Hmmm I see what you are saying now, but I don't agree with you. "Beyond" in the example of "It is beyond imagination" has nothing to do with the concept of space. It is just the way people use the word in the context.

It absolutely does. You are literally saying that "it", whatever that is, cannot be placed within the sphere of "the imagination". You absolutely cannot make any sense of that without the concept of space, because you need to be able to conceptually mark out an area of space which represents "the imagination" to denote that something is outside of it.

Do you think there is some physical space in your imagination or around your understanding? I don't get it.

:lol: :lol:

Perhaps we disagree on something so fundamental that neither of us can see it!

So, do you agree that some concepts are absolutely simple, and thusly unanalyzable and incapable of non-circular definitions, but yet still valid; or do these so-called, alleged, primitive concepts need to be either (1) capable of non-circular definition or (2) thrown out? — Bob Ross

I think I probably agree with you. I think consciousness might be one of these - it gets defined by synonyms which suggests it may be unanalysable. Do you think there is a difference between a word and a concept?

No, an idea/concept is non-spatial--even if they are derived from processes of the brain. We are not analyzing the phenomenology or ontology of concepts but, rather, their meaning: the concept of space, which is non-spatial, is the idea of space itself.

The idiom "it is beyond me" cannot be made sense of, conceptually, without the idea of space. Think about it: to conceptualize it, one must represent to themselves, whether that be implicitly or explicitly, a 'something' which is outside of what is marked as 'themselves'. It is 'beyond' me, because it is cannot be placed within me...it is separate, which is another spatially-loaded term, from me. It is beyond me, in the sense that I do not understand it...it extends past my understanding. Although my understanding doesn't exist in space, I can represent something being outside of it by using space conceptually...hence 'it is beyond me'. These are all ideas expressing something which is not actually in space by means of using the idea of space.

It is easy enough to understand this, when one tries to describe "it is beyond me" without using spatially-loaded terms like "beyond": they can't. It loses meaning.

:kiss:

Yes, a word is a set of symbols which signifies a concept; and a concept is an idea.

The idiom "it is beyond me" cannot be made sense of, conceptually, without the idea of space. — Bob Ross

It is easy enough to understand this, when one tries to describe "it is beyond me" without using spatially-loaded terms like "beyond": they can't. It loses meaning. — Bob Ross

I cannot imagine anyone relating the idea of space with the word or concept "beyond". It is just an idiom of the linguistic expression which we use habitually to mean over the boundary of something. The something can be physical or mental depending on the context.

The idea of space is not required to say something is "beyond me", as one can simply understand that string of words to mean "I don't understand at all", which doesn't seem to require space. To understand the metaphor that this expression comes from, which is to interpret it literally then relate it to the new (figurate) context you are applying it to, that is when you need the idea of space.

:up:

The idea of space is not required to say something is "beyond me"…. — Lionino

Agreed, but “beyond me” still qualifies as a certain relation. If there are but two fundamental relational representations, and for relations in which space is not required, all that remains, is time.

A context-driven conceptual dichotomy, nonetheless.

I don't think "I don't understand" requires either space or time. Perhaps time on further analysis, but hardly space.

I don't think "I don't understand" requires either space or time. — Lionino

Certainly not space, but I rather think any philosophical framework mandates time as a fundamental prerequisite for its methodology. Or, maybe I just wouldn’t entertain the possibility that there are those that do not.

I cannot imagine anyone relating the idea of space with the word or concept "beyond". It is just an idiom of the linguistic expression which we use habitually to mean over the boundary of something.

You just unknowingly contradicted yourself. "Over the boundary" is the idea that there are two things in space (at least conceptually) and one is beyond the "boundary" of the other.

That's fine and fair. An idiom, through repetition, can be ascertained by what it conveys and not the origin of how it came about to mean it. However, this does not negate that "it is beyond me", if understood properly in how it was developed as a phrase, has spatial references.

Also, "I don't understand it" also references space...just not as directly. There is no "I" without "other" in space, for example. The sentence still wouldn't make sense without the concept of space, but I get and agree with your point.

There is no "I" without "other" in space, for example. — Bob Ross

I don't see how that makes sense. You use the condition "in space" to prove that "I don't understand" implies space. I also don't see how "I" implies "other" in any situation.

You just unknowingly contradicted yourself. "Over the boundary" is the idea that there are two things in space (at least conceptually) and one is beyond the "boundary" of the other. — Bob Ross

There was no contradiction in "boundary", apart from your misunderstanding on it. "Boundary" can be physical as well as mental. Again your inability in understanding the concept stems from your lack of understanding the context in linguistic expression.

"I" references "self", which makes no sense if there isn't "not self". You cannot identify what is you and what is not, if there isn't anything besides you. It can't be done. Distinctions can only be made with space and time.

:roll:

:roll: — Bob Ross

My point was crystal clear.

You cannot identify what is you and what is not, if there isn't anything besides you. — Bob Ross

So what is your ultimate defeater for solipsism?

The universe still makes sense even if there isn't "not-universe".

"I" references "self", which makes no sense if there isn't "not self". You cannot identify what is you and what is not, if there isn't anything besides you. It can't be done. Distinctions can only be made with space and time. — Bob Ross

I agree with you and just want to add something about the "it" in 'I don't understand it': it must be something separate from I, and separation is incoherent without reference to either space or time, as others have noted.

My point was crystal clear. — Corvus

And very clearly wrong.

:up: