Boy howdy, hearing this extremely well thought out and coherent speech makes me lament getting a degree in philosophy when I could have just read wiki. Silly me!
@sonicsuns There are numerous difficulties with your line of argument, but here's the main problem: you claim that being or existence (if existence is even a property) is relational (or 'spectralmalistic' as you say), but relational properties always obtain between relata that already exist. Eg, if x is taller than y, then x and y first have to exist. All relations presuppose the existence of nonrelational objects that they relate. So existence cannot be relation.
@jlke45 Hm. Can there really be no relations with things which are thought to be non-existent? If we accept that Pegasus is non-existent, for instance, I think it might fair to say that Pegasus is smaller than the Earth. Of course, technically Pegasus has no physical form and thus no size at all, but in sense of Pegasus's imagined properties (which are the only sorts of properties that Pegasus has), it is surely smaller than the Earth.
@sonicsuns Well, then you might be saying "If Pegasus existed, then he would be smaller than the Earth," but the statement remains hypothetical, and doesn't say anything about what actually does (or doesn't) exist. At best you might talking about a Pegasus-thought or Pegasus-concept (and thoughts and concepts surely exist), but both of these are different from a living, breathing Pegasus. Many philosophers today might say that to be is to have properties, so if it has properties, it is!
@jlke45 Ah, but I feel that this demonstrates the ambiguity of the word "existence". Someone might say "Pegasus exists" in the sense that Pegasus-concept exists, and also say "Pegasus does not exist" in the sense that Pegasus-physical does not exist. It seemed to me that this was like calling something "big" or "small" depending on perspective, thus my conclusion that existence is relational. (But that was probably an imperfect way of phrasing it)
@sonicsuns True enough, "existence" (along with terms like "being" and "reality" etc.) is infamously slippery, but don't confuse words with things, whatever sense you take it as. But anyway, by your line of argument you might observe that there's more than you type of orange, and conclude that "to be an orange" is relational.
@jlke45 Yes, we should not let vocabulary confuse us. So how do you define "existence", then? I'm not sure I can think of a definition that doesn't rely on some arbitrary perspective or assumption.
As for oranges, I have toyed with the idea that perhaps *everything* is relational, and that binary categories are merely simplifications of reality.
@sonicsuns Defining existence is difficult, and due to it's being so basic, I'm not sure a definition is possible. To be sure, the issue is vexed. You might want to give Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Existence a read.
At any rate, two things: (1) the point of my orange example was to show that from there being two sorts of things it doesn't follow that being a sort of thing is relational. That's just a non sequitur.
@jlke45 I've written a blog post which summarizes my thoughts thus far and describes my new thoughts, partially inspired by my conversation with you. Unfortunately, it's far too long for youtube comments. Please look in the description box of this video for the link marked "Update July 2011".
Dude, you need a transcendental ontology. Check out some of the videos by davidbrucehughes on the subject.
I think you're intelligent but your conclusion about the importance of ontology is completely wrong. Ontology is fundamental to consciousness. Understanding the relationship between the two is extremely desirable because it's like having a an operation manual for one's consciousness.
You are incredibly narcissistic, obnoxious, loud, self-absorbed and fucking stupid. "Spectralmalistic"?! You need to SHUT the FUCK UP and then read Aristotle, to find out that he thought long and hard about these things and even solved them LONG BEFORE YOU came along. SHUT the FUCK UP, PLEASE!
@mingshan87 If you don't like my videos, you don't have to watch them. Also, I suggest that you calm down a little.
I have reviewed Aristotle's approach and found it lacking. (I'm not alone. Plato had his disagreements with Aristotle). I don't perceive a fundamental difference between "universals" and "particular things".
Antology,does not have a meaning to you because it does not define any purpose. I can see why you may say it is a dead end. Yet again does anything have any perpose? For example mathematics, it creates the fundementals of construction. Medicine, it reinforces the condition of human health. These to values can be evident to advance the human race. My question is why? It is an endless cicle if you truely acknoledge the nature of our existence. I ask you to percived every reason as you have antol.
@CorruptionData You are intelligent as well but also lacking a transcendental ontology. This means you no longer see the truth of your existence in terms of the material world. Transcendental refers to that which lies beyond the material world. This is consciousness. Consciousness is the most fundamental principle, without knowing this people stumble through life not knowing their potential and purpose.
Existence is kind of the necessity you need before anything can be spoken of, if it is spoken of and cannot or does not exist it is an absurdity. It is also the only thing that is both subject and predicate, or rather all subject and predicates depend on it. A little obvious, but not really, because we tend to think through our transcendental ego, or through our ideas. We refer to only the rationalistic position that through our ideas are how we come to know the world.
How about consciousness. It didn't exist, didn't exist. Suddenly, bam. I'm born. I exist I exist, and then suddenly, bam. I'm dead. There was never any semi-existence. Its just black and white.
@philnoll That's not true at all. There are all sorts of gradations between full consciousness and no consciousness. Think of the consciousness that occurs when you're half-asleep, for instance. Or how about dementia? The same applies to birth and death. The brain begins basic operations before birth, and even after birth you don't have adult-style consciousness for quite some time. Rather you learn and grow and slowly become more conscious.
Here we have the heart of metaphysics, and metaphysics is the heart of philosophy. For philosophy is the ultimate science of all things, of all reality, and here we have all reality drawn into a mighty focus and seen as a single thing, as being. The branch of philosophy which answers the Ontological Question is known as Ontology or Fundamental Metaphysics.
The Ontological Question is the question of reality in its most general, most abstract, most profound meaning. It is the question of being, that is, of being as such, and not of being as it stands determinate in this nature or that nature or the other nature. It is the question of being or reality stripped of the limitations that come of materiality, that is, of bodiliness or of dependence on bodily things. Hence, it is the question of nonmaterial real being.
ummm...yeah...sorry but wikipedia is not the summit of all philosophical explanations, it gives short summaries. Honestly that isn't what ontology is. Ontology is the study of Being as Being, or in otherwords metaphysics/metaphysica. It deals with what is Is. It is pointless to you perhaps, because cannot fathom what are the possibilities that come out of it.
Cool. Very good observations and interesting thoughts about the spectrum of opposites. Bruce Lipton introduces an interesting point of view in his presentation "Where Mind and Matter Meet". Also about perceptions and how the world works within the construct of polarity design i would recommend the information from Desteni Universe.
Probably the absolute spectrumalistic property we may all can recognize and perceive is that we are all equal as life. (within this existence / or nonexistence)
Dude! I like your way of explained the Ontology. It helped me in my papers. thanks. Do you have more lecture . I guess im your fan :-) good work. Your a young sharp and smart mind boy :-) keep it up
@dancerguy007 Glad to have a fan! Thanks. I have a lot more videos, some of them are also about philosophy. If there's a topic you'd like me to talk about, let me know.
@sonicsuns How about loading RDF ontology into Jena? Seems like a good topic for me. Yeah, I just posted to make you wonder "what is he writing about?" and make you google the Jena and RDF stuff - because that's how I ended up here.
Is it fair to say that, ontologically speaking, I, and , for that matter, we whom are alive today, all existed prior to our birth; as did Stone Henge, The Sphinx etc each prior to their own construction beacuse the atoms of which everything is made up of exisited ontologically prior to whatever form/s they subsequently took on? Shakespear existed and he still exists in his work but also in my body and yours. Am I talking stupid?
As I said in the video, it all depends on how you define "existence" vs. "nonexistence". It's like "big" vs. "small"; there is no fundamental distinction, but only a spectrum. To use these words, we must first pick an arbitrary point along the spectrum (hopefully a point that is convenient for us), and declare that anything bigger than this is "big", and everything else is "small". (Well, you could also have "medium-sized", but you get my point)
Please check the closely-coupled relationship between Ontology and consciousness. The question is more subtle, you have associated yourself with your body and given me the reply. Consider the possibility that you are not your body and think about your existence. For instance before your birth where was your existence. When you look back at your past life - where is it now? It seemed to have happened but is no more there. Same holds good for future. Again think from consciousness perspective.
"Consider the possibility that you are not your body"
Ah, but here we find again the importance of spectrumality. From one perspective, the idea of "I" includes my body, and "I" would cease to exist without a body. From another perspective, "I" is only my mind. Then of course there's the neurological idea, which states that mind only exists *because* of body (or, more specifically, brain). I had that idea in mind when I made my reply.
"For instance before your birth where was your existence?"
The easiest thing to say is that I did not exist before my birth. But again, we find spectrums, for in some sense I did exist before my birth, because the material that would eventually become "me" existed at that time, in the way that the parts of a machine may exist before the machine is actually built.
When u r unconscious do u exist? When u answer for the question are u able to answer because u r conscious? Ultimately u r just conscious about one thing after another in life. So ur true existence is only in ur consciousness. When u say u exist, do u mean u r ur body? Come out of ur spectrum explanation and think about what u r conscious of and let me know if u exist. Again I'm here thinking that I exist, do u exist. If u answer me do u exist only in the time that u answer me :))))
Yes, I still exist when I'm unconscious. Yes, my answering the question presupposes consciousness. (Though we could get a computer to do the same thing, which raises other questions...). When I say I exist, I mean both my mind and my body. In fact, as far as I know, my mind is just an attribute of my body, or more specifically my brain. I continue to exist even during the time when I am not answering you.
To confuse matters even more, the science of Physics has adopted some concepts of phenomenology to solve a certain paradox. Apparently scientists found that observing certain phenomenon in physics caused the thing to change. Physics phenomenology was seen as a way around this paradox. Also the science of Physics phenominolgy is expressed in mathematical terms. The two kinds of phenomenology shouldn't be confused with one another.
If you are studying how humans apprehend things, you are studying epistomology. Epistomology is 2,500 years of different works wherein Philosophers explore and seek to expand Plato's theory of accidents. Most philosophy today is really epistomology. But over the last 100 years a new branch of Philosophy by Edmund Husserl which he called Phenomenology.
However as a rule of thumb, if you are exploring existance and change -- the two usualy go hand in hand, it's metaphysics. A fox eats a rabbit, What is a fox? What is a rabbit? What is eating (change)? When the fox eats the rabbit when does the rabbit cease to be a rabbit and become a fox. All theories of change usually fall within the pervue of metaphysics.
No one can understand any of the branches of philosophy without first studying the theory of accidents. That is a two book read of Plato where you study thesis, anti-thesis, sythesis and finally accidents. An accident in philosophy is not falling of a ladder or having a fender bender. But that process is the foundation upon which all the branches of philosophy are built upon.
Ontology does not study existence at all. Throughout the history of philosophy ontology has never dealt with anything remotely relating to existence. Ontology ceased being a part of Philosophy in the 1700s when the hard sciences borrowed the concept to develop scientific method. Ontology is the system whereby biology, chemistry, physics etc organize accidents. It would take too long to explain what accidents are here.
You said: "Ontology does not study existence at all."
I respond: It is my experience that philosophy tends to get fuzzy, and its participants run the risk of getting "lost", as it were. It's statements like yours that make me feel this way. WIkipedia defines ontology thusly:
"Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations"
which is not to say that you're completely lost. You seem to know a lot about philosophy and I respect that. I'm just saying that some of your statements seem questionable.
Well I have a MA in Philosophy, So I'll put it bluntly. You don't understand because you start at point 10 and haven't studied point's 1 through 9 yet. If you want a grade on your understanding then it would be F-.
of a hammer and the existence of a stick with a metal blob on the end of it, is not a difference of degree but of kind. I like the way you express yourself -- but you need Heidegger. Even a little Descartes wouldn't hurt. Geez.
Using Heideggerian terminology, we define two forms of existence, "substances" and "technology", and being distinguished because the latter posses the quality of "forness", while the former does not. (There is also dasien, which I neglect for a moment.)
But clearly this difference is of degree, and not of kind! How do we measure "forness"? Can you name anything, anything at all, and declare that it is definitely has (or does not have) forness?
A stick-blob can still be used for something. It might have been constructed as a form of crude hammer. In that case, does the stick-blob count as technology? But then, if one person builds the stick-blob with the intention to use it as a hammer, and another person merely finds the stick-blob, having no idea what it is or even that it was constructed intentionally, does the stick-blob have forness or not?
Surely it would seem to have forness from the perspective of its creator, but the opposite would be apparent to the random observer. It seems to me that the forness of the stick-blob is not an absolute property of existence, but merely one property among many, and it has different amounts of forness to different people in different circumstances.
The hammer, meanwhile, does not have to be interpreted as technology. Someone might come along and, having no knowledge of hammers, interpreted the item as being, essentially, a stick-blob. What is so danged fundamental about the hammer that we can conclude it to be 100% "technology", and 0% "substance"? Is it merely because people perceive it to have forness?
And if perception is the marker of measurement, how are we even measuring perception? Suppose a person looks at item X and he's unsure if it's technology or substance. If he's unsure, is X both modes of existence at once? Or is it one or the other, fundamentally, despite his uncertainty? And if so, what property does it posses that puts it into one of these two categories?
Consider a simple rock. Does it have forness? Well, it's not a computer or anything, but I could still use it for something. If I throw the rock at someone, has the rock acquired forness? Has it changed from substance to technology? If so, what exactly changed? It's the same rock, isn't it?
The basic concepts of the Heideggerian approach seem very slippery, which is hardly what we want when we're defining the fundamental properties of existence.
And why is "forness" the enshrined attribute, anyway? I could choose any other attribute if I felt like it. How about this: "There are three types of existence, and they are the things which are purple, the things which are not-purple, and the things which have consciousness. Among the non-conscious things, everything is either fundamentally purple or not-purple. This is a difference in kind, not in degree."
As for Descartes, I'm not sure that substances are fundamentally thinking or not-thinking, either. Science tells me that consciousness arises out of the interaction of non-thinking things. (i.e. the brain is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules). There's no clear distinction between thinking and non-thinking objects.
As for Descartes, I don't agree with him at all. But I will say there is a clear distinction between thinking and non thinking object -- like having neurons.
What Descartes was getting at was that imagining consciousness had properties the physical objects did not have. The objects of consciousness, memories, pictures in your mind of say -- hammers, where not made of the same substences iron, wood, Jessica Alba. But they must be comprised of something else.
Modern analysis would classify consciousness as an emergent property of matter .cartesian dualism arises from his method of radical doubt, not neurology.
Know the frequency of purple to be within the interval of 790 to 680 teraherts, anything which is not purple has a different frenquency which is clearly a differency of a degree. Adding more wood or iron to a hammer doesn't make it more of a hammer, just more heavy.
Perception is a part of the process of making judgments, but to say it is the marker of measurement is nonsense. You experience perception and measure objects of experience. If by fundamentally, you mean outside of human experience -- "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Yes for the person whose has engagement with it as a hammer, which is acquired through experience (culture and experiment -- other means of gaining know-how). No to the man for who there is no worldhood of hammer (no nails to hammer, ect.). Ask him what it is, and he will say it weighs this much, is this long, there's iron and some wood. Ask you and it's a hammer.
This question is based on a categorical error: being as substance has measureable properties -- height, weight, lumenosity, the whole gamet of quantifiable aspects which form the basis of physical science. Forness can not be weighed, just as it can not be counted. Something either has it or does not. But where does it come from?
It come from 'worldhood', which is a fancy way of saying that it comes from our engagement with it.
You said: "What "WE want when WE're? defining the fundamental properties of existence": interesting choice of words. "
I respond: Alright, fine. Perhaps we have different goals etc. with regards to the question of being.
Before I go further, I must ask: Do you agree with Heidegger? Do you have any significant doubts about his approach? What exactly are your ontological beliefs?
You said: "I will say there is a clear distinction between thinking and non thinking object -- like having neurons."
I respond: Nonsense. By which I mean: obviously there are differences between thinking and non-thinking objects, but the difference is spectral (or as I said, "spectrumalistic"), not binary. Things are not grouped into clear categories of thinking and not-thinking anymore than things are grouped into purple and not-purple. The the distinction is spectral.
With regards to binary properties, there is no middle ground, everything is clearly defined as either having the property, or not. With regards to spectral properties, middle ground exists. Distinction can be made arbitrarily, but not fundamentally. For instance, I could classify everyone less that 5 feet tall as "short", and everyone else as "tall", but that would ignore the reality, i.e. that human height is spectral, and not binary.
Consciousness, similarly, is spectral. To illustrate this, I ask you to define precisely what distinguishes thinking from non-thinking things. Is it the display of intelligence? If so, how much intelligence must be displayed? Is a normal human a "thinking" thing? What about someone with brain damage? What about a comatose person? A dead person? Any line you draw will be arbitrary.
Or perhaps you focus on the presense of neurons? If so, how many neurons are required? Does one neuron count as a "thinking" thing? If so, how is it that one neuron can be non-thinking but several of them count as thinking, collectively? How many neurons are needed to be thinking? Any line you draw will be abitrary.
And if you tell me that even one neuron is a thinking thing, I will simply divide the neuron into smaller parts (molecules etc.) until eventually you agree that we have non-thinking things, and again I will ask you: exactly how many of these non-thinking things do we need to make a thinking thing? And again, any line you draw will be arbitrary. (Well, that's my prediction, anyway. I do admit that I may be wrong on this topic.)
You said: "imagining consciousness had properties the physical objects did not have. The objects of consciousness, memories, pictures in your mind of say -- hammers, where not made of the same substences iron, wood, Jessica Alba. But? they must be comprised of something else."
I respond: Actually, imagined objects are composed of matter, just like anything else. It is merely that, in the case of imagination, one form of matter (brain chemicals etc.) is being used to represent another form of matter (iron, wood, etc.)
Allow me to illustrate. Suppose I take some chalk and a chalkboard and I draw a picture of a tree. Obviously, this tree is not like other trees. I cannot chop it down to make wood, for instance. The chalk-tree-drawing represents trees (perhaps a specific tree), but it is not made of the same materials. But nevertheless, the drawing and the actual tree are both made of matter.
The drawing is made of chalk molecules etc., while the tree is made of wood and water, etc.. They are different, but they are both made of matter, and are both subject to the same laws of physics (gravity etc.).
The chalkboard represents the mind. Instead of using chalk, I use a variety of chemicals and electrical signals. Instead of an external chalkboard, I use the neurons inside of my skull. But the fact that it's inside my skull only makes it less visible; it makes no fundamental change. Using this, I imagine a tree. Like the chalk-tree-drawing from before, this tree is not like other trees. I cannot chop it down to make wood. (Well, aside from imaginary wood, of course.)
But nevertheless the imagined-tree is a physical object, just as the chalk-tree was a physical object, just as the real tree is a physical object. They are all fundamentally similar, and they are all subject to the same laws of physics. There is no fundamental binary distinction between the things I imagine and the things of the external world; they are all physical things.
You said : "Know the frequency of purple to be within the interval of 790 to 680 teraherts, anything which is not purple has a different frenquency which is clearly a difference of a degree."
I respond: You have made a small arbitrary distinction here. We define "790 to 680" out of convenience; there is no fundamental change at either of those frequencies.
I do, however, have the intention of examining any system of measurement you prescribe for distinguishing hammers of from stick-blobs, and then I shall add more of whatever-it-is-you-use-to-define-this-difference, to make a hammer "more of a hammer", and show you that the property is spectral, and that the distinction is arbitrary.
With regards to whether a hammer counts as technology, you said: "Yes for the person whose has engagement with it as a hammer, which is acquired through experience (culture and experiment -- other means of gaining know-how). No to the man for who there is no worldhood of hammer (no nails to hammer, ect.). Ask him what it is, and he will say it weighs this much, is this long, there's iron and some wood. Ask you and it's a hammer."
I respond: Do you mean to say that the entire question of existence is subjective? I acknowledge that subjectivity influences everything we experience, but I believe in a fundamental objective reality. When you say that an object is either substance or technology, I assume that you mean the object has some fundamental objective property which places it in one of these two groups.
If an object is substance from one perspective, and technology from another perspective, and neither of these perspectives is superior to the other, then the whole question is moot. At that point we're not even talking about ontology, but rather people's perceptions of ontology. Right?
This question is based on a categorical error: being as substance has measureable properties -- height, weight, lumenosity, the whole gamet of quantifiable aspects which form the basis of physical science. Forness can not be weighed, just as it can not be counted."
I respond: This is nonsense. It reminds me of the old idea that experience is divided into quantia and qualia.
Quantia was all things we can measure, like height and weight, and qualia was all the things we couldn't measure, like color. But in reality, qualia was just hard-to-measure quantia. Color, for instance, was found to be the result of frequencies of light, and now we can measure it with great precision. The same was found to be true of several other properties, and I see no reason why the pattern should not continue indefinitely.
With that I say that forness can in fact be measured, it is simply very very difficult to measure. As for the forness of hammers, I might start by examining people's ideas regarding hammers, giving surveys, asking what they knew about hammers, did they own a hammer, had they ever used a hammer, etc.. I might measure how often hammers are purchased or used, how often they are mentioned in the written word, I might look into the history of hammers, etc..
With further technology I might read people's brain waves as they talked about hammers or used hammers or looked at hammers etc.. And in all of this I'd tackle hammer variety, asking "Is this a hammer? What about this?" etc.. And I'd amalgamate all this data and come up with a measurement of the forness of hammers in modern culture.
Naturally, this would be difficult. And naturally, my measurement would be little more than a very rough estimation of the real thing. But just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean that measurement is impossible.
To demonstrate the value of the aforementioned process, imagine that I repeated it with regards to stick-blobs. Clearly, less people would recognize stick-blobs, less people have used them, etc.. Their culture would hold fewer references, their brain waves would display less recongnition, etc. etc.. And after amalgamating the data by the same method as before, I would find that stick-blobs have much less forness than hammers.
So you see that forness can in fact be measured. And once we measure it, we learn that the property is not binary, but spectral. I could easily construct a thing-that-looks-sorta-like-a-hammer-but-also-sorta-like-a-stick-blob, and run the process again, and the measured amount of forness would be more than the stick-blob, but less than the hammer.
There was a lot of "mights" and "would be's" and "difficulties."
Let me say this: what dimension would you measurement be in pounds, meters, seconds?
No. Something about this is just not clear.
The best example of a spectrum is the electromagnetic. There is a dimension "wavelength" that defines the dimension of the spectrum by which we can say "more or less of this gives us red. " By which property of the substance of stick-blob do we say "more or less of this gives us a hammer."
I already discussed this: see comment on Modern analysis and the concept of emergent properties. It's a hot top in modern philosophy although there are objections.
I think we're both out of our depth when it comes to neurology; however, if we did define having one firing neuron as the only property a thinking thing had, you could only take so much from it until it no longer function. It either functions or it doesn't and a definite line can be drawn between functionality and brakedown : Not only conceptually but physically. There are no continuous spectrums in nature (see quantum mechanics: not even the electromagnetic spectrum is continuous).
Neurons, nor parts of Neurons can be infinitely divided in reality only in our imaginations. Medically once a certain, finite number of brain cells die (stop functioning) -- you are no longer a thinking thing (by the way, that amount could be all of them).
I think the problem with humans and our inability to articulate/comprehend ontological theories is that our minds work in binary.... we can only see things in perspective (there is the conscious 'us', and there is the 'other'/ the thing we are perceiving).... This means we can only break things down into opposing things (light/dark, day/night, is/isn't, can't/cant/, 1/0)
I wouldn't say that we *only* think in binary. After all, we're not flabbergasted by dimmer-switches on light bulbs. But it's true that binary thinking does tend to be easier, and less accurate, than spectrumalistic thinking. Thus our tendency towards binary. This is particularly true when applied to strange concepts. We're fine with spectrums on dimmer-switches, but we're less comfortable applying them to ontology.
Stupid humans! Everything we comprehend exists (otherwise, how are we comprehending it?), Human beings are incapable of comprehending 'nothing' (or nonexistence) (Be cause when your trying to think of 'nothing', your thinking of 'something' ); 'existence' can only be defined by opposing it to 'nonexistence'.... THUS, trying to comprehend the concept of 'existence' is simply impossible/or it will always lead to a circular argument.
I'd like to hear your views on the existance of a god. As a thiest, I do not understand everything about God/god , but I believe in a god/God.
I'm wondering how I can believe in a god, but not fully comprehend the god that I believe in.
Reguardless of your belief system, do you think that this is where most of the athiest come from? If you can't understand it and comprehend it, it must not exist. ??
I am not quite theist, though i am completely open to ideas of omnipotent figures such as God. How I think of it is: If God were some entity that created everything the exists, then God would have to transcend 'existence'. Assuming that this is the case; God doesn't exist, though a person could still recognize God as a 'real being' and be perfectly correct. This is because God would 'be' outside the bounds of our universe...
Personally I cant speak for the entire atheist population; but i see that the common view of God has lead to some very blatant contradictions, in both science and history. Also, people need hard evidence of things before they can believe them to be true.
You need to study Husserl and Heidegger, and maybe Sartre, before you can truly criticize phenomenology or ontology (phenomenology lead way to ontology). It's way more complicated than you make it.
At any rate, I found this video very intellectually compelling and stimulating, considering you speak about many aspects of existence which I am currently attempting to theorize. Although, I'm actually attempting to construct an entire all-encompassing philosophical system which explains existence within the context of some theoretical structure governed by scientific laws. My thoughts are similar to yours, but not exactly. Perhaps we could discuss this in more detail elsewhere.
Thanks for your comments. It's always good to find thoughtful people on the internet. If you'd like to discuss this in more detail, you're free to send me a private message or an email, or perhaps you could make a video.
Also, when you speak of "Creation and Destruction," I agree: you can actually reduce these two things to one notion: CHANGE. Hence, in science, neither energy nor matter are created or destroyed (supposedly). If we take that to be true, what happens to our conscious being at the time of death, which is composed of energy? Basically, it is CHANGED. It transforms, so that we no longer consciously exist. We revert to a pre-birth stage. There is no consciousness. Only a changed energy.
Your on the right path, however please rethink your thoughts on consciousness, their is always consciousness, it will always exist, in this dimension, and beyond.
Very interesting stuff here, sonicsuns. You are articulating -- to some extent -- thoughts which I've slowly developed since I was 12, which I'm currently attempting to really structure. If I completely abstract the matter, I realize that existence is based on some sort of 'perspective.' Many things we can perceive; many of these perceptions are based on smaller things; then there are larger entities, so that everything that 'exists' is merely a result of our human perspective in this matrix.
And of course. In the process of exposure or disclosure, different people have different understandings, ways of going about making sense of things, and maybe even different moods when they encounter phenomenon in the world.
The point of disclosure, and means in which we disclose properties, has an huge influence on the way we get results within our subjective spectrum.
Thanks for commenting back. I enjoying reading your thoughts.
concerning the subjective perspective and exposure that one person might have vs others.
Existence is more or less disclosure. This is why censorship works. Concealment removes the subjective percepts of "existence".
Think about a tree falling in the forest. Even if no one was there to hear it, it would still make an impact on the world when it fell. However, the fallen tree, wouldn't exist to a person until they actually saw that it had fallen tree.
however different forms of subjective ontology, create different understandings of items or aspects of the world.
If the science doesn't account for the subject-object distinction, the way that people have different familiarities with the same object is removed from discourse.
Which is a travesty, since the basis of how we go about acting, and the limits and understands of how we do it, all take place in this realm.
The way we give meaning to objects, and order data for results is subjective
The whole point of ontology is how someone sees the item they are using. How they are familure with it, and the way they use it for means to ends. Which is different with many people. Again, even drivers in cars use the same piece of technology different and maybe have different understandings of how to fix the engine if it were to break.
The study of how people go about making sense of items and giving them meaning is very important. =]
Aah, Bi0hazardx, you are approaching the subject from a very different perspective.
In the subjective sense, yes, absolutely, I agree that Ontology is important. We have every reason to discuss and debate various theories regarding how people think about objects. In this sense, Ontology is akin to psychology.
I was discussing Ontology in the objective sense, wherein it is assumed that every possible object is "existent" or "not existent" on a fundamental level, independent of anyone's perceptions. In that sense, the question is pointless. There is no fundamental binary distinction called "existence", rather there is a spectrum of existence, and additionally every person thinks of things in different ways. To some, complex numbers seem "existent". To others, they seem "non-existent". ETc.
This is comparable to physics. Newton and his peers believed in a fundamental space-and-time, which served as a starting point against which all objects could be measured. Something could be "moving" or "not moving" on a fundamental scale.
Einstein taught us that space and time are relative, and that no one perspective has any special meaning. In this sense, any object could be "moving" or "not moving" depending on perspective. (Except light, perhaps, but we'll skip over that for now)
Applying the analogy, when I first researched Ontology I found people with a Newton-style mindset, attempting to define existence in a fundamental way. I advocate an Einstein-mindset, wherein there is no fundamental measurement and thus the classic question is moot.
But in terms of subjective experiences and perceptions, obviously Ontology is important. Thank you for informing me of this new approach; I had thought that Ontology always implied an objective, Newton-style mindset.
really quick. I'll reply to the rest a little later.
"In the subjective sense, yes, absolutely, I agree that Ontology is important. We have every reason to discuss "
Yes but hasn't all forms of exposure, disclosure of scientific principles or patterns in the world come from consciousness and thus a grouping of subjective perspectives.
If science claims that it is studying the objective world, then it is also claiming that it is a neutral observer, that preserves the natural state of things
"What is it that would distinguish an object that does exist from one that utterly does not."
There are possibly objects at the bottom of the sea or ends of the galaxy that humans have not been exposure to. Without disclosure, items and entities can be nothing on the subjective level. Concealment is just as important as exposure. When someone analyzes something they build a spectrum of concern and logic based on what they know. This is why censorship and propaganda work hand-in-hand. They frame
I have some really interesting readings and audio lectures on ontology. That go a lot deeper than wikipedia. If you are interested I would be happy to send them over and engage in any discussion on the matter you would like.
Some people, only know how to click on the IE link to use the (internet) which some think is the computer. And if anyone removes the IE link of the desktop, they may think the internet disappeared. Which I have seen happen. Kind of like the sun disappearing if someone say it go down for the first time.
Our experiences mold and mesh us with items and worldly disclosure, like understandings of the social sphere.
Its an internal reference point of meaning, that can differ from person to person.
For instance a doctor may know have a different internal concept of a tool and the potential of its uses, compared to someone else. Even though they both see the same physical properties concerning the items. Those physical properties do not account for learning.
Ontology really deals with the perceptual internalization of our world, and how we make sense of them, go about using them or what we use them for.
Think about computers, some people have limited understandings.
Two people can use the same object for different functions. The brute fact physical properties of an object may influence but do not dictate the use and internal conceptions of items. Its a subjective familiarity with an item. Ontology is from the subjective level and should study how people give meaning to the world around them. You know - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, you need consciousness to be any perception or conception of WORLD or worldhood, the way we engage with it
I believe in the Big Bang, and evolution, and such. So no, I'm not a creationist. (For more detail on my religious views, see the video "My thoughts on religion")
And according to Stephen Hawking asking "What was before the big bang?" is like asking "What's north of the north pole?", so I'm not sure what you mean by "before the big bang".
Furthermore, I'm not so sure there's a fundamental "nothing", either. Everything you can think of exists, at least a little bit. Basically.
Boy howdy, hearing this extremely well thought out and coherent speech makes me lament getting a degree in philosophy when I could have just read wiki. Silly me!
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 I'm aware of the fact that there is much I don't know. This video was simply my thoughts on Ontology based on what I do know.
sonicsuns 8 months ago
@sonicsuns There are numerous difficulties with your line of argument, but here's the main problem: you claim that being or existence (if existence is even a property) is relational (or 'spectralmalistic' as you say), but relational properties always obtain between relata that already exist. Eg, if x is taller than y, then x and y first have to exist. All relations presuppose the existence of nonrelational objects that they relate. So existence cannot be relation.
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 Hm. Can there really be no relations with things which are thought to be non-existent? If we accept that Pegasus is non-existent, for instance, I think it might fair to say that Pegasus is smaller than the Earth. Of course, technically Pegasus has no physical form and thus no size at all, but in sense of Pegasus's imagined properties (which are the only sorts of properties that Pegasus has), it is surely smaller than the Earth.
By the way, what's your theory of ontology?
sonicsuns 8 months ago
@sonicsuns Well, then you might be saying "If Pegasus existed, then he would be smaller than the Earth," but the statement remains hypothetical, and doesn't say anything about what actually does (or doesn't) exist. At best you might talking about a Pegasus-thought or Pegasus-concept (and thoughts and concepts surely exist), but both of these are different from a living, breathing Pegasus. Many philosophers today might say that to be is to have properties, so if it has properties, it is!
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 Ah, but I feel that this demonstrates the ambiguity of the word "existence". Someone might say "Pegasus exists" in the sense that Pegasus-concept exists, and also say "Pegasus does not exist" in the sense that Pegasus-physical does not exist. It seemed to me that this was like calling something "big" or "small" depending on perspective, thus my conclusion that existence is relational. (But that was probably an imperfect way of phrasing it)
What's your theory of ontology?
sonicsuns 8 months ago
@sonicsuns True enough, "existence" (along with terms like "being" and "reality" etc.) is infamously slippery, but don't confuse words with things, whatever sense you take it as. But anyway, by your line of argument you might observe that there's more than you type of orange, and conclude that "to be an orange" is relational.
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 (Make that "one type of orange")
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 Yes, we should not let vocabulary confuse us. So how do you define "existence", then? I'm not sure I can think of a definition that doesn't rely on some arbitrary perspective or assumption.
As for oranges, I have toyed with the idea that perhaps *everything* is relational, and that binary categories are merely simplifications of reality.
sonicsuns 8 months ago
@sonicsuns Defining existence is difficult, and due to it's being so basic, I'm not sure a definition is possible. To be sure, the issue is vexed. You might want to give Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Existence a read.
At any rate, two things: (1) the point of my orange example was to show that from there being two sorts of things it doesn't follow that being a sort of thing is relational. That's just a non sequitur.
jlke45 8 months ago
@sonicsuns And (2), as I said before, it's unintelligible as to how a relation could obtain without relata.
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 I've written a blog post which summarizes my thoughts thus far and describes my new thoughts, partially inspired by my conversation with you. Unfortunately, it's far too long for youtube comments. Please look in the description box of this video for the link marked "Update July 2011".
sonicsuns 8 months ago
Dude, you need a transcendental ontology. Check out some of the videos by davidbrucehughes on the subject.
I think you're intelligent but your conclusion about the importance of ontology is completely wrong. Ontology is fundamental to consciousness. Understanding the relationship between the two is extremely desirable because it's like having a an operation manual for one's consciousness.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
I wish I was there to choke you to death, you weirdo human being
machacoification 11 months ago
So...ontology replaces epistemology?
Donatellangelo 1 year ago
Oh wow ontology o.o
DeaneRenata 1 year ago
@DeaneRenata Well I hope I explained it well enough. =)
sonicsuns 1 year ago
You are incredibly narcissistic, obnoxious, loud, self-absorbed and fucking stupid. "Spectralmalistic"?! You need to SHUT the FUCK UP and then read Aristotle, to find out that he thought long and hard about these things and even solved them LONG BEFORE YOU came along. SHUT the FUCK UP, PLEASE!
mingshan87 1 year ago
@mingshan87 If you don't like my videos, you don't have to watch them. Also, I suggest that you calm down a little.
I have reviewed Aristotle's approach and found it lacking. (I'm not alone. Plato had his disagreements with Aristotle). I don't perceive a fundamental difference between "universals" and "particular things".
sonicsuns 1 year ago
@mingshan87 what, people can't have their own opinion? By the way, quite insightful sonicuns.
junjunjarjarbinx 11 months ago
@junjunjarjarbinx Thank you, junjunjarjarbinx
sonicsuns 11 months ago
Antology,does not have a meaning to you because it does not define any purpose. I can see why you may say it is a dead end. Yet again does anything have any perpose? For example mathematics, it creates the fundementals of construction. Medicine, it reinforces the condition of human health. These to values can be evident to advance the human race. My question is why? It is an endless cicle if you truely acknoledge the nature of our existence. I ask you to percived every reason as you have antol.
CorruptionData 1 year ago
@CorruptionData You are intelligent as well but also lacking a transcendental ontology. This means you no longer see the truth of your existence in terms of the material world. Transcendental refers to that which lies beyond the material world. This is consciousness. Consciousness is the most fundamental principle, without knowing this people stumble through life not knowing their potential and purpose.
parkerjwill 10 months ago
thanks you, this makes things a lot clearer
gunderbuns1 1 year ago
@gunderbuns1 you're welcome
sonicsuns 1 year ago
Existence is kind of the necessity you need before anything can be spoken of, if it is spoken of and cannot or does not exist it is an absurdity. It is also the only thing that is both subject and predicate, or rather all subject and predicates depend on it. A little obvious, but not really, because we tend to think through our transcendental ego, or through our ideas. We refer to only the rationalistic position that through our ideas are how we come to know the world.
sleepyhead4 1 year ago
How about consciousness. It didn't exist, didn't exist. Suddenly, bam. I'm born. I exist I exist, and then suddenly, bam. I'm dead. There was never any semi-existence. Its just black and white.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll That's not true at all. There are all sorts of gradations between full consciousness and no consciousness. Think of the consciousness that occurs when you're half-asleep, for instance. Or how about dementia? The same applies to birth and death. The brain begins basic operations before birth, and even after birth you don't have adult-style consciousness for quite some time. Rather you learn and grow and slowly become more conscious.
sonicsuns 1 year ago
Go to Radical Academy (google it) and take the ontology mini-course. You understand NOTHING!!
sleepyhead4 1 year ago
@sleepyhead4 thanks for the "Radical Academy" info.
HRealisticDreamsH 1 year ago
@HRealisticDreamsH No problem
sleepyhead4 1 year ago
Here we have the heart of metaphysics, and metaphysics is the heart of philosophy. For philosophy is the ultimate science of all things, of all reality, and here we have all reality drawn into a mighty focus and seen as a single thing, as being. The branch of philosophy which answers the Ontological Question is known as Ontology or Fundamental Metaphysics.
sleepyhead4 1 year ago
The Ontological Question is the question of reality in its most general, most abstract, most profound meaning. It is the question of being, that is, of being as such, and not of being as it stands determinate in this nature or that nature or the other nature. It is the question of being or reality stripped of the limitations that come of materiality, that is, of bodiliness or of dependence on bodily things. Hence, it is the question of nonmaterial real being.
sleepyhead4 1 year ago
ummm...yeah...sorry but wikipedia is not the summit of all philosophical explanations, it gives short summaries. Honestly that isn't what ontology is. Ontology is the study of Being as Being, or in otherwords metaphysics/metaphysica. It deals with what is Is. It is pointless to you perhaps, because cannot fathom what are the possibilities that come out of it.
sleepyhead4 1 year ago
yes, its one of the main branches of metaphysics
Topgeneral3070 1 year ago
Pretty smart but also pretty oblivious to the magnitude of ontology.
Too tired to type paragraphs.
zzzzzz
HumanEvolution1 1 year ago
Cool. Very good observations and interesting thoughts about the spectrum of opposites. Bruce Lipton introduces an interesting point of view in his presentation "Where Mind and Matter Meet". Also about perceptions and how the world works within the construct of polarity design i would recommend the information from Desteni Universe.
Probably the absolute spectrumalistic property we may all can recognize and perceive is that we are all equal as life. (within this existence / or nonexistence)
pehtispppp 1 year ago
wtf?
ericalan11 1 year ago
@ericalan11 um...I'm not sure how to respond to that...
sonicsuns 1 year ago
Comment removed
migrochefort 1 year ago
spectralmalistic property wow u could be the nest Kirkegard.lol
orpado1968 1 year ago
i ll keep u posted dude.
dancerguy007 1 year ago
Dude! I like your way of explained the Ontology. It helped me in my papers. thanks. Do you have more lecture . I guess im your fan :-) good work. Your a young sharp and smart mind boy :-) keep it up
dancerguy007 1 year ago
@dancerguy007 Glad to have a fan! Thanks. I have a lot more videos, some of them are also about philosophy. If there's a topic you'd like me to talk about, let me know.
sonicsuns 1 year ago
@sonicsuns How about loading RDF ontology into Jena? Seems like a good topic for me. Yeah, I just posted to make you wonder "what is he writing about?" and make you google the Jena and RDF stuff - because that's how I ended up here.
cgofme 1 year ago
God made the whole numbers. The rest was made by man.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Is it fair to say that, ontologically speaking, I, and , for that matter, we whom are alive today, all existed prior to our birth; as did Stone Henge, The Sphinx etc each prior to their own construction beacuse the atoms of which everything is made up of exisited ontologically prior to whatever form/s they subsequently took on? Shakespear existed and he still exists in his work but also in my body and yours. Am I talking stupid?
vertigofall 2 years ago
As I said in the video, it all depends on how you define "existence" vs. "nonexistence". It's like "big" vs. "small"; there is no fundamental distinction, but only a spectrum. To use these words, we must first pick an arbitrary point along the spectrum (hopefully a point that is convenient for us), and declare that anything bigger than this is "big", and everything else is "small". (Well, you could also have "medium-sized", but you get my point)
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Similarly, "existence" and "non-existence" must be defined by some arbitrarily chosen point.
From one extreme perspective, everything always exists, no matter what. Even if something is destroyed, the atoms that comprised it still exist, etc.
From the opposite extreme perspective, nothing exists for more than an instant, because everything is changing.
So yes, your statement would be fair, but only from a certain perspective.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Please check the closely-coupled relationship between Ontology and consciousness. The question is more subtle, you have associated yourself with your body and given me the reply. Consider the possibility that you are not your body and think about your existence. For instance before your birth where was your existence. When you look back at your past life - where is it now? It seemed to have happened but is no more there. Same holds good for future. Again think from consciousness perspective.
kannanrad 2 years ago
"Consider the possibility that you are not your body"
Ah, but here we find again the importance of spectrumality. From one perspective, the idea of "I" includes my body, and "I" would cease to exist without a body. From another perspective, "I" is only my mind. Then of course there's the neurological idea, which states that mind only exists *because* of body (or, more specifically, brain). I had that idea in mind when I made my reply.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
"For instance before your birth where was your existence?"
The easiest thing to say is that I did not exist before my birth. But again, we find spectrums, for in some sense I did exist before my birth, because the material that would eventually become "me" existed at that time, in the way that the parts of a machine may exist before the machine is actually built.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
"When you look back at your past life - where is it now?"
Spectrums again. Either the past is gone and it no longer exists, or the past has morphed to become the present.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
When u r unconscious do u exist? When u answer for the question are u able to answer because u r conscious? Ultimately u r just conscious about one thing after another in life. So ur true existence is only in ur consciousness. When u say u exist, do u mean u r ur body? Come out of ur spectrum explanation and think about what u r conscious of and let me know if u exist. Again I'm here thinking that I exist, do u exist. If u answer me do u exist only in the time that u answer me :))))
kannanrad 2 years ago
Well, using the standard idea of "existing":
Yes, I still exist when I'm unconscious. Yes, my answering the question presupposes consciousness. (Though we could get a computer to do the same thing, which raises other questions...). When I say I exist, I mean both my mind and my body. In fact, as far as I know, my mind is just an attribute of my body, or more specifically my brain. I continue to exist even during the time when I am not answering you.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
How can you change your ontology when your consciousness is the Same.
To change your ontology you need to change your consciousness.
TheVedicStudent 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
To confuse matters even more, the science of Physics has adopted some concepts of phenomenology to solve a certain paradox. Apparently scientists found that observing certain phenomenon in physics caused the thing to change. Physics phenomenology was seen as a way around this paradox. Also the science of Physics phenominolgy is expressed in mathematical terms. The two kinds of phenomenology shouldn't be confused with one another.
smokeysport2 2 years ago
If you are studying how humans apprehend things, you are studying epistomology. Epistomology is 2,500 years of different works wherein Philosophers explore and seek to expand Plato's theory of accidents. Most philosophy today is really epistomology. But over the last 100 years a new branch of Philosophy by Edmund Husserl which he called Phenomenology.
smokeysport2 2 years ago
However as a rule of thumb, if you are exploring existance and change -- the two usualy go hand in hand, it's metaphysics. A fox eats a rabbit, What is a fox? What is a rabbit? What is eating (change)? When the fox eats the rabbit when does the rabbit cease to be a rabbit and become a fox. All theories of change usually fall within the pervue of metaphysics.
smokeysport2 2 years ago
No one can understand any of the branches of philosophy without first studying the theory of accidents. That is a two book read of Plato where you study thesis, anti-thesis, sythesis and finally accidents. An accident in philosophy is not falling of a ladder or having a fender bender. But that process is the foundation upon which all the branches of philosophy are built upon.
smokeysport2 2 years ago
Ontology does not study existence at all. Throughout the history of philosophy ontology has never dealt with anything remotely relating to existence. Ontology ceased being a part of Philosophy in the 1700s when the hard sciences borrowed the concept to develop scientific method. Ontology is the system whereby biology, chemistry, physics etc organize accidents. It would take too long to explain what accidents are here.
smokeysport2 2 years ago
You said: "Ontology does not study existence at all."
I respond: It is my experience that philosophy tends to get fuzzy, and its participants run the risk of getting "lost", as it were. It's statements like yours that make me feel this way. WIkipedia defines ontology thusly:
"Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations"
sonicsuns 2 years ago
which is not to say that you're completely lost. You seem to know a lot about philosophy and I respect that. I'm just saying that some of your statements seem questionable.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Well I have a MA in Philosophy, So I'll put it bluntly. You don't understand because you start at point 10 and haven't studied point's 1 through 9 yet. If you want a grade on your understanding then it would be F-.
smokeysport2 2 years ago
I admit that possibility.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
your existence is annoying
XzmazX 2 years ago
I subed you since you seem to me (my perception of you) as a cool guy with a level head and a considerable about of looking at things as subjective.
sandbar3000 2 years ago
thank you
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Why is it that some atheists do not like the ontology arguement for the existance of a god?
Thank you for your video. It explained to me in clear (and in details) what exactly ontology is. Now I get it!
sandbar3000 2 years ago
The difference between the existence
of a hammer and the existence of a stick with a metal blob on the end of it, is not a difference of degree but of kind. I like the way you express yourself -- but you need Heidegger. Even a little Descartes wouldn't hurt. Geez.
Newton1692 2 years ago
I admit that I am very unfamiliar with Heidegger, Descartes etc.. Someday I'll learn more about them.
In the meantime, could you please explain yourself? What exactly is "the difference in kind" between a hammer and a stick-blob construct?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
The difference in kind are best discussed in the terms of Heideggerian terminology:
the three modes of being--
substances = present at hand
technology = ready to hand
dasein (human being) stands on its own being; that is decides how it will exist
and asks questions concerning being.
A stick-blob is a substance
A hammer is technology -- it's forness (what it is for) discloses another mode of being.
Newton1692 2 years ago
Descartes ontology has two modes
of being: res cogitans (thinking substances -- minds) and res extensa (extended matter) which mark the beginning of dualist ontology.
Hope that helps.
Newton1692 2 years ago
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Using Heideggerian terminology, we define two forms of existence, "substances" and "technology", and being distinguished because the latter posses the quality of "forness", while the former does not. (There is also dasien, which I neglect for a moment.)
sonicsuns 2 years ago
But clearly this difference is of degree, and not of kind! How do we measure "forness"? Can you name anything, anything at all, and declare that it is definitely has (or does not have) forness?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
A stick-blob can still be used for something. It might have been constructed as a form of crude hammer. In that case, does the stick-blob count as technology? But then, if one person builds the stick-blob with the intention to use it as a hammer, and another person merely finds the stick-blob, having no idea what it is or even that it was constructed intentionally, does the stick-blob have forness or not?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Surely it would seem to have forness from the perspective of its creator, but the opposite would be apparent to the random observer. It seems to me that the forness of the stick-blob is not an absolute property of existence, but merely one property among many, and it has different amounts of forness to different people in different circumstances.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
The hammer, meanwhile, does not have to be interpreted as technology. Someone might come along and, having no knowledge of hammers, interpreted the item as being, essentially, a stick-blob. What is so danged fundamental about the hammer that we can conclude it to be 100% "technology", and 0% "substance"? Is it merely because people perceive it to have forness?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
And if perception is the marker of measurement, how are we even measuring perception? Suppose a person looks at item X and he's unsure if it's technology or substance. If he's unsure, is X both modes of existence at once? Or is it one or the other, fundamentally, despite his uncertainty? And if so, what property does it posses that puts it into one of these two categories?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Consider a simple rock. Does it have forness? Well, it's not a computer or anything, but I could still use it for something. If I throw the rock at someone, has the rock acquired forness? Has it changed from substance to technology? If so, what exactly changed? It's the same rock, isn't it?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
The basic concepts of the Heideggerian approach seem very slippery, which is hardly what we want when we're defining the fundamental properties of existence.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
And why is "forness" the enshrined attribute, anyway? I could choose any other attribute if I felt like it. How about this: "There are three types of existence, and they are the things which are purple, the things which are not-purple, and the things which have consciousness. Among the non-conscious things, everything is either fundamentally purple or not-purple. This is a difference in kind, not in degree."
sonicsuns 2 years ago
See how odd that sounds?
As for Descartes, I'm not sure that substances are fundamentally thinking or not-thinking, either. Science tells me that consciousness arises out of the interaction of non-thinking things. (i.e. the brain is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules). There's no clear distinction between thinking and non-thinking objects.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
First, I would like to say that your lengthy response (as does your video) indicate that you appreciate the question of being.
Next, you raise many concerns and I will try to hand all of them just let me know if I miss any thing.
What "WE want when WE're defining the fundamental properties of existence": interesting choice of words.
Newton1692 2 years ago
As for Descartes, I don't agree with him at all. But I will say there is a clear distinction between thinking and non thinking object -- like having neurons.
What Descartes was getting at was that imagining consciousness had properties the physical objects did not have. The objects of consciousness, memories, pictures in your mind of say -- hammers, where not made of the same substences iron, wood, Jessica Alba. But they must be comprised of something else.
Newton1692 2 years ago
Modern analysis would classify consciousness as an emergent property of matter .cartesian dualism arises from his method of radical doubt, not neurology.
Newton1692 2 years ago
Know the frequency of purple to be within the interval of 790 to 680 teraherts, anything which is not purple has a different frenquency which is clearly a differency of a degree. Adding more wood or iron to a hammer doesn't make it more of a hammer, just more heavy.
Newton1692 2 years ago
typo: differency ="difference"
Newton1692 2 years ago
Perception is a part of the process of making judgments, but to say it is the marker of measurement is nonsense. You experience perception and measure objects of experience. If by fundamentally, you mean outside of human experience -- "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Newton1692 2 years ago
I think I have answered this:
We can talk about the substances which
hammers are made.
And We can talk about what hammers are.
Newton1692 2 years ago
Yes for the person whose has engagement with it as a hammer, which is acquired through experience (culture and experiment -- other means of gaining know-how). No to the man for who there is no worldhood of hammer (no nails to hammer, ect.). Ask him what it is, and he will say it weighs this much, is this long, there's iron and some wood. Ask you and it's a hammer.
Newton1692 2 years ago
iron
Newton1692 2 years ago
How do you measure forness?
This question is based on a categorical error: being as substance has measureable properties -- height, weight, lumenosity, the whole gamet of quantifiable aspects which form the basis of physical science. Forness can not be weighed, just as it can not be counted. Something either has it or does not. But where does it come from?
It come from 'worldhood', which is a fancy way of saying that it comes from our engagement with it.
Newton1692 2 years ago
You said: "What "WE want when WE're? defining the fundamental properties of existence": interesting choice of words. "
I respond: Alright, fine. Perhaps we have different goals etc. with regards to the question of being.
Before I go further, I must ask: Do you agree with Heidegger? Do you have any significant doubts about his approach? What exactly are your ontological beliefs?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "I will say there is a clear distinction between thinking and non thinking object -- like having neurons."
I respond: Nonsense. By which I mean: obviously there are differences between thinking and non-thinking objects, but the difference is spectral (or as I said, "spectrumalistic"), not binary. Things are not grouped into clear categories of thinking and not-thinking anymore than things are grouped into purple and not-purple. The the distinction is spectral.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
With regards to binary properties, there is no middle ground, everything is clearly defined as either having the property, or not. With regards to spectral properties, middle ground exists. Distinction can be made arbitrarily, but not fundamentally. For instance, I could classify everyone less that 5 feet tall as "short", and everyone else as "tall", but that would ignore the reality, i.e. that human height is spectral, and not binary.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Consciousness, similarly, is spectral. To illustrate this, I ask you to define precisely what distinguishes thinking from non-thinking things. Is it the display of intelligence? If so, how much intelligence must be displayed? Is a normal human a "thinking" thing? What about someone with brain damage? What about a comatose person? A dead person? Any line you draw will be arbitrary.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Or perhaps you focus on the presense of neurons? If so, how many neurons are required? Does one neuron count as a "thinking" thing? If so, how is it that one neuron can be non-thinking but several of them count as thinking, collectively? How many neurons are needed to be thinking? Any line you draw will be abitrary.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
And if you tell me that even one neuron is a thinking thing, I will simply divide the neuron into smaller parts (molecules etc.) until eventually you agree that we have non-thinking things, and again I will ask you: exactly how many of these non-thinking things do we need to make a thinking thing? And again, any line you draw will be arbitrary. (Well, that's my prediction, anyway. I do admit that I may be wrong on this topic.)
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "imagining consciousness had properties the physical objects did not have. The objects of consciousness, memories, pictures in your mind of say -- hammers, where not made of the same substences iron, wood, Jessica Alba. But? they must be comprised of something else."
sonicsuns 2 years ago
I respond: Actually, imagined objects are composed of matter, just like anything else. It is merely that, in the case of imagination, one form of matter (brain chemicals etc.) is being used to represent another form of matter (iron, wood, etc.)
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Allow me to illustrate. Suppose I take some chalk and a chalkboard and I draw a picture of a tree. Obviously, this tree is not like other trees. I cannot chop it down to make wood, for instance. The chalk-tree-drawing represents trees (perhaps a specific tree), but it is not made of the same materials. But nevertheless, the drawing and the actual tree are both made of matter.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
The drawing is made of chalk molecules etc., while the tree is made of wood and water, etc.. They are different, but they are both made of matter, and are both subject to the same laws of physics (gravity etc.).
sonicsuns 2 years ago
The chalkboard represents the mind. Instead of using chalk, I use a variety of chemicals and electrical signals. Instead of an external chalkboard, I use the neurons inside of my skull. But the fact that it's inside my skull only makes it less visible; it makes no fundamental change. Using this, I imagine a tree. Like the chalk-tree-drawing from before, this tree is not like other trees. I cannot chop it down to make wood. (Well, aside from imaginary wood, of course.)
sonicsuns 2 years ago
But nevertheless the imagined-tree is a physical object, just as the chalk-tree was a physical object, just as the real tree is a physical object. They are all fundamentally similar, and they are all subject to the same laws of physics. There is no fundamental binary distinction between the things I imagine and the things of the external world; they are all physical things.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "cartesian dualism arises from his method of radical doubt, not neurology. "
I respond: Well I hardly care where the dualism has arisen from. I merely want to know if it's true.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said : "Know the frequency of purple to be within the interval of 790 to 680 teraherts, anything which is not purple has a different frenquency which is clearly a difference of a degree."
I respond: You have made a small arbitrary distinction here. We define "790 to 680" out of convenience; there is no fundamental change at either of those frequencies.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "Adding more wood or iron to a hammer doesn't make it more of a hammer, just more heavy. "
I respond: Newton, I have no intention of adding more wood to a hammer to make it more of a hammer.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
I do, however, have the intention of examining any system of measurement you prescribe for distinguishing hammers of from stick-blobs, and then I shall add more of whatever-it-is-you-use-to-define-this-difference, to make a hammer "more of a hammer", and show you that the property is spectral, and that the distinction is arbitrary.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said: "Perception is a part of the process of making judgments, but to say it is the marker of measurement is nonsense."
I respond: I'm not saying that. I'm asking if that's what you believe. To put it another way: How are we to distinguish substance from technology?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
With regards to whether a hammer counts as technology, you said: "Yes for the person whose has engagement with it as a hammer, which is acquired through experience (culture and experiment -- other means of gaining know-how). No to the man for who there is no worldhood of hammer (no nails to hammer, ect.). Ask him what it is, and he will say it weighs this much, is this long, there's iron and some wood. Ask you and it's a hammer."
sonicsuns 2 years ago
I respond: Do you mean to say that the entire question of existence is subjective? I acknowledge that subjectivity influences everything we experience, but I believe in a fundamental objective reality. When you say that an object is either substance or technology, I assume that you mean the object has some fundamental objective property which places it in one of these two groups.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
If an object is substance from one perspective, and technology from another perspective, and neither of these perspectives is superior to the other, then the whole question is moot. At that point we're not even talking about ontology, but rather people's perceptions of ontology. Right?
sonicsuns 2 years ago
You said:"How do you measure forness?
This question is based on a categorical error: being as substance has measureable properties -- height, weight, lumenosity, the whole gamet of quantifiable aspects which form the basis of physical science. Forness can not be weighed, just as it can not be counted."
I respond: This is nonsense. It reminds me of the old idea that experience is divided into quantia and qualia.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Quantia was all things we can measure, like height and weight, and qualia was all the things we couldn't measure, like color. But in reality, qualia was just hard-to-measure quantia. Color, for instance, was found to be the result of frequencies of light, and now we can measure it with great precision. The same was found to be true of several other properties, and I see no reason why the pattern should not continue indefinitely.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
With that I say that forness can in fact be measured, it is simply very very difficult to measure. As for the forness of hammers, I might start by examining people's ideas regarding hammers, giving surveys, asking what they knew about hammers, did they own a hammer, had they ever used a hammer, etc.. I might measure how often hammers are purchased or used, how often they are mentioned in the written word, I might look into the history of hammers, etc..
sonicsuns 2 years ago
With further technology I might read people's brain waves as they talked about hammers or used hammers or looked at hammers etc.. And in all of this I'd tackle hammer variety, asking "Is this a hammer? What about this?" etc.. And I'd amalgamate all this data and come up with a measurement of the forness of hammers in modern culture.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Naturally, this would be difficult. And naturally, my measurement would be little more than a very rough estimation of the real thing. But just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean that measurement is impossible.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
To demonstrate the value of the aforementioned process, imagine that I repeated it with regards to stick-blobs. Clearly, less people would recognize stick-blobs, less people have used them, etc.. Their culture would hold fewer references, their brain waves would display less recongnition, etc. etc.. And after amalgamating the data by the same method as before, I would find that stick-blobs have much less forness than hammers.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
So you see that forness can in fact be measured. And once we measure it, we learn that the property is not binary, but spectral. I could easily construct a thing-that-looks-sorta-like-a-hammer-but-also-sorta-like-a-stick-blob, and run the process again, and the measured amount of forness would be more than the stick-blob, but less than the hammer.
Again, existence is spectral.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
There was a lot of "mights" and "would be's" and "difficulties."
Let me say this: what dimension would you measurement be in pounds, meters, seconds?
No. Something about this is just not clear.
The best example of a spectrum is the electromagnetic. There is a dimension "wavelength" that defines the dimension of the spectrum by which we can say "more or less of this gives us red. " By which property of the substance of stick-blob do we say "more or less of this gives us a hammer."
Newton1692 2 years ago
Mind you, the properties of the stick blob are those attributed to wood and iron.
Newton1692 2 years ago
Heidegger's whole point is there isn't one (a system of measurement -- for what would its dimension's be?).
Newton1692 2 years ago
I already discussed this: see comment on Modern analysis and the concept of emergent properties. It's a hot top in modern philosophy although there are objections.
Newton1692 2 years ago
I think we're both out of our depth when it comes to neurology; however, if we did define having one firing neuron as the only property a thinking thing had, you could only take so much from it until it no longer function. It either functions or it doesn't and a definite line can be drawn between functionality and brakedown : Not only conceptually but physically. There are no continuous spectrums in nature (see quantum mechanics: not even the electromagnetic spectrum is continuous).
Newton1692 2 years ago
Neurons, nor parts of Neurons can be infinitely divided in reality only in our imaginations. Medically once a certain, finite number of brain cells die (stop functioning) -- you are no longer a thinking thing (by the way, that amount could be all of them).
Newton1692 2 years ago
I think there are different degrees of consciousness. But a definite (not arbitrary ) distinction between consciousness and non-consciousness.
Newton1692 2 years ago
I agree with Heidegger up until he starts talking about time. I hated descartes' ontology, but loved his writing.
As far as my ontological beliefs, I have been discussing them for the most part.
I am not really sure if Heidegger would agree with everything I said he says. But ... he's dead.
Newton1692 2 years ago
Hey, great video.
You should definitely do more videos of thoughts (or summaries) of other philosophy branches.
micsunderland3 2 years ago
thanks, miscunderland3. I will.
Look up "SonicsunsPhilosophy" to see more videos on the subject.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
I think the problem with humans and our inability to articulate/comprehend ontological theories is that our minds work in binary.... we can only see things in perspective (there is the conscious 'us', and there is the 'other'/ the thing we are perceiving).... This means we can only break things down into opposing things (light/dark, day/night, is/isn't, can't/cant/, 1/0)
frankenshizzle 2 years ago
I wouldn't say that we *only* think in binary. After all, we're not flabbergasted by dimmer-switches on light bulbs. But it's true that binary thinking does tend to be easier, and less accurate, than spectrumalistic thinking. Thus our tendency towards binary. This is particularly true when applied to strange concepts. We're fine with spectrums on dimmer-switches, but we're less comfortable applying them to ontology.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Question.
such as on or off, or black and white? Similar to thinking in "black or white" or "right and wrong"
I see people do this all the time, Your wrong, I'm right...on and on and on and on..
sandbar3000 2 years ago
Stupid humans! Everything we comprehend exists (otherwise, how are we comprehending it?), Human beings are incapable of comprehending 'nothing' (or nonexistence) (Be cause when your trying to think of 'nothing', your thinking of 'something' ); 'existence' can only be defined by opposing it to 'nonexistence'.... THUS, trying to comprehend the concept of 'existence' is simply impossible/or it will always lead to a circular argument.
frankenshizzle 2 years ago
I'd like to hear your views on the existance of a god. As a thiest, I do not understand everything about God/god , but I believe in a god/God.
I'm wondering how I can believe in a god, but not fully comprehend the god that I believe in.
Reguardless of your belief system, do you think that this is where most of the athiest come from? If you can't understand it and comprehend it, it must not exist. ??
Just wondering. Thanks!
sandbar3000 2 years ago
I am not quite theist, though i am completely open to ideas of omnipotent figures such as God. How I think of it is: If God were some entity that created everything the exists, then God would have to transcend 'existence'. Assuming that this is the case; God doesn't exist, though a person could still recognize God as a 'real being' and be perfectly correct. This is because God would 'be' outside the bounds of our universe...
frankenshizzle 2 years ago
Personally I cant speak for the entire atheist population; but i see that the common view of God has lead to some very blatant contradictions, in both science and history. Also, people need hard evidence of things before they can believe them to be true.
frankenshizzle 2 years ago
You need to study Husserl and Heidegger, and maybe Sartre, before you can truly criticize phenomenology or ontology (phenomenology lead way to ontology). It's way more complicated than you make it.
pugnaciousboxer2 2 years ago
At any rate, I found this video very intellectually compelling and stimulating, considering you speak about many aspects of existence which I am currently attempting to theorize. Although, I'm actually attempting to construct an entire all-encompassing philosophical system which explains existence within the context of some theoretical structure governed by scientific laws. My thoughts are similar to yours, but not exactly. Perhaps we could discuss this in more detail elsewhere.
MungMusicMania 2 years ago
Thanks for your comments. It's always good to find thoughtful people on the internet. If you'd like to discuss this in more detail, you're free to send me a private message or an email, or perhaps you could make a video.
sonicsuns 2 years ago
Also, when you speak of "Creation and Destruction," I agree: you can actually reduce these two things to one notion: CHANGE. Hence, in science, neither energy nor matter are created or destroyed (supposedly). If we take that to be true, what happens to our conscious being at the time of death, which is composed of energy? Basically, it is CHANGED. It transforms, so that we no longer consciously exist. We revert to a pre-birth stage. There is no consciousness. Only a changed energy.
MungMusicMania 2 years ago
Your on the right path, however please rethink your thoughts on consciousness, their is always consciousness, it will always exist, in this dimension, and beyond.
xxdummyfreshful 2 years ago
Very interesting stuff here, sonicsuns. You are articulating -- to some extent -- thoughts which I've slowly developed since I was 12, which I'm currently attempting to really structure. If I completely abstract the matter, I realize that existence is based on some sort of 'perspective.' Many things we can perceive; many of these perceptions are based on smaller things; then there are larger entities, so that everything that 'exists' is merely a result of our human perspective in this matrix.
MungMusicMania 2 years ago
existence is about our perspective, if we can percieve it it exists, kinda closed minded as we have a tiny amount of perspective on "being".
stillbillstillbillst 2 years ago
is this the little brother of VenomFangX?
deluxbellorum 2 years ago
and for some reason I keep getting on here at like 11pm, after a long day. And make simple typos =\ my apologies.
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
And of course. In the process of exposure or disclosure, different people have different understandings, ways of going about making sense of things, and maybe even different moods when they encounter phenomenon in the world.
The point of disclosure, and means in which we disclose properties, has an huge influence on the way we get results within our subjective spectrum.
Thanks for commenting back. I enjoying reading your thoughts.
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
concerning the subjective perspective and exposure that one person might have vs others.
Existence is more or less disclosure. This is why censorship works. Concealment removes the subjective percepts of "existence".
Think about a tree falling in the forest. Even if no one was there to hear it, it would still make an impact on the world when it fell. However, the fallen tree, wouldn't exist to a person until they actually saw that it had fallen tree.
What exists is limited by our exposure.
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
however different forms of subjective ontology, create different understandings of items or aspects of the world.
If the science doesn't account for the subject-object distinction, the way that people have different familiarities with the same object is removed from discourse.
Which is a travesty, since the basis of how we go about acting, and the limits and understands of how we do it, all take place in this realm.
The way we give meaning to objects, and order data for results is subjective
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
The whole point of ontology is how someone sees the item they are using. How they are familure with it, and the way they use it for means to ends. Which is different with many people. Again, even drivers in cars use the same piece of technology different and maybe have different understandings of how to fix the engine if it were to break.
The study of how people go about making sense of items and giving them meaning is very important. =]
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
Aah, Bi0hazardx, you are approaching the subject from a very different perspective.
In the subjective sense, yes, absolutely, I agree that Ontology is important. We have every reason to discuss and debate various theories regarding how people think about objects. In this sense, Ontology is akin to psychology.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
I was discussing Ontology in the objective sense, wherein it is assumed that every possible object is "existent" or "not existent" on a fundamental level, independent of anyone's perceptions. In that sense, the question is pointless. There is no fundamental binary distinction called "existence", rather there is a spectrum of existence, and additionally every person thinks of things in different ways. To some, complex numbers seem "existent". To others, they seem "non-existent". ETc.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
This is comparable to physics. Newton and his peers believed in a fundamental space-and-time, which served as a starting point against which all objects could be measured. Something could be "moving" or "not moving" on a fundamental scale.
Einstein taught us that space and time are relative, and that no one perspective has any special meaning. In this sense, any object could be "moving" or "not moving" depending on perspective. (Except light, perhaps, but we'll skip over that for now)
sonicsuns 3 years ago
Applying the analogy, when I first researched Ontology I found people with a Newton-style mindset, attempting to define existence in a fundamental way. I advocate an Einstein-mindset, wherein there is no fundamental measurement and thus the classic question is moot.
But in terms of subjective experiences and perceptions, obviously Ontology is important. Thank you for informing me of this new approach; I had thought that Ontology always implied an objective, Newton-style mindset.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
really quick. I'll reply to the rest a little later.
"In the subjective sense, yes, absolutely, I agree that Ontology is important. We have every reason to discuss "
Yes but hasn't all forms of exposure, disclosure of scientific principles or patterns in the world come from consciousness and thus a grouping of subjective perspectives.
If science claims that it is studying the objective world, then it is also claiming that it is a neutral observer, that preserves the natural state of things
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
"What is it that would distinguish an object that does exist from one that utterly does not."
There are possibly objects at the bottom of the sea or ends of the galaxy that humans have not been exposure to. Without disclosure, items and entities can be nothing on the subjective level. Concealment is just as important as exposure. When someone analyzes something they build a spectrum of concern and logic based on what they know. This is why censorship and propaganda work hand-in-hand. They frame
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
Sorry for the minor typos, its quite late.
Sonicsuns,
I have some really interesting readings and audio lectures on ontology. That go a lot deeper than wikipedia. If you are interested I would be happy to send them over and engage in any discussion on the matter you would like.
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
Some people, only know how to click on the IE link to use the (internet) which some think is the computer. And if anyone removes the IE link of the desktop, they may think the internet disappeared. Which I have seen happen. Kind of like the sun disappearing if someone say it go down for the first time.
Our experiences mold and mesh us with items and worldly disclosure, like understandings of the social sphere.
Its an internal reference point of meaning, that can differ from person to person.
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
For instance a doctor may know have a different internal concept of a tool and the potential of its uses, compared to someone else. Even though they both see the same physical properties concerning the items. Those physical properties do not account for learning.
Ontology really deals with the perceptual internalization of our world, and how we make sense of them, go about using them or what we use them for.
Think about computers, some people have limited understandings.
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
Two people can use the same object for different functions. The brute fact physical properties of an object may influence but do not dictate the use and internal conceptions of items. Its a subjective familiarity with an item. Ontology is from the subjective level and should study how people give meaning to the world around them. You know - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, you need consciousness to be any perception or conception of WORLD or worldhood, the way we engage with it
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
Comment removed
Bi0hazardx 3 years ago
1:50 - Are you a "creationist"? Just asking...
What do you think about the "nothing"? The Singularity that existed before the big bang?
AlienScientist 3 years ago
I believe in the Big Bang, and evolution, and such. So no, I'm not a creationist. (For more detail on my religious views, see the video "My thoughts on religion")
And according to Stephen Hawking asking "What was before the big bang?" is like asking "What's north of the north pole?", so I'm not sure what you mean by "before the big bang".
Furthermore, I'm not so sure there's a fundamental "nothing", either. Everything you can think of exists, at least a little bit. Basically.
sonicsuns 3 years ago
1:03 - What?
Heidegger owns you dude...
AlienScientist 3 years ago