The Nominalist Method of Determining What Is

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Arrogance is talking down about someone else's worldview because it doesn't align with your own. This is what this thread is about, putting other people's worldviews down in favor of your own. There is no other purpose for it existing. Pointing out flaws is all well and good, but once you say that they are meaningless and unworthy of consideration, you pass into the realm of arrogance.

You have yet to admit to being wrong about anything... ever. I readily admit to my flaws, you do not. I do not know everything, you seem to think you do, which is why you are pontificating in the OP.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You're right. I'm wrong. Fell better?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

I agree.

But then if we were to continue with the method, we tie a string from the word "experience" to what? What lies at the end of the string is what we are actually talking about when we use that word.

What would you tie it to?

I guess the entire array of perceptions of self and "other".... sentiment, emotion, form, color, sound, smell. All that our individual consciousness is aware of. It would have to be a big string. Like the one which ties up such concepts as "life", or consciousness, or earth....

I guess you might answer- then the string would be tied around the brain?

Perhaps. But considering we are starting to have technology which can "read" or translate thoughts, dreams, internal images from a brain, so that they be seen on a screen... those experiences are something, that can be vehicled from one place and time to another, without removing any cells of the brain, so they must not be the brain itself.

a reply to: Bluesma

I personally wouldn't say the brain is what we're speaking about when we speak about experience. A brain is merely a part of a much greater thing. A brain can really experience nothing. That is a different line of thinking entirely, but I still hold that the entity or object that is experiencing, by means of its interaction and relationship with everything Everything around it, could wear the word "experience" on a t-shirt.

The string in this analogy is a relationship occuring in real time.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm indifferent. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about being fair in your approach to discussion.

I apologize for saying what I did in the other thread, about you being close-minded. It wasn't fair of me to say such a thing and it wasn't warranted, I was wrong for saying it.

All good?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Do not apologize friend. You've harmed nor offended no one.

My rhetoric is only a display. Utilize the trivium, arm yourself, and you would be able to squash me at your leisure.

All good. Never better.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
ha true

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

I personally wouldn't say the brain is what we're speaking about when we speak about experience. A brain is merely a part of a much greater thing. A brain can really experience nothing. That is a different line of thinking entirely, but I still hold that the entity or object that is experiencing, by means of its interaction and relationship with everything Everything around it, could wear the word "experience" on a t-shirt.

The string in this analogy is a relationship occuring in real time.

How then, do you conceive of the relationship between an entity and internal objects? Things not "around" the entity, but "within" it?

This image of string I am experiencing right now, for example... strings exist, and yet there is not one around me (quickly checking around my desk...)
Does that mean we are repeatedly refering to nothing?
Does that eliminate any interaction or relationship between this observer-self and the image-object it is experiencing?

Eh.... I hate going off too far into such depths of philosophy, I like to stay grounded as much as possible these days.
I probably have that part of me blocking any further comprehension.

a reply to: Bluesma

If you hate it there is no sense continuing to think about it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thought provoking post

Can You answer any of these basic questions

What is thought

What is it made of

Where does it go

How is it made

Where is it made

Regards

a reply to: artistpoet

Thinking is an action, not a thing.

Thoughts do not exist until they are expressed in any material medium.

The problem with your string approach is it doesn't seem to jive with 'spooky action at a distance'.

A pair of quantum entangled photons sure makes a cute couple. 💏

No strings attached!

Quantum teleportation? Ack! No string! Invisible waves...

I think nominalism is dead.

But, you can still tie a string from your stomach to a big cup of peyote tea in Arizona. The peyote spirits will teach you things you can't learn from books.

👣

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for response

Thinking is an action, not a thing.

Thoughts do not exist until they are expressed in any material medium.

You are saying thought is not a thing ... if so in your reckoning they do not exist
Yet some thoughts are not acted upon ... not put into action yet they still exist as thoughts

You still have not answered any of my simple questions

Please use simple English so others may understand

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bluesma

If you hate it there is no sense continuing to think about it.

You are right. Sometimes I just want to have verbal exchange with someone, no matter what the topic.
I guess I was kind of hoping to find a midway between us- somewhere not quite into the maze of abstraction and impressive terminology, but not quite idiotic common sense either.
I'll stop trying here. Cheers.

a reply to: artistpoet

You are saying thought is not a thing ... if so in your reckoning they do not exist
Yet some thoughts are not acted upon ... not put into action yet they still exist as thoughts

I do not understand your argument here, nor what you are talking about in regards to thoughts. This is a red flag for me when it comes to metaphysical questions, and hence the reason for this method. It is in my best interests to uncover what it is you are actually talking about rather than accepting it outright.

What exactly are you speaking about when you say the word “thought”? If you are unable to show me or point me to a thought, or even evoke the imagery of what a thought might be in my imagination through descriptive means, then I may reasonably conclude you have never observed nor witnessed any person, place or thing called a “thought”, and that you know little, if anything, about what you are talking about in its regard. The same goes with “soul”, “spirit” or what have you—terms that everyone likes to throw around.

What you might know about these terms are what others have said about them.

You still have not answered any of my simple questions

Please use simple English so others may understand

What is thought

Thinking.

What is it made of

That which thinks.

Where does it go

Nowhere.

How is it made

It doesn’t exist; therefor it isn’t made.

Where is it made

It doesn’t exist; therefor it isn’t made.

a reply to: Bluesma

You are right. Sometimes I just want to have verbal exchange with someone, no matter what the topic.
I guess I was kind of hoping to find a midway between us- somewhere not quite into the maze of abstraction and impressive terminology, but not quite idiotic common sense either.
I'll stop trying here. Cheers.

I really enjoy and respect your thinking. If you ever want a verbal exchange, whether on or off topic, in public or private, please don't hesitate.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thinking is an action, not a thing.

'Thinking is thinging'. Alan Watts.

Without thought would there be any thing? Or would there just be sensation?
Is thought just a sensation?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Me ...What is thought


You ... Thinking.


Me ... What is it made of


You ...That which thinks.


Me ...Where does it go


You ...Nowhere.


Me ...How is it made


You ...It doesn’t exist; therefor it isn’t made.


Me ... Where is it made


You ... It doesn’t exist; therefor it isn’t made.

Thank you for giving your answers to my questions regarding thought

My reason for these questions was to glean your understanding of thought ... As a philosopher (You) ... I thought you might be able to give insight into these basic questions.

Some of your answers to my simple questions are rather puzzling
For example

You state a thought is not made and the reason for this is because thought does not exist and therefore it is not made IE It can not made
Yet you seem to contradict yourself by stating that it is made of that which thinks
How can you claim something that does not exist be made from that which thinks

By that which thinks I assume you refer to a person or other sentient beings
So where do they make thought and how do they make thought

If you do not know that is fine

a reply to: artistpoet

You're right I worded it wrong. thought is thinking, not thought. Thinking is made of that which thinks. Thoughts do not exist. Thinking is performed by that which does exist.

People do not make thought. Thinking is an action. Actions are not things. Actions are not made. Thinking begins at birth and ends at death.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I appreciate your answers
Thank you I agree