The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God
On the Argument from Teleology:
where there is teleology (final cause ? first cause), there is intentionality, where there is intentionality, there is willing, and where there is willing, there is subjectivity.
if our will is free, our will is teleological, and so are our brain processes. if our will is not free, our brain processes are teleological.
so whether or not our will is free or not free there is still subjectivity, and in either case subjectivity is transcendent of the brain and not an emergent property of it.
where there is teleology (final cause ? first cause), there is intentionality, where there is intentionality, there is willing, and where there is willing, there is subjectivity.
if our will is free, our will is teleological, and so are our brain processes. if our will is not free, our brain processes are teleological.
so whether or not our will is free or not free there is still subjectivity, and in either case subjectivity is transcendent of the brain and not an emergent property of it.
Comments (69)
Also, applying logical propositions to proposed empirical phenomenon (first and last cause) is a fallacy from the get go. Not to mention how you’re making an appeal to a teleological view without any apparent justification for doing so or of the context in which you’re doing so.
If I am to be generous then I will take the teleological position set out as being about the apparent function of some given phenomenon. The function of the brain is to process sensible data; the empirical evidence for this is quote overwhelming I feel - it is factual. When it comes to first and last causes on a universal scale (cosmological scale) there is only evidence based on physics and various models of the universe known by way of applying entropic principles. On a smaller scale I had a beginning and I will have an end. I would not say that the purpose of my beginning is my end, but it wouldn’t be very difficult to argue that the purpose of living is to die given that this is apparent for every thing we observe - that is a trite response though.
“Emergence” appears to me to be a term put as a place holder to deal with entropy - which we can only tag not understand directly.
I think that the religious definition is the only reasonable definition.
I think that it’s quite clear that one cannot will to move their arm without firstly determining the final cause, or rather, the reason for moving their arm prior to moving it. if I want to pick up a cup and I’m sitting silently at my desk, before I move to pick up a cup, I must first will to pick up the cup; in which case the final cause (picking up the cup) is determined prior to and is therefore conceptually contained within its first cause (the will).
now, if one is to say that their urge to pick up the cup is born out of a prior cause, they would be watching the process happening from a third person perspective and could have no control over whether they picked it up or not; yet that’s not what we see; our will to not will to pick up the cup guarantees our freedom; If our wills were predetermined, we would be passive watchers of the process and not the sole active agent of the process. this notion is also defeated by the fact that silence in mind exists, for if the mind were a mere link in the chain of causation, one thought would cause another ad infinitum and silence of mind could not exist. also, the fact that I can change my context in thought entirely to a disjunctive set (from thinking up drinking from my cup to complete silence) and all causal chains are necessarily contained within and related by a holarchy, guarantees that my will is free; if my will were not free, I could not break free in mind from the holarchy of causation. there are many other reasons to believe the that the will is a first cause, and not a material cause.
We know, for a fact, that we’re a collection of non-conscious (meaning instinctive in this case) apparatus. For example if you put someone with Parkinson’s Disease on a bicycle, who can barely walk, they will ride around with no problem at all - or people with spinal injuries will walk if placed on a treadmill (but not “consciously” in control).
This can be seen by how brains function on a neurological level (an area that can give greater understanding even if it cannot explain everything sufficiently). The mid-brain, or more primal brain, being a set of instinctual drives is inhibited by the cortex - in this sense we do consciously “choose” not to pick up the cup, but the drive is not consciously driven; this is quite a complicated network which basically shows us we’re able to consciously recondition ourselves to act out in some desired manner - desire is judged against the experiential outcomes.
In short there is constant conflict and contradiction within everyone. This “inner happening” presents itself in many ways. I don’t find any appeal to some “non-material” as important here because we may as well say these words are “non-material” yet we know the represent the auditory manifestation of inner drives restricted, and reconstituted, by what you call “will”. In a more mystical language that may appeal to you I like Eliade’s concept of “Hierophany” to be applied here - meaning our sensibility is in commune with our preset, yet flexible, instinctual drives. In which sense we’re constantly rethinking our subjective “purpose” and that the “purpose” is merely a symbolic way in which we frame the manifestation of “Hierophany” (the ‘communal space’ between what we do and what is happening).
What intrigued me is the sense of agency we have where there is none or little actually “willing” going on. There are plenty of studies showing how we’re ready to claim responsibility for actions we deem positive yet we’re also ready to refuse responsibility when the outcome is deemed negative - I believe this is a telling sign of the concept “Hierophany” if ever there was one.
More simply put I would call our “purpose” to be the apparent shape of the space between what we’re chemically driven to do in order to continue existing and what sensibility tells us is best in the here and now - the kind of beings we are allows us to be what we call “conscious” (I would say) because we are extended across time; there being no actual “moment” or rather what we call a “moment” is a stretching out across temporal appreciation with no regard for a physical temporal centre. That is not to say we’re not inclined to think of being “at-the-centre” just that this could well be a matter of applying a successful method of understanding sensibility to something constituted to act upon sensible information.
If we venture into such atomization though the perspective of what we call “sensibility” shifts beyond our immediate ken. There is a limit to every line of enquiry, but that doesn’t make every line of enquiry useless, but it certainly brings into deep suspicion any claims one may make about “universality” or something as “absolute” beyond a limited scope of a specified enquiry.
We’re inclined to overreach and such overreaching has led is to unearth what would previously have been regarded as inconsequential or plain ridiculous. Some people swim in the ridiculous and bring back good news. Most are just necessary fodder for the development if the human condition with its sciences and capacities.
Any talk of “deities” for me is just a hasty attempt to dispose of responsibility - it is a rather plain field of play in which to distance oneself from the culpability of sensible experience and the stupidity and ignorance if the human condition which necessarily “wills” itself to believe when things go ‘good’ they had a hand in it, and when things go ‘bad’ they didn’t (this is simply manifested in a narrative of heaven and hell in order to order ourselves in a manner so as not to go completely insane under the burden of facts and the burden of irreducible truths that have only a bounded appeal of which we’re constantly deluding ourselves into thinking we “know” when it is the “not knowing” that is of greater consequence to how we live out our lives (meaningfully constituted by our sense of “self” or dictated by some oversimplified “wisdom” so as to merely ‘feel good’ rather than face the raw insanity of our being.)
In short, I guess that is my “religious” view and part of what I think about the concept, and ‘misconception’ of the concept of ‘god’. There is something to the concept, yet I think it’s become more of an appeal to sensibility only, or instinct only, rather than act as a bridge between these (as Hierophant).
That is one function of the brain. What about its other functions?
Intentionality is an aspect of consciousness. We indeed engage in intentional behavior, but the presence of this aspect of conscious creatures does not imply all physical activity in the universe is a product of intentionality.
That's an unsupported claim.
the instinctual drive presents itself to my conscious mind; I make a decision as to whether I give into t or not; sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. If I did not have freedom of will, I would be bound by my instinctual will, not alas, I am not, so I must, in he limited sense of the word, free.
Maybe not. What was supposed to be the support for it?
It appears it just cannot be done.
It also appears it is impossible to determine if it is more likely that there is at least one GOD...than that there are none.
It seems just as impossible to determine if NO gods exist...using logic, reason, science, or math.
And finally, it also appears impossible to determine if it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one using logic, reason, science, or math.
As I see it...the best one can do is to make a guess in either direction...or to decline to guess.
I suggest the world would be a better, safer, more respectful place if everyone who wants to chime in on the issue simply said:
"It is my guess that a GOD exists...or at very least that it is more likely that one exists than that no gods do. THAT IS MY GUESS"
Or "it is my guess that no gods exist...or at very least that it is more likely that none exist than that at least one does. THAT IS MY GUESS.
Or...I have no idea if any gods exist or not...and I just do not want to make a guess.
why would you think that?
Why on Earth would you not?
The finest minds that have ever lived on this planet have tried...and come up VERY short.
But...give it a shot if you think you can do it.
Use logic, reason, science or math to establish that it is more likely that at least one GOD exists than that none exist.
already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done.
And perhaps a degree in philosophy would allow you to see how little you have actually accomplished. If you were the mystic you imagine yourself to be you would eschew attempts at establishing first principles.
That's cute.
But...I'll go with Fooloso4 replied.
Then how can you make a comment about whether I understand the definition of support?
Stop being cute.
You are not going to "lay a trap these fools will fall into."
Say what you mean to say...don't ask a question leading to saying it in retort.
This could prove interesting. You may have something I've not encountered before.
I seriously doubt it...but I'm willing to keep an open mind/
you already exposed yourselves as fools when you failed to understand the ramifications of my OP. Since nobody seems to think that there is any "evidence" or reason to believe that final causes even exist, I'm trying to spark your intellects by forcing you to think about the concept of non-existence and how it came to be. did it come to be after the concept of existence came to be, or before? Is it a concept or is it a concrete 'thing'?
As I said...if you have something to say...say it.
Stop with the questions. You are not going to ensnare anyone in a trap.
And lose the grandiosity. You wear it like a wet beaver coat.
in time, young padwan, in time.
Two problems with this:
1) You are assuming there exist final causes, and then accounting for "will" with that paradigm. This does not establish it.
2) Physicalism is possibly true. If so, then the matter composing the body is just temporarily in the form of a body - so there is no "final" configuration of this matter.
I haven't said that the universe's existence implies no first cause. If the past is finite, it implies there was an initial state. The past existence of an initial state does not entail intentionality. Your assertion, " so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity" assumes intentionality.
Are you just asserting that this Aristotelian 4-cause paradigm is coherent, or are you claiming there's a compelling case to believe its true? I believe it may be coherent, but it's far from compelling.
like I said, when we act, our reason for acting (final cause) is determined prior to or at the time of our will to act, its first cause. if our will to act were the product of previous material cause, it would be impossible for us to have knowledge of the reason for our actions, because if it were the case that the will is a material cause and not a first cause, it wouldn’t have come into being yet; that is to say that we wouldn’t have come to know of it until AFTER the action was carried out. Our knowledge of the reason for our action would then be an inference and not a deduction.
If one final cause exists, and pertinently, it does, and the nature of our will guarantees it, there must have been a first cause in the absolute sense as well, because final causes would be impossible if there were only material causes; that is to say that a final cause cannot come into being inbetween two material causes in a chain of infinite material causes.
Quoting Relativist
so physicalism cannot be true. In fact, it’s beyond absurd.
intentionality, by definition, is determining the final cause of an action at the time of or before instantiating from potentiality. so anywhere this is occurring, there is intentionality. when I say that the concept of non-existence is born with us, it must be so that the concept of non-existence came into being prior to existence; and since non-existence is not in the absolute sense, it must be nothing but a concept in mind, and therefore mind must precede the existence of matter.
You"re going to need more than this:
1. If Physicalism then not(teleology)
2. Teleology
3. Therefore not(physicalism)
Physicalism needn't even be true. If the universe evolves deterministically (which seems likely)
there is no "final cause". You're left with accounting for mental activity this way. But mental activity can be accounted for in other ways, so you don't really have a case at all. All you can do is to propose your view as a metaphysical system that is possibly true. Is that all you're after? Anything more is futile.
if the universe must end by means of "heat death" and the law of entropy, it necessarily has an end, and if the universe is deterministic, that end was predetermined, so in saying that the universe will die eventually and that it is also deterministic, you are saying that it has a first cause; final causes are deterministic you know...determinism and intentionality are synonyms.
Now, if it is true that the universe must end do to the law of entropy and "heat death," it must be the case that the universe isn't past eternal and thereby came into being once upon a time; in which case, it has a first and final cause....this final cause, however, isn't set in stone, just the same as you can begin thinking with the intention of explaining a point, and change your final destination in thought and start thinking about something different, the final cause of the universe too can be changed, and this is because all change has its origin in thought. but to know this, you must first prove that the set of all sets has an essence which involves subjectivity.
You're attacking a poorly constructed strawman. Physicalism does not entail objects being contained in the mind. [
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
"Solve the unresolved questions..."? At best, solutions can be proposed - they cannot be verified. Proposing a mereology is reasonable metaphysics, but you're mistaken if you think you can determine metaphysical truth. Nothing more than coherence is attainable.
You're attacking a very poorly constructed strawman here... physicalism entails that the antithesis is true; that's what the paragraph says; that "the physicalist begins his philosophy with the absurd notion that objects are not (entirely) contained within the mind" and that there a "mind-independent" reality can exist. I say that a mind-independent reality is impossible. If there is no mind-independent reality, reality is an illusion, and an illusion implies an illusionist.
Quoting Relativist
solution can be verified when man attains the next stage in his evolutionary process of consciousness. he will then be able to verify the solutions that I propose, within himself, where he can find the source of all creation. The fool searches for the answers in the world, the wise man finds them within himself.
I've established a mereological system of metaphysics that's more better than any other that has ever been established; and my philosophy follows deductively from the absolute truth that existence has always been, that is, the absolute truth that existence is and non-existence is not in the absolute sense of the word.
Determined does not equate to intended.
Although it may be reasonable to assume the past is finite, the future is potentially infinite - so even this heat death is not actually a "final" state. An analysis like this is rooted in obsolete classical physics rather than quantum physics, so what the infinite future may bring is impossible to know.
it's not determinate anyways because the chain of causation which supports hard-determinism is broken in the quantum substratum of reality and all things come into being from the micro to the macrocosm...similarly, all causal chains act from the mirco to the macro too...so its a mute point.
It's not moot, because the fundamental components of the world are particles that do not behave as we'd expect from our experience in the macro world. The world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. Your metaphysics doesn't predict this, and it's not even compatible with it. Therefore your metaphysics is moot.
those particles are not particles, but waves; they may exist as particles, at times, but when they're not particles, they're mathematical waves with no localized position in space and time...and also, even if they were particles, they wouldn't have an infinite number of parts within parts, but would necessarily cease in a smallest part with no parts, that is, a spatially unextended part, or abstract set, that is, an idea. the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical but the world is not all that exists. my metaphysics predicts this; in my philosophy, the wave function itself involves the convergence of two waves of potentiality becoming actualized by perception. the set of waves associated with the object and the set of waves associated with the mind of the subject, in which, when perception occurs, a fourier transformation occurs and perception is made possible. but when there is no perception, the waves are distinct and the world goes on in a state of potentiality, in which pure subjectivity continues the flow of things when they are not perceived.
You used the term "absurd", Arc.
I'll tell you what is absurd. It is absurd to suppose the dominant creatures on this tiny planet circling a possibly unimportant star in a possibly unimportant galaxy...can figure out answers to question the type of which are at issue here.
You also used the term "beyond absurd."
What is beyond absurd is the notion that YOU have done it.
I apologize. I was taking you seriously.
My bad.
By the way...I am 82 years old, boy.
There is clearly no regard for the distinction between “fact” and “truth” and childishly interchanging them as and when suits the OP is naive at best and plain arrogant at worst. The later seems to be the case here with the sporadic self-aggrandizing bombast we’ve see up to now (probably another victim of reading Nietzsche?)
Either way, makes for a fascinating insight into the machinations of this particular human mind :)
Thanks, Sush.
Yeah...not much to deal with here.
Gotta come to threads like this for a few laughs...and hope that a few decent points can be made almost by accident.
What about the other functions of the brain though? For example, doesn't the brain also have the function of controlling other parts of the body?
Concepts are concrete things.
It's likely the case for everyone that a concept of nonexistence only arises after a concept of existence. I wouldn't say it would necessarily be the case, but I think it would be very unusual to develop a concept of nonexistence first. At any rate, it's not something we could know very well, since such basic concepts develop prior to babies being able to use language.
That's only the case if it's vacuously the case. In other words, it's only the case if by "acting," we're referring (by definitionally limiting the term) to instances where we have a reason or goal in mind that prompts us to do something.
If we're using "acting" more loosely instead, so that we might be referring to any behavior that someone performs, often enough there's no reason (in the goal sense) behind it.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
The second paragraph there isn't supposed to have anything to do with the first, is it?
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
You know that sets are something we invented, something we made up, right? Set theory is simply a conceptual tool.
"The set of all sets which do not contain themselves" has nothing to do with the contingent/necessary distinction, by the way.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
There may be someone who is more confused than you about this stuff, but it would take a long time to find that person.
And like I said, we act in response to causes that exist prior our intent to act. So our intent to act can't be the first cause. Why do we act? Because we intend to. Why do we intend to act? Because we are responding to changes in the environment.
He seems to be using "first cause" to refer to intentional motivation.
The ulterior motive seems to be thinly-veiled, ad hoc religious support. (His whole spiel in general that is.)
He's like the "romantic" counterpart to Devans99's more "classical" approach.
In his other thread his responses were more like what one would expect of a p-zombie.
What is the concept of non-existence? In what sense does this concept come into being?
If you are just genuinely curious (or even already familiar with brain function) this may be worth browsing:
https://www.hse.ru/data/2011/06/28/1216307711/Gazzaniga.%20The%20Cognitive%20Neurosciences.pdf
Hume, as well as all previous philosophers failed to account for "vertical causation." the processes which perpetuate the existences of objects while they make effects in others (horizontal causation). Horizontal causation is contingent upon vertical causation. Much more can be said about this.
Quoting zerotheology
the infinite regress problem only applies to the spatial aspect of existence; it does not apply to the non spatial; in the non-spatial, using concepts, the regress ends in a circular paradox.
Quoting zerotheology
this is not what I mean; what I mean is that the potential for a thing to become non-existent is contained within it at birth, meaning that (non-existence is a subset of existence)...a lot can be said about this...I keep asking people to explain to me how this is possible, but since they are unable to think for themselves, and their philosophies are composed of the words and concepts of other philosophers, other philosophers who know nothing about the essence of being itself, so of course, they cannot explain to me how this is possible.
Quoting zerotheology
wittgenstein is philosophical propagandist; Platonism presupposes that all concepts are eternal, but this is not actually the case; only some concepts are eternal...so wittgenstein attacked a strawman, not idealism itself, or rather, the notion that concepts precede the existence of things and things are indeed actualized concepts.
Quoting zerotheology
belief isn't necessary; if you drop all of your preconceived notions and let the logic lead you, you will be lead to God. if you open your heart and your mind, you will experience God within yourself. but this is only for the greats. I don't think you have it in you to become great. For the rest, reason or faith must suffice.
if you cannot figure it out for yourself using the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, you won't understand it. I'm trying to begin a dialectic, but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others.
I was trying to correct you. You said "the function of the brain is to process sensible data". When I suggested that the brain has other functions, you insisted "there is no other function". But clearly the brain has other functions, or other purposes (however you want to word it), like the example in my last post.
If you wish to talk about brain functions create a thread somewhere and tell me about it. We all know the brain is complex, and we all know that we die and sometimes pass on our genes too. We also now know that the brain is not as compartmentalized as was initially suggested - a great number of outdated ideas still linger in this field due to its infancy and the massive technological progress that has been made in advancing our understanding (or rather lack of understanding).
Some sea creatures absorb there own brains once they no longer need to move. This could mean that the brain, at least in this case, is only used fro motility - irregardless modeling of the environment is tied into the need to move in the first place and/or triggered by lack of resources in the area.
It doesn’t take much insight to see that lifeforms without brains operate by attraction and repulsion (even non-living chemical mixtures ‘behave’ in this manner).
Note: I was being generous in my reply. I don’t generally talk about bodily organs having a “purpose”. Fro me a thing is made for a purpose; such as a knife, hammer or wheel. We could talk about the ‘purpose’ of red blood cells being to transport oxygen and carbon-dioxide, but given we’re looking for clarity of language within philosophical discourse I prefer to say “function”. I have nothing more to say on the matter; take it or leave it.
You were not talking about human purpose though, you were talking about the purpose of the brain. I don't see how you can make this jump now, to the purpose of a human being, What would the purpose of a human being even be?
Quoting I like sushi
Then I suggest you made an error when you tried to state what the purpose of the brain is.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
I think that the brain is always active so I don't really agree with this idea of setting brain processes into motion.
these processes are controlling the body; if it is not true that the will can set the brain in motion, all of your wills and the words and actions that result from them happen by necessity or by chance and not by your own volition. and if there is an observer, that observer is just watching the will and the effects which follow from it as a passive observer and not an active agent. and when the brain ‘makes you stop thinking,’ you have no say in the manner, because you don’t have a will if it cannot start or stop brain processes. you are not the active agent of your thoughts by the passive watcher of them. this can be disproven in a few seconds through some phenomenological observation. it’s one of the most absurd positions ever held, and even more absurd that it’s considered to be rational by educated people.
The question is, what do you mean when you say "the concept of non-existence" and the concept's "coming into being". What you mean may be very different than what someone else might mean.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
In that case you should answer the question.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
I assume you miss the irony. First, if you do not repeat the ideas of others then what your idea of the concept of non-existence coming into being is remains undetermined without further explanation. Second, if you are the mystic you fancy yourself to be then you would not be bound by the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.
well, Non-Existence in the absolute sense of the word is non-existent, meaning that in the absolute sense of the word there is only Existence, but alas, in the relative sense of the word, there is the concept of non-existence, and it comes prepackaged with everything that comes into existence; so the question must be answered as to how the concept of non-existence comes to be when Non-Existence is not?
Quoting Fooloso4
what I’m saying is that everybody thinks about beings but never about being itself, when wisdom is predicted on the knowledge of being itself.
the law of Identity and law of contradiction are eternal, and its impossible for this not to be so. If they weren’t concepts which pointed to essence, the essence of existence itself, the Essence of Existence could become Non-Existence from one moment to the next in time and here could be no continuation of existence in the relative sense. So Existence, the Essence of, must be equal to itself in each moment of time so long as it exists, and it exists eternally so the law of identity and contradiction are eternal.
This has been discussed at least since the work of Parmenides. Strictly speaking there is only what is (to eon). Existence is not something that is, what is exists.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. There is no one concept that comes along with each and every thing that exists. There may be various concepts regarding some one thing and various concepts regarding all things.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Concepts are human artifacts. When something dies and decomposes it no longer exists. When someone eats the last cookie the cookies no longer exist. You may have a concept of it existing elsewhere, but that "relative" concept of non-existence does not come "prepackaged" with everything that ceases to exist.
Once again, existence is not something that exists, as if in addition to all the things there are there is also this one other thing, existence. Non-Existence is not something that is not. What is not does not exist. But, as Plato points out, it can be said of what is that it is what it is and not some other thing.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't know who "everybody" is, but those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself, and he is not alone.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Do you mean predicated? Is knowledge of being itself the same or other than knowledge of the whole? Do you imagine that you are wise? That you possess the great arcanum of what is?
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
There can be no identity without difference. Are 'a' and 'b' identical? Is 'a is a' identical to 'a is b' or different? If 'a' is identical to 'b' then how can there be both 'a' and 'b'?
The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai. Aristotle's "first philosophy" is the study of "being qua being". It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance or essentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. The concepts of law of Identity and law of contradiction do not point to the essence of existence itself. They are principles of thought not of being. The "Essence of Existence" cannot become "Non-Existence" simply because what it is to be cannot be to not be.
and ‘what is’ includes that which is perceptible, they which is potentially perceptible, and that which is not potentially perceptible. that is, the changing and actualized aspect of existence which I call the ‘Active Principle of Being’ and the unchanging aspect of existence which I call the ‘Passive Principle of Being’ Existence is something that is in the sense that it is born a verb and a noun because it has a changing aspect an unchanging aspect. My philosophy is a merging of Parmenides who says that therefore the subject “Existence” isn’t deserving of a predicate and a verb “is” because nothing changes in the absolute sense of the word; and Heraclitus who says that everything changes and nothing is unchanging. Both are true. It’s Essence never changes and will never change and its Quality is always changes.
Quoting Fooloso4
this is an assumption.
Quoting Fooloso4
another assumption even more wild than the first. Quoting Fooloso4
it returns to the potential for existence to be which is not nothing. so what is it?
Quoting Fooloso4
if you’re going to define ‘existence’ as that which is in space and actualized, then of course, the cookie no longer exists. but the cookies Identity, that is, that internal changes which perpetuates it’s existence, live on after it dies, just the same as humans.Quoting Fooloso4
here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of logic and philosophy.
Quoting Fooloso4
everything that exists can be represented by a set. so in all things, that is, all nested hierarchies of sets, are contained within a set which contains itself and does not simultaneously, the set of all sets must exists because all things have a contingent existence on something beyond it which also contains and precedes it; that is to say that the set of all sets exists so it must have an essence. no man hitherto (besides me) has been able to solve the nature of the essence of the set of all sets. Most philosophers, like the ones you hold up high on a pedestal, a pedestal supported by hardened feces, don’t even think that there is a set which contains all sets of contingent things. it’s no wonder than that your knowledge of existence is so limited and naive. What I mean by “Non-Existence” is that which has no essence whatsoever. What I’m saying is that which has no essence cannot contain that which does; so there must be a set of all sets.
Quoting Fooloso4
here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy once again, because this is a quote from Heidegger . However, Heidegger himself talks almost exclusively about being in the world and not being itself in the absolute sense of the word. he doesn’t make positive claims about being itself if he even mentions it. I do, and I have strong arguments.
Quoting Fooloso4
it is knowledge of the whole, yes, of the essence of the set of all sets. that which contains, preserves, and disintegrates all things. I imagine that I will be considered the greatest philosopher of all time afterI die. I know you think that this is laughable, but you really you know nothing of my writings or what I experience within myself, so the joke is on you.
Quoting Fooloso4
right, hence the reason that which exists persists, and thereby has a different moment of time so long as it exists. a and b are identical if a contains b and b contains a; if a and b are mutually exclusive, or if one contains the other but the other not the one, they are not identical and one is contingent upon the other. a is a is not identical to a is b unless b and a have the same essence, or rather identity, where identity = quality (subset) essence. if a is identical to b, there can only be a=b, obviously. but since Identity has two aspects, there can be difference. this is basic stuff. stuff which hasn’t really been figured out because no one has created principles of epistemology and ontology, or if they have philosophers don’t use them for some reason.
Quoting Fooloso4
I don’t care what Aristotle says of them, my conception of what they are, and what being is not the same as his; nor does it have to be. He thought of the concepts, I’m assigning them difference essences than he did. The Essence of Existence cannot become Non-Existence because what it is to be cannot be not to be, I.e. E=E?¬E; meaning that the essence of Existence is identical to what I call “Absolute Objectivity” that is, the unchanging aspect of Existence, that is, the Absolute Law of Identity and Non-Contradiciton.
It's not necessary that the will "set the brain in motion", all it needs to do is affect, or change the motions which are already there.
in which case there is still freedom.
And yet:
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Where does he say this? What does "deserving" mean here? If you say that there is an "unchanging aspect of existence" that is a predicate of existence. Perhaps you meant that existence is not a predicate.
In any case you ignore the point: existence is not something that exists.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
As is your claim that concepts do come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
There is nothing wild about it. It is only when one accepts some version of the assumption that thought and being are the same that concepts are reified.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Do you imagine that there is a realm of potential to which things return? If "it" has the potential to exist it does not exist in actuality. Do you think the cookie still exists that has been eaten? Whatever transformation the cookie undergoes "it" no longer exists.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Existence and what exists are not the same.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
The internal changes do not "perpetuate" it's existence. Whatever changes it undergoes it is no longer a cookie. The cookie is not identical to what it becomes. If you think otherwise I wonder what you are eating.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
Here you violate Parmenides warning against speaking about what is not. When you say "that which" you are identifying something. Non-existence is not a that with no essence. "That" refers to something.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
I have not quoted Heidegger. "... those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself" is not a quote from Heidegger.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
This is simply not true. Heidegger distinguishes between being and beings. That is fundamental to his philosophy. Being in the world is Dasien's mode of being.
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
This gives new meaning to Plato's claim that philosophy is divine madness!
Quoting TheGreatArcanum
I know of your writings what you have said here. I don't think it is laughable, I think it is delusional. That is no laughing matter!
he doesn't have to say it, it is implied in the other things he says, if the all is one, there can be no distinction between subject and predicate, unless the subject and the predicate are one, which is what my philosophy entails.
Quoting Fooloso4
right, the word existence points to the essence of existence; the essence exists, the word is just a pointer to the essence.
Quoting Fooloso4
my claim is self-evident; that you cannot have the existence of multiplicity without the prior distinction between the concepts of one and many; meaning that the concepts one and many, or likeness and distinction, to name a few, necessarily precede the existence of the universe. Also, the abstract laws of logic necessarily precede the existence of the things that they limit. fools often proclaim that the abstract laws of physics are constructions of the mind of man, and this is true, that the laws of physics created by man are not the true laws, but representations and estimates of the real laws; which are abstract concepts that limit and precede the existence of the objects that they limit; now, the laws themselves, cannot limit, they are the reason for the limitations of things, and in between them there lies intentionality.
Quoting Fooloso4
its very simple. being is awareness, thought is the object of awareness; the former is the essence of being, the latter is its quality.
Quoting Fooloso4
yes, actuality cannot return to nothing; nothing does not possess the potential to contain actuality. If "it" has the potential to exist, it does not exist in actuality in the present moment, but can exist in actuality in the future. after the cookie has been eaten, it is no longer actualized; however, since existence cannot forget, its essence doesn't return to non-existence, but to potentiality, that is, according to my philosophy an absolute memory.
Quoting Fooloso4
the internal changes of things do not exist for themselves, but for something else; that something else can be nothing other than the quality of the object as it is perceived by the senses, and also, the function object as it relates to nature as a whole. the cookie always remains a cookie so long as it is actualized; and if there were not an aspect of the cookie which were unchanging, it could become a tree, or a cow, or a blade of grass from moment to moment in time. the cookie does not possess the potential to become anything other than a cookie, or become non-existent in the relative sense; maybe you're eating cows and trees? I'm only eating cookies, and if i set the cookie in a jar for 100 years, and them come back to eat it, lo and behold, it's still a fucking cookie; how is this concept so hard to understand for you? that the essence of a thing remains unchanged so long as it exists. one can grab the cookie and toss it like a throwing star and use it as a weapon; but still does not change its original, universal essence, only its essence relative to myself.
Quoting Fooloso4
well, if that which exists necessarily has an essence, that which does not exist cannot have an essence; I only need to know the essence of existence to know the essence of non-existence; so I'm not speaking of nothing; only of the law of non-contradiction which applies to nothingness, for if there is nothingness, then nothingness is not something. it cannot be spoken of in correct terms using language, and this is because it doesn't have an essence.
Quoting Fooloso4
I've read enough of his work to know that he thinks something comes from nothing, and that's all one needs to know to know that his philosophy isn't worth much. He also denies the existence of Husserl's Transcendental Ego, so I'm not with him on that either. I see him as a philosophical propagandist more than anything.
Quoting Fooloso4
he distinguishes, but concentrates only on being and not being itself. he doesn't establish the essence of being itself and then use that essence to interpret the essence of being in the world, as he should. this is my method. the correct method. otherwise we're trying to give meaning to beings in the world without knowing the context in which they exist, and the essence of that context then could change our knowledge of those objects once discovered; so knowledge without knowledge of the whole isn't really knowledge but speculation.
Quoting Fooloso4
yes, we know each other personally. You wouldn't understand, because you are not yet mad, and judging by your conception of what is and what is not true, you'll be stuck here for a long, long time.
Quoting Fooloso4
well, considering the fact that you just got owned in debate by a man who's studied philosophy for two years, you don't know much!
To borrow a phrase from Nietzsche, if I were to attempt continue trying to have a reasonable argument with you would be to be unreasonably reasonable.