Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

[Sapius]

Steven, firstly, whom are you addressing here…

Absolute nothingness cannot actually be, because it demands its own absence, which in turn demands something other than absence. You are talking about a "nothingness" as profound as existence itself. An absence so profound that it demands the absence of all, itself included.

Who is talking about Absolute nothingness?

For the consciousness of a cow to operate at its most fundamental level, it has to recognise differences. If it recognises "A=A", which is impossible at that stage, and attempts to draw conclusions from this, it will die.

It is fundamental that the first that is conceptualised or recognised is difference. Absolutely fundamental. You cannot "wake" consciousness without it.

Agreed, but let me put it this way.

Imagine there is absolutely only A. (what you seem to assume by A=A). Of course, that is impossible to begin with due to the fact that existence is, and could not be otherwise, and that needs at least any two things to be around. A and B, or say the observer and the observed. Now when I say A=A, that is, recognition through differentiation, then there has to necessarily be an A and something that which is not it, enter the observer (B). This is the bare minimum needed.

In a cow, it “knows”, is aware through auto-deduction (if I may), that A (grass) is not me. A cow has to be aware that it is it and not the grass to begin with, at the least, and go about its world. The cow doesn’t need to conceptualize or define A=A, it is an auto-sensual-calculation happening at light speed. On the other hand, it is we who cognitively understand such system and define it.

I’m happy to say "A is not B", or A = not (not A), no difference really. However, A=A seems like Einstein’s E=mc2; short and sweet, and conveys the meaning equally well. If you don’t like it, no problem, but actually the essence is the same, which is whats mportant in my opinion.

[Dave Toast]

You cannot conceive of identity and relationship, for you are not aware of any distinction.

Then you are not aware full stop. Awareness can only arise with distinction.

DT: If you have a mind, they exist necessarily.

Steven: Difference, interpretation, relationship and conception do not exist within the mind untill they are realised.

And yet there is no such thing as mind without them.

There is not a single peice of evidence that supports the claim that the mind is formed with conceptions already inplace, but there are critical cornerstone works of philosophy of mind that posit the exact opposite, that conception forms only when the mind is stimulated.

What you refer to are actually cornerstone works in linguistics, which might or might not be classified as philosophy of mind. But that is an aside and we're getting well away from the subject here.

You are conflating the conscious act of distinction with the conscious act of being aware of the conscious act of distinction. The latter does not invalidate the necessity of the former.

Do explain how a mind devoid of sense data or any other form of input "necessarilly contains conceptions" within its structure. I would enjoy reading this.

I haven't suggested anything of the kind. After all, it would be contradictory of me to do so being as there can be no such thing as 'mind devoid of sense data or any other form of input'.

DT: If you recognise A=A then you must be conscious. Consciousness necessitates at least one distinction.

Steven: You cannot recognise "A=A" untill long after you "become" conscious,

And yet the very moment consciousness arises, A=A is in operation.

and even then the phrase is still devoid of meaning.

I've already explained how the meaning of A=A is elaborated upon by its most obvious and logically necessary corollary.

Your whole thing here is that "The fundamental basis of consciousness is relationship of differences." and that any statement of the form A=A (identity) "relate to themselves and nothing else.", thereby being devoid of meaning and therefore cannot be the fundamental basis of consciousness. I am saying that identity, differentiation and relationship necessarily arise together. This is because there can be no identity without distinction, which necessitates differentiation and therefore relationship. Identity (A=A) can only arise with distinction (A = ~(~A)). So the position that A=A is an irrelevant statement, devoid of meaning, couldn't be further from the truth. Difference and relationship (A = ~(~A) are necessarily composed of identity (A=A), the most basic and fundamental statement of the nature of consciousness.

[Steven]

Your whole thing here is that "The fundamental basis of consciousness is relationship of differences." and that any statement of the form A=A (identity) "relate to themselves and nothing else.", thereby being devoid of meaning and therefore cannot be the fundamental basis of consciousness. I am saying that identity, differentiation and relationship necessarily arise together. This is because there can be no identity without distinction, which necessitates differentiation and therefore relationship. Identity (A=A) can only arise with distinction (A = ~(~A)). So the position that A=A is an irrelevant statement, devoid of meaning, couldn't be further from the truth. Difference and relationship (A = ~(~A) are necessarily composed of identity (A=A), the most basic and fundamental statement of the nature of consciousness.

A=A is not identity. A is identity. This is why A=A is such a fundamental non-statement. Equating an object to itself means nothing that is not already understood.

And your logic here [Identity (A=A) can only arise with distinction (A = ~(~A))] is absurd. In order to arrive at identity the mind must understand the relationship that identity equals not not identity. So the mind must conceptualise identity and understand negatives, equality and component/sum relationships to arrive at identity. Infact what you are saying is that a mind devoid of experience other than that of being a mind will produce an understanding of relationship, identity, differentiation, negatives and double negatives a priori.

That is the absurd implication of the defence of a meaningless statement.

What basis does the mind have for attempting to form a conception of identity and relationship if it does not know anything other than its own existence?

Then you are not aware full stop. Awareness can only arise with distinction.

Precisely. Without distinction the thought process cannot be triggered into conceiving the fallacious "A=A". You are saying the mind must conceive of a distinction where no distinction is experienced in order to trigger the process of forming conceptions. "A=A" is the most basic and fundamental state of not being conscious, of being unaware that can exist in mind.

I am saying that the experience of difference triggers the conception of relationship, and only after that can the conception of identity occur. Identity is the conclusion of the experience of difference and the cognition of relationship.

[Kevin Solway]

A=A is not identity. A is identity.

"A=A" signifies memory, which is the essence of consciousness, and genius.

Identity, for our purposes, is something conscious, and is therefore always "A=A" (a thing is itself, and not other than itself).

Without memory (and consciousness) there is still interaction between things, but they are all effectively merged and undiscriminated. (See Dave Sim's "Merged Void" on the web)

[Laird]

Kevin has kept it simple,undeniable "everything =everything".This statement doesn't have the potential to be false.Yours does.

Kevin also asserts that this "everything" is infinite. That statement has the potential to be false.

[Imadrongo]

HOW DOES A=A SIGNIFY MEMORY???

In other words, for your purposes, how do you redefine "memory"?

[Steven]

A=A is not identity. A is identity.

"A=A" signifies memory, which is the essence of consciousness, and genius.

Identity, for our purposes, is something conscious, and is therefore always "A=A" (a thing is itself, and not other than itself).

Without memory (and consciousness) there is still interaction between things, but they are all effectively merged and undiscriminated. (See Dave Sim's "Merged Void" on the web)

"A=A" signifies only an over elaboration that necessitates an understanding of "A" to arrive at "A". Untill B is perceived "a thing is itself, and not other than itself" is an impossible cognition for there is no premise for any of the predicates.

The conception of "thing" or indeed of "identity" can only occur after there exists within the mind the experience of difference from which to draw the conclusion of difference from. One cannot arrive at an experience of difference from the cognition of difference from the cognition of identity, for that presumes the cognition of difference and of identity, which has no grounds outside of experience. One cannot experience a cognition as the spark to ignite cognition.

"That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it."

The experience of "A=A" is a non experience, for it is an experience of no experience. "The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind". There is no object of that experience, for there is no distinction, there is no context, no variation. One cannot relate self to self when self is all there is, because this requires no relation, has no context within which to understand relation and attempt to derive a relation. Memory, thought, observation and experience all provide the identical input of universal uniformity, but one cannot recognise it as uniform nor universal for there is no basis upon which to form an understanding of these things.

When one is aware of the self of mind alone, devoid of physical or sensuous impressions, one is unaware. The self of mind is devoid of memory as memory is devoid of distinction. Understanding is devoid of relationship. Judgement is devoid of memory and understanding. Perception is devoid of experience. Merged void may be a cute phrase, but it is none the less irrelevant. One does not understand "devoid".

There is no basis to form the relationship of identity, for what relevance has relationship or identity and what spark is present to fire its cognition?

Identity of "Self" is a relationship between "self" and "other". The first comprehension is "difference", not "difference between" or "difference of" but "difference". It is the result of memory but it is not the cognition of memory. Cognition of memory requires self and time. Time requires cognition of difference and relationship, Self requires cognition of difference and relationship. When difference is perceived, experienced, it forms the cognition of "object" or "thing", which sparks the awareness of another object, which allows the cognition of relationship, which allows the cognition of identity, space, and time. This is the basis from which all our subsequent thought arises.

Prior to this one cannot know "A=A" and one cannot cognate that "A=~(~A)", one is just aware of an unending expanse of A, hence unaware.

Even without plumbing the depths of transcendental philosophy it is self evident that "A=A" is the epitome of a non statement. You have used it multiple times to support various arguements, but each and everyone of them is fundamentally flawed.

I have been reading the discussion on "Totality" and it strikes me as both over elaborate, avoidant of fundamental issues, and worst of all it uses semantics to wave away concerns that must be fundamentally rationalised in complete form.

I do however think that this is the right track. It just needs rigorous arguement to thrash out the ambiquities that threaten the validity of the conceptual inquery.

The conception of "Totality" is the right track for conceptual elaboration. It defines all things but makes no claim as to what they are or how they operate other than that they are present. All that is, whatever that may be, will invariably be a part of "All Things". Shape, boundary, and yes even cause are irrelevant for they cannot be other than a part of "All Things".

"A=A" is not an explanation. It is not a process, it is nothing. Totality cannot rest upon the premise that A=A as I can conceive of their absence. The absence of "Totality" itself produces another conception devoid of "internal goings-on" that can none the less fulfill the implication of "Totality".

The conceptualisation of "All Things" or "Totality" is only the first step. If we define the profound void as "Totality" then this implication becomes a severe problem, as a "Totality" devoid of interelating "things" is a much simpler "Totality" to explain, for its needs none. We have a word that describes the Total of What it is. If it is nothing, if it is absence of things, then it is "Totality".

If this conceptualisation of "ALL" is the right track, its implication must negate the "Totality of the profound Void". A Totality of nothing is still a Totality. If I scour the implication and presence of "Totality" from my conceptual landscape, what can possibly refute this absence?

"Totality" must therefore be not everything that is or "All Things", but all that is possible "The Ability for All Things to Be". This is not "Totality". Scouring the "Totality" of all things leaves an absence that can still be called "Totality". Scouring the "Ability for All Things to Be" leaves an impossibility that is never "The Ability for All Things to Be". This is Existence.

If Existence is the ability to be or all that is possible, the absence of the ability to be negates the absence of the ability to be. If "Totality" is all things, the absence of all things is still "Totality".

Defining "Totality" as "All Things" does not fundamentally negate absence. It merely presupposes "things" without explaining them. If we remove "Totality" and "All Things" from the mental landscape what stops the absence of things being an absence of things? If Totality is not a thing, neither is its absence. If we assume that "Totality" is "All Things" because that is self consistent irrespective of implications of "how", then the absence of all things being the absence of all things is self consistent. The "Entirety of All Things" has a counter part which is "Absence of All Things" and is self consistent and mutually exclusive.

The term "Totality" attempts to exclude its absence. The problem is that the "absence of all things" excludes the premise upon which Totality is founded upon. It can still be called "The Total of All That Is".

In other words "Totality" can equally be called "Absence of All Things". So "Totality" attempts to accumulate both "All Things" and "Absence of All Things" under its mantle. Clever. The problem is that you cannot have both "presence" and "absence" of all things, and you cannot justify the presence of anything in this manner.

The old problems continue to manifest themselves. Why should either of these be possible? Given "Total presence of things" or "Total Absence of Things" with "Totality" being above thing-dom, why things instead of absence?

Indeed why any of this junk and not just the profound void? Absence of All Things requires no explanation while we continue to deal with things. Things do not necessitate Totality, only incomprehension of cause and comprehension of absence. Things do not explain why they are not absent, they merely state that they are not absent.

It is the ability to be what it is you are that cannot be removed. We can remove every single unknown interactive entity from Totality and it is still self consistent. The removal of the ability to be renders all else impossible.

Existance is the fundamental state but not the fundamental determination. Totality does not determine if it contains Universes or profound voids. It is the nature of the profound void itself in relation to the capability to be self consistent that determines the fundamental state which is necessarilly existant things.

There is a further implication. The absence of the ability to be is not possible. It is not possible to be absent. This explains everything. It does not describe "All Things that Are" it necessarilly demands that "All Things Are".

What you have here is not a description of the concept of "All Things in Totality", but an explanation that all possible things must exist. Totality proclaims "This Thing is here because it can be and is". Existence proclaims "It must be here".

The only thing that cannot exist is the self negating absence of the ability to exist. It is only the absence of existence that is impossible. Totality makes no such claims. Existence does. Totality describes "This is the Totality of All Things. Existence explains "I necessitate All Things". Totality proclaims "I am myself", Existence proclaims "I make that necessarilly so".

What does Quantum Mechanics say?

[Kevin Solway]

Until B is perceived "a thing is itself, and not other than itself" is an impossible cognition

That's right. In order for there to be an "A" there must also be a "not A" (which is "B"). The two are perceived together. This is the essence of duality.

"A=A" is not an explanation.

It is simply a name for logic.

Totality cannot rest upon the premise that A=A

It does not rest upon anything, since, logically, there is nothing other than itself.

Defining "Totality" as "All Things" does not fundamentally negate absence. It merely presupposes "things" without explaining them.

A "thing" is whatever appears not to be the Totality. That's all the explanation you need.

I didn't read the rest of your post as it was too wordy.

[Ataraxia]

Kevin has kept it simple,undeniable "everything =everything".This statement doesn't have the potential to be false.Yours does.

Kevin also asserts that this "everything" is infinite. That statement has the potential to be false.

It depends how you define the word 'infinite'.If he uses this definition then it is a true statement....

in·fi·nite /??nf?n?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless:

ie. not finite.

If Kevens uses that definition then theres no straying from the A=not(not A)

Utterly everything(infinite)=not(all the things that are finite)

fi·nite /?fa?na?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fahy-nahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.

[Jamesh]

Ataraxia
The rest of your post seems to be over complicating the matter unnecessarily.

Yeah, I know. I tend to complicate the issue a lot. Thing is that I don't like a lot of to and fro posting - so I try and provide enough detail to cut off questions. Trouble is I tend to just let my thoughts go wherever they take me. The latter part was poorly written, just me trying to show why space comes about as a combination of the contracting and expansion causal duality. When talking about reality it is important to show that cause and effect is everything, that nothing is uncaused.

[Steven]

A "thing" is whatever appears not to be the Totality. That's all the explanation you need.

I didn't read the rest of your post as it was too wordy.

It's ok, I merely explained the things you are incapable of.

It is simply a name for logic.

So you can logically state the obvious.

It does not rest upon anything, since, logically, there is nothing other than itself.

Actually you have just invoked an alternative.

A "thing" is whatever appears not to be the Totality. That's all the explanation you need.

Hardly. Totality = No Thing fits your logic. See where this leads? Totality = All Things / Totality = No Thing. You cannot explain the presence of existant objects. I can.

It is impossible for you to do otherwise than state the obvious, that things exist, no matter what you try to do, or how you try to avoid the question. Constructing a statement such as this that avoids the question is a most poignant display of surrender.

[Kevin Solway]

So you can logically state the obvious.

That's all logic can ever do - state the obvious.

Totality = No Thing fits your logic.

The existence of a conscious being, such as myself, gives existence to all things for all time. And the All is the Totality.

You cannot explain the presence of existant objects.

Truth requires no explanation.

Truth is obvious, and it takes a genius to see the obvious.

[Steven]

Kevin explain why the Totality is not devoid of objects.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin explain why the Totality is not devoid of objects.

I experience things, therefore there are things, and therefore the Totality of all things is not devoid of things.

[Steven]

Kevin explain why the Totality is not devoid of objects.

I experience things, therefore there are things, and therefore the Totality of all things is not devoid of things.

Yes we know this, but explain why.

Things are here because they are here is your "Enlightenment" and your "Genius"?

[Kevin Solway]

explain why.

Why do I experience things?

I experience things because I'm caused to.

[Steven]

Kevin explain why the Totality is not devoid of objects.

I experience things, therefore there are things, and therefore the Totality of all things is not devoid of things.

explain why.

Why do I experience things?

I experience things because I'm caused to.

So Totality is not devoid of objects because there are objects? And there are objects because Totality is not devoid of objects?

You are caused to experience things, and by experiencing things you know they exist.

But you cannot give an answer as to why any objects necessarilly exist, only that you can perceive them.

Kevin you are a fraud. As is this whole "philosophy". Its nothing more than a religion.

The reason why objects exist is that the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, and if the absence of the ability to exist is impossible, everything must exist. Absolutely everything.

[Kevin Solway]

So Totality is not devoid of objects because there are objects?

I'm not sure what you mean by "objects".

But it is true for "things". There are indeed things, so the Totality of all things is not devoid of things.

And there are objects because Totality is not devoid of objects?

I would say that there are things because I experience them.

What enables this to be true?

Logic enables these things to be true. (in the same way that 1+1=2 is true, based on certain definitions)

Why is it true that you are having experiences right now?

[Kevin Solway]

You are caused to experience things, and by experiencing things you know they exist.

That's right.

But you cannot give an answer as to why any objects necessarilly exist, only that you can perceive them.

Things necessarily exist because I experience them. That's all.

[Steven]

You are caused to experience things, and by experiencing things you know they exist.

That's right.

But you cannot give an answer as to why any objects necessarilly exist, only that you can perceive them.

Things necessarily exist because I experience them. That's all.

Are you the cause of existence?

[Kevin Solway]

Are you the cause of existence?

I am a cause of things. But something is causing me to be so.

[Steven]

Kevin explain why the Totality is not devoid of objects.

I experience things, therefore there are things, and therefore the Totality of all things is not devoid of things.

Are you the cause of existence?

I am a cause of things. But something is causing me to be so.

So the ultimate truth of the matter is that you, and whoever else adheres to this "philosophy" have merely shifted the goal posts so that the unanswered problem of origin, causation or reason now lies within a conceptual entity, and this allows you to bluff your way around "enlightenment" and "wisdom" by giving bullshit answers. Took me a while to figure it out. Going to take you a lot longer.

[Kevin Solway]

the unanswered problem of origin

This is a false problem.

There can be no "origin" of the All. Therefore it is not a problem at all.

We can ask questions about the origin of life and other finite things, but that is an altogether different matter. These questions are a matter for science.

[Steven]

the unanswered problem of origin

This is a false problem.

There can be no "origin" of the All. Therefore it is not a problem at all.

We can ask questions about the origin of life and other finite things, but that is an altogether different matter. These questions are a matter for science.

Then the "All" is irrelevant, and we must still ask questions of the first finite thing. Shifted goal posts.

[Kevin Solway]

Then the "All" is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if the consideration of it fundamentally changes the way you live your life by providing a different context and meaning to all your activities.

For example, if you believed that you personally were "all there is", then you would behave very differently than if you considered the truth that you were merely a part of something much bigger than yourself. Therefore knowledge of the latter is not irrelevant.