That is the problem with "mass". It's just not at all understood by physicists. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. But then we have "energy" which could be velocity without mass, hence velocity with no momentum. If there is no mass which is moving, then what is the velocity attributed to? What a mess physicists have found themselves in, due to the adaptation of speculative theories which are not grounded in sound ontology.

Then you have overlooked me. — EugeneW

That makes two of us. Joe Mello spits out a lot of nonsense without thinking first.

I get what you're saying but I think that it can be argued that habitual behavior has also been selected as a trait conductive to surviving. For me, it is one of those yin/yang relationships. Certainty has no meaning without doubt. — Harry Hindu

I am not dismissing the importance of habitual behaviour, or the role of certainty. What I am saying is that it must be the case that uncertainty, doubt, is necessarily more basic or fundamental than certainty. This is due to the fallibility of certainty. Since a living being can still be wrong, even in instances when that individual has the attitude of certainty, then there must be a mechanism whereby we doubt even the most basic certitudes, or else we'd all die from our mistakes. Some of us do not doubt our fundamental certitudes, and some of us die from our mistakes. Some of us do doubt our fundamental habits and certitudes, and since this trait often saves us, it is selected for in evolution.

The conclusion therefore, is that the beliefs are fundamentally not certainties, because the living being who holds a belief is conditioned through instinct and genetics, to naturally doubt the belief. This is an evolutionarily beneficial trait which has been selected for. So positing something like hinge propositions, as fundamental beliefs which are somehow beyond doubt, is simply an incorrect representation. The evolutionary process has ensured that beliefs do not actually exist in this way. The propensity to doubt, is fundamental to, and inherent within all belief. The condition of certainty, I suggest, is added to the belief afterward, therefore not fundamental to belief. It is layered on, as an attitude toward belief, not actually part of the belief.

Right. So here on a philosophy forum, discussing topics that are on the fringes of human knowledge, there would be a higher degree of playing devil's advocate - in proposing ideas that you don't necessarily believe but would like to see if there are any rebuttals to. The forum does have it's fair share of fundamentalists that you find in the religious and political discussions where what people say, they really mean, or "know" is true. And then there is the every-day-talk where most of what people say, they believe because we talk about each other, the events of the day, the world, etc. — Harry Hindu

I think you misrepresent "believe" here. That a person believes something does not imply that the person is certain of that. So I can propose ideas, which I believe in, but not certain of, with the intent of allowing rebuttals from others. Then I might be inclined to change my mind. The fact that I change my mind does not mean that I actually did not believe what I claimed to have believed. It simply means that I allow the uncertainty which is inherent within belief, and more fundamental than certainty, to rule within my mind, such that I am always capable of changing my mind, no matter what the particular belief might be. I do not allow myself to develop the attitude called certitude. This is what is called having an open mind, and it is the trait of an honest human being who is true to one's own nature as an evolved life form. Professing certainty as fundamental to one's beliefs, to justify one's attitude of certitude, is the self-deception of closing one's mind to the reality of belief.

Our sense of good and evil, is the source of both. — Garrett Travers

I think the question was, what is the source of the sense of good and evil.

War against Ukraine seemed inevitable for a long time, and yet Putin is blamed for that. So if anyone goes to war with Russia Putin is to blame for that also? It is a funny sense of logic that blames a country for going to war with another country, invading it, and then blaming that country when other countries go to war with it, invading it. If that is the argument, might as well state it. — FreeEmotion

It's not the argument. I don't think a country is a type of thing which can be blamed. A country is not a being with intention. Individual people are blamed, and ought to be held accountable, but to direct blame at a country is to attribute responsibility where none can be attributed, resulting in no one being held accountable. You seem to understand this in your reference to G. W. Bush, above. Good historians describe the actions of individuals, not the actions of a phantasm entity (a country).

The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? Of course that is not saying that is a reason for invasion, I do not have the intelligence to decide that, but it is a powerful undercurrent that has to be recognized. — FreeEmotion

But here you are making the same mistake, and doubling it up, to go even further with that mistake. First you mention what the US wants, as if a country is a type of thing which could have intentions, instead of pointing to what individuals want, as if everyone within the country wants the same thing, and this constitutes what the country wants. Then, you extend this to a group of countries, "its allies", as if a whole group of countries have one intention, when it doesn't even make sense to say that one country has intention.

Since Quantum Fields consist of dimensionless-points-in-space, they are "real" only in the sense that they have the Potential to produce physical particles. — Gnomon

You could say that the point signifies something. So it's similar to when some one draws a map, and marks a point to signify a city. The point signifies something, but what it signifies does not at all resemble a point. The spacetime is mapped and the designated points signify something, an aspect of that which is being mapped

A vacuum fluctuation can be seen as an eternal presence of a particle in the vacuum. — EugeneW

What is this concept of "a particle in the vacuum"? Is it a vacuum, which is not really a vacuum because there is something there, which must be a particle, but it's not really a particle because it has no location? So it's not really a vacuum, nor is there a particle, just convenient terms.

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!? — Manuel

Yes. It's the only way to give Putin what they think he deserves. War against Russia, whether clandestine or overt, appears to be inevitable.

This is about as clear as it gets. These kinds of beliefs are not tied to propositions and/or statements, they are primitive, animal if you will. They are belief states revealed in a non-propositional way. We show these beliefs in innumerable ways. They are non-linguistic beliefs.

All beliefs are expressed in acts of one kind or another, i.e., either in linguistic and/or nonlinguistic acts. — Sam26

I think you misunderstand the nature of "belief". There is always some degree of doubt, insecurity, uncertainty, underlying all belief, inherent within belief, and this feature allows us to adapt to the unknown aspects of an ever changing environment. The more primitive the belief, the greater the degree of uncertainty, as is evident by the capacity of base instincts such as 'fight or flight', and superstitions, to overpower fundamental rational beliefs.

To represent "belief" as a sort of foundational certainty which excludes an individual's inclination to assess the possibility of mistake, is simply a false representation of belief. In reality, the possibility that I am wrong, therefore uncertainty, is the foundational aspect of belief, which we attempt to overcome through training. Certainty is acquired, while uncertainty is instinctual, and the acquired will never completely suppress the instinctual, as it is structured on top of that foundation.

The ingredients for life, all the necessary chemistry, were all present in the oceans of the earth roughly 4.5 Gya. These life molecules were randomly distributed in the water. It so happened that some of these biomolecules came to be at the same place, in each other's vicinity, and they interacted in the right proportions to produce the first life. The rest is history.

Note this is knowledge and not ignorance. — Agent Smith

To me, your example looks like this: All the necessary ingredients for a cake were distributed around the kitchen. It so happened that they came to be in each other's vicinity, interacted, and produced a cake. Ignorance, not knowledge.

Are you familiar with the principle of plenitude? Roughly speaking, it states that if given enough time, all possibilities will be actualized. So if we assume an infinite amount of time, then everything possible will be real. Check out the infinite monkey theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Here's an example of what I am saying. We can represent the certainty as the basis for the habitual activity. I know that the act X will have the outcome of Y, so act X for the purpose of Y becomes habituated, and I tend to proceed with very little doubt. The light turns green, I walk across the street, for instance.

However, before I cross the street I glance around to see if anyone is running the red. This is "the check", which is a manifestation of the fundamental uncertainty. The check has to be more fundamental than the certainty, in order that it might at any time overrule the certainty. The habit can be broken. If the check is allowed to be overruled by the certainty, then eventually I will step in front of an errant vehicle.

One might model the certainty as more fundamental than the uncertainty, as is the case when hinge propositions are modeled as free from the tendency to doubt, but this is a false model. It is proven false, because those who do not perform the check get the Darwin award, and this trait of relinquishing the check, is not maintained. So the uncertainty of the check is supported by evolution, and its overruling the certainty of habit, as a more fundamental aspect of living beings is verified in this way. And the check as an uncertainty based activity cannot be modeled as a habit because it is different (habit being similar) in every field of activity yet common to them all.

Then you typing and submitting your post is evidence of your underlying uncertainty? — Harry Hindu

Right, the reason for posting here is to submit my ideas to the criticisms of others. My ideas are forever evolving, because of my uncertainty, and the role that others play in changing my mind.

You seem certain of what you say, but if your admitting that your certainty of what you are saying is an illusion and that you know its an illusion I would have expected a lot less of telling others what they fail to realize (as if they are wrong and you are right) and more humility on your part. Are you certain that certainty is just an illusion? — Harry Hindu

To state something as a proposition, is to make a proposal. It does not imply 'I am certain of what I wrote'. This is your misinterpretation, derived from, (and a very good demonstration of), that faulty notion that actions are based in certainty. That you interpret my proposal as an indication that I am certain of the truth of what I write, shows that you are committed to this faulty way of understanding. I write in my habitual way, but this does not mean that I am not ready, willing, and actively looking for reasons, to break the habit if necessary. I walk across the street right after the light turns green, and it appears like I am certain in that act, if you do not notice the more subtle act of me looking around before crossing. In the case of writing, the more subtle act occurs within my mind, as thinking, so it's even more difficult to notice.

When primitive man or modern man interacts within his environment, they show their basic beliefs by what they do, or the way they act. So, if a primitive man picks up a stone, that shows that he or she believes something about his or her environment, something fundamental, something very basic. For example, it shows that they believe there is a stone there, that they have hands, that they are a body distinct from other bodies or objects. These kinds of hinges, for the most part don't change. On the other hand, there are other kinds of hinges that we accept as certain (not epistemologically certain, but a certainty that's reflected in our actions), and they are expressed in other ways, maybe ritual dances, praying, that the Earth is flat, etc. These kinds of hinges change over time, and they are culturally dependent, and also dependent on our current fund of knowledge. — Sam26

What you, many others in this thread, and Wittgenstein himself, fail to recognize, is that doubt and uncertainty is what underlies human actions, as inherent within them, essential to them, and impossible to remove. Certainty is just an illusion we create when we're asked to justify our actions. But as Wittgenstein demonstrates, such justification cannot be applied to the foundation. Therefore, uncertainty, the possibility of mistake, and the consequent risk management, is what truly shapes and forms our actions, at the most fundamental level. You might say that we have a very deeply seated fear of failure, because it manifests as pain.

This is simply a feature of the reality of the human being's presence in a temporal reality. The future is indeterminate, and the human being is inadequate in its capacity to bend the future, to suit its will. This manifests as the fallibility of human knowledge. To represent human actions as based in some underlying certainty about the future, rather than as based in an underlying uncertainty, produces a false attitude of certitude, by those who represent actions in this way, and this is conducive to grave mistake, and the consequent suffering.

I wouldn't really say that chance is ignorance, but it's more like the way that we represent our ignorance. So for example, if I do not know the cause of something, I might say it was a chance occurrence. In this case, what "chance" represents is the fact that I do not know. But it's a misleading usage, because it creates the appearance that I do know the cause, and the cause is something called "chance".

Abiogenesis is not supernatural in character. It's an explanatory model that has at its heart, chance/luck/randomness. — Agent Smith

The problem being that chance/luck/randomness is not an explanation of anything, nor was spontaneous generation an explanation of anything.

Realizing full well that we're but guests in the house of God, it'd do us good to not forget that the house always wins. — Agent Smith

That's a mixed metaphor. The house wins in gambling. When you are a guest in someone else's house, you are the winner, by the graciousness of the other.

What's philosophical is the idea of a dimensionless point producing an offspring. — jgill

That's so incoherent it's actually funny.

Yes, but we don't know if that was an intentional play or if they just had bad intel by bad intel operators. — Christoffer

Bad intel doesn't explain seeing what isn't there. Blurry vision, seeing vague and undistinguishable things, does not account for making those things into something identified and intelligible. This is why we have to include the role of intention, even if it's some sort of subconsciously affected intention, causing paranoia, or some irrational fear. A bump in the night is heard as a ghost. I know the ghost is here, I have proof, I heard it.

Those are not the same. Putin wants to redraw borders, Ukraine should be "his". — Christoffer

I generally ignore people who claim to know the intentions of others, especially when the other is a proven strategist, and strategy is a skill based on keeping one's intentions secret.

It's really a sort of unique but trivial way of progressing from F=r to defining a new fixed point, b. Bifurcation is usually meant to "split" one fixed point into two fixed points. A kind of "Adam's Rib" sort of thing. — jgill

Being familiar with some of my posts, you probably already have a good idea of what I would say about this proposal. The idea of one point becoming two points, without a clearly defined division (division of a point appearing to be impossible), is simple contradiction, in the first place.

Once upon a time, disease/illness were thought of as having supernatural causes (evil spirits, demonic possession, sorcery, and witch's spells).

Physicalism settled the matter definitively: diseases are caused by microbial invasion of the body. Evidence poured in from all the research labs in the world via microscopes. — Agent Smith

Tiny organisms, too small to be seen, which grew to a visible size were said to originate in "spontaneous generation". That was an accepted theory. This is very similar to the modern conception of abiogenesis. It seems like the physicalist's reliance on "supernatural causes" hasn't waned.

US invasion of Iraq was a farce. It was either a strategy to "fool" the world that an invasion was needed, or just the worst intel operators ever. — Christoffer

This is a good demonstration of the role of intention in interpretation. You see what you want to see. They wanted to invade Iraq, they saw weapons of mass destruction there.

The key differences are that US didn't invade to make Iraq into a new state of the US. If anything, they just wanted the oil. — Christoffer

I don't think this distinction is valid. They wanted to exercise control over what they perceived as an unruly state, through disposal of its leader. Seems like a very similar situation to me. The tactics differ widely.

The blame game is not really applicable to international politics, nor is it good to apply it. We can blame individual human beings, but we cannot blame an entity like NATO. So there is no comparison to be made between blaming NATO and blaming Putin. Nor is it likely that we can blame a democratic government, blame being properly directed toward the actions of individuals.

One of the intents behind a democratic organization is to minimize the relevance of any particular human being's actions, thus minimizing the consequences of an individual's personal weakness. On the other hand this leaves the democratic organization impossible to read in terms of strategy. In fact, since strategy is a personal trait, inherently practiced by an individual in secrecy, it is doubtful that we could even say that a democratic organization has a strategy.

Thanks, jgill. As you may know, I am not into interpretations of mathematical symbols and formulations, having rejected such dogmatism in high school (smoked too much weed). I've had enough difficulty interpreting English as it is.

From my simple mind, I would say that in the one interpretation, you treat "b" as an undefined symbol, an unknown, and you resolve to determine the unknown, so it gives you "information about b". In the other interpretation you treat "b" as a known, a defined operation (or some such thing) called a bifurcation, and so you apply that rule, the bifurcation, resulting in "F=r". The issue then is whether the meaning of "b" is truly defined in the applied algebra, or does the algebra just use a method to dissolve the issue.

Have you any examples of when NATO threatened Russia and Putin? Because his feelings of being threatened can be valid for explaining his actions, but that doesn't mean there's valid guilt on NATO's part in any of Putin's actions. — Christoffer

Human feelings are extremely complex and difficult to decipher, from observation of a person's actions. That's why psychology is borderline science. And, in psychology the patient is supposed to try and make one's feeling known to the psychologist. When an individual intentionally hides one's feelings, the acts are twisted around multiple motives, so psychological problems are often referred to as a "complex". Jealousy for example manifests itself in very strange ways.

Russia's "feelings" do not matter in this. — Christoffer

"Feelings" are attributable to individual human beings, very unique and particular to the individual, as they are tied up within the highly structured and organized chemical system within the human being. It makes absolutely no sense to say that an entity like "Russia" has feelings.

Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that... — StreetlightX

This is a piss poor argument. If I stand up to the bully, (or the extortionist for that matter) and do the opposite of what he requests, and he goes off to torture my friends and family, obviously, you can say that I might have handled the situation better (incapacitate the bully?) but you cannot blame me for the ensuing actions of the bully. The bully is fundamentally unpredictable, making his actions irrational.

The reformers and their Western advisers simply decided – and then insisted – that market reforms should precede constitutional reforms.

Double benefit here, the west gets freedom to exploit the resources, and whatever money is paid for the resources is pocketed by a few individuals, instead of a properly organized governance. Win, win, until you consider everyone else affected.

I hope people stop seeing this conflict as good vs bad. If anything, both sides are at fault for not reaching a compromise through dialogue/diplomacy — Eskander

So it's bad vs bad, they'll kill each other, therefore the conflict is good? The problem of course, is that the bad supports itself trough abuse of the good. So the conflict may be eternal, as the good suffer while the bad are forever in conflict. Whether the bad can kill each other without first annihilating the good, or if the good must resist the bad, is beyond comprehension, because we do not know how to distinguish "the good" from the bad. Maybe we're all bad.

If one expects two pieces of information simultaneously, yes. But with a slight passage of time one perceives cube#1, then a moment later cube#2. Two different objects arising from one symbol. — jgill

I know that the same person can perceive one, then the other, but this will only incline the perceiver to wonder which is the correct interpretation. And, a number of perceivers might interpret ambiguity differently, and be inclined to discuss which is correct. So in an attempt to find out which is correct, we try to determine what was meant by the author. However, as implied by "intentional ambiguity", the author meant to be ambiguous, therefore ambiguity is what was meant, and this implies no correct interpretation.

The issue is to absolve the author from the charge of deception. That is what I've been describing. We can say that the author intended contradictory interpretations, but that constitutes deception. I also believe that if the author intended the symbol to mean one thing at one moment, and another thing at another moment, this would also constitute deception because the author provides no indication as to when we're supposed to interpret which. So I do not believe the author can be absolved from blame in this way. The only way which I've been able to find, to justify the intentional use of ambiguity, is to recognize that the author's intention is something completely different from cube#1 or cube #2. Therefore, what is symbolized by the drawing (the meaning of it) cannot be interpreted as cube#1 nor cube#2, nor can we say that it is both, as the author is showing to us, something completely different from cube#1 and cube #2. What the author is showing to us is ambiguity, hence the intent is to be ambiguous, and what is meant, or the meaning itself, is ambiguous. And "ambiguous" implies something completely different from cube#1, or cube#2, or both, it is none of the above.

The subject is not insignificant, because intentional ambiguity is much more common than many people would expect, and to identify it takes experience. We find an abundance of it in Wittgenstein for example, and the trend is for interpreters to argue 'my interpretation is the correct interpretation'. And the problem is that we can argue endlessly 'the correct interpretation', and diligently apply principles in an attempt to determine 'the correct interpretation', without recognizing that this is a fruitless process because there is no correct interpretation. And to say that there is a multitude of correct interpretations does not solve the problem, it just creates another problem, because they contradict each other, and it's impossible for the author to intend contradictory things.

Furthermore, 'a multitude of correct interpretations' doesn't accurately describe what the author is doing with intentional ambiguity, and that's why 'no correct interpretation" is a much better description. Understanding intentional interpretation as 'no correct interpretation' gives us a far better approach to the true nature of meaning, by revealing the open ended aspect of "meaning". What I mean by "open ended aspect", is the way that the perceiver creates meaning for an encountered symbol which was not intended by the author. From this perspective we see that experience, training, education, and convention, act to put boundaries to this creative aspect of the mind. So when a person encounters a bunch of symbols, one's mind will create a meaning, an interpretation of the pattern of symbols, which is conditioned by one's experience. Your past experience has created boundaries as to where your mind can go with your interpretation. When there is words which you are not too familiar with, your boundaries may be too narrow, or too broad, and the result is misunderstanding what was meant. From this perspective meaning is inherently imprecise.

For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb? — magritte

I give up. How many? I will note though, that changing the incandescent for the LED has provided us with a much more efficient source of light. And the LED still has significant energy loss as heat.

It's not like there is a lot of unexplored territory in energy-physics where one might expect radical new technologies just around the corner. — ChatteringMonkey

That's a defeatist attitude. Quantum mechanics presents us with a huge mystery. Mass is, for the most part, a mystery.

Complementary, not contradictory. — jgill

Your example was the Necker cube. As I quoted from Wikipedia the two possible interpretations exclude each other by way of contradiction. They do not complement each other. This is generally the case with intentional ambiguity. If one interpretation is correct, it would exclude the possibility that another is correct. I don't know how an author could attach two distinct meanings to the exact same symbol without contradiction. I'll listen if you'll explain how you think it is possible.

Why do you keep bringing up the word correct? The only thing correct is one gets two pieces of information from one image, like my mathematical example (a bit too complicated to relate here) - one expression yields two pieces of math information depending on how it is interpreted (seen). — jgill

"Correct" was your word.

And I recently posted a short note concerning a math expression that implies two distinct conclusions depending on how one interprets it. Both interpretations are correct simultaneously. — jgill

So I tried to explain to you that the proper interpretation of intentional ambiguity would be that neither interpretation is correct, rather than your claim that contradictory interpretations could be simultaneously correct, in violation of the law of non-contradiction.

It’s not part of your experience that your dog is greater than your kitchen counter? — Joe Mello

Without qualification as to greater in what sense, that question doesn't even make sense to me. Are you talking magnanimous? If so, I can't even begin to class a dog, let alone a kitchen counter. I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry Joe, but your continued gibberish, and refusal to explain yourself, makes discussion rather pointless.

I do not think Putin is stupid enough to start a nuclear war... — FreeEmotion

If Russia's policy is to use nukes to defend the homeland, and Putin claims Ukraine as Russian, then any military assistance provided to the Ukrainian resistance by a NATO country, will justify a nuclear response. Of course that would constitute a declaration of war against NATO, under the claim that NATO attacked Russia.

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions, — ChatteringMonkey

This is doubtful. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention (not talking Zappa here, who was extremely creative himself). Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there, with intellectual property guarded by secrecy. Fusion, or other new ideas, might not be as far away as you think.

Isn't this simply putting things in their order of significance - a rock is less than a mouse; a mouse is less than a human? — Tom Storm

Perhaps it's an order of "significance", but Joe would not even identify it as such. If Joe said it was an order of significance, then I would say that is completely subjective. To him, one is more significant than the other. Joe seems to have a strong feeling about that, and thinks it ought to be obvious to me. But of course in philosophy we don't make our judgements based on strong feelings, we proceed with rational arguments and logic. That's why I asked Joe to justify his claims, because are not in any way obvious to me.

It’s common sense and your own experiences. — Joe Mello

Clearly it's not any part of my experience. It's some principle you dreamed up, so it's part of your experience. And it makes no sense to me, for a person to be using "greater" in the way that you do, to refer to a quality which cannot be measured in terms of quantity. Obviously, "great" in any normal usage is a quantitative term. That's why I requested you switch to a principle like "better and worse", which is more consistent with my experience of a quality which is not measurable as a quantity. You refuse to switch, because if we remove the ambiguity brought by the word "greater", your principle makes no sense at all, and therefore completely loses its emotional appeal.

A qualitatively greater thing than physical matter would be living tissue, life, a living being.

A qualitatively greater thing than life would be a thought, an emotion, a human personality. — Joe Mello

This is a good example of why I do not understand you. First you say that a living being is greater than a dead thing. Then you say that a thought is greater than a living being. How can a thought be greater than a living being, when a living being is the cause of a thought? I do not understand how an effect can be greater than its cause. What is "greater" supposed to mean in your usage?

The principle is logically stating that only something (qualitatively) greater than life and thought and emotion and us, and everything else that has evolved in our physical universe, had to be present for evolution to have taken place. — Joe Mello

So this doesn't make any sense at all. Your examples show the posterior thing to be greater than the prior thing; physical matter is first, than the greater thing, living tissue, then an even greater thing, a living being, then an even greater thing, a thought. So your examples display that for you, greater things come from lesser things. The lesser things are prior to the greater things. Then you claim that there must be something even greater, which is prior to all these things. But that's completely inconsistent. You ought to conclude that there is something lesser which is prior to all these things. The thing which had to be present in the first place would be the least thing, not the greatest thing.

I’m only taking about one principle, and you keep talking about your definition of what is “greater”, and I am correcting your definition because I provided the principle not you.

I’m repeating myself because you’re repeatedly holding up quantity for me to look at as a greater thing when quantity is not part of the principle, other than calling the extra element of superior quality an added element. — Joe Mello

You haven't yet told me what quality you are talking about. That's what I keep asking of you. Greater in what quality? "Greater" itself does not refer to a quality.

What you should be doing is looking to science to see if it supports the principle, not trying to make it your own. — Joe Mello

I thought that is what you were asking, for me to understand your principle, accept it, and make it my own. How can I look to see if science supports it when I can't even understand it, because you haven't made clear what you mean by "greater"? All you've done is stated examples which are useless because you do not identify the quality which one of the things in the example is greater in. You could say a chair is greater than a table, or a table is greater than a chair. And when I ask you why you class one thing as greater than another thing, you simply say it's obvious.

You and most of the posters here have a failure of imagination. — Joe Mello

So use your imagination then Joe. When you say that it's obvious that one thing is greater than another, use your imagination, and dream up some criteria to justify your claim. Otherwise all you are saying is that X is greater than Y because I say so. And what kind of principle is that?

There are a couple of posters here who readily appreciated the principle and welcomed it into their thinking like they were waiting for it. — Joe Mello

I sincerely want to welcome your principle into my thinking, as you even said above, I'm trying to make it my own. Why else would I spend my time asking you to clarify it for me to understand. But if you do not clarify, then I will not understand, and I cannot welcome it into my thinking.

In my case the true meaning is a dual observation: giving one piece of information when viewing from one perspective, and another when viewing from the other perspective. Take a Necker cube for example. It can be seen two ways, each a valid cube. What is "the meaning intended by the author"? — jgill

According to Wikipedia, the Necker cube is an ambiguous drawing, "it can be interpreted to have either the lower-left or the upper-right square as its front side". My argument is that neither of the two possible interpretations is the correct one. and that is what is intended by the artist.

The reason why I say that they cannot both be correct, is because the two interpretations contradict each other. If we say that both are correct, then we say that the drawing depicts an object which has both, the lower left, and also the upper right, as the front side. Clearly this is contradictory. And, the fact that this is wrong, is evident from the way we see it. At any time, we must see the drawing as one or the other, and we cannot see it as both, at the same time. This is also evident in the case of drawings like Wittgenstein's proposed duck-rabbit.

To avoid this contradiction, which results from the claim that both are the correct interpretation, we have to say that neither is the correct interpretation. And, this interpretation, that neither is correct, is consistent with the intent of the artist. when such ambiguity is the intent. The artist intends that both interpretations are equally possible, therefore the intention is that neither one is the correct one. Clearly, since the the artist intends that each of the two is an acceptable interpretation, then the artist intends that neither is the correct one. If we were to say that the artist actually intends that we interpret both as correct, at the same time, then the artist intends contradiction, and that would be necessarily an act of deception by the artist. So to avoid the conclusion that the artist is engaged in deception, we can say that the artist intends that neither is the correct one.

I already posted that a greater thing has an extra element, a qualitatively extra element. — Joe Mello

I explained this already. A whole is greater than the sum of its parts, because there is something "extra" which is the cause of the unity of the parts. Are you in agreement with this common philosophical principle? What makes a whole greater than the sum of the parts, is this "extra" thing which is the reason why the parts exist in unity as a whole, or a single thing.

You posted an example of more of the same element, which is simply quantitative. — Joe Mello

The reason why I moved to a quantitative example, is that the unity of a bigger thing appears to be greater than the unity of a smaller thing. Do you agree, that the cause of unity (the extra thing) of a bigger thing, ought to be considered as greater than the cause of unity of a smaller thing? Or do you propose some other principle whereby we could judge one instance of greatness (cause of unity) as greater than another instance of greatness?

So your example failed to see the importance of quality, and replaced quality with quantity, making quantity equal to or better than quality. — Joe Mello

Judging by this statement, you would propose that one unity could be judged as greater than another through reference to a quality. Let me remind you, that bigger is a quality. Most qualities we are capable of representing as a quantity, that is how we measure the various qualities. So I do not think you are offering a productive approach by driving a wedge between quality and quantity. You yourself said that we, human beings are the ones who speak for reality. So if reality appears to us as qualities, and we measure these qualities in quantitative terms, then that is simply our way of speaking about reality. Therefore we ought not look for principles to separate these two, but look to understand how they are unified, if we want to understand reality.

Look at your example and mine for what I’m saying, not a word I chose to use. — Joe Mello

As I said, I am asking you to explain your principle. Merely asserting this is better than that, repeating yourself over and over, and deriding the other person because they cannot understand why you assert that this is better than that, does not help me to understand your principle. Look at what I said for example. I explained the something "extra", which makes a whole greater than the sum of its parts, then I explained why I think that a bigger whole is greater than a smaller whole. It appears to me like you are thinking of a principle whereby you would say that one unity is "better" than another unity, a principle which is other than size, and perhaps could not even be measured as a quantity. If so, could you explain this?

Your conclusion does not logically follow. I have a mathematical expression that can be interpreted two distinct ways, each of which is valid and "correct". However, it is a novel idea and something I haven't seen in math before. Maybe I'm wrong? Who knows . . — jgill

Being valid does not necessarily imply "correct", because the conclusion must also be sound. In the case of meaning, the true meaning is the one intended by the author, that is what is meant. In the case of intentional ambiguity, not one nor the other interpretation, though they are each "valid" interpretations, is intended to be the correct one. Therefore we can conclude that the true meaning is that neither is the correct one.

You have held up quantitative as equal to or better than qualitative. I don't think it can be. — Joe Mello

That's not true Joe, we were talking about "greater", not "better". I've held "greater" to be something which can be measured quantitatively. I suggested that bigger is greater. Don't switch from "greater" to "better" at this point in the discussion, just because it suits you better now. I asked you earlier in the thread if you wouldn't prefer a more qualitative term like "better", but apparently this doesn't work for your principle. Your principle doesn't make any sense if you switch "better" for "greater".

So, by what principle do you say that "greater" in the qualitative sense is greater than "greater" in the quantitative sense?

First, one must have in his or her mind an integral understanding of what makes up a thing -- its elements. And I don't mean its atomic number.

A living thing and a material object both have matter and take up space. But a living thing has an extra element, and not simply a quantitatively extra element but a qualitatively extra element. A living thing is alive. So, when we place a living thing and a material object before us, and as the only spokespersons for reality, we can proclaim with absolute certitude that a living thing is greater than a material object. — Joe Mello

Can I say that a thing's elements are its parts? If so, then we have to consider that there is more to a thing than just its element, there is whatever it is that produces the unity of parts. In my mind, this is what makes a thing greater than the sum of its parts. Whatever it is which unifies the thing's parts is something other than the thing itself, as a cause of the thing, and is also something other than all its parts.

So when we come to the distinction between a living thing, and an inanimate thing, they are, each one of them, a composition of parts. Therefore both have this facet which is the cause of their unity, and so they each have something "greater" than each one's individual and separate parts.

Your claim is that a living thing is greater than an inanimate thing, but I don't see your principle. To me, the earth looks greater than any living thing, the sun looks greater than the earth, a galaxy looks greater than the sun, and a black hole might be even greater than a galaxy.

You seem to think that it is obvious that a living thing is greater than an inanimate thing, but I don't see why you think this. Living things have an extremely short life span, after which they decay and the parts are no longer unified. But some inanimate things exist in unity for millions or even billions of years. Doesn't a longer period of existence, therefore unity of its parts, constitute a greater being to you?

Let me try another way of explanation Wayfarer. See if you can ignore all the riff raff around you, the entire physical world, and place yourself squarely within the reality of the non-physical. I think you'll find that there is a separation between your non-physical reality, and that of others, you and I are not connected through the non-physical. I can assume, from my experience, that you do have a non-physical aspect, just like I do, but my non-physical aspect does not connect directly to yours. In mathematical terms, the non-physical is a non-dimensional point, which is distinct from another non-dimensional point, related to each other by a dimensional (physical) line. If the points were directly connected there would be no need for the line.

This separation is a real problem in metaphysics because it implies that the non-physical is a multiplicity rather than the commonly assumed "One", as Neo-Platonism proposes. Plato's "The Sophist" explores this problem of the relationship between "One" and "multiplicity". Unless we can somehow overcome this separation, the bridge through or across the medium, which I proposed above, then the proposed non-physical "One" is unreal.

MU, I explained the principle step by step showing that I understand it very well. You ignored these steps, Now you’re accusing me of just repeating it from someone else. — Joe Mello

You did not explain yourself. You just kept insisting that this is "greater" than that, without stating your criteria for greatness, and when I asked for it, to justify your statement, you acted as if it is somehow self-evident that this is greater than that, implying that I'm an imbecile for asking.

And, no, the last thing I expect is you to readily understand such an elegant principle. You have given me no reason to, no matter how many questions you ask and consider on point when they’re not. — Joe Mello

Elegance is an aesthetic principle, beauty, appealing to the senses rather than to the intellect. That your principle is elegant does not make it intelligible. This is a philosophy forum, and in philosophy we try to judge principles by their intelligibility. You have presented what you believe to be an elegant piece of art. However, you want to pass it off as a Metaphysical Principle. To move from the former category to latter requires justification. Beauty does not require justification, principles do.

Your questions haven’t been about the principle but about your ideas.

Be honest. You didn’t ponder it at all, but simply rushed into the first thoughts off the top of your head. — Joe Mello

Joe! Where is your head at? I looked at your "elegant principle", and realized instantaneously that I have no idea what you mean by "greater". One could spend an eternity pondering 'what does Joe mean by greater', approaching an infinity of possibilities. I chose a more appropriate action, ask Joe what he means by "greater". Your replies indicate Joe does not know what he means by "greater", and he reacts to my questioning in a defensive way, trying to make me feel like the uneducated one.

I provided you a metaphysical principle and claimed it is extremely important in understanding the evolution we know took place on our planet. — Joe Mello

You did not provide a metaphysical principle Joe. By your own admittance you have given us something elegant, something you believe to be a beautiful piece of art. A metaphysical principle requires justification, something you appear to be unable to give us. Therefore you have not provided a metaphysical principle.

And I ended with that I was looking forward to further discussions. — Joe Mello

The "further discussions" you requested, could have been your justification of your principle. However, you seem to think that the statement is self-justifying without any indication as to what "greater" means.

If it makes you happy Joe, as you seem to be truly miserable and I would be delighted to cheer you up, I'll provide an analysis of your "principle" for you:

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

Look, it's obvious that a combination of lesser things does produce a greater thing, always without fail. That's how "lesser" and "greater" are commonly defined, such that a complexity is greater than a simplicity. The more lesser things you add, the greater the complexity becomes. The idea that a "greater thing" needs to be added to the lesser things is unwarranted because the act of "adding" itself, is what creates the greater thing from the lesser things. And you cannot say that the act of "adding" is the greater thing because it is already categorically separated from "greater and lesser".

But in the case of simple maths, it's impossible to disagree that the sum of two and two is four, obviously (although I have an ominous feeling..... :scream: — Wayfarer

Yes I agree, but the point is that agreement does not imply "the same". That I agree with you indicates a specific type of relationship between us, it does not mean that the non-physical aspect of me is the same as the non-physical aspect of you. I would say that there is a relationship between the non-physical aspect within me, and the non-physical aspect within you, which constitutes agreement . But it appears to me, like you want to say that the non-physical within you is the same as the non-physical within me, that somehow each one of us grasps within our minds, the very same non-physical conception.

Despite our agreement on that simple point, the difference between you and I, in our understanding of this matter, is a difference of temporal relation, causation. I would say that human minds, in their relations with other minds (communication) are the cause of existence of conceptions. So I locate the conception itself within the physical world, a shared thing, along with other artifacts, which exist as representations (Plato's reflections) of the non-physical reality within the human minds that create them. I think you would say that each human mind apprehends the same non-physical reality. The issue I have with this, is that from your perspective we have to understand how the immaterial realm acts on the human mind, allowing itself to be understood by the human mind, in a way similar to the way that the sense world acts on the senses. So we'd have to assume intelligible objects acting on the human mind, in a way analogous to the way that sense objects act on the senses. But experience demonstrates to us that intelligible objects are acquired through the means of sensation instead of being directly produced by the mind from the non-physical realm.

From my perspective we have no need to say that the non-physical realm is acting on the non-physical aspect of the human being, because the non-physical aspect of the human being (the soul) is what is active in the creative act. The physical aspects of the human being, sense organs etc., are acted upon, and this contributes to to the soul's understanding, influencing it, but the soul as the non-physical part, is what acts to create.

I believe it is important to proceed in this way, to recognize the reality that we do not have any approach to the non-physical except through our internal self. And, when we approach the non-physical through introspection, self-reflection, or whatever internal means, we approach a fundamental division between oneself and others. This is the separation which unless we bridge it through the medium (communication), we are lead toward solipsism. And I believe, that when we grasp this internal isolation of the non-physical aspect within us, we must come to realize that there are no universal non-physical intelligible objects which are acting equally on us all, internally, from the non-physical realm, causing us to understand them. Our only means for unifying the non-physical, which underlies the existence of each one of us, is relationships made through the medium, what Christians call love. Assuming an underlying relationship between us, through the non-physical realm, is the fatal mistake of taking love for granted. Instead, our relationships must be cultivated through the medium, or else they dissolve.

Intentional ambiguity is the use of language or images to suggest more than one meaning at the same time
(Cambridge English Dictionary) — jgill

I have no problem with this. But as I explained, "to suggest more than one meaning at the same time", implies that none of the suggested meanings is the correct one not that they are both correct. That there is a number of correct meanings is an illusion (a suggestion, or proposition) created by the author, you could consider it a type of deception. Meaning is what is meant or intended by the author. So you and I might discuss endlessly the intended meaning of a piece which is ambiguous, each of us claiming to have "the correct interpretation". However, since the ambiguity is intentional, then the author intended neither one nor the other of the interpreted meanings. We cannot say that the author intended both because that would be contradictory, saying that the author performed two incompatible acts of intention at the same time. Therefore we must conclude that in the case of intentional ambiguity neither is the correct interpretation. The correct interpretation is to recognize that the meaning is intentionally ambiguous.