Is nothing only perceived as blackness, or is it actually blackness?

[Juma]

This post doesnt make any sense at all.

First you must explain the situation at hand. Describe the scene. Where is the "pure nothing" and where is the human.

It's not really about pure nothing. It more about something that does not happen. Imagine sensation as a dimension all on its own. The only time something will appear in that dimension is when there is a sensation. With that in mind, read the following.

To sum it up simply, from what I understand about neurology is that the neuron either fires or it doesn't. Neurotransmitters are sent through the synaptic cleft (a gap between neurons) and the transmitters either cause an action potential (enough current to send a signal through the neuron) or they don't, all or nothing.

With nothing in the space of sensation, there is just a space of existence with nothing in it.

This really doesnt make any sense.
1)Sesnory perception isnt a dlmension.

2)We need sensors to interact with reality, not the neurons directly.

3) a "space of existence with nothing in it" is not nothing.

 

[ryan]

Let me just say this.

One can kick nothing, write nothing, see nothing, etc. One side is doing an action to nothing, so we know that something is happening. So maybe to kick nothing is to have a faster kick because nothing will impede the motion. So something different might happen when seeing nothing. The question is, what.

 

[Juma]

Let me just say this.

One can kick nothing, write nothing, see nothing, etc. One side is doing an action to nothing, so we know that something is happening. So maybe to kick nothing is to have a faster kick because nothing will impede the motion. So something different might happen when seeing nothing. The question is, what.

You have still to explain what the real situation is.

 

[DBT]

Let me just say this.

One can kick nothing, write nothing, see nothing, etc. One side is doing an action to nothing, so we know that something is happening. So maybe to kick nothing is to have a faster kick because nothing will impede the motion. So something different might happen when seeing nothing. The question is, what.

Kicking nothing is just a kick. Writing nothing does not seem possible. It only makes sense if it means 'writing nothing of significance' or scribbling, which is something rather than nothing as in the sense of your OP question.

 

[ryan]

Let me just say this.

One can kick nothing, write nothing, see nothing, etc. One side is doing an action to nothing, so we know that something is happening. So maybe to kick nothing is to have a faster kick because nothing will impede the motion. So something different might happen when seeing nothing. The question is, what.

Kicking nothing is just a kick. Writing nothing does not seem possible. It only makes sense if it means 'writing nothing of significance' or scribbling, which is something rather than nothing as in the sense of your OP question.

Why can't I kick nothing? He kicked but didn't kick anything.

 

[DBT]

Kicking nothing is just a kick. Writing nothing does not seem possible. It only makes sense if it means 'writing nothing of significance' or scribbling, which is something rather than nothing as in the sense of your OP question.

Why can't I kick nothing? He kicked but didn't kick anything.

There is nothing to kick. As you said 'he didn't kick anything' - nothing itself cannot be kicked.

 

[abaddon]

Why can't I kick nothing? He kicked but didn't kick anything.

This illustrates the problem that was already explained to be a problem on page 1. “Nothing” just references the absence of some things, not all things. People will kick the air and say they’ve haven’t kicked anything or have kicked nothing. They skip eating dinner and say “I ate nothing for dinner” which only means they did something else, not that they ate a space of emptiness or darkness (neither of which are “nothing” anyway).

The confusion here is one of language. “Nothing” is just a figure of speech.

 

[ryan]

Why can't I kick nothing? He kicked but didn't kick anything.

There is nothing to kick. As you said 'he didn't kick anything' - nothing itself cannot be kicked.

Imagine that there is a void of nothingness the size of a football just floating a few inches above the ground. Can't I kick it?

 

[ryan]

Why can't I kick nothing? He kicked but didn't kick anything.

This illustrates the problem that was already explained to be a problem on page 1. “Nothing” just references the absence of some things, not all things. People will kick the air and say they’ve haven’t kicked anything or have kicked nothing. They skip eating dinner and say “I ate nothing for dinner” which only means they did something else, not that they ate a space of emptiness or darkness (neither of which are “nothing” anyway).

The confusion here is one of language. “Nothing” is just a figure of speech.

Yes, most of the time it means something else. I was just interested in what would happen if there was nothing to sense. That's all.

 

[DBT]

There is nothing to kick. As you said 'he didn't kick anything' - nothing itself cannot be kicked.

Imagine that there is a void of nothingness the size of a football just floating a few inches above the ground. Can't I kick it?

There is nothing to kick. In practical terms, your example just a figure of speech. Nor does your example relate to cognition, where no activity means that there is no experience of that instance of ''nothing.''

 

[ryan]

Imagine that there is a void of nothingness the size of a football just floating a few inches above the ground. Can't I kick it?

There is nothing to kick. In practical terms, your example just a figure of speech. Nor does your example relate to cognition, where no activity means that there is no experience of that instance of ''nothing.''

I still think that acting on nothing would be different than acting on something, if that is even possible.

 

[Juma]

Imagine that there is a void of nothingness the size of a football just floating a few inches above the ground.

Ok... Since photons probably wouldnt be able to travel through nothing i assume they would be reflected back and the "nothing ball" would look like a spherical mirror.

The same would probably be true with your foot: the atoms will bounce back and it will feel as you kicked a big stone ball.

Would it move? That would depend on what type of magic is holding it there.

 

[DBT]

There is nothing to kick. In practical terms, your example just a figure of speech. Nor does your example relate to cognition, where no activity means that there is no experience of that instance of ''nothing.''

I still think that acting on nothing would be different than acting on something, if that is even possible.

It needs to explained in more detail. Plus there is a distinction to be made between an external nothing, a 'bundle' of nothing out in the external world, and an absence/nothing inside the brain.

 

[untermensche]

I still think that acting on nothing would be different than acting on something, if that is even possible.

It needs to explained in more detail. Plus there is a distinction to be made between an external nothing, a 'bundle' of nothing out in the external world, and an absence/nothing inside the brain.

Do you honestly think this complete nonsense can be explained in more detail?

It is one thing to muse about this concept of "nothingness".

It is childish madness to think you could make any concrete statements about it.

 

[ryan]

Yeah, the more I think about this the more I don't even know what to say about it.

 

[DBT]

Do you honestly think this complete nonsense can be explained in more detail?

It is one thing to muse about this concept of "nothingness".

It is childish madness to think you could make any concrete statements about it.

Maybe it's not that simple, surface appearances can be deceptive....perhaps the act of asking for an explanation shows that there is no explanation?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Often, one part of your brain will try to conjure of coherent picture based on this low-level activity, so that for a few seconds you will actually think you are looking at something, say, some kind of Hindu temple, a forest, a person, anything, and that won't be something you would have willed to appear. It's spontaneous and normally ephemeral. It also more interesting than looking at nothingness.
EB

So what happens if your brain doesn't conjure up anything for your imagination, but you can still think about what isn't there?

Then all we experience is blackness and people usually understand in this case that there are still things around they can't see, trees, the air, walls, furniture, the ground, other people, maybe monsters lurking in the dark, whatever, but things we just don't see because there's no light. Darkness is the perception of the absence of light and the absence of light isn't associated with nothingness.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, the more I think about this the more I don't even know what to say about it.

That's nothingness for you. There, you have it at last!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It needs to explained in more detail. Plus there is a distinction to be made between an external nothing, a 'bundle' of nothing out in the external world, and an absence/nothing inside the brain.

Do you honestly think this complete nonsense can be explained in more detail?

It is one thing to muse about this concept of "nothingness".

It is childish madness to think you could make any concrete statements about it.

Think again! Remember this scientist Krauss something who actually explained how our universe could have come out of nothing? It's just that you have to try hard enough. It's not for softies.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Do you honestly think this complete nonsense can be explained in more detail?

It is one thing to muse about this concept of "nothingness".

It is childish madness to think you could make any concrete statements about it.

Think again! Remember this scientist Krauss something who actually explained how our universe could have come out of nothing? It's just that you have to try hard enough. It's not for softies.
EB

That's not really what Krauss said if you look at it.

He said, starting with the laws of Quantum Theory, a universe will emerge.

Not starting with "nothing".