-->
@MAV99
What is it about "disimilarity" implies two things cannot interact?
similar substances interact proportionally to their similarity
have you ever observed two fundamentally dissimilar substances interacting ?
What's the strongest argument for atheism?
Posts
Total:
590
-->
@3RU7AL
have you ever observed two fundamentally dissimilar substances interacting ?
Who says I need to observe them to understand that it is possible? This is a question of reasoning, not evidence.
-->
@MAV99
Who says I need to observe them to understand that it is possible? This is a question of reasoning, not evidence.
what mechanism would enable two fundamentally dissimilar substances to interact ?
-->
@3RU7AL
what mechanism would enable two fundamentally dissimilar substances to interact ?
by "mechanism" you mean what is the way one interacts with the other?
I think it depends on what we mean by "interact." This word, I do not think is univocal, as there are different ways two things can interact. This means the word is analogous.
They can interact essentially, (like the order of matter versus the matter itself, like the order of the molecules versus the molecules themselves like in water)
They can interact accidentally (like the interaction between me and what color I am, how much weight I have, etc...)
The only commonality between these things is Being. But not being in the same way, hence not fundamentally similar.
Being simply means you exist. But that does not mean you exist the same way or as the same thing.
-->
@MAV99
But not being in the same way, hence not fundamentally similar.
yes, fundamentally similar
comprised of detectable energy
-->
@3RU7AL
yes, fundamentally similarcomprised of detectable energy
No! They are not fundamentally similar.
And most certainly not detectable energy!
The whole point is that it is different being arrived at by reason.
It has nothing to do with matter
-->
@MAV99
Being simply means you exist. But that does not mean you exist the same way or as the same thing.
there are things that "exist" as concrete nouns
there are things that "exist" as abstract nouns
the second type is contingent on the first type
qualification for the quality we call "exist" demands fundamental similarity
-->
@3RU7AL
there are things that "exist" as concrete nounsthere are things that "exist" as abstract nounsthe second type is contingent on the first typequalification for the quality we call "exist" demands fundamental similarity
I am not talking about being in the mind
I am talking about different beings outside the mind tht are not fundamentally similar.
We arrive at the existance of those other beings through reason.
-->
@MAV99
We arrive at the existance of those other beings through reason.
can you support this claim ?
-->
@3RU7AL
can you support this claim ?
Sure!
I will try to summarize it as simple as possible since really it could be its own book.
We observe that things are made up of stuff. I am going to call that stuff "matter"
We observed through science that everything is composed of the basic matter: atoms
The order of these atoms is what determines what the thing is.
This order we call the form.
So, everything is matter and form that we can observe. I will use the word "observe" to mean any stimulation of the senses.
Now this distinction of matter and form is a distinction of reason. We see the order of the matter and the matter itself. That is how we recognize what the things is. That means that matter and form cannot be seperated in reality. It would no longer be what it is if they did somehow seperate.
But beause the distinction comes from reality, the being of matter and the being of form must be different.
The conclusion then:
These are two beings that coexist in the same thing, but are not fundamentally similar. Being is not a univocal term, it does not have only one meaning. The being of matter is not the same as the being of form. They both exist but not as the same thing, but in the same thing
What we say of the form itself, we cannot say of the matter itself and vice versa.
-->
@MAV99
the being of matter and the being of form
matter is the territory
form is the map
the map is not the territory
the two are distinguishable concepts
but they are not fundamentally dissimilar
-->
@3RU7AL
matter is the territoryform is the map
Bad analogy. You are talking about something representing something else.
I am talking about something that is only itself.
Totally different.
-->
@MAV99
Bad analogy. You are talking about something representing something else.
is there another way you can try and frame this ?
-->
@3RU7AL
is there another way you can try and frame this ?
An Analogy. Think of a house.
The matter is all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc
The form is the order, the design, layout of the house.
The design, order, layout by itself is not the same thing as all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc
-->
@Fallaneze
i copied this topic and it currently has 400 comments and 4000 views
-->
@MAV99
The design, order, layout by itself is not the same thing as all the wood, glass, stone, metal, etc
you are describing two aspects of the same thing
they are not fundamentally dissimilar
-->
@3RU7AL
matter is the territory
3RU is correct. Occupied space { territory/terra-firma } includes fermionic matter and bosonic forces with the latter being what is exchanged between Fermionic particles
form is the map
3RU is correct again. Aka Meta-space pattern ergo geometry and that is what ' form ' is more specifically. Form boards hold the concrete in specific shape when it is poured and hardens over time.
the map is not the territory the two are distinguishable conceptsbut they are not fundamentally dissimilar
3RU is correct again. We cannot have occupied space, without its complementary Meta-space pattern/geometry/form/shape.
I love it when I see others around here espousing logical, common sense critical thinking truths here at DArt. Kudos!
I love it when I see others around here espousing logical, common sense critical thinking truths here at DArt. Kudos!
-->
@3RU7AL
two fundamentally distinct substances cannot interact
The so-called “interaction problem” is contrived, simply declaring the observed and experienced interaction between mind (or soul) and physical reality is metaphysically impossible is not a coherent argument. It is nothing but an unwarranted and faith based ontological commitment which buys us nothing in the way of insight or explanation.
The self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between the mental and the physical is undeniable, the contrived “interaction problem” is based on denial of the evidence.
-->
@Sidewalker
The self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between the mental and the physical is undeniable, the contrived “interaction problem” is based on denial of the evidence.
body = hardware
mind = software
no magic required
-->
@Fallaneze
THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)
there is no argument required to be unconvinced
are you perhaps unconvinced of the claim that bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster is real ? [presumably you are unconvinced]
do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your (presumed) non-belief in bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster ? [presumably you are not compelled]
are you perhaps "not-an-astronaut" ? [presumably you are not]
are you perhaps "not-a-dinosaur" ? [presumably you are not]
are you perhaps "not-a-hippie" ? [presumably you are not]
do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ? [presumably you are not]
THE CLAIM IS: there is no argument required to be unconvinced
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ARE EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT
in other words
if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"
then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)
THE CLAIM IS: there is no argument required to be unconvinced
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ARE EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT
in other words
if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"
then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)
-->
@3RU7AL
you are describing two aspects of the same thingthey are not fundamentally dissimilar
They are fundamentally dissimilar.
You cannot say of the form what you say of matter.
The form and the matter are two different causes in the same thing
effects coming from fundamentally different causes are fundamentally different.
-->
@MAV99
You cannot say of the form what you say of matter.
form is a concept
data
on the hard drive
in your head
a pattern of energy
the same energy that forms matter
fundamental similarity
-->
@3RU7AL
form is a concept
No it is not.
Is the order of the matter in the thing itself in your head?!?!?!
That would mean the thing itself is in your head.
Sounds like a nasty headache.
-->
@3RU7AL
The self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between the mental and the physical is undeniable, the contrived “interaction problem” is based on denial of the evidence.body = hardwaremind = softwareno magic required
And no contrived interaction problem.
-->
@MAV99
That would mean the thing itself is in your head.
identification of form is a concept
-->
@Sidewalker
And no contrived interaction problem.
apparently we're in agreement
-->
@3RU7AL
identification of form is a concept
Your knowledge of it is a concept.
Not the form itself.
-->
@MAV99
the "form itself" is wholly comprised of material
-->
@3RU7AL
No. The form itself is not composed of matter. The thing is composed of matter and form.
-->
@MAV99
No. The form itself is not composed of matter. The thing is composed of matter and form.
all matter has form
even liquid
matter and form are inseparable concepts