|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
|
"Distinction. A cat is not a chair. Distinguishing that points towards more than one element. "
Why can't it be one thing? I see no evidence that anything is individuated.
"It's a matter of perspective. Due to relation."
What do you mean it is a matter of perspective? Is the size of these elements subjective or objective?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14515908 - 05/26/11 03:15 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: "Distinction. A cat is not a chair. Distinguishing that points towards more than one element. "
Why can't it be one thing? I see no evidence that anything is individuated.
Despite the fact that you just communicated that using individual words which are composed of individual letters.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Poid]
#14516025 - 05/26/11 03:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
They aren't individual from anything. We can say that they are, but really at no point is anything separate from everything else.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14516180 - 05/26/11 04:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: They aren't individual from anything.
Meaning that they exist with everything else? Sure, but this doesn't mean that they aren't individual things.
Quote:
xFrockx said: We can say that they are, but really at no point is anything separate from everything else.
"Individual" does not mean "separate from everything else".
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Poid]
#14516194 - 05/26/11 04:11 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"Meaning that they exist with everything else? Sure, but this doesn't mean that they aren't individual things."
What makes and individual thing an individual thing?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14516241 - 05/26/11 04:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure if something "makes" things individual..individual things are intrinsically individual, individuality is an intrinsic property that individual things possess. They are individual in that they are not other things (i.e. they exist as being distinct from other things).
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Poid]
#14516248 - 05/26/11 04:25 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
What do you mean they intrinsically possess individuality? How do you know that? I don't see that at all.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14516327 - 05/26/11 04:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
individuality: The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others.
You don't see how, for example, the letter 's' has qualities and characteristics that distinguish it from the letter 't'? Are you shitting me?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Poid]
#14517732 - 05/26/11 09:07 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
But they are hardly individual things. As they exist, those letters you typed were a part of something that happened, completely unindividuated. Is there a plato's heaven where these letters exist separately and individuated? Because as far as I can tell, no matter symbolic things may seem, it all goes down to the place we use symbols to think about, which has no true divisions.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14518113 - 05/26/11 10:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: But they are hardly individual things.
By definition, they are.
Quote:
xFrockx said: As they exist, those letters you typed were a part of something that happened, completely unindividuated.
Who cares if they were a part of something that happened? How does this mean that they are not individual things?
Quote:
xFrockx said: Is there a plato's heaven where these letters exist separately and individuated? Because as far as I can tell, no matter symbolic things may seem, it all goes down to the place we use symbols to think about, which has no true divisions.
Huh?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes

Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Poid]
#14518997 - 05/27/11 01:22 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
xFrockx said: Is there a plato's heaven where these letters exist separately and individuated? Because as far as I can tell, no matter symbolic things may seem, it all goes down to the place we use symbols to think about, which has no true divisions.
Huh?
"The Theory of Forms typically refers to the belief expressed by Socrates in some of Plato's dialogues, that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only an image or copy of the real world. Socrates spoke of forms in formulating a solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates, are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties we feel and see around us, that can only be perceived by reason (that is, they are universals). In other words, Socrates sometimes seems to recognise two worlds: the apparent world, which constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may be a cause of what is apparent."
Distinction is something that the mind fabricates in order to navigate reality. It is not necessarily a reflection of the nature of anything but the mind.
Is the chair separate from the table? Is the leg of the chair separate from the seat? Is each grain of wood individuated? Where does it stop? Where is the basic indivisible particle? It's all a matter of your mind's perspective...how you relate these supposed "things" to each other.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Sleepwalker]
#14519256 - 05/27/11 03:38 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Distinction is something that the mind fabricates in order to navigate reality.
The mind wouldn't need to conceptualize distinction in order to navigate reality if there wasn't distinct things within reality through which it was necessary to navigate.
Quote:
Is the chair separate from the table?
The chair isn't the table. We can also feel free to conceptualize it as a table/chair set, perhaps to identify a particular set of table and chair in comparison with another set. Yet the chair isn't the table.
Quote:
Is the leg of the chair separate from the seat?
They are each distinct, if that is what you mean.
Quote:
Is each grain of wood individuated?
Yes, considering that they can be discerned individually. It implies that they have qualities and traits which can be distinguished, the basis of individuation.
Quote:
Where does it stop? Where is the basic indivisible particle?
I'm not sure where it stops, but, in the pursuit of science, I believe all sorts of very basic, individual particles have been discerned. We even take advantage of their individual distinctness by using very specific ones to fulfill tasks for us. Without our ability to distinguish, or the existence of distinctness to be observed, we simply could not do such a thing.
Quote:
It's all a matter of your mind's perspective...how you relate these supposed "things" to each other.
It's not all a matter of your mind's perspective.... hence Relation and Distinction.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14519263 - 05/27/11 03:42 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: "Distinction. A cat is not a chair. Distinguishing that points towards more than one element. "
Why can't it be one thing? I see no evidence that anything is individuated.
It can be one thing, but it'll still be one thing that is comprised of more than one element, a cat and a chair, since the cat is not the chair itself, nor the chair the cat.
Quote:
Is the size of these elements subjective or objective?
Objective, but what constitutes a specific element is a matter of perspective, as it's relative.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes

Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
|
I still think this is about the dynamics of our mental models, not the mechanics of reality.
Although it's gonna be hard to argue that they aren't intimately related, I guess...
Edited by Sleepwalker (05/27/11 03:50 AM)
|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
|
"The mind wouldn't need to conceptualize distinction in order to navigate reality if there wasn't distinct things within reality through which it was necessary to navigate."
This is not necessarily true. I can put a gallon of water into 10 different cups without there being 10 divisions in the gallon to begin with.
"It can be one thing, but it'll still be one thing that is comprised of more than one element, a cat and a chair, since the cat is not the chair itself, nor the chair the cat."
See, this is where it becomes obvious that we are labeling here, and the "elements" are only "parts" insofar as we mentally divide them off from the whole. How can you say "It can be one, but have parts"? Is that not blatant contradiction? Its like saying "Its one, but its not one"
"Objective, but what constitutes a specific element is a matter of perspective, as it's relative."
So one person might see two or more elements where another sees only one?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14519961 - 05/27/11 09:24 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: "The mind wouldn't need to conceptualize distinction in order to navigate reality if there wasn't distinct things within reality through which it was necessary to navigate."
This is not necessarily true. I can put a gallon of water into 10 different cups without there being 10 divisions in the gallon to begin with.
A fine example of our abilities to discern the properties of water as opposed to other things. If a cat and a river behaved the same way as each other, we wouldn't see the difference. Rather, the very many differences.
Quote:
See, this is where it becomes obvious that we are labeling here
We're not just labeling. That's why it's Relation and Distinction. 
There's labeling, and then there is that which is being labeled.
Quote:
, and the "elements" are only "parts" insofar as we mentally divide them off from the whole.
They divide themselves off from the whole, through manifesting differences.
Quote:
How can you say "It can be one, but have parts"? Is that not blatant contradiction?
No.
Quote:
So one person might see two or more elements where another sees only one?
People are clearly going to form all kinds of goofy ways of conceptualizing things. There's always going to be differences in how people conceptualize that which they are perceiving. Distinctly.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
|
"People are clearly going to form all kinds of goofy ways of conceptualizing things. "
Yeah
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Sleepwalker]
#14520350 - 05/27/11 11:36 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Oweyervishice said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
xFrockx said: Is there a plato's heaven where these letters exist separately and individuated? Because as far as I can tell, no matter symbolic things may seem, it all goes down to the place we use symbols to think about, which has no true divisions.
Huh?
"The Theory of Forms typically refers to the belief expressed by Socrates in some of Plato's dialogues, that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only an image or copy of the real world. Socrates spoke of forms in formulating a solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates, are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties we feel and see around us, that can only be perceived by reason (that is, they are universals). In other words, Socrates sometimes seems to recognise two worlds: the apparent world, which constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may be a cause of what is apparent."
I know what the theory of forms is, I just don't understand how xFrockx is justifying his argument by referring to it..it doesn't make sense to me, and I would like him to rephrase it.
I personally think the theory of forms is retarded, and don't know why it was mentioned in this argument.."forms" don't have to exist in order for things to be individual, and them not existing doesn't mean that there aren't individual things.
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Distinction is something that the mind fabricates in order to navigate reality. It is not necessarily a reflection of the nature of anything but the mind.
The distinction is already there..of course the mind reflects this, what evidence do you have that it is not necessarily a reflection of anything but the nature of the mind?
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: Is the chair separate from the table? Is the leg of the chair separate from the seat? Is each grain of wood individuated? Where does it stop? Where is the basic indivisible particle?
Of course a chair is separate from a table, they are not the same thing. The leg of the chair is separate from the seat in that they are not the same thing (though they may be connected by glue). Each grain of wood is individuated, yes.
We have discovered several elementary particles that are not known to be divisible..what's your point, though? I don't at all understand your mentioning of this concept, or how it relates to your claim.
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: It's all a matter of your mind's perspective...how you relate these supposed "things" to each other.
So my mind's perspective is necessarily inaccurate? My mind perceives gravity, does this mean that gravity only exists in my mind?
Obviously, if there weren't distinct, individual things, then the mind wouldn't even be able to make distinctions between them. 
Quote:
Oweyervishice said: I still think this is about the dynamics of our mental models, not the mechanics of reality.
You have absolutely no evidence, or even sound reasoning for this position.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
Edited by Poid (05/27/11 11:45 AM)
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: xFrockx]
#14520408 - 05/27/11 11:50 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: "It can be one thing, but it'll still be one thing that is comprised of more than one element, a cat and a chair, since the cat is not the chair itself, nor the chair the cat."
See, this is where it becomes obvious that we are labeling here...
Why do you take issue with labeling? 
Quote:
xFrockx said: ...and the "elements" are only "parts" insofar as we mentally divide them off from the whole.
Your point being? "elements"/"parts" are arbitrarily defined, so what?
Quote:
xFrockx said: How can you say "It can be one, but have parts"? Is that not blatant contradiction? Its like saying "Its one, but its not one"
That's not contradictory at all..for example, I could be holding one red ball that is made of several parts..the one red ball is defined as being comprised of the several parts that it is comprised of.
A thing can be defined as having several parts, in fact most things do; it is not a contradiction to say that something is one, yet has parts.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
xFrockx


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,455
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Distinction and Relation [Re: Poid]
#14520596 - 05/27/11 12:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"Why do you take issue with labeling?"
Take issue? It is what it is.
"Your point being? "elements"/"parts" are arbitrarily defined, so what? "

"That's not contradictory at all..for example, I could be holding one red ball that is made of several parts..the one red ball is defined as being comprised of the several parts that it is comprised of. "
So is the ball one or not one? What does "yet has parts" mean?
|
|