Nullipotent Being

Interesting...this brings up the question of what is a mind, and what form of life posses "reason"...and what is reason.

I don't think it is limited to humans.  They don't have a word for it, but honey bees make one of the most structurally sound designs possible by pure instinct.  How?  I wonder if the honeycomb has evolved over the years, or is it the exact same design the first bee used?

This may be a bad source for an example, but Assassin's Creed had an interesting take on that.

I don't mean thinking mathematically. I mean absolute math/logic.
Not our specific perspectives, interpretations, base systems, equations, or human developed approach to math.

I could remove a part of your brain and you would not have math/logic skills. I don't think absolute math/logic exists outside of the mind, but I use ontological arguments to state this so it makes this conversation complex.

But of all of our brain processes, I would limit logic to probably the least important function of the brain.

By saying logic and math doesn't exist outside of the mind, you are essentially derogating the Platonic conception of the idea. I still haven't really decided my answer on this.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 05, 2009, 05:29:20 PM

I don't mean thinking mathematically. I mean absolute math/logic.
Not our specific perspectives, interpretations, base systems, equations, or human developed approach to math.

I could remove a part of your brain and you would not have math/logic skills. I don't think absolute math/logic exists outside of the mind, but I use ontological arguments to state this so it makes this conversation complex.

But of all of our brain processes, I would limit logic to probably the least important function of the brain.

Whether or not we perceive math is a different matter.

If there is an apple sitting under a tree and then another falls next to it, is that two apples? Reality may not use our number system, or break it into an equation like 1 + 1 = 2, but that doesn't mean math fails to exist when there is no intelligent mind to perceive it.

I agree with singularity, but I will state that a nullipotent being is a logical impossibility, since it would not possess the power to exist. (I don't know his position on the possibility of a nullipotent being, I just wanted to throw that into the fray and see what comes out.)

Quote from: grogberries on January 06, 2009, 01:52:56 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 05, 2009, 05:29:20 PM

I don't mean thinking mathematically. I mean absolute math/logic.
Not our specific perspectives, interpretations, base systems, equations, or human developed approach to math.

I could remove a part of your brain and you would not have math/logic skills. I don't think absolute math/logic exists outside of the mind, but I use ontological arguments to state this so it makes this conversation complex.

But of all of our brain processes, I would limit logic to probably the least important function of the brain.

Whether or not we perceive math is a different matter.

If there is an apple sitting under a tree and then another falls next to it, is that two apples? Reality may not use our number system, or break it into an equation like 1 + 1 = 2, but that doesn't mean math fails to exist when there is no intelligent mind to perceive it.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you completely. If no one is there to percieve those two apples, do they even exist?

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you completely. If no one is there to percieve those two apples, do they even exist?

So are you saying my apples disappear when I turn out the lights?

Sight isn't the only way to perceive apples. They can be smelled and touched. The question would be more complex however if there were some faulty wiring in that switch and that some how you got electrocuted and died. The existence of the apples then would be in question since you have lost the ability to sense completely. But we must also note that these apples are, in fact, not real but hypothetical apples.

Whether I sense them or not, they are still there.

That is a bold statement. And I disagree with your statement.

If objects required perception as a prerequisite for existance, nothing would exist.

Plus this argument is in an ontological hole. Singularity has stated that the apples are there. And these apples don't exist in real life, they are just thoughts. So I can concede that in the framework Singularity has laid out in his argument that the apples are there is correct in thought.

Here is my apple story based on my framework. You exist and you see two apples. Then you die and everything ceases to exist including those apples and the idea of math because you do  not perceive them.

This is why that guy was making fun of ontological statements.

If objects required perception as a prerequisite for existance, nothing would exist.

This is also a bold statement.

Here is my apple story based on my framework. You exist and you see two apples. Then you die and everything ceases to exist including those apples and the idea of math because you do  not perceive them.

But if some one happened to come upon that same spot, they would see two apples.  The apples would only cease to exist to you.

Bravo! My point exactly! Existence to me is a very personal thing.

Singularity has stated that the apples are there. And these apples don't exist in real life, they are just thoughts.

So I can concede that in the framework Singularity has laid out in his argument that the apples are there is correct in thought.

When did I say that?... 

I have never proposed that perception creates reality. Only that perception is based on reality.
I've heard of Berkley, and only felt his ideas could be applied to QM. I see no evidence to believe the apples are dependent on an observer, and therefore it seems illogical to conclude they are.

Quote from: Robbyj on January 07, 2009, 01:58:30 AM

But if some one happened to come upon that same spot, they would see two apples.  The apples would only cease to exist to you.

Bravo! My point exactly! Existence to me is a very personal thing.

I thought we were talking about existence beyond the self... a reality beyond perception.
I tried to make that obvious with my math post. Everything subjective is lost when you die, but not necessarily anything objective is lost.

For a discussion on the objectivity of our subjective existence, I suggest Sartre's Nausea

Quote from: grogberries on January 07, 2009, 01:50:53 AM

Singularity has stated that the apples are there. And these apples don't exist in real life, they are just thoughts.

So I can concede that in the framework Singularity has laid out in his argument that the apples are there is correct in thought.

When did I say that?... 

I have never proposed that perception creates reality. Only that perception is based on reality.
I've heard of Berkley, and only felt his ideas could be applied to QM. I see no evidence to believe the apples are dependent on an observer, and therefore it seems illogical to conclude they are.

* I was talking about the example you gave. I can not deny there are two apples in your thought experiment because your experiment is a thought.

* Berkley brought up the notion of "If a tree falls and no body is around, does it really fall." He reasoned, however, that God is always perceiving everything so then yes it does. I believe it was David Hume who one upped Berkley and nixed out god.

*I  don't prescribe to the idea that there a world independent of my perception. This is probably why we are having a hard time with this discussion.

* I do not recommend Sarte's Nausea. Just on the case that he is very pessimistic and not that entertaining of a writer. I would suggest 'I and Thou' by Martin Buber.

I agree with what you said, except concerning Sartre. I haven't read Buber yet, but Nausea was a very powerful book. It may be somewhat depressing to a layman, but anyone who has a grasp on Sartrean Existentialism should appreciate his honesty.

   I recommended it because it specifically deals with the visceral feeling that occurs between the subjective human existence and the objectivity that constitutes our physical reality.

Here are some particularly evocative passages:

People who live in society have learned to see themselves in mirrors as they appear to their friends. Is that why my flesh is naked? You might say - yes you might say, nature without humanity? Things are bad! Things are very bad: I have it, the filth, the Nausea. [29]

I exist. It's sweet, so sweet, so slow. And light: you'd think it floated all by itself. It stirs. It brushes by me, melts and vanishes. Gently, gently. There is bubbling water in my throat, it caresses me- and now it comes up again into my mouth. For ever I shall have a little pool of whitish water in my mouth - lying low - grazing my tongue. And this pool is still me. And the tongue. And the throat is me. [134]

I am. I am. I exist, I think, therefore I am; I am because I think that I don't want to be, I think that I ? because ? ugh! I flee. [137] I exist, that's all. And that trouble is so vague, so metaphysical that I am ashamed of it. [143]

Here is a take on you're previous discussion concerning reality of ideas and so-on:

The world of explanations and reasons is not the world of existence. [174]

I was talking about the example you gave. I can not deny there are two apples in your thought experiment because your experiment is a thought.

But for the purposes of discussion one layer deep we should treat it as fact in order to approach the possibilities for the next layer. I do not see the point in interpreting what I post as a thought itself, as it shouldn't degrade the content of my posts. All it seems to add is complexity, without a return of any conclusions.

I have an apple tree bordering on my property. That example is not a thought experiment.

Sartre was a powerful thinker, yus. But for my taste, bad novelist. I like his non-fiction essays. But Nausea, a narrative about a man going through a midlife crisis while writing a history book is somewhat bland. And with this lack of intrinsic knowledge the book seems to claim, Sartre still, against all odds, finds a way to show how much better the character Anton (whom I just assumed is based on Sartre himself) than any of the other characters who are ignorant. I highly recommend reading Buber in the spring time in a wooded area.

Quote from: grogberries on January 08, 2009, 11:52:37 PM

I was talking about the example you gave. I can not deny there are two apples in your thought experiment because your experiment is a thought.

But for the purposes of discussion one layer deep we should treat it as fact in order to approach the possibilities for the next layer. I do not see the point in interpreting what I post as a thought itself, as it shouldn't degrade the content of my posts. All it seems to add is complexity, without a return of any conclusions.

I have an apple tree bordering on my property. That example is not a thought experiment.

I don't believe humans can do anything but tell stories. Even if they think they are true. Beno would be able to explain what Sartre thinks about how we construct reality.