet slipping into them. — ucarr

That sounds like your visual perception. Are you sure it is the existence of your mind itself?

You’re claiming the mind cannot perceive itself?

Must I conclude you’ve never examined your own thoughts? — ucarr

So, you are claiming that you can perceive the mind.
What is the shape and colour of your mind?

The "If" part needs backing proofs with evidence before the whole sentence could be accepted as a meaningful statement.
— Corvus
We were deliberately ignoring all that, since the possibility of this as described isn't there at all. — noAxioms

Come to think of it, what prevents you from trying to prove the assumption? Wouldn't it be actually an interesting attempt, and all the emanating arguments from the proofs (if it were possible to come to some sort of proofs with evidences) would be more exciting? :D