Yes.↪180 Proof I thought about things more and decided to come back with probably one of the last sets of questions:
1. Logic predominates in Spinozism - can we say that logic is the most fundamental in his vision? — Eugen
Logic is everything, or all there is. Whatever is "illogical" only seems so due to what Spinoza calls our "inadequate ideas" or "imagination" (i.e. first kind of knowledge).Everything that is logical exists and everything that is illogical does not exist. Correct?
Sub specie aeternitatus (from the perspective of eternity), Spinoza claims that that is necessarily the case.2. Do we have an infinity of laws of nature and things of nature?
A. The Attribute of Thought (mind) is real, or constitutes Substance necessarily according to Spinoza in section I Of God and, therefore, cannot not "exist" – from the perspective of eternity. Why? Because the Attribute of Thought (mind) is not contradictory, or ruled out by Logic; and everything is – belongs to – Logic.3. As regards the free will, if there is no causal relationship between mind and extension:
A. would everything have happened the same even if the mind had not existed (for example I would have written this O.P.)?
B. would everything change and the world would look different if the mind did not exist?
Don't thank me yet. I suspect your questions, Eugen, aren't done with either of us ...Thank you!
1. It would explain exactly why I am wrong, that is, why the law by which things without consciousness form consciousness is logical. It seems illogical to me, but an explanation in this sense might convince me. Is there an explanation in Spinoza's work?
2. It would explain exactly how he knows that there is a law of nature in which complexity is consciousness. It seems logical to me as well that simplicity is consciousness. Why consciousness = complexity, but consciousness differs from simplicity. Is there an explanation for the form of this law?
3. He would explain how he came to the conclusion that these are the laws of conscience and not others. Is there such a thing in his work? — Eugen
I've not stated what I "believe" about consciousness so this statement is, at best, unwarranted.You believe thatconsciousness can arise from something with 0% consciousness, thus Spinoza makes sense. — Eugen
No. Spinoza is a philosopher, not a scientist. He reflects on a logic-derived conceptual system and does not construct and propose 'experimental tests for explanatory hypothetical models of phenomena'. More incoherence on your part, Eugen, expecting a philosopher to do with philosophical speculation what cannot be done – namely, "explaining" matters of facts (e.g. "consciousness" in the human brain-CNS) – Spinoza being no different than any other metaphysician.Is there an explanation in Spinoza's work?
"consciousness can arise from something with 0% consciousness"; again just a strawman on your part. — 180 Proof
- I don't need scientific proof, I just need an explanation for why it is logical. Now I get it, there is none. There's no common ground and there could be none in the absence of counter-arguments.Spinoza is a philosopher, not a scientist. — 180 Proof
Just because materialism doesn't convince me doesn't mean I'm dogmatic or unscientific. Also, it doesn't mean I'm not open to change my opinions if logical/scientific proof is made.If you can put your own anti-physicalist/anti-materialist/pseudo-scientific biases, or dogma, aside while doing so, then you might come away with the recognition that you have been asking the wrong questions of the wrong source(s) all along, as you still are. — 180 Proof
If you can put your own anti-physicalist/anti-materialist/pseudo-scientific biases, or dogma, aside while doing so, then you might come away with the recognition that you have been asking the wrong questions of the wrong source(s) all along, as you still are. — 180 Proof
Good luck with all your 'panpsychist' titling at windmills. — 180 Proof
I think my journey here has reached its end.Eugen, so with this post I leave you to the tender mercies of those willing to be more patient and indulgent than I'm no longer willing to be. — 180 Proof
Take 'my interpretation of Spinoza, my metaphors & analogies, my paraphrases and recommended books' (on this thread) with a pinch of salt and make of them what you can. — 180 Proof
To be precise, I argued that you had insulated yourself from new information, not that you were robotically incapable of doing so.↪Valentinus
Thank you! Yes, I'm a real bot with IQ 3.000.000 and I hold the truth. I just wanted to play with your minds. — Eugen
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.