Does it really matter if he is conscious or not? Even atheist try to live "by His rules" for the most part. You seem obsessed with knowing if God is conscious and believing that consciousness comes only from consciousness. I think you're wrong on both points

That sort of projection of human experience is precisely what Spinoza went to great effort to reject. — Valentinus

It's not inappropriate to wonder what God's inner life is. Spinoza only said we can't know anything from such mullings

https://www.amazon.com/Towards-definitive-solution-Zenos-paradoxes/dp/B0006CXZPY/ref=sr_1_43?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549513691&sr=1-43&keywords=zeno+paradox

Too bad they don't have this is book form for sale anymore

Yes but knowing what it's like to be God is what knowing what "God" really means

Thanks for that quote. I read Spinoza from a library book. God and our intellect are more alike than a plant and His intellect, but we don't know WHAT God is

If matter does not perfectly conform to geometry, then this alone is the answer to infinite divisibility problem. I am more likely to accept a contradiction than accept that objects only exist when perceived, as others have said on this thread. Anyway, maybe I should read more Wittgenstein

Can God divide a soccer ball into infinite parts?

I recognize that our thoughts are imperfect in this regard. But I think they are interesting because they lead to either Parmenides's speculations or to the ever-changing "fire" of Heraclitus. All three thinkers spoke of very ancient ideas, and Zeno leads to one of the other two

Zeno added motion to the question of infinite divisibility to make the question even more difficult. I think mathematics does apply to objects in that two haves will have the same volume when united. I see no reason why these processes of division can't go on forever in real objects, although I recognize that objects are finite. Hence the paradox: "the infinite" WITHIN "the finite". Infinite content

The ancient Chinese knew about this: "One of the few surviving lines from the school, 'a one-foot stick, every day take away half of it, in a myriad ages it will not be exhausted,' resembles Zeno's paradoxes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Names

If you can forever take a part from a solid and there always be a part remaining, it is not fully finite but instead has an aspect of infinity. Common sense says something should be either finite or infinite but not both

Infinite subdivisions imply an infinite within the finite. How these opposites coincide is the issue

Spinoza said consciousness comes from the attribute Thought, not from the attribute Extension

In philosophical terms, since all objects are spatial and subject to one or another type of geometry, we have to say that objects are finite in form and infinite in content. To be perfectly honest when contemplating a ball or a cup will lead to this conclusion. There are, I admit, many types of geometry, and if someone finds a way to explain "the spatial" in a way that is comprehensive and avoids paradox, I am all ears. (I like how non-Euclidean geometry is on an infinite curve that revolves back into compactness. The weirdness of it gives me a faint hope that Zeno's paradox could be solved, but the final result might be way over my head)

The solution to Zeno that has been proposed here is that parts appear on the geometric item only when noticed. Did not Parmenides say thought is being? Is his philosophy not early Greek idealism? Are not these new QM ideas just modern idealism? I have accepted that unbounded space is identical to bounded space not just because its a bigger idea than these other opinions, but because it's true

Do you expect to be in the news as the guy who solved this ancient problem? As the mathematician said in video linked earlier in this discussion, greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and failed. Not so long ago some writer came out with his "solution" and got a lot of praise until everyone realized that it was Henri Bergson's answer that had plagiarized and it was not a true solution to the problem to begin with

I mean no offense

If we take this reasoning to its limit then we end up with the whole being an assembly of a bunch of 0-Dimensional objects (i.e. nothing). Is that what you believe? Everything is made up of nothing? — keystone

No. The zeros (points) is approached by infinite space that is also finite. That is the only way to put this question honestly. "In the early 19th century, Hegel suggested that Zeno’s paradoxes supported his
view that reality is inherently contradictory." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It's said everywhere that modern math found the answer to this paradox, to which I use words of Heraclitus "Hearing they do not understand, like the deaf. Of them does the saying bear witness: 'present, they are absent'" I say this only because most people don't understand what the paradox means so there "explanations" completely miss the mark

"Pierre Gassendi in the early 17th century mentioned Zeno’s paradoxes as the reason to claim that the world’s atoms must not be infinitely divisible. Pierre Bayle’s 1696 article on Zeno drew the skeptical conclusion that, for the reasons given by Zeno, the concept of space is contradictory." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think Bayle's conclusion is the only one that is eventually reached by logic on this. The great mathematician Alfred Whitehead write on the subject of "wholes and parts" and yet Wikipedia said some of his results appear to be wrong. This subject is a tangle which however allows you to view it with intuition instead of logic and get something out of it instead of eternal frustration. I have no doubt no one will find "THE answer" to this riddle. Yet it can be accepted as a trick played on us by the fathomless

The "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" has a superb article on "Inconsistent Mathematics", which is a field of study also called paraconsistent mathematics. It mentions Zeno's paradox

(I believe all of Zeno's arguments are reduced to one single insight: spatial objects are finite with infinite parts. If this does not give you a headache one day of your life then you never understood it. The argument that motion through a point is really "rest" I think is false. Zeno had one great insight and it was an insight into mathematics, not physics)

There is no true space that cannot be divided by the mind. And this applies to the spaces that are divided from each other. And again and again. Understanding the contradiction is a type of wisdom on the subject. It's not scary. "A healthy mind can accept a paradox" (Chesterton)

Points are the limit that infinite divisions approach. Space does lead to a pure contradiction. Our minds are not precise enough to understand it. Every part can be divided by the mind endlessly.

There seems to be no reason the segment has to be parted into infinity in order to contain infinity. That seems irrelevant to me

The continuum could easily be a dog instead of a segment. He has legs regardless of whether you point them out or cut them off

One foot does not potentially have two united six inches. The 12 inches are there

Although the parts exist together, they exist even though they are not separated. A continuum is an infinite substance. Nothing potentially has parts. It HAS the parts whether they are separated or not

There is a dynamism in the resting of matter, something that Heraclitus glimpsed and could only call "fire". Perhaps he knew of Zeno type paradoxes and referred to it specifically in his union of opposites (SEP article is great on him). One thing we know for sure is that infinity and " the finite " are opposites

Ok, thanks

I was curious if others thought of gender in objective terms like I do. If others can talk face to face with someone without the assumption that they are either male or female, good for them. I can't do that

The parts are always there!

I've been arguing that to be infinitely divisible means that it has infinite parts. These seem identical to me

I haven't said the physiology matters like that. The soul comes from neurons so that's a separate issue. Everyone's psychology is different too and won't always accord with epistemic philosophy. I can't prove anything I've said because this is not an issue that can be demonstrated. I recognize that nobody is saying that people should change their bodies without due consideration, and I know different cultures have different ways of life. What my position was, and is, is about finding some meaning and ontology in a ocean of relativism that surrounds me and a lot of other people

I asked if people having gender reassignment was an almost religious activity and drew on how I see souls in a Platonic way. I don't think asking why people get upset when transgender people are mentioned, or if abortion is brought up among people who it isn't affecting, will be fruitful at this point,.. but it might. My impression now is that *somehow* people think they are being told what to do with their genitals if someone crosses their opinion on these questions. Its dawned on me today that this is likely what it is, so I regret making this thread.

It's very strange to view the body as alone accounting for gender. Idn. I was raised traditional Catholic (Latin mass altar boy, choir singer, homeschooled) but left the Church when I was 18 and never went back. I was formed by religions and old movies growing up. I am aware that I see things differently than others because of my sheltered childhood, but I've been able to understand a lot of things without becoming a relativist. This topic makes sense to me as I've described it. If my ideas spread and cause harm, that is not my intent and I want to prevent it

Because then everyone is androgynous

I don't think genitals define the soul they are just body parts designed for pleasure, whether you use them or not

We gather from seeing bodies and knowing people something about male and female souls. There are no perfect bodies, just clear ideas

Did this clarification make matters worse?

If someone doesn't have breasts but everyone calls them a girl, the situation is not unnatural. I assume those who appear male have male souls but I don't know for sure. The aspects I listed about how bodies show the soul to an extent shouldn't be taken to mean any body is bad or unnatural. But I do think it gives some insight into the types of souls people can have and alternative positions go to the extreme that male and female are just words, which ye does not make sense to me

I've even said that reproduction doesn't even define the sexes

Of course not

I never said its always psychologically valuable to find your identity. But you are denying it can ever have value to believe as I do and you have no evidence

Like a rainbow from God's substance, everything comes from God's attributes. Modes are phenomena and attributes are noumena. So your soul comes right from God's rainbow (the "thinking" color) so yes, it resists the hard problem. Assuming (here's the caveat) that God's inner life is conscious. I think for Spinoza it is