.

Change itself" isn't a thing that's changing or not. — Terrapin Station

prove it.

Just to clarify. I can think of the concept “one” but only because
I understand it’s logical application within a space-time-substance frame. Outside of the frame ... well, there is nothing I can say about “outside” because for me there is no ‘outside’ of space-time-substance. — I like sushi

you only need the continuation of your own memory set, imagination, and will, to intuit the existence of the concept of unity. all of those things are non-spatial, so one can thinking non-spatially. however, the concepts that one an thinking about are primitive, at least, in the beginning. in imagination there can exist imaginary space, just the same as in the absolute sense.

t does exist. That is the point. You CANNOT think without reference to space, time and matter/substance. Remove any one of these and you’re left with nothing — I like sushi

you’re committing a fallacy here, that just because this applies to the part that it applies to the whole.


a non-spatial point is just an abstract set

That's very incoherent rather. — Terrapin Station

what’s incoherent is your entire philosophy. the man who holds that all is changing all the time except change itself, and also that there is no such thing as unchanges wants to talk about coherent beliefs, how ironic...your opinion has not no value, but negative value because all of us become less intelligent by reading your posts.

how is the non-spatial point supposed to remain within the spatial reference frame without slipping out of it like sand?

the mind has a dual aspect, one part of the is I’m space, the content of perception, and the other is outside of space looking in, hence the reason man can look down upon relative space and time as an object. if there is no aspect to the mind outside of space, man cannot have free will and all of his wills are merely links in a physical chain of causation extending backwards in time to infinity.

it’s how you use this non-spatial aspect of your mind to say that there is no such thing and contradict yourself all while telling me that my correction conception of the mind is contradictory.

Not quite sure that “beyond space” means anything other than by metaphor. We cannot imagine something beyond something beyond space or something atemporal. We can use abstractions that are applicable - knowable - referentially to space and time. — I like sushi

it means the non-local aspect of reality which is not atemporal, but a subset of Absolute Time, i.e. the persistence of the essence of existence itself. we know that information (concepts) is without spatial dimension, we know that concepts exist, so a non-spatial aspect to reality must exist. why? because the non-spatial cannot be a subset of the spatial, it must be the other way around.

Universal items, such as “as,” “one” and “and” cannot be presented to sensibility in a pure form. They can only be understood by us in reference to items in space-time though. That is not to say these abstract concepts exist “beyond time and space” in a literal sense. To suggest such is to misunderstand how language captures cognitive thought. — I like sushi

the can be presented in the intuition as a concept, their pure form lies in the intuition of the essence of the concept itself, in both the relative and absolute sense. oneness is the persistence of the existence of the self-awareness of God, and when we intuit our own existence as such, we are partaking in oneness with the absolute. you don’t need the intellect, or space for this, only time, will, and memory. space and objects in space just limit/expand the potential concepts that we can conceive of, and use as a conceptual starting point to Will from.

It says nothing. Define “God” ... oh wait! You cannot. No doubt you’ll say that is the ‘point’? — I like sushi

A trinitarian unity of Absolute Memory, Will, and Imagination. Of course, to be self aware, one need only use their will and imagination to reference the past, and this process is beyond space and is therefore occurring within a self-referential point. It’s very simple.

without quoting the Bible i would have to say for the most part you are right. Why i believe the Bible is right is a whole another forum topic. — christian2017

you should be a Christ, not a Christian.

Given our limited time on earth i would say we'll never come to complete knowledge of reality. — christian2017

you only need to meditate and treat others, to include all lifeforms, as if they are yourself, in top of seeking knowledge. you can achieve the mystical union with God but you have to be very pure first. if someone tells you that mysticism is irrational or that the mystical union is not possible, discount their opinion entirely because it means that they haven’t yet achieved it and therefore that they don’t have knowledge of absolute context in which they exist and therefore cannot give proper interpretations to scientific facts. they could be the greatest physicist or scientist or philosopher in the world according to societies standards, but that doesn’t make them so according to God’s standards. If one hasn’t achieved the mystical union they aren’t great according to Gods standards and Gods standards are the only standards that truly matter.

Have you ever read "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings? What i get from this is we should not assume there is no reason for existence and we should not assume there needs to be a first cause. — christian2017

no, I don't trust non-mystics and non-metaphysicians to give meaning to empirical or intuitive truths. we must distinguish between existence as it was before the big ban and existence as it is afterward; there may not be a reason for existence as it was before the big bang because, and this is because it is eternal, meaning that it's reason for existing lies in its antithesis, or rather, 'that there is no necessary reason why it should not be;' however, existence as it is, the material aspect of existence, necessitates a reason, and this is because, as stated in the axiom, that first and final causes exist inside our mind, and if they exist inside our mind they exist in the universal sense of the word, meaning that the coming into being of the universe involved a first cause...why? because the only other alternative is that the causal chain is infinite and therefore there was no first cause, but the existence of this infinite causal chain is negated by the fact that first and final causes exist; if the infinite chain existed, there could be no such things in between physical causes. a first cause involves teleology, that is, a reason, that is, an intention of mind; the existence of a first cause proves not only that mind precedes matter, but that God exists. This post proves the existence of God, but you have to have a clever eye to recognize it.

If that's all we're doing, couldn't we define it another way? — Terrapin Station

you're contradicting yourself again. if there exists a non-spatial aspect to reality, the all isn't material. so saying that all causes are material causes, when some causes have their origin in the non-spatial and others have their origin in the spatial is to purposely ignore the distinction between them when distinguishing them is paramount. a first cause is a cause which acts from non-locality to non-locality or non-locality to locality, and a material causes is a cause which acts from locality to locality.

Why? Why not? — Shamshir

if it involves the will, it's teleological. the will cannot be instantiated without reason, that reason can be in itself. 'i.e. making noises for the purpose of making noises' but really in this context, you're making noises to prove to yourself that you can will without reason, but then that's a reason for willing.

Which we'd think because? — Terrapin Station

its true by definition.

Which is equal to having no purpose. — Shamshir

making noises for the purpose of making noises has a purpose, that of making noise. this is quite clear and unambiguous.

Where are you getting this from? Materialism only posits that the world is solely comprised of material (and (dynamic) relations of material). Materialists can have any view of "first causes," causality in general, etc. — Terrapin Station

a first cause has its final cause contained within itself and is therefore teleological, meaning that they are presupposed by reason and thereby intention of mind; to be a materialist and a person who believes that there exists a first cause is to be a materialist that contradicts oneself and doesn't know it; a first cause isn't born out of physicality, but the lack thereof, so if a materialist thinks that there are first causes he is conceding to the existing of a non-spatial aspect to existence and therefore that the all isn't physical. again, all of this information is contained within the original post. go read it in its totality and then ask questions if you have questions, don't ask questions before you've read the post entirely because they may be answered by it.

So once again, in the spirit of pausing when something questionable is said, what would any support for that statement be? — Terrapin Station

you have so understand the nature of materialism, which suggest that the causal chain is without beginning and without end and without disruption, so the existence of a first cause is impossible. the existence of a final cause necessitates a first cause, meaning that a first cause exists within the causal chain, which makes it non-existent as a whole. how do you not get this? you really f’ing annoy me, I’ve wasted so much time explaining concepts to you but they’ve alll went over your head everytime, same with this one, and this is because you refuse to change your own opinion when presented with facts that contradict it. I have no time for people like this.

Sure one can. It's called making noise, innit? — Shamshir

you’d be making noise with intention of annoying someone, or making noises for the purpose of making noise, or maybe, for the purpose of bringing yourself pleasure, or proving to someone that you don’t need a reason for doing someone which is in itself a reason.

thank you for responding Josh,

i know how hard it is to write a book because I’ve been writing one for about two to three years now, so much respect to you for writing one.

in terms of the Will, I’m not sure if anyone has conceived of the will as a first and final cause before, so these might be my original ideas. I am looking to have my axioms and principles section published soon, so make sure you remember me when citing.

Secondly, I didn't see much of inquiry here. Did you have questions about this philosophy or were you just putting it up looking for counter statements? — Josh Alfred

I’m looking for someone to see something that I don’t see. I want someone educated to look at it from a different perspective and tell me if they see flaws. Unfortunately, the dunces of the forums, sushi and terrapin cant help but ruin my posts with their nonsensical responses. never once have either one of them posted anything helpful. it annoys me to see only them commenting on my posts.

So first, "we shouldn't make this statement as if it's something universally applicable" doesn't imply that it's never applicable. In other words, an example of it being applicable wouldn't suffice to make a universal statement. — Terrapin Station

yes we should make it universally applicable. because if there exists a single first cause, in any sense of the word, the physical chain of causation which supports hard-determinism is non-existent and a first cause exists, and this is because a first cause cannot exist in-between two physical causes (please read the footnotes, you’re just waisting time again and embarrassing yourself, again)

Secondly, and I'll leave it at this for the moment, because it's best if we tackle just one thing at a time, "to drink" isn't necessarily a conceptual "destination" is it? — Terrapin Station

yes, acting necessities thinking and thinking involves.cocnepts, not thinking I’m the sense of intellectualizing, but thinking in terms of intuition. to grab the glass and bring it to my mouth for drinking, I just intuit the process as a whole before or at the moment of willing to do it. this intuition of a concept or set of concepts, acts as the causeless cause for the action.

Isn't the one who doesn't have cause or reason for his assertion, his assertion being that there isn't cause or reason for things, proving his assertion by example? — Shamshir

one can’t speak without having a reason for speaking, nor speak on behalf of a particular position without doing so.

there’s nothing controversial said here. It only seems so because you guys study the world and the words of others and not yourselves.

in the act of willing to move your arm to grab a cup and then drink out of it, for example; when you will to grab the cup and drink out of it, the final cause ‘to drink’ is decided at the same time or before you will to move your arm, the first cause, which is enacted for the purpose of achieving the final cause, to drink, and is a conversion of potentiality to actuality in mind.

are there any intelligent humans on this forum? where are they!? how come the only two people I’ve interacted with are I like sushi and Terrapig, where are the philosophers at? this is a philosophy forum, is it not? @baden

I see a bunch of claims based on opinion but no rational arguments based on empirical truths of fact or truths of reason. this is not how I operate, I don’t deal with opinions, only logical arguments. so if you cannot provide rational counterarguments, you might as well go elsewhere and pander your dogshit opinions to someone else because I don’t want to hear them. if you want to argue, quote my arguments in totality from the post and use reasons and logic to refute them.

Mixing mysticism with logic doesn’t work. Mysticism is illogical. If it wasn’t it’d be called logic not mysticism. — I like sushi

and why is that? because there is no evidence that mind cannot exist apart from matter, yet materialists still continue to assert that it cannot anyways, and then the mistakes of those that we trust extend their influence into the minds of the mindless masses (that’s you) and cause them to mistake assumptions for absolute truths?

None of the above makes any reasonable sense because the false assumption is that there are “final causes”. There are no examples of final causes, yet we can label any moment we choose as the “final cause” or the “first cause” without any actual knowledge of some presumed (and ONLY presumed) absolute cause of reality. — I like sushi

It seems that you didn't read the whole thing, I gave an example of a final cause. Ironically, in saying that "there are no examples of final causes," you're contradicting yourself. Given your low IQ, it doesn't surprise me that you are able to do this and not even realize it.

“Purpose” is a human perspective. We cannot talk of the ‘teleology’ of the universe unless we are simply referring to our intersubjective take in the universe - as some proposed ‘noumenal body’ we cannot in any sense REASONABLY talk about the teleology of the universe (to do so is anthropomorphism disguised as omnipresent insight). — I like sushi

rubbish.

Fundamentally speaking we don’t know if the universe has a ‘beginning’ or not. We simply assume so because being finite beings we assume everything else has a start and end because that happens to be the manner in which we appreciate existence (or rather what ‘existence’ is to us as humans). — I like sushi

any why not? Isn't the answer obvious, how is it that you haven't figured it out yet? don't you realize that if the universe has no beginning, that all objects that come into being have causal chains that extend backs indefinitely into the past, and then, after clinking and clanking for an eternity, produce a physical object that goes into and out of being in a blink of an eye in comparison. 'nobody knows if the world has a beginning' says the fool, who thinks that the former is a 'logical possibility.'

We cannot be other than human and the universe isn’t human just because we only know if this concept via human conception. — I like sushi

the law of identity and non-contradiction extend backwards into the past indefinitely, and thus so can our minds; meaning that the secrets of existence and the universe can be known. if one can understand the fundamental laws of logic and at least one absolute truth, they can deduce many more from it, and solve the riddle of existence. but firstly, one must not, as you seem to do, take the most skeptical position because they think its cool.

"Think such about Aristotle"--think something "absolute" about him? — Terrapin Station

I don't know. What "absolute" thing was on the table? — Terrapin Station

Wow...

I can’t believe that someone who fancies themselves to be a philosopher just wrote this. This might be the most ignorant thing that I’ve ever read in my entire life. Absolutes are truths that are true for all things, and also, eternally true, so what in the f are you talking about?

Would your opinion change if I "prove" mine to you? — Terrapin Station

:lol: you don’t know the first thing about logic. you still haven’t figured out that you lost the argument before you even started. the OP put nominalism in the coffin. and then I repeatedly kick it while it was down some-more, yet still you persist in trying to revive it. for this reason, I don’t think you’re actually capable of proving anything, because the context in which those proofs are being formulated, is faulty beyond repair.

it’s a lost cause with you, you’re opinion won’t change if I prove it to you, and it won’t change if I don’t. Not even sure why anyone bothers to argue with you.

@janus don’t you love how Terrapin takes one small quotation out of context and then refutes it while ignoring everything else that was said in the message despite its importance to the conversation? it’s like talking to a bot who simply repeats his own opinion no matter what it said to him. are you sure that you’re not a bot, Terrapin?

What that has to do with a claim that change is necessarily mental is something that likely only you have any inkling of, if indeed it makes any sense to you (which I doubt). — Terrapin Station

from what I’ve already said, the steps of logic which lead to the verification of my claim are very easy figure out; it seems that you’re too invested in your opinion to do the steps necessary do disprove it, that is, your own opinion.

Aristotelian nonsense? Seriously? — Terrapin Station

because there exists at least one final cause, first causes must exist, and if first causes exist, the universe has a first and final cause. it’s quite simple. how do you not understand this stuff, this is like philosophy 101

Why would you believe that? — Terrapin Station

because all changes bridge first and final causes.

Abstracts/concepts are actually particular mental events. — Terrapin Station

yes, but all changes are mental events, so you’re really not saying much here, let alone refuting my claim.

there is an abstract aspect to reality as well, if there are abstract concepts with no spatial dimensions, and this must be the case because space can’t contain its antithesis within itself; only the converse can be true. further, that non-spatial aspect of reality must not be identical with the spatial aspect of reality. so by admitting the existence of an abstract concept, you refute nominalism. oh the irony.

I digress. — Wallows

if the law of identity isn't eternal, then it came into being once upon a time. if it is eternal, everything that exists is contained within an eternally abstract concept, meaning that space is an illusion and only time and consciousness are absolutely real. if you want to make the case that the law of identity came into being once upon a time, by all means, go right ahead. you can't explain that away without contradicting yourself. hence the reason philosophers today, who are more so fools than they are wise men, avoid the nature of the ground of being altogether and then proceed to create philosophies without knowing its nature. philosophy isn't dead, only man's intellect is dead. All of these post-modern philosophers are, in the universal sense of the word, idiots.

No, Hegel is a fool, his dialectical process is pretty much correct, but his philosophy is so convoluted and poorly written that he did more harm to idealism than he did good. My philosophy is a mix between Schopenhauer's, Hegel's, Descartes', Spinoza's, and Leibniz's. Believe me when I say that I've expounded on these concepts a great deal and my phenomenology of the will alone is going to make me famous.

Imagination, willing, and subjectivity... It's hopeless to try and draw out how you see any coherence between these terms used.

But, anyway, given that the set of all sets is epistemically closed off from any other set, then it is "absolute objectivity" to borrow your phrase. So, "absolute objectivity" to beat the phrase is in essence, God manifest. Yeah? — Wallows

its not hopeless to draw out why imagination, willing, and memory which together as a trinitarian unity define subjectivity, because where there is one there is necessarily all three. This is because the essence of each necessarily involves the other two, one cannot will without memory or imagination, for example...


it is closed off, so to speak, from all of its past memories, but not epistemologically closed off in the sense that it can retrieve them in its present awareness by means of will and imagination. Absolute Objectivity involves only those aspects of being which remain eternally unchanged, that is, Absolute Memory, or the Absolute Law of Identity (E(t∞) = E(t∞)) and the Absolute Law of Non-Contradiction (E (t, infinity) ≠ ⌐E (t, infinity)), that is, Absolute Time or Duration, which together formulate "Absolute Objectivity" i.e. (E (t, infinity) = E (t, infinity) ≠ ⌐E (t, infinity)). Absolute Objectivity is God Unmanifest. Manifest God doesn't spring forth from the Unmanifest until the Law of Excluded Middle (E (t1, Will) v ⌐E (t1, Will)) comes into being (it may be eternal, it may not be; I haven't decided if it is, or if I can know whether it is or not yet, I just know that it exists). and from there, there is a dialectical developmental process of Consciousness, in which, the change created by the will creates a new concept in memory which is then preserved perfectly as it was in relation to all other current states of being, eternally thereafter, and as a result, the Absolute level of Intuition and Self-Knowledge is raised.

You might as well say that God is the set of all sets that is epistemically closed in a solipsistic manner. I digress. — Wallows

Well, I have a definition for God, of course. If God exists, God cannot be not Self-Aware, that which is self-aware necessarily possesess a will, an imagination, and a memory; so to prove the existence of God, one need only prove that the set of all sets involves memory in its essence, for where there is memory, there are abstract concepts, where there are an expanding number of abstract concepts, there is imagination, and where there is imagination, there is willing, that is, subjectivity.

the essence of existence must be preserved over time because that which exists, persists in existing. the essence of a thing is abstract. the only possible thing that can preserve the essence of an abstract concept over time is memory.

you wouldn't think so if you saw my argument, which is as simple as it is elegant.