When someone wants to invoke unknowability and indeterminacy in metaphysics, I emphasize that definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics, and that we should explain what we can before invoking unknowability or indeterminacy. — Michael Ossipoff
That's why I disagree with your suggestion of implicating or blaming Nothing, for those negative feelings. — Michael Ossipoff
The immanence of complete shutdown is therefore quite irrelevant and meaningless from our point of view. — Michael Ossipoff
I've been saying that our world of experience is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, consisting of a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals. — Michael Ossipoff
.When someone wants to invoke unknowability and indeterminacy in metaphysics, I emphasize that definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics, and that we should explain what we can before invoking unknowability or indeterminacy.
.What kind of definite uncontroversial things can be said [about metaphysics]?
.That's why I disagree with your suggestion of implicating or blaming Nothing, for those negative feelings. — Michael Ossipoff
.I'm not blaming anything on anything.
.I'm just interested in the juxtaposition of being and nothing. I haven't thought it through properly but being (which I understand in a purely Heideggerian way as that on the basis of which entities are intelligible and determined as entities) and nothing are probably two sides of the same coin. For example, you can only unconceal the hidden being of entities upon the background of further concealment of being as Heidegger articulates in his phenomenology. Unconcealment requires concealment. That probably doesnt make any sense without examples... for example, a stupidly simple example, for a hammer to be truly unconcealed as ready to hand (being), its properties as physical occurrent object (being) must become backgrounded or concealed (nothing). Perhaps this concealment, or retreating of being, is nothing? Please don't bother criticising me as I haven't thought it through, or even come to terms with it yet...
The immanence of complete shutdown is therefore quite irrelevant and meaningless from our point of view.
.I disagree. I think this "immanence" is the most important aspect of our whole being. This immanence, our mortality, is not what happens during the process of or after our biological death. It is how we are in life towards our end. We are mortals.
.Oh Whoops, are you just talking about a deathbed situation?
.Did you mean to type imminence rather than immanence?
.As you may know, I am a Heidegger nut. And Heidegger suggests of death something like that it is our most pre-eminent possibility, and that our most pre-eminent possibility's imminence is immanent...
.I've been saying that our world of experience is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, consisting of a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.You've lost me. I don't see how experience is hypothetical.
\Arguably does n`t exist, because empty space is something, it is a gap, come a space, and a space is a space, not nothing, and without it distances between areas which contain matter would be reduced. — celebritydiscodave
However, should one`s mind be blank at any point in time one is thinking about nothing, so nothing exists on their conscious mind. One might of course argue that the empty mind also exists as a gap.between two places of mind.
Nobody is going to remember all that lot??
Then forget it :D
— celebritydiscodave
- I did n`t say "negative feelings"
though did I, something is quite obviously always to blame for negative feelings
, this is accepted by the vast majority of folk already
, so no explanation required for this assertion. I did n`t say negative on the mind I said nothing on the mind, and that nothing is neither negative nor positive..
Keep it simple, that`s the art,or how else can philosophical progression occur beyond just perhaps a single party..
that end is arguably the more normal and natural state of affairs for us, in comparison to our temporary life in the world of time and events. — Michael Ossipoff
But can you show that a person’s world and its events aren’t hypothetical? — Michael Ossipoff
Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact:
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.” — Michael Ossipoff
.that end is arguably the more normal and natural state of affairs for us, in comparison to our temporary life in the world of time and events.
.But how can it be more "natural" for us when we are not, or are no longer? I mean, death is when we cease being the entities that we are. We cease being an entity altogether. We are no longer.
.And "Natural" surely only applies to living entities that are. Entities that are not, are no longer part of the natural world. Therefore death cannot be "more natural" for us since in death we are not entities.
.Moreover, sleep is only ever something we do, or something that happens to us, when we are.
.So I think it is misleading to use it as a metaphor for death. It could lead to unclarity.
.But can you show that a person’s world and its events aren’t hypothetical?
.Sorry I think you have the burden of proof here, not me.
The reason is that it is highly implausible that we experience life hypothetically and/or factually. Myself, and the people within my shared culture, experience the world in terms of familiarity and significance.
When I'm running for the train, for example, I do not think of a hypothetical or a fact. To do so I would first need to abstract from and reflect on the situation. There is never an experience like this. Instead I am completely caught up in the situation and this is grounded in my familiarity with catching trains. I know how to catch trains and know how to catch a train that I'm running late for. I am fully involved. I am the situation. In a sense there is no I, there is only the situation, when I am so fully involved.
.Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact:
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”
Everything is perfect but there is nothing that makes us wonder? -Could this statementt be true at all? — Vajk
Sometimes you don’t experience the facts unless you’re looking for them. But, when you do, you’ll find facts that aren’t inconsistent with the other facts of your experience. That’s why your life is a possibility-story instead of an impossibility-story. — Michael Ossipoff
So no, I don’t mean to say that you always live in logic, facts, verbal description, etc. But, when you visit them, they aren’t as bad as you’ve been taught. In fact they’re pretty good. — Michael Ossipoff
Would you agree that facts are derivative? — bloodninja
Deep sleep is close to nothing as far as perception in the living human. — schopenhauer1
i suggest that abstract facts don't depend on the experiencer. Otherwise, why is it that logic and mathematics would be the same everywhere--in any country, on any continent, on any planet, in any universe? — Michael Ossipoff
"i suggest that abstract facts don't depend on the experiencer. Otherwise, why is it that logic and mathematics would be the same everywhere--in any country, on any continent, on any planet, in any universe?" — Michael Ossipoff
Nevertheless, you haven't shown that logic and mathematics are ultimately not derived from us and our shared understanding of being. All you have shown is that logic and mathematics are not relative to one's specific culture. The same is true of physics, biology, and some people suggest this of the virtues, etc. — bloodninja
It seems that mathematics and logic are derivative of a primordial phenomenon, our shared understanding of being.
Or are you suggesting that mathematics and logic are this shared understanding of being?
Given that we exist, it seems impossible for nothing to have existed at any point. — CasKev
Is it possible that consciousness persists
, and that it is as though it is immediately reborn as soon as it dies?
Since there would be no experience in a state of nothingness, there would be no sense of time passing.
But, if logic and mathematics are the same for everyone, everywhere, anytime, even in other universes or possibility-worlds, then doesn't that mean that there must be a meaningful sense in which they "are there", independent of minds? How else could they be the same for everyone, everywhere, everywhen? — Michael Ossipoff
Nisargadatta said that birth is a calamity. Well, you're in a life because you're the protagonist in one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories. Therefore, it would be quite meaningless to speak of the person distinct from the life. The person, by his/her very nature, is in the life. — Michael Ossipoff
Have you ever had the experience of waking from a dream in which you knew something that was really important,and really, indescribably, good, but not remembering what it was?
A number of people report that experience. Spiritual teachers say that it wasn't a dream. They say that you were waking from deep-sleep, and experiencing a rare memory of it. — Michael Ossipoff
.But, if logic and mathematics are the same for everyone, everywhere, anytime, even in other universes or possibility-worlds, then doesn't that mean that there must be a meaningful sense in which they "are there", independent of minds? How else could they be the same for everyone, everywhere, everywhen.
.
Maybe I'm reading too much into what you said about "independent", excuse me if I am... I don't see how systems like mathematics and logic are either external (an interpretation of your use of 'independent') or internal. To me they have to do with the intelligibility (being) in which we dwell. But not 'in' in an internal/external sense, but 'in' in a meaningful sense as in for example, 'in the moment', 'in a pleasant mood' or 'involved in the activity of'.
.Even though mathematics and logic do not necessarily give intelligibility to the majority of activities and entities we find ourselves involved with in our daily lives, as systems they give intelligibility to their respective mathematical and logical entities.
.For example, Pi is intelligible only upon the basis of a system of mathematics, and without such a basis it is completely unintelligible, nothing.
.
Perhaps our main disagreement is based in this? That you want to 'metaphysically' claim that something 'internal' is somehow 'external', whereas I simply don't see the phenomena of mathematics and logic in an internal/external way.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.