against dualism

[David_God_of_Frogs]

Don’t you guys have…jobs you’re supposed to be doing or something?

originally posted by Erislover
A computer can pump out a signal to a monitor to display a pattern as such:
~(a = a)
of which someone will say, “That’s a representation of a contradiction.” Yes, to us. But to explain such phenomenon physically, we must remove all the implicit “to us” qualifiers.

It is my point that this cannot be done without removing all “object and designation” meaning, which (so far as I can gather) removes the possibility of truth conditions. All your sentences are ontologically worthless. Including the claim that “everything is physical.”

This is what Aspiditra was arguing a while back. It is true that claiming that everything is physical refutes itself, but, as I am attempting to prove, so does dualism. This would appear to put them on equal footing, EXCEPT that one of the usual assumtions of dualism is that it is NECCESARY to explain the universe, so putting them on equal footing in effect refutes dualism. It leaves a much weaker version, that dualism is possible but not necessary, intact, but I’m not contesting that.

Lib: I’m still not sure how that’s relevent to anything.

[Liberal]

Ok, David. I can take a hint.

[Justhink]

*Originally posted by Ramanujan *
**so what if we define falsity as the necessary lack of truth? that is, the lack of a proposition’s ability to be true? is this lacking dualist in nature? does the fact that we define darkness point to our dualist nature? **

We may need to acutely articulate an abstraction of dualism to clarify this issue.
In order for beings to possess recursion, something must exist outside the feild of their consent.

We can seperate a primary dualism here.
The ability for something to percieve its consent implies that which cannot be consented and that which can consent.

If there exists only one of these states and not the other, our perception of being able to percieve a determinism with which to determine ourselves could not exist.

I think that it’s an error to necessarily associate dualism with physicalism, and physicalism with determinism.

What we’re working with here are recursive abstractions from our own perception of that which must exist in order for us to be aware of certain states.

For the state: I agree to this, knowing these risks and ‘hoping’ to circumvent them to achieve desire fulfillment, understanding that I’m not required to be here at all now that I can choose from this abstraction of myself.

Anyhow, for this perception; we are assuming the existence to something else with which to derive a point for action, since seemingly we have a choice in the matter. We can always attempt to prove our choice by submitting ourselves to willful non-action, or one of our many concepts which renders a willful termination of the mechanism which allows the being of our consent mechanism to operate.

Presumably, this act would terminate us when the consent mechanism is destroyed.

We have no collapse of dualism here. We are not necessarily talking about physical things; rather, seperate entities of consent and the ability to percieve:

An interpretive mechanism of consent existing within a being or not existing in a being (something outside the being).
More to the point is our ability to percieve error or contradiction.
This is a necessarily postulated form of what allows us perception of consent in the first place.

When the error margin collapses, our self-perception collapses into either feild of absolute absolute consent or absolute non-consent - we can be mechanized as seperate from the datafield which acts as the non-consent body for us to percieve our consent, or we can join it - possessing absolute consent without recursion.

While this (gaining absolute consent at the expense of self-awareness) may seem meaningless to self-recursive interactives; it must also be aknowledged that this choice and existent state is what allows it to be in the first place.

When this ‘organ’ is destroyed by the abstracted consentor, the recursion collapses.

The perception of nothing is akin to the selection by the metabolic system for consent perception upon a cluster of cycling models of law from the data field. We are defined by the law of the metabolic systems’ structure; which is defined by possibility within the data field; absent full translation - which is the collapse of motion through a metabolic system of consent perception.

In order to percieve awareness of self being a causant agent upon a reactive environment, perceptual acuity is brought into being by abstracting the data field; which only occurs if the field is not wholly selected. Perceptual acuity is defined by selecting a portion of what is percieved and necessarily existent for that perception to comprehend motive of self.

The cost of self-recursion (free-will) is the cost of absolute consent. The motivation of free-will is the redemption of consent, which from its perspective implies redeeming as much as possible while maintaining it’s ability to percieve consent, not only of itself but also of that which is being operated to achieve consent fulfillment. To the degree that the consent of another body is being ignored, the abstraction of will, will necessarily be limited to it’s ability to exersize desire fulfillment, even though it may be content in it’s own delusion of consent to this degree.

Hmm… rambling again.

-Justhink

[erislover]

I wouldn’t say physicalism refutes itself, though. I would say that, as I understand it (a very real qualification!), a claim of physicalism cannot be supported for various reasons. It could still be true. I can’t support dualism, either.

Don’t you guys have…jobs you’re supposed to be doing or something?

Shh! Actually, yes, and though earlier this week I thought I was overwhelmed, it turns out the problem was not as big as I anticipated. My work does not require my constant attention. It does require my attendence, though.

[Justhink]

When this ‘organ’ is destroyed by the abstracted consentor, the recursion collapses.

This implies that the ‘organ’ can be destroyed, and from experience, most likely will be destroyed whether we actively do it or not. Confronting this issue early on rubs against the process for consent redemtion in a whole host of troubling ways.

However, not confronting it, assures that consent and the perception of determinism will be that much less abstracted; will will be that more more superfluous in systems which rate these types of judgements in order to allow consent to ‘choose’ between current luxury of ignorance vs. the rewards of additional abstractions working through this layer. ‘Consent’ may very well take the gift of the abstraction and kill the abstractor just to prove to itself that it has consent - avoiding the obvious rendering which is it’s self-termination.

-Justhink

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**I’m not claiming falsity is manifested; indeed I agree that it isn’t. What our brain uses to represent falsity is manifested. This is of interest to me as map and territory start to lose their seperation if meaning is to be maintained. If it isn’t, if the statement “There is a ball here” always stops short of the fact that there is a ball here. Which is fine. But so does the statement, “Everything is physical.” **

i’m not sure what you mean by the second part of this.

i’ll take a stab anyway: we have already determined that the representation of a contradiction is somehow different from that of the ball. that the ball is represented by itself while our idea of contradiction is not does not show that the concept of contradiction is not consistent with physicalism. that said, it is often a claim of physicalists that the mind is physical, so anything related to mental causation is physical, too. i realize that that does not represent proof, but it does show that there is at least consistency.

[Iamthat]

** erislover**

How can the representation of a thing not be the thing yet represent it?

What is it about, “There is a ball here.”-> that represents -> “There is a ball here.”-> factually? Well it may be an assumption.

A computer has what we call “inputs”. There is nothing that is an input to a computer because there is no such qualifier “to a computer”. It is the unspoken assumption of dualism that gives us such qualifiers as, “To me” or “to him” or even “to it” (when referring to animals of unknown sex, for example). It is a presumption of consciousness that allows subjectivity.

Similarly there is nothing that is, “There is a ball here.”…> to a ball.

Or, “There is a computer here."…>to a computer

“There is a thought here.” Or “This thought here.” is “This thought here.”->factually, actually. Appears to be nondual, but is dualist in the sense that the awareness (of it) is not the thought, “This thought here.”

So there both dualist.

Maybe it’s a question of where the observer or awareness appears to be located.

[erislover]

I’m not sure where you consider the first part to end and the second part to begin.

The statement “There is a ball there” means that there is a physical ball in this very real location I am directing your attention to (Child [pointing]: “Ball!”; Parent: “Yes, there is a ball there.”). That is, the meaning of the sentence doesn’t stop when you understand it, it goes all the way up to, and includes and implies, the fact that a physical ball is there.

“That is a contradiction” cannot be a meaningful sentence unless meaning stops short of the fact (for the fact would be a manifestation of a contradiction). Specifically, the term “contradiction” cannot mean (in this sense, point to) a contradiction. Sure, it can really mean, “a logical brain-state that causes us to make the sounds ‘a contradiction’” but if we allow it in this case, what guarantees us that this isn’t the explanation for all words? And if it is, then what tells us the meaning behind, “Everything is physical”?

[Justhink]

‘Consent’ may very well take the gift of the abstraction and kill the abstractor just to prove to itself that it has consent - avoiding the obvious rendering which is it’s self-termination.

This is meant to read:
Kill the abstractor of another being which is equally abstracted as a self-recursive interactive - defaulting the proof of consent from it’s own termination to the termination of that which abstracted something which allows it greater ability to achieve desire fulfillment. It is a reflective property of delusion (contradiction), which assures behaviorally, that this being is choosing misapplied non-consent in order evidence itself of potence with regards to consent.

I am convinced that the map can be reduced to the point of structure which cannot have consent violated or virtualized.
At this point, the structure can be virtualized rather than the consent; while maintaining the ability to know this is true; both:

Consent is absolutely redeemed on the part of the being seeking experience of all the combinations of the data field.

None of the combinations of the data field abstractions are being manipulated; rather they are being abstracted out as virtualizations - of themselves with their consent. Much like a DMV record is a virtualization of a being (albeit a crude one).
Making a usable copy of this DMV form from the universal set for virtualizing a being (that this being allowed); renders that the being is not being effected by use of their record or the existence or non-existence of their record. You can tear up the copy, without tearing up the record of their virtualization; neither of which effect the being adversely - although destroying the primary record could result in unpleasantness on their actual being. (Deleting someones DMV file unknown to them could cause them problems; while flushing a copy of it down the toilet does not harm them: This also creates the issue of knowledge variations however: You know something about them that they don’t necessarily know that you know about them; not mentioning this is effectively ensuring that they will not think to ask about your virtualizations - this doesn’t even touch the fact of whether or not you would allow or disallow them to veiw it. In our current society, this is a huge problem).

-Justhink

[erislover]

Iamthat

How can the representation of a thing not be the thing yet represent it?

Assuming dualism, the answer is trivial. To a conscious being (something mental). But I don’t know how to carry it out in physicalism without saying that there are words that we think are meaningful but aren’t (which, if it sounds strained, well that’s my point).

Maybe it’s a question of where the observer or awareness appears to be located.

Given dualism, the question is purely metaphysical. Given, say, functionalism, the question contains a mistake.

Similarly there is nothing that is, “There is a ball here.”…> to a ball.

Yes, given what I think about epistemology, as well, there is nothing that makes “This ball exists” true without someone to interpret it (eg. there is no, “true to the universe”).

[Ramanujan]

“That is a contradiction” cannot be a meaningful sentence unless meaning stops short of the fact (for the fact would be a manifestation of a contradiction). Specifically, the term “contradiction” cannot mean (in this sense, point to) a contradiction. Sure, it can really mean, “a logical brain-state that causes us to make the sounds ‘a contradiction’” but if we allow it in this case, what guarantees us that this isn’t the explanation for all words? And if it is, then what tells us the meaning behind, “Everything is physical”?

so, let’s say that an “idea” is a something that is manifested physically in a certain brain-state, or states. that, then, is physical. the “idea” of a proposition is not non-physical. the idea that a proposition is either true or false is not non-physical (i’m not sure what truth is, but i’m sure it could have a physical meaning). so therefore, the idea that a certain proposition is always false is no more non-physical than the brainstate that created it. and there you have your physical manifestation of a contradiction. it is there. nothing is stopping short of the fact.

if it’s a contradictory notion you’re worried about, we’ve already established that that isn’t really a notion at all.

[erislover]

Justhink, I have to admit you lost me three posts ago.

Perhaps if I said this: if there is any connection between what we mean and what exists (truth, for example), somewhere, on some map (model), must be something that is what it represents.

[erislover]

DAMN there are some posts sneaking in here… lol

[Justhink]

Yes, given what I think about epistemology, as well, there is nothing that makes “This ball exists” true without someone to interpret it (eg. there is no, “true to the universe”).

You’re discarding permanence here eris. The point is that there is someone to interpret it, that is true and is part of the universe.

The core of what operates it’s own consent outside of us can’t abstract itself in such a means as to state “This is true about me”.

That’s what we do, as we can also percieve other existents through our lack of knowledge of absolute determinism.

But I don’t know how to carry it out in physicalism without saying that there are words that we think are meaningful but aren’t (which, if it sounds strained, well that’s my point).

You just contradicted yourself with the first quote I selected.

-Justhink

[erislover]

if it’s a contradictory notion you’re worried about, we’ve already established that that isn’t really a notion at all.

Then it can’t be there, as you emphasized, can it?

[Justhink]

Yes, given what I think about epistemology, as well, there is nothing that makes “This ball exists” true without someone to interpret it (eg. there is no, “true to the universe”).

You’re discarding permanence here eris. The point is that there is someone to interpret it, that is true and is part of the universe.

The core of what operates it’s own consent outside of us can’t abstract itself in such a means as to state “This is true about me”.

That’s what we do, as we can also percieve other existents through our lack of knowledge of absolute determinism.

But I don’t know how to carry it out in physicalism without saying that there are words that we think are meaningful but aren’t (which, if it sounds strained, well that’s my point).

You just contradicted yourself with the first quote I selected.
You’re choosing where to map permance at your convenience.
I agree with this general idea that something does not come from nothing - rather that something comes from a process of reflection (something else to hold the reflection) and the necessity for the reflection to not be complete; to be restrained.
‘Nothing’ does not restrain things!

-Justhink

[erislover]

The point is that there is someone to interpret it, that is true and is part of the universe.

But can you say this without referencing someone?

[David_God_of_Frogs]

Lib: I’m not “hinting” at anything. I don’t mean for anything I say here to be taken personally. (There’s a real world for that.) The assumtion is that if you post here, you open yourself up to criticism based on the merits of your points.

The reason I was questioning the relevence of your point to the OP was that I was assuming that you were trying to refute the OP - maybe that was an unwarranted assumtion. Maybe I should ask: were you trying to argue a point, or was that just a side note?

[Ramanujan]

Then it can’t be there, as you emphasized, can it?

i meant to differentiate between a contradiction and a contradictory notion, the point i worked at in earlier posts.

“drawing a regular heptagon with nothing but a straightedge and a compass”. contradictory notion. no one can actually think this all the way through.

“a statement that is always false”. contradiction. i can represent mentally a proposition that can never contain truth. and, i can represent it physically, by the method described previously.

so in neither case do you defy logic, and neither does your mental state deny physical representation.

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by Ramanujan *
**so in neither case do you defy logic, and neither does your mental state deny physical representation. **

ahem…DEFY physical…blah blah blah