Physicalism needn't even be true. If the universe evolves deterministically (which seems likely)
there is no "final cause". — Relativist

if the universe must end by means of "heat death" and the law of entropy, it necessarily has an end, and if the universe is deterministic, that end was predetermined, so in saying that the universe will die eventually and that it is also deterministic, you are saying that it has a first cause; final causes are deterministic you know...determinism and intentionality are synonyms.

Now, if it is true that the universe must end do to the law of entropy and "heat death," it must be the case that the universe isn't past eternal and thereby came into being once upon a time; in which case, it has a first and final cause....this final cause, however, isn't set in stone, just the same as you can begin thinking with the intention of explaining a point, and change your final destination in thought and start thinking about something different, the final cause of the universe too can be changed, and this is because all change has its origin in thought. but to know this, you must first prove that the set of all sets has an essence which involves subjectivity.

in order to make the world "real" and "concrete" the physicalist begins his philosophy with the absurd notion that objects are not contained within subjects. In understanding that all objects are contained within the mind, all the answers fall into place. — TheGreatArcanum

You're attacking a poorly constructed strawman. Physicalism does not entail objects being contained in the mind. [

to solve the unsolved questions about the nature of existence, one must first ascertain the essence of the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, that is, the set of all contingent things. to do this, one must relate ontology and set theory, or rather, the notion of precedence and set containment or non-containment — TheGreatArcanum

"Solve the unresolved questions..."? At best, solutions can be proposed - they cannot be verified. Proposing a mereology is reasonable metaphysics, but you're mistaken if you think you can determine metaphysical truth. Nothing more than coherence is attainable.

You're attacking a poorly constructed strawman. Physicalism does not entail objects being contained in the mind. — Relativist

You're attacking a very poorly constructed strawman here... physicalism entails that the antithesis is true; that's what the paragraph says; that "the physicalist begins his philosophy with the absurd notion that objects are not (entirely) contained within the mind" and that there a "mind-independent" reality can exist. I say that a mind-independent reality is impossible. If there is no mind-independent reality, reality is an illusion, and an illusion implies an illusionist.

"Solve the unresolved questions..."? At best, solutions can be proposed - they cannot be verified. Proposing a mereology is reasonable metaphysics, but you're mistaken if you think you can determine metaphysical truth. Nothing more than coherence is attainable. — Relativist

solution can be verified when man attains the next stage in his evolutionary process of consciousness. he will then be able to verify the solutions that I propose, within himself, where he can find the source of all creation. The fool searches for the answers in the world, the wise man finds them within himself.

I've established a mereological system of metaphysics that's more better than any other that has ever been established; and my philosophy follows deductively from the absolute truth that existence has always been, that is, the absolute truth that existence is and non-existence is not in the absolute sense of the word.

if the universe must end by means of "heat death" and the law of entropy, it necessarily has an end, and if the universe is deterministic, that end was predetermined, so in saying that the universe will die eventually and that it is also deterministic, you are saying that it has a first cause; final causes are deterministic you know...determinism and intentionality are synonyms. — TheGreatArcanum

Determined does not equate to intended.

Although it may be reasonable to assume the past is finite, the future is potentially infinite - so even this heat death is not actually a "final" state. An analysis like this is rooted in obsolete classical physics rather than quantum physics, so what the infinite future may bring is impossible to know.

I never suggested otherwise.

Determined does not equate to intended.

Although it may be reasonable to assume the past is finite, the future is potentially infinite - so even this heat death is not actually a "final" state. An analysis like this is rooted in obsolete classical physics rather than quantum physics, so what the infinite future may bring is impossible to know. — Relativist

it's not determinate anyways because the chain of causation which supports hard-determinism is broken in the quantum substratum of reality and all things come into being from the micro to the macrocosm...similarly, all causal chains act from the mirco to the macro too...so its a mute point.

it's not determinate anyways because the chain of causation which supports hard-determinism is broken in the quantum substratum of reality and all things come into being from the micro to the macrocosm...similarly, all causal chains act from the mirco to the macro too...so its a mute point. — TheGreatArcanum

It's not moot, because the fundamental components of the world are particles that do not behave as we'd expect from our experience in the macro world. The world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. Your metaphysics doesn't predict this, and it's not even compatible with it. Therefore your metaphysics is moot.

It's not moot, because the fundamental components of the world are particles that do not behave as we'd expect from our experience in the macro world. The world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. Your metaphysics doesn't predict this, and it's not even compatible with it. Therefore your metaphysics is moot. — Relativist

those particles are not particles, but waves; they may exist as particles, at times, but when they're not particles, they're mathematical waves with no localized position in space and time...and also, even if they were particles, they wouldn't have an infinite number of parts within parts, but would necessarily cease in a smallest part with no parts, that is, a spatially unextended part, or abstract set, that is, an idea. the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical but the world is not all that exists. my metaphysics predicts this; in my philosophy, the wave function itself involves the convergence of two waves of potentiality becoming actualized by perception. the set of waves associated with the object and the set of waves associated with the mind of the subject, in which, when perception occurs, a fourier transformation occurs and perception is made possible. but when there is no perception, the waves are distinct and the world goes on in a state of potentiality, in which pure subjectivity continues the flow of things when they are not perceived.

TheGreatArcanum
147

As I said...if you have something to say...say it. — Frank Apisa


in time, young padwan, in time. — TheGreatArcanum

You used the term "absurd", Arc.

I'll tell you what is absurd. It is absurd to suppose the dominant creatures on this tiny planet circling a possibly unimportant star in a possibly unimportant galaxy...can figure out answers to question the type of which are at issue here.

You also used the term "beyond absurd."

What is beyond absurd is the notion that YOU have done it.

I apologize. I was taking you seriously.

My bad.

By the way...I am 82 years old, boy.

This person has already announced they are a mystic. That is enough for all us to know. Claims of combining logic with mysticism always allow the person to fall back on mystical claims when the logic makes no sense - it’s a vacuous stance and should be treated as such.

There is clearly no regard for the distinction between “fact” and “truth” and childishly interchanging them as and when suits the OP is naive at best and plain arrogant at worst. The later seems to be the case here with the sporadic self-aggrandizing bombast we’ve see up to now (probably another victim of reading Nietzsche?)

Either way, makes for a fascinating insight into the machinations of this particular human mind :)

I like sushi
857
↪Frank Apisa
This person has already announced they are a mystic. That is enough for all us to know. Claims of combining logic with mysticism always allow the person to fall back on mystical claims when the logic makes no sense - it’s a vacuous stance and should be treated as such.

There is clearly no regard for the distinction between “fact” and “truth” and childishly interchanging them as and when suits the OP is naive at best and plain arrogant at worst. The later seems to be the case here with the sporadic self-aggrandizing bombast we’ve see up to now (probably another victim of reading Nietzsche?)

Either way, makes for a fascinating insight into the machinations of this particular human mind :) — I like sushi

Thanks, Sush.

Yeah...not much to deal with here.

Gotta come to threads like this for a few laughs...and hope that a few decent points can be made almost by accident.

In terms of “purpose” - external - there is no other function. If the brain didn’t process input from the outside world it would be no different to a rock. — I like sushi

What about the other functions of the brain though? For example, doesn't the brain also have the function of controlling other parts of the body?

I'm trying to spark your intellects by forcing you to think about the concept of non-existence and how it came to be. did it come to be after the concept of existence came to be, or before? Is it a concept or is it a concrete 'thing'? — TheGreatArcanum

Concepts are concrete things.

It's likely the case for everyone that a concept of nonexistence only arises after a concept of existence. I wouldn't say it would necessarily be the case, but I think it would be very unusual to develop a concept of nonexistence first. At any rate, it's not something we could know very well, since such basic concepts develop prior to babies being able to use language.

like I said, when we act, our reason for acting (final cause) is determined prior to or at the time of our will to act, its first cause. — TheGreatArcanum

That's only the case if it's vacuously the case. In other words, it's only the case if by "acting," we're referring (by definitionally limiting the term) to instances where we have a reason or goal in mind that prompts us to do something.

If we're using "acting" more loosely instead, so that we might be referring to any behavior that someone performs, often enough there's no reason (in the goal sense) behind it.

so physicalism cannot be true. In fact, it’s beyond absurd.

intentionality, by definition, is determining the final cause of an action at the time of or before instantiating from potentiality. so anywhere this is occurring, there is intentionality. when I say that the concept of non-existence is born with us, it must be so that the concept of non-existence came into being prior to existence; and since non-existence is not in the absolute sense, it must be nothing but a concept in mind, and therefore mind must precede the existence of matter. — TheGreatArcanum

The second paragraph there isn't supposed to have anything to do with the first, is it?

to solve the unsolved questions about the nature of existence, one must first ascertain the essence of the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, that is, the set of all contingent things. to do this, one must relate ontology and set theory, or rather, the notion of precedence and set containment or non-containment. by doing this, one can establish a set of principles of epistemology and ontology and determine the nature of the set of all sets. — TheGreatArcanum

You know that sets are something we invented, something we made up, right? Set theory is simply a conceptual tool.

"The set of all sets which do not contain themselves" has nothing to do with the contingent/necessary distinction, by the way.

determinism and intentionality are synonyms. — TheGreatArcanum

There may be someone who is more confused than you about this stuff, but it would take a long time to find that person.

like I said, when we act, our reason for acting (final cause) is determined prior to or at the time of our will to act, its first cause. — TheGreatArcanum

And like I said, we act in response to causes that exist prior our intent to act. So our intent to act can't be the first cause. Why do we act? Because we intend to. Why do we intend to act? Because we are responding to changes in the environment.

He seems to be using "first cause" to refer to intentional motivation.

Then he should use that term instead of "first cause" because his intent to act isnt the first cause of his action.

The ulterior motive seems to be thinly-veiled, ad hoc religious support. (His whole spiel in general that is.)

He's like the "romantic" counterpart to Devans99's more "classical" approach.

yes, that is something that has been on the rise on these forms lately - people performing mental gymnastics in order to create evidence for a supreme being.

In his other thread his responses were more like what one would expect of a p-zombie.

↪Frank Apisa ↪Fooloso4 can you please tell me when the concept of non-existence came into being? — TheGreatArcanum

What is the concept of non-existence? In what sense does this concept come into being?

Are you asking about this out of curiosity or trying to suggest I know nothing about brain function? The OP is referring to “purpose” not “function” - that is why I replied in the manner I replied.

If you are just genuinely curious (or even already familiar with brain function) this may be worth browsing:

https://www.hse.ru/data/2011/06/28/1216307711/Gazzaniga.%20The%20Cognitive%20Neurosciences.pdf

I think it was Hume who successfully devastated any and all teleological arguments for God. In addition I would suggest that the OP's version relies on the infinite regress that is always possible with certain problematic concepts. In this case, that concept is the concept of "try." It makes sense to say that I tried to do x but it makes no sense to say that I tried to try (or I tried to try to try to try). That it makes no sense is not immediately obvious since the sentence seems sensible. The same is true of other concepts like "believe" and "interpret." I would also point out that the only important thing about pointing out that existence is understood before non-existence is that it reflects the truth that belief precedes doubt. The OP seems to subscribe to an essentialist or Platonic view of concepts that simply does not hold up after Wittgenstein. I would not get into the weeds with this argument any more than I would about an argument over which reindeer flies the fastest. Lastly I would make the old argument that the attempt to make belief in God reasonable is a form of idolatry that distorts the God one is arguing for in a way that makes that God monstrous at worst and uninteresting at best. Job's friends come to mind.

I think it was Hume who successfully devastated any and all teleological arguments for God. — zerotheology

Hume, as well as all previous philosophers failed to account for "vertical causation." the processes which perpetuate the existences of objects while they make effects in others (horizontal causation). Horizontal causation is contingent upon vertical causation. Much more can be said about this.

In addition I would suggest that the OP's version relies on the infinite regress that is always possible with certain problematic concepts. — zerotheology

the infinite regress problem only applies to the spatial aspect of existence; it does not apply to the non spatial; in the non-spatial, using concepts, the regress ends in a circular paradox.

I would also point out that the only important thing about pointing out that existence is understood before non-existence is that it reflects the truth that belief precedes doubt. — zerotheology

this is not what I mean; what I mean is that the potential for a thing to become non-existent is contained within it at birth, meaning that (non-existence is a subset of existence)...a lot can be said about this...I keep asking people to explain to me how this is possible, but since they are unable to think for themselves, and their philosophies are composed of the words and concepts of other philosophers, other philosophers who know nothing about the essence of being itself, so of course, they cannot explain to me how this is possible.

The OP seems to subscribe to an essentialist or Platonic view of concepts that simply does not hold up after Wittgenstein — zerotheology

wittgenstein is philosophical propagandist; Platonism presupposes that all concepts are eternal, but this is not actually the case; only some concepts are eternal...so wittgenstein attacked a strawman, not idealism itself, or rather, the notion that concepts precede the existence of things and things are indeed actualized concepts.

Lastly I would make the old argument that the attempt to make belief in God reasonable is a form of idolatry that distorts the God one is arguing for in a way that makes that God monstrous at worst and uninteresting at best. Job's friends come to mind. — zerotheology

belief isn't necessary; if you drop all of your preconceived notions and let the logic lead you, you will be lead to God. if you open your heart and your mind, you will experience God within yourself. but this is only for the greats. I don't think you have it in you to become great. For the rest, reason or faith must suffice.

What is the concept of non-existence? In what sense does this concept come into being? — Fooloso4

if you cannot figure it out for yourself using the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, you won't understand it. I'm trying to begin a dialectic, but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others.

Are you asking about this out of curiosity or trying to suggest I know nothing about brain function? The OP is referring to “purpose” not “function” - that is why I replied in the manner I replied. — I like sushi

I was trying to correct you. You said "the function of the brain is to process sensible data". When I suggested that the brain has other functions, you insisted "there is no other function". But clearly the brain has other functions, or other purposes (however you want to word it), like the example in my last post.

don't forget that brain processes can be set into motion by the will; so to say that the will is contingent upon brain processes is a contradiction. the object of perception is an effect of brain processes, that is, the sound which correlates to both a word and a thought, and also a thing or a relationship between things, is physical, yes, but not the will which manifests it. The source of the will is beyond space; it doesn't even have real existence in its own, its merely a bridge between the potential for change to be and change itself....what is born, dies, and is then resurrected again never truly dies and was thus never truly born? The will.

I explained already. I never said there were no other functions, but I certainly implied that there are no other functions worth mentioning regards to human purpose - the requirements of sustenance, shelter, sociable interaction, and reproduction.

If you wish to talk about brain functions create a thread somewhere and tell me about it. We all know the brain is complex, and we all know that we die and sometimes pass on our genes too. We also now know that the brain is not as compartmentalized as was initially suggested - a great number of outdated ideas still linger in this field due to its infancy and the massive technological progress that has been made in advancing our understanding (or rather lack of understanding).

Some sea creatures absorb there own brains once they no longer need to move. This could mean that the brain, at least in this case, is only used fro motility - irregardless modeling of the environment is tied into the need to move in the first place and/or triggered by lack of resources in the area.

It doesn’t take much insight to see that lifeforms without brains operate by attraction and repulsion (even non-living chemical mixtures ‘behave’ in this manner).

Note: I was being generous in my reply. I don’t generally talk about bodily organs having a “purpose”. Fro me a thing is made for a purpose; such as a knife, hammer or wheel. We could talk about the ‘purpose’ of red blood cells being to transport oxygen and carbon-dioxide, but given we’re looking for clarity of language within philosophical discourse I prefer to say “function”. I have nothing more to say on the matter; take it or leave it.

I explained already. I never said there were no other functions, but I certainly implied that there are no other functions worth mentioning regards to human purpose - the requirements of sustenance, shelter, sociable interaction, and reproduction. — I like sushi

You were not talking about human purpose though, you were talking about the purpose of the brain. I don't see how you can make this jump now, to the purpose of a human being, What would the purpose of a human being even be?

Note: I was being generous in my reply. I don’t generally talk about bodily organs having a “purpose”. Fro me a thing is made for a purpose; such as a knife, hammer or wheel. We could talk about the ‘purpose’ of red blood cells being to transport oxygen and carbon-dioxide, but given we’re looking for clarity of language within philosophical discourse I prefer to say “function”. I have nothing more to say on the matter; take it or leave it. — I like sushi

Then I suggest you made an error when you tried to state what the purpose of the brain is.

don't forget that brain processes can be set into motion by the will; so to say that the will is contingent upon brain processes is a contradiction. — TheGreatArcanum

I think that the brain is always active so I don't really agree with this idea of setting brain processes into motion.

I think that the brain is always active so I don't really agree with this idea of setting brain processes into motion. — Metaphysician Undercover

these processes are controlling the body; if it is not true that the will can set the brain in motion, all of your wills and the words and actions that result from them happen by necessity or by chance and not by your own volition. and if there is an observer, that observer is just watching the will and the effects which follow from it as a passive observer and not an active agent. and when the brain ‘makes you stop thinking,’ you have no say in the manner, because you don’t have a will if it cannot start or stop brain processes. you are not the active agent of your thoughts by the passive watcher of them. this can be disproven in a few seconds through some phenomenological observation. it’s one of the most absurd positions ever held, and even more absurd that it’s considered to be rational by educated people.

if you cannot figure it out for yourself using the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, you won't understand it. — TheGreatArcanum

The question is, what do you mean when you say "the concept of non-existence" and the concept's "coming into being". What you mean may be very different than what someone else might mean.

I'm trying to begin a dialectic ... — TheGreatArcanum

In that case you should answer the question.

... but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others. — TheGreatArcanum

I assume you miss the irony. First, if you do not repeat the ideas of others then what your idea of the concept of non-existence coming into being is remains undetermined without further explanation. Second, if you are the mystic you fancy yourself to be then you would not be bound by the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.