What I think both kinds of racism have in common is this: people engage in it to make themselves feel better about who they are. True? — frank

What if racist behaviour is a consequence of human genetics? There is overwhelming evidence in favour of kin selection, a form of selection where individuals act to the benefit of their relatives not of themselves (a very interesting topic); racism might be the consequence of a similar phenomenon but at a population level. Racism could be considered as a strategy carried by a genetically-related population to preserve its genetic material. It could be seen as an instinct of a genetically-related population.

and where is this color coming from?

Analysis of what the word 'mountain' represents.

(1) In order for something to be perceived it must cause an impression in one's mind.
(2) This impression cannot be the same as the thing itself, for no thing can occupy two spaces at the same time.
(3) There is a distance between the perceived object and one since the object and one cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
(4) An impression cannot exist without the object that causes it.
(5) For an impression of an object to appear in one's mind, the impression must reach one.
(6) For the impression to reach one, it must travel the distance that separates the object from one.
(7) It takes time for the impression to reach one.
(8) Thus, before being perceived, the object must exist.

If things did not exist before being perceived, it would be impossible to perceive anything. This is because before perceiving an object, an impression from such object must arise and reach one, which would not occur if the object did not exist before being perceived.

Everything that we considere to exist is limited by some shape or pattern; to exist is to have a limit. Then, I'd say that matter results from the actualization of some kind of limit, and that matter is that which is affected by the limitation.

I dont see how. You are saying that you must first know what something is to establish its existence. I do not see how that makes any sense. If you are trying to say that in order to prove the physical existence or reality of one's ideas, or something that we know only as ideas, one must first find a physical object that represents the idea or at least a concrete proof of its physical existence, that's obvious I think. But in my understanding of existence, things that are not real are also included in it. Something exists even if it is just an idea.

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists. — NKBJ

By asking what it is, you are already assuming its existence; for how in the world could you inquire about something that does not exist. If you as a human being are able to assume the existence of something, it is because it exists, or how in the world would you be able to assume the existence of something that does not exist. Then, does Santa Claus exists because we are asking about its existence? Yes, but not as a particular person but as an idea of a person constructed from many other ideas. Now, does energy exist. Yes, but not just as an idea. We can measure temperature, and prove its existence through reasoning, and even though we cannot feel some of them we still know they exist.
An idea is something that exists, because we produce them. And we exist.

You do not know what Santa Claus is. You have an idea of it that you have formed by using shapes that you have seen and things that you have heard and textures that you have felt. So, the idea of it exists; but it itself does not. And I am not saying that Santa Claus or unicorns exist just in our minds; do not misinterpret me. I am saying the idea of those things exists.

What is a unicorn?

In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question? — DingoJones

I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists. — NKBJ

What are you trying to say here? If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does.



I think that if you ask yourself about the existence of something, it necessarily exists-at least at some level. So, I believe the spirit exists. I do not believe that it can exist without a body, though. I think that the unique character of a body makes the spirit. In other words, the spirit is the consequence of everything that's led one to the present moment, and that includes the body. I am convinced that my spirit cannot be my spirit without my body. However, the spirit is not the body nor does it live within it. So, we could say it is similar to an idea. So, for me, the spirit is an idea of a body. But not of any body, but one that has been able to sense itself or reasoned to the nature of its existence. So, for me, every single living organism (including viruses) have a spirit. The idea of a spirit arises because there must be a process that's led to its enquiry. So, it'd say that every process has a spirit, and its complexity gives the spirit its complexity. So, it'd say the human spirit is the process-or sum of processes-that's led to the sensing or enquiring of its own existence-a very complex process.

1. I am me.
2. I am not god.
3. god is not me nor can it be me.
4. god is not onm

"So you are saying quality exists just in the observer?":

No. Quality must exist independently from the observer. However, its "materialization" could not be possible without it. Let me explain myself better. I believe that if everything were the same, not a single thing would really exist. I believe that that-which-causes-every-thing-to-be-unique must exist before anything else can. I will call that-which-causes-every-thing-to-be-unique Difference. Therefore, from my point of view, every thing exists because Difference exists; and as long as Difference exists, quality also exists, even if observers do not. However, quality without observers exists only as a possibility, and it is only through observers that quality becomes a property of bodies. So, since Difference exists, it is possible for quality to be a property of bodies, but it does not become such until observers with the capacity to compare exist.

Quality is that which is given to a body by an observer with the capacity to compare.

Yes, ideas do count as things in my definition of "thing"; in fact, everything that possesses a limit I consider to be a thing. And I actually consider ideas to be an excellent example of such phenomenon -that everything can exist only once, for I believe that and idea cannot be the same twice. An idea can be similar to another, but never the same since the idea thought first by being first in thought is already different to any subsequent ideas. And this I believe occurs with reality as well. Not a single component of reality can be the same twice except if it does not undergo change. But I am not able to think of anything that does not undergo change. Even change, which remains constant, must change in respect of itself, at least, since it is not possible that the change that led to this moment be the same to the one that's led to this one. They differ by succession. But, if everything is different at every single moment, what makes identity possible?

Please elaborate; I would like to know why you disagree. Please try to prove your arguments.

"I don't understand why this has to be the case. Isn't it conceivable that you exist just as you now do exist without the existence of a collection of atoms completely distinct from you? It might be true that scientifically speaking, to remove certain atoms from the world all together would cause a change in everything else (though I am not sure about this), but that presupposes the whole atomic theory and causation, and both of these presuppose that things exist when unperceived."

I like to picture reality as a slideshow. Each moment that passes then, I consider it to be one slide in an infinite amount of different ones. If you take one of these slides and examine it, you will be able to notice that it depicts every single thing that exists at a particular point in time. If you examine each one of the objects on this slide, you will also notice that each of them is defined by a particular limit that defines its shape. Now, let's say that among these objects there is a paper sheet. If you were to erase what is outside the limit that defines the paper sheet and left nothing but blackness around it, this blackness would still have a limit, for the existence of the limit that defines the paper sheet would necessarily define the boundaries of the blackness around it. Now then, if instead of erasing what is outside the limit that defines the paper sheet you erased what is actually inside it, you would notice that that which was not the paper sheet is still bounded by the limits of that which was the paper sheet. What I want you to notice is that even though you erased the paper sheet, you did not take it out of existence, for its limit seems to be, in reality, defined not by the paper sheet itself but by that which co-exists with it, and the same can be applied to every object on that or any other slide. Now, coming back to the paper sheet on the slide, I believe (all I have been saying is just a product of educated guesses, just to be clear) that in order to delete the limit that defines the paper sheet (that is, take it out of existence) you would necessarily have to alter the limit of the things that surround the paper sheet, for if you did not, the things that are not the paper sheet would still define the limit of the paper sheet itself.

"Its true that I am what I am because everything else is not me. But it isn't true that nothing outside of me can change without me changing. In fact, this happens all of the time. When someone in India dies, do I - a person in the UK - change? Surely not. But then, it will not follow that if the paper ceased to exist I would change."

When you suppose that the paper stops existing when not being perceived, do you mean that the atoms that form the paper disperse so that they are not shaped in the form of paper anymore or do you mean that the atoms stop being atoms and do not exist anymore?
I am assuming that when you say that something stops existing you mean that the atoms that form that something stop existing, they are no more. When you say that someone in India dies, its atoms do not stop existing, they just assume another organization. However, if they stoped existing, everything would necessarily change since you are literally taking something out of existence.
Now, if you mean that the atoms that form something change their organization in space when you are not looking at such something, an action should be causing such change, and such action should be absent when you look at such something again, or the other way around. If this is the case, what do you think is causing such change?. Also, I believe this action should be an action that acts only on that which you do not see but does not act on that which you do see, or the other way around. Therefore, if you were the paper, such action should be acting on what is now your body (from the point of view of the paper) when you are not perceving the paper and should stop acting on your body when you hold the paper. So what I am trying to say is that: if the paper dissapears when you are not perceiving it you should also dissapear relative to the paper, dont you think? However, your shape remains constant.
Now, if you mean that something literally stops existing just because we are not looking at it, I do not believe, and I gave you the reason why this is hardly probable.

Well consider it this way, before you exist, it must be possible for you to do so, otherwise you would not exist. This possibility seems to be governed by a set of laws from which, I believe, the fact that everything must be a particular thing in order to exist is the most important and complicated one. Thus, for you to be able to exist, you must be you a nothing else. You cannot be two different things, either you are A or B, but you cannot be A and B; in other words, you cannot be two units, or two particulars. This simple fact, as I said before, proves the existence of other particulars outside you, for they are not what you are. However, they are not what you are because you exist, or you are not what they are because they exist, or you are what you are because they are what they are and they are what they are because you are what you are. So, it seems that everything that exists at a particular moment is able to exist because it shares its existence with other existing entities.So, If I am at this moment holding a paper sheet, according to my argument, I exist because that paper sheet also exist (this not being the only reason of my existence, off course, but only one of the conditions; for me to exist, everything that exists with me must exist, as well) and vice versa. To assume that when I stop perceiving the sheet of paper it stops existing would be the same as to assume that that which is outside the boundaries of my body changes when I do not perceive it. However, because that which is outside me shares a limit with me, for it is not what I am, if that which is not me changes, I should also change. Because I am constant, or at least my matter is, I can assume that even though I do not perceive, at all times and entirely, that which is outside me, it exists in a single state. So, that paper sheet will always exist in the condition the last action applied on it left it in. Please let me know what you think. Also I want to ask you a question: what would cause something to stop existing when not being perceived and come back into existence when sensed again?

The fact that you exist necessarily implies that everything that is outside you exists since it is something that is not you, and hence it is. The same applies to everything that you can perceive. That is, the fact that a paper sheet exists, which you are able to prove through your sense-perception, implies that everything outside the limits of the paper sheet exists, for what is outside the paper sheet is not the paper sheet, and thus it is. Therefore, even if you stop perceiving the paper sheet, what is not the paper sheet, ie. you and everything else that is not you or the paper sheet, by existing, causes the paper sheet to maintain its state of existence, for the paper sheet can only be that, a paper sheet. If it were the case that as soon as you stoped perceiving an object it would stop existing or it would exist in some other way, the change in the state of existence of the object would necessarily cause a change in your state of existence and in the state of existence of everything you are now perceiving. However, because this is not the case, it is same to assume that the contrary is what is real. Let me know what you think.

Hey, here is something I wrote not long ago. It kind of solves your problem, I think.

For A to become B the following conditions must be true before B exists: (1) A must exist, (2) the possibilities for both B to exist and the transformation to take place must exist, and (3) A and what would be B after A’s transformation must necessarily be two different things; otherwise, A would still be A after such transformation, which, in strict terms, would really never take place if A and the result of its transformation are the same thing. Following this analogy, it is safe to conclude that in order for B to exist, it must have not existed before; to assume the contrary would be the same as to assume that B came to be out of B. Also, as soon as the possibility for B to exist becomes existent the possibility for the transformation from A to B becomes existent, as long as B is a valid outcome of A's transformation. Therefore, even though during the transformation from A to B, neither A or B exist, by B being the only outcome of A's transformation, the transformation will take place by passing through a series of events whose sum will result in the formation of B.

So what if I say that "for existence to exist it must have not existed before?"... and for existence I mean a state that allows for things to exist. If I make no sense to you please tell me where I might be making a mistake in the previous statement... I am glad to hear any opinion you have about the previous statement.

Look here is what I believe. I will try to be as clear and concise as I can. We say something exists because it has a limit, or shape, or boundary, whatever you wanna call it; both physical objects and ideas (or concepts), which are the only things we are 100 % sure exist, satisfy this. A limit, however, necessarily implies that an object bound by it be separated from whatever is "outside" such limit, otherwise the object and "what's outside" would be the same thing (i.e. a limit does not exist). If existence is both a concept and a physical reality, it necessarily must have a limit. However, whatever is outside this limit that defines existence must have a limit as well (it is not existence) and thus, it exists. This is how I try to imagine what I just said, might help. 1. I try to imagine existence as something with a spherical limit. 2. This spherical limit serves as both a limit for existence and for whatever is outside it (try to picture a white circle in a black background; the circumference of the circle is a limit to both the circle and the black background). 3. Since existence is in the inner part of this spherical limit, it might be ok to assume that its opposite should be that which lies beyond this limit (nothingness); I make this assumption because since I am talking about existence, to say that what lies beyond existence exists makes no sense at all; 4. HOWEVER, keep this is mind, from 1 to 3 I am describing a snapshot of a moment no something that is moving or changing. Now, here is the tricky part: imagine the moment before existence came to exist. Whatever there is at this moment, be it nothing or whatever the duck it is or is not, it can only be one thing, not two, or three, but only one... it can only be itself; that is, even though this spherical existence does not exist yet, this thing before everything came to be can only be one thing. I mean, even if it is a composite it is only one thing. By being only this one thing, it has a limit and therefore, automatically, becomes something that exists (which I said to have a spherical limit {no reason I just think of it as a sphere}); however, something that exists can only be it and nothing else, as well, and therefore has a limit. Beyond the limit of existence we said its opposite must lie. This opposite again has a limit, for it is only what it is and therefore exists. As you might be able to see, nothingness is that from which existence comes but that never gets to be per se for when it is it becomes something that exists and therefore never exists and IS nothing. Now this nothingness before the origin must not necessarily be 0 of everything. As I said, it could be everything except the ability to change. I dunno it is as if change were what we call god. Change that arises because the limitation of things forces their existence. It is as if we exist because we have to exist. Makes sense?

What if nothingness is a state in which everything is the same thing. However, I believe it exists because it has a limit; that is, nothingness is just that, and it cant be something else which makes it exist.