Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[ppp]

What are the physical properties of a "label" as a label. What are the physical properties of "does not exist"?

Concepts don't exist. They are the interactions of things that do exist, Brain states. They are completely contingent upon brains.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Concepts don't exist. They are the interactions of things that do exist, Brain states. They are completely contingent upon brains.

What are the physical properties of "don't exist"? You are talking about something, which doesn't exist, but that is physical, so what is the physical properties of "don't exist"?

 

[ppp]

What are the physical properties of "don't exist"? You are talking about something, which doesn't exist, but that is physical, so what is the physical properties of "don't exist"?

"Don't exist" is a concept.
Concepts don't exist. They are the interactions of things that do exist, Brain states. They are completely contingent upon brains.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Don't exist" is a concept.
Concepts don't exist. They are the interactions of things that do exist, Brain states. They are completely contingent upon brains.

So ""Don't exist" is a concept", which doesn't exist, yet you talk about concepts as if they exist, because you are talking about them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are the physical properties of a "label" as a label. What are the physical properties of "does not exist"?

If something does not exist, then it should not have any properties. If something exists, though hidden at that moment, it may have properties.

 

[ppp]

So ""Don't exist" is a concept", which doesn't exist, yet you talk about concepts as if they exist, because you are talking about them.

That just a matter of the structure of language. It's easier to label a process and treat it as an object than to treat it as a contingent on the physical state of a brain. If all of the brains were to die tomorrow, then all of the concepts of "delicious" and "loud" and "don't exist" would also cease.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If something does not exist, then it should not have any properties. If something exists, though hidden at that moment, it may have properties.

So what are the properties of "something does not exist"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That just a matter of the structure of language. It's easier to label a process and treat it as an object than to treat it as a contingent on the physical state of a brain. If all of the brains were to die tomorrow, then all of the concepts of "delicious" and "loud" and "don't exist" would also cease.

Yes and so would all your thoughts about the physical also cease to exist.
You are in effect doing the fallacy of reification.

 

[ppp]

Yes and so would all your thoughts about the physical also cease to exist. You are in effect doing the fallacy of reification.

No. You are. The fallacy of reification is when you treat abstract as concrete object. You are fallaciously treating thoughts and feelings as though they are concrete.

Brains are concrete. Brain states are concrete. Thoughts and feelings are the abstracts that are contingent on those brain states.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. You are. The fallacy of reification is when you treat abstract as concrete object. You are fallaciously treating thoughts and feelings as though they are concrete.

Brains are concrete. Brain states are concrete. Thoughts and feelings are the abstracts that are contingent on those brain states.

Yeah, we do it differently. You are right and I am wrong. Yet I have been doing this for over 20 years now and it appears to work, because apparently I am still here. So go figure!

 

[ppp]

Yeah, we do it differently. You are right and I am wrong. Yet I have been doing this for over 20 years now and it appears to work, because apparently I am still here. So go figure!

Thank you. And yes, lots of things that are incorrect appear to work. The miasma theory of disease was wrong, but believing it saved lives because it coincidentally produced beneficial behaviors.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what are the properties of "something does not exist"?

Temporarily or not at all?
If it is a temporary non-existence (like that of virtual particles), then it will have properties. If a thing does not exist at all then it would not have any real properties, like, God delivering one to death, or Flying Spaghetti Monster being green or the Unicorn being blue or whatever color you consider it to be, or the fairy being pink, though it may have imaginary qualities.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Temporarily or not at all?
If it is a temporary non-existence (like that of virtual particles), then it will have properties. If a thing does not exist at all then it would not have any real properties, like, God delivering one to death, or Flying Spaghetti Monster being green or the Unicorn being blue or whatever color you consider it to be, or the fairy being pink, though it may have imaginary qualities.

You are doing the fallacy of treating "does not exist" as a concrete. It is a compound concept, that we can play with, but doesn't treat it as nothing else than a mind game in practice.
How? - the word "existence" has no properties itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How about perceived by senses or indicated in experiments? Even found by animals for humans (like dogs finding hidden narcotics). Dark Energy, Dark Matter.

I believe if the words are used intelligently, there is nothing which cannot be described by them. Of course, I stand nowhere before experts. My knowledge is very limited.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How about perceived by senses or indicated in experiments? Even found by animals for humans (like dogs finding hidden narcotics). Dark Energy, Dark Matter.

I believe if the words are used intelligently, there is nothing which cannot be described by them. Of course, I stand nowhere before experts. My knowledge is very limited.

As long as you in effect only accept words as perceived by senses or indicated in experiments, then you run into that when you express that, you are not using the external sense or scientific testing. Your idea doesn't work, because you can't see "used intelligently" and you can't test it. You use one version over another, but you can't decide which one is more intelligent by seeing or experimenting, because the results are subjective as cognitive and feelings internally and not observations as such.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Seeing at least establishes that there is something, which may or may not be not be as perceived. That is what the Advaita philosophy says. What we perceive is not the truth. It is an illusion / maya manufactured by our senses and our mind. But what has to be seen is what exists behind the facade. The classical example as in Hindu scriptures is when in a rainy night we take a rope to be a snake. Thus, further investigation is required to check what exactly exists. The same checks will be applied even if we perceived the presence of something experimentally. Science basically is checking before coming to a conclusion or a theory, and not taking anything for granted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seeing at least establishes that there is something, which may or may not be not be as perceived. That is what the Advaita philosophy says. What we perceive is not the truth. It is an illusion / maya manufactured by our senses and our mind. But what has to be seen is what exists behind the facade. The classical example as in Hindu scriptures is when in a rainy night we take a rope to be a snake. Thus, further investigation is required to check what exactly exists. The same checks will be applied even if we perceived the presence of something experimentally. Science basically is checking before coming to a conclusion or a theory, and not taking anything for granted.

Well, science do take something for granted. That is so, because science is axiomatic as a system of knowledge and thus all knowledge is conditional in part on the axioms and not just of the world as such. Weird, right?

 

[robocop (actually)]

What 'results' do you think I was talking about?

I don't know... let's have a discussion... here is something I wrote a long time ago when I was Raelian:

That the violence on Earth is our responsibility. I was able to find that essay, and present it here at the bottom, from the perspective that Aliens created us (Raelian):

The violence in the world is really just us. We are to blame. Wisdom must catch up to technology, or we can’t make it, not with more E.T. help that they would be willing to grant if they are good, and not with less E.T. intervention if they are bad. As per slaves in ancient times, Genesis 1:24 describes cattle, creeping things, and beasts. These beasts were somewhere along the ape-human line. I haven’t finished the Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond, but my hope is that these slaves weren’t along the consciousness/ intelligence lines enough to suffer.

When we were created our planet had less gravity so we could be taller. That’s why, say, on the Sistine Chapel, the angel/cherubims look like kids (they are smaller than us but not kids). So we had more brain capacity and in Genesis 1:26 they made us smarter than themselves. The creators loved this, but those on their home planet worried.

Then there was the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, or science in the French Bible (genesis 2:17). We became too powerful so they tried to wipe us out with the flood. Yes, I know Jeremiah Sitchin says that happened naturally. After wiping us out and learning of Noah, they those on the home planet decided they just wanted to control us, because man wants to be scientific. (Genesis 8:21) Later they would start an experiment where they would have prophets hint at things to carry proof of themselves later on and help us safely but slowly progress. It’s like an insect; at each level of technology you grow it in before you can progress, and that is the only way you can survive.

After the flood, there was almost no violence perpetrated by E.T.s. They just wanted to gradually let us grow until we loved them and ourselves. Yes, at the beginning of Exodus, they freed the Hebrews from Pharaoh. They had to. The Hebrews were to live together since they were the smartest and therefore the most valuable to keep around. At the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:9) Jews were separated and at Sodom and Gomorrah got nuked (Genesis 19:24, Genesis 19:26, Genesis 19:28) (but everyone in the cities were warned to flee and flee quickly Genesis 19:12, Genesis 19:13, Genesis 19:17). In Jericho the Israelites didn’t know what they were doing, I think. In subsequent wars, the defenders could flee. For instance, when it rained down stuff from the sky in Joshua 10, the defenders could look up and avoid it, I think. In the last war, I think, they could have simply ran away. This war is also in Joshua 10. The Jews had to be protected. There was also colonization, or getting sacrifices of some things, but it was in return for protection. But eventually, Yahweh laid off of humanity.

The beast in Revelation 13:8 is nuclear power for murderous purposes. It is the number of man, 666 generations from the first man, when man finally had his life in his own hands. Revelation 16:8, Revelation 16:20, and Revelation 16:21 confirm this. In revelations all the problems are caused by our own humanity!

Diseases, I guess, were either not in the creators’ control, or they helped us gain technology and love in order to fight them.
Buddhism suggests that as a society, we climb but sometimes fall down and we need to climb.

The violence in the world, then, is really just us. We are to blame. Wisdom must catch up to technology, or we can’t make it, not with more E.T. help that they would be willing to grant, and not with less E.T. intervention. Religions also can reveal technology in their text texture.

Also, as a word of caution, different things in different sizes can be somewhat alive.

 

[nPeace]

LOL -- That's a different usage than the religious seem to be pushing. They're using it as a sort of ontological shibboleth.
Beware the multiple meaning. There lurk straw men.

A different usage? Please explain.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, science do take something for granted. That is so, because science is axiomatic as a system of knowledge and thus all knowledge is conditional in part on the axioms and not just of the world as such. Weird, right?

Where science presumes something, it is very much aware of it and always tries to get rid of such presumptions. Peer pressure, Take for example the Copenhagen Interpretation or any other such example. Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia