What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

Oh I think a panther knows it isn't food for rabbits.

You know the minds of panthers?

OK Dr Doolittle.

 

[DBT]

Which implies that you are a solipsist.

It does not. You are confusing the model and what it models. What is out there is not arbitrary but our model of it is. (That is: arbitrary relative the real wprld. Not arbitraty relative our selfs)

Mr untermenshe appears to believe in the primacy of consciousness, mind over matter, which appears to make him a solipsist. Mind creating reality. Autonomy of consciousness. Suggesting consciousness creates reality.

But I may be wrong, who knows what he believes. Or if anyone actually cares.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are some objects before me, and there are a variety of ways I could group them. I may choose to categorize them by any variety of simple or complex metrics, and the choice I make is mine alone. One things for sure, I couldn't if there was no me to do it, but there's another one thing for sure, given X amount of metrics to group Y amount of objects, there's Z amount of different possibilities to group the objects before me. Because the potential groupings is independent of the grouper, the different classificatory potentials are inherent to reality.

So all paintings are somehow inherent in the subjects of the paintings and all words are somehow inherent in what we talk about using them? What does that even mean, seriously? It seems just a metaphysically circumlocutory way of taking about the world. No ontology entailed, really.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It does not. You are confusing the model and what it models. What is out there is not arbitrary but our model of it is. (That is: arbitrary relative the real wprld. Not arbitraty relative our selfs)

Mr untermenshe appears to believe in the primacy of consciousness, mind over matter, which appears to make him a solipsist. Mind creating reality. Autonomy of consciousness. Suggesting consciousness creates reality.

But I may be wrong, who knows what he believes. Or if anyone actually cares.

You really are lost.

I do not say the mind creates the universe. That is stupid and only an idiot could think I am saying that.

I am saying it takes a mind to look at two unique individual items, as ALL items are, and through an abstraction, counting some features and ignoring others, classify them as belonging to some defined category.

Categories do not exist until something with a mind creates them.

They are not out there.

All that is out there are unique things, no two being the same thing.

 

[DBT]

Mr untermenshe appears to believe in the primacy of consciousness, mind over matter, which appears to make him a solipsist. Mind creating reality. Autonomy of consciousness. Suggesting consciousness creates reality.

But I may be wrong, who knows what he believes. Or if anyone actually cares.

You really are lost.

I do not say the mind creates the universe. That is stupid and only an idiot could think I am saying that.

I am saying it takes a mind to look at two unique individual items, as ALL items are, and through an abstraction, counting some features and ignoring others, classify them as belonging to some defined category.

Categories do not exist until something with a mind creates them.

They are not out there.

All that is out there are unique things, no two being the same thing.

It's not that I'm lost but that your position on consciousness is incoherent and incomprehensible. You claim that consciousness is smart while the brain is dumb and that therefore consciousness has autonomy over the dumb brain.

Which appears to impart a magical quality to consciousness over and above the physical properties and mechanisms of the ''dumb brain''

Which in turn implies that this smart autonomous independent consciousness creates its own reality, at least to some extent.

Which conceivably could put your beliefs into the category of Epistemological Solipsism';

''Epistemological Solipsism is a type of Idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of an individual can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question or an unnecessary hypothesis, rather than actually false.''

But its hard to say because, as I said, your position is not coherent, comprehensible or rational.

 

[untermensche]

You really are lost.

I do not say the mind creates the universe. That is stupid and only an idiot could think I am saying that.

I am saying it takes a mind to look at two unique individual items, as ALL items are, and through an abstraction, counting some features and ignoring others, classify them as belonging to some defined category.

Categories do not exist until something with a mind creates them.

They are not out there.

All that is out there are unique things, no two being the same thing.

It's not that I'm lost but that your position on consciousness is incoherent and incomprehensible. You claim that consciousness is smart while the brain is dumb and that therefore consciousness has autonomy over the dumb brain.

That you are even talking about the essence of consciousness shows how lost you are.

This has nothing to do with what consciousness is or is not.

It is about what the universe is.

Nothing but unique items.

No categories anywhere.

A category is an abstraction of reality. It is placing unique items into a grouping based on arbitrary features. It is counting some features and ignoring others.

A category cannot exist without a mind to create it.

 

[DBT]

What we call a category begins with the reality of one object having different properties to another object. The distinctions exist regardless of us.

 

[fromderinside]

Nature sorts. These live. Those die. These tame those. Those depend on these. No minds involved unless a mind cares. I know. I worked with LISP

 

[untermensche]

What we call a category begins with the reality of one object having different properties to another object. The distinctions exist regardless of us.

There are nothing but unique singular entities in nature.

At least at the scale we can observe entities.

There are no categories in nature.

All categories are arbitrary and created by a mind.

You can't name a category that wasn't.

 

[untermensche]

Nature sorts. These live. Those die. These tame those. Those depend on these. No minds involved unless a mind cares. I know. I worked with LISP

Let us say for argument's sake that "live" is a category.

Is a virus in this category?

Is the sun?

 

[fast]

There are some objects before me, and there are a variety of ways I could group them. I may choose to categorize them by any variety of simple or complex metrics, and the choice I make is mine alone. One things for sure, I couldn't if there was no me to do it, but there's another one thing for sure, given X amount of metrics to group Y amount of objects, there's Z amount of different possibilities to group the objects before me. Because the potential groupings is independent of the grouper, the different classificatory potentials are inherent to reality.

So all paintings are somehow inherent in the subjects of the paintings and all words are somehow inherent in what we talk about using them? What does that even mean, seriously? It seems just a metaphysically circumlocutory way of taking about the world. No ontology entailed, really.
EB

No, paintings is an awful example because there is almost an inseparable tie between the painter and the painting.

The objection sent my way from untermensche is that of the impossibility that there can be human independent categories. My position is only of partial agreement. The mental gymnastics of categorizing objects is agency dependent, but if there were no differences already in existence laying in wait of discovery, we wouldn't categorize as we do.

 

[DBT]

What we call a category begins with the reality of one object having different properties to another object. The distinctions exist regardless of us.

There are nothing but unique singular entities in nature.

At least at the scale we can observe entities.

There are no categories in nature.

All categories are arbitrary and created by a mind.

You can't name a category that wasn't.

There are features and relationships in nature, planetary bodies are not the same as Stellar objects which are not the same as animals within a species and animals of a different species, etc, etc, the differences and similarities exist independently from us and our categorization of them. We merely observe and note the differences and similarities regardless of any formal categorization. Monkeys do it, fish do it....food, not food, possible mate, not a possible mate...

 

[Speakpigeon]

So all paintings are somehow inherent in the subjects of the paintings and all words are somehow inherent in what we talk about using them? What does that even mean, seriously? It seems just a metaphysically circumlocutory way of taking about the world. No ontology entailed, really.
EB

No, paintings is an awful example because there is almost an inseparable tie between the painter and the painting.

The objection sent my way from untermensche is that of the impossibility that there can be human independent categories. My position is only of partial agreement. The mental gymnastics of categorizing objects is agency dependent, but if there were no differences already in existence laying in wait of discovery, we wouldn't categorize as we do.

I guess I can only take this as a reaffirmation of your beliefs on this matter. You don't seem to have actual arguments to show.

Same for UM, obviously. Same for all of us, really, I think. So my view is that we just don't know either way.

I accept that the world seems to be made of different categories of things, even at a fundamental level (space, time, energy, probability waves, anything else?) but I also think that maybe this menagerie of things would come down to just one thing and one thing only if we could see reality as it is. And, I doubt very much we could. So, we're stuck. And just repeating again and again our core beliefs in this respect won't shed any more light on the issue.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There are nothing but unique singular entities in nature.

At least at the scale we can observe entities.

There are no categories in nature.

All categories are arbitrary and created by a mind.

You can't name a category that wasn't.

There are features and relationships in nature, planetary bodies are not the same as Stellar objects which are not the same as animals within a species and animals of a different species, etc, etc, the differences and similarities exist independently from us and our categorization of them. We merely observe and note the differences and similarities regardless of any formal categorization. Monkeys do it, fish do it....food, not food, possible mate, not a possible mate...

You can say things are similar because you have a mind and can ignore some features and count others.

You can say a pig is similar to a chair.

They both have four legs.

But that is an artificial grouping.

As are all groupings. You can't name a category that is not artificial and arbitrary.

 

[Kharakov]

As are all groupings. You can't name a category that is not artificial and arbitrary.

Mass/energy gradients in nature (spacetime) are artificial and arbitrary? That's interesting. From observation, they appear to arise naturally. I'm glad you're here to educate everyone and take comments out of context.

 

[Juma]

As are all groupings. You can't name a category that is not artificial and arbitrary.

Mass/energy gradients in nature (spacetime) are artificial and arbitrary? That's interesting. From observation, they appear to arise naturally. I'm glad you're here to educate everyone and take comments out of context.

The category is arbitrary, its a fucking abstraction.
I think most misses the point here. The model is good. But it is a model and how it works is highly denpending on how our brain works.

 

[fast]

Mass/energy gradients in nature (spacetime) are artificial and arbitrary? That's interesting. From observation, they appear to arise naturally. I'm glad you're here to educate everyone and take comments out of context.

The category is arbitrary, its a fucking abstraction.
I think most misses the point here. The model is good. But it is a model and how it works is highly denpending on how our brain works.

If I want to count people as they enter the building, I'm probably not going to start my count at some arbitrary number, like 17 or 43. I could start at 17 and count to 50 while you start at 43 and count to 76. We can do our math (last - start + 1) and arrive at the same answer.

When we choose our mental categories of the non-mental objects, we don't just arbitrarily pick points of matter we observe to serve as divisional points between category separations. The outside world highly influences our inner world. If it didn't, maybe then our divisions would be arbitrary.

 

[untermensche]

As are all groupings. You can't name a category that is not artificial and arbitrary.

Mass/energy gradients in nature (spacetime) are artificial and arbitrary? That's interesting. From observation, they appear to arise naturally. I'm glad you're here to educate everyone and take comments out of context.

No two gradients are the same thing. The universe is nothing but unique entities.

To put any two things into a grouping is artificial and capricious.

 

[fast]

Chemistry question

People speak of atoms. Once thought to be indivisible, there are instead subatomic particles. My question, or at least one in a line of a few to follow, stems from before we get to that level. If we take an element (in its purist form) and shave it down, we don't merely get down to a single atom. Well, we do get down to a single atom, but not merely so. For instance, person C (Cindy) had some copper (perfectly pure) and person G (Goldy) had some gold (perfectly pure) and both shaved and shaved until they could shave no more. They could potentially isolate a single atom of their respective elements.

So, unless I've screwed this up, while C has an atom, just as G has an atom, what C has secured in her little glass tube is an atom of copper while G has contained an atom of Gold.

Now, all of that was without the need to delve into subatomic particles, but if we did, it's the proton that is special, as opposed to the neutron or electron, since the element is a function of proton count.

I get a lil confused beyond that, as I don't know if the differences between protons and proton count is as I picture it. Will a proton taken from a single atom of copper look and be exactly as a proton taken from a single atom of gold? Even if so, there are other subatomic particles.

Untermensche, are you saying that if everything was broken down, each smallest thing would be identical except for place?

 

[untermensche]

They are still in a different location and moving in different directions.

They are different. They are in different locations and moving in different directions.

Why do we only count how they are the same and ignore how they are different?

That is a capricious decision.