Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

More on Nothing!

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 1:44:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Some arguments from John Locke. Concerning nothing.

On darkness:
Locke claimes that which and black are 'positive ideas'. That is things we can think of. as appose to nothing at all. That which doesn't exist. I would personally argue that nothing cannot be concieve because its not there to even think about.

4. "If it were the design of my present undertaking to inquire into the natural causes of perception, I should offer this as a reason why a [lack of a cause] might, in some cases at least, produce a positive idea, namely, that all sensation being produced, in us are only affects in the body." " for the picture of a shadow is a positve thing. Things for we give truly negative names which do not stand directly for positive 'idea's" but for their absence, such as lack, missing, silence, nihil, etc.
Words which denote positive meaning are e. taste, sound being--with signification of thier absence."

That is, is space, blackness, or darkness truly nothing??

I have no idea whats going on here... somebody help.. <(8I)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 4:50:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 1:44:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

I would personally argue that nothing cannot be concieve because its not there to even think about.


This is a self refuting statement, if you cannot conceive of nothing and you cannot even think about nothing, then you can't argue about nothing.

Therefore your statement is necessarily incorrect because you are trying to "personally argue" about nothing and in the process you are "conceiving" and "thinking" about nothing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 8:19:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 4:50:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/27/2012 1:44:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

I would personally argue that nothing cannot be concieve because its not there to even think about.


This is a self refuting statement, if you cannot conceive of nothing and you cannot even think about nothing, then you can't argue about nothing.

Therefore your statement is necessarily incorrect because you are trying to "personally argue" about nothing and in the process you are "conceiving" and "thinking" about nothing.

That is nonsensical. Everyone can argue about what they cannot truly conceive. Consider these two definitions of the word "conceive" from the Encarta ® English Dictionary:

con•ceive

1. Start to experience something: to produce something from the mind such as an emotion
2. Understand: to understand something

Can you experience something that does not exist? Can you understand something that does not exist? No, but you can create a word or concept even though it does not exist so that you can better understand more abstract concepts. "Nothing" does not exist because it is merely the absence of "something." Consider:

"Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat."

Similarly,

"Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 9:53:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
4. "If it were the design of my present undertaking to inquire into the natural causes of perception, I should offer this as a reason why a [lack of a cause] might, in some cases at least, produce a positive idea, namely, that all sensation being produced, in us are only affects in the body." " for the picture of a shadow is a positve thing. Things for we give truly negative names which do not stand directly for positive 'idea's" but for their absence, such as lack, missing, silence, nihil, etc.
Words which denote positive meaning are e. taste, sound being--with signification of thier absence. John Locke.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 9:59:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The idea here is not about what I think.. Who cares about that I think. The Focus is on Lockes arguements. Is it sound.

In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.

The Fool: The light or wave length is not the colour. because you can hallucinate colour with out anysort of wave lentgh going on at all. "
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:30:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 9:59:21 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The idea here is not about what I think.. Who cares about that I think. The Focus is on Lockes arguements. Is it sound.

In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.

The Fool: The light or wave length is not the colour. because you can hallucinate colour with out anysort of wave lentgh going on at all. "

Don't take arguments out of context. Reply to the main idea.
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:34:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:30:13 AM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/27/2012 9:59:21 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The idea here is not about what I think.. Who cares about that I think. The Focus is on Lockes arguements. Is it sound.

In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.

The Fool: The light or wave length is not the colour. because you can hallucinate colour with out anysort of wave lentgh going on at all. "

Don't take arguments out of context. Reply to the main idea.

The Fool: I am not arguing with you.. I have my views but the purpose it to get others to think about things. If you test Me I will Pimp slap you.>!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:51:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 8:19:35 AM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:50:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/27/2012 1:44:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

I would personally argue that nothing cannot be concieve because its not there to even think about.


This is a self refuting statement, if you cannot conceive of nothing and you cannot even think about nothing, then you can't argue about nothing.

Therefore your statement is necessarily incorrect because you are trying to "personally argue" about nothing and in the process you are "conceiving" and "thinking" about nothing.

That is nonsensical. Everyone can argue about what they cannot truly conceive. Consider these two definitions of the word "conceive" from the Encarta ® English Dictionary:

con•ceive


1. Start to experience something: to produce something from the mind such as an emotion
2. Understand: to understand something


Can you experience something that does not exist? Can you understand something that does not exist? No, but you can create a word or concept even though it does not exist so that you can better understand more abstract concepts. "Nothing" does not exist because it is merely the absence of "something." Consider:

"Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat."

Similarly,

"Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

So then you agree wuth me that his statement was self refuting and therefore incorrect.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I am not part of the argument. I was presenting Lockes argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:49:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:34:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:30:13 AM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/27/2012 9:59:21 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The idea here is not about what I think.. Who cares about that I think. The Focus is on Lockes arguements. Is it sound.

In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.

The Fool: The light or wave length is not the colour. because you can hallucinate colour with out anysort of wave lentgh going on at all. "

Don't take arguments out of context. Reply to the main idea.

The Fool: I am not arguing with you.. I have my views but the purpose it to get others to think about things. If you test Me I will Pimp slap you.>!


http://www.google.com...
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:50:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:58:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I am not part of the argument. I was presenting Lockes argument.

It was a supplement to Locke's argument. Though not from Locke himself, it supported his thesis.
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:52:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:51:49 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:19:35 AM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:50:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/27/2012 1:44:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

I would personally argue that nothing cannot be concieve because its not there to even think about.


This is a self refuting statement, if you cannot conceive of nothing and you cannot even think about nothing, then you can't argue about nothing.

Therefore your statement is necessarily incorrect because you are trying to "personally argue" about nothing and in the process you are "conceiving" and "thinking" about nothing.

That is nonsensical. Everyone can argue about what they cannot truly conceive. Consider these two definitions of the word "conceive" from the Encarta ® English Dictionary:

con•ceive


1. Start to experience something: to produce something from the mind such as an emotion
2. Understand: to understand something


Can you experience something that does not exist? Can you understand something that does not exist? No, but you can create a word or concept even though it does not exist so that you can better understand more abstract concepts. "Nothing" does not exist because it is merely the absence of "something." Consider:

"Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat."

Similarly,

"Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

So then you agree wuth me that his statement was self refuting and therefore incorrect.

Read it again; this time for meaning.
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 12:06:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:52:02 AM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:51:49 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/27/2012 8:19:35 AM, carpediem wrote:
At 7/27/2012 4:50:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/27/2012 1:44:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

I would personally argue that nothing cannot be concieve because its not there to even think about.


This is a self refuting statement, if you cannot conceive of nothing and you cannot even think about nothing, then you can't argue about nothing.

Therefore your statement is necessarily incorrect because you are trying to "personally argue" about nothing and in the process you are "conceiving" and "thinking" about nothing.

That is nonsensical. Everyone can argue about what they cannot truly conceive. Consider these two definitions of the word "conceive" from the Encarta ® English Dictionary:

con•ceive


1. Start to experience something: to produce something from the mind such as an emotion
2. Understand: to understand something


Can you experience something that does not exist? Can you understand something that does not exist? No, but you can create a word or concept even though it does not exist so that you can better understand more abstract concepts. "Nothing" does not exist because it is merely the absence of "something." Consider:

"Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat."

Similarly,

"Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

So then you agree wuth me that his statement was self refuting and therefore incorrect.

Read it again; this time for meaning.

I understand what you wrote, it's pretty simple stuff.

Why don't you read the exchange you were responding to again, this time for comprehension.

He's telling us what he thinks about nothing, and saying that what he thinks is that nothing can't be comprehended or even thought about, The statement very obviously contains a contradiction, surely you can comprehend that, it isn't rocket science, you just need to think.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 12:40:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
............................................________
....................................,.-‘"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\a
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:35:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 12:06:40 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

He's telling us what he thinks about nothing, and saying that what he thinks is that nothing can't be comprehended or even thought about, The statement very obviously contains a contradiction, surely you can comprehend that, it isn't rocket science, you just need to think.

Of course, if thinking just isn't your thing, you could paste a picture instead.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 11:04:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Side walker is right, you are missing the key point, of lockes argument.

For example:
The sensation of cold is an existing feeling. An 'Idea' is a thought about something, thus the 'idea' of cold is about the sensation of cold. And the 'idea' of black refers to the sensation of black. You are conflating those sensations with the scientic mathmatical formula of energy. Where energy is simply a 'word' which represent distabilization. The name energy itself it just a make up name, like force, or magnetism or gravity, we don't actually see these things. Thus Locke is argueing that a lack of energy can still have an existing preception, Because actual non-existence is not there to percieve.concieve. Because its non-existent.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
carpediem
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:49:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 11:04:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Side walker is right, you are missing the key point, of lockes argument.

For example:
The sensation of cold is an existing feeling. An 'Idea' is a thought about something, thus the 'idea' of cold is about the sensation of cold. And the 'idea' of black refers to the sensation of black. You are conflating those sensations with the scientic mathmatical formula of energy. Where energy is simply a 'word' which represent distabilization. The name energy itself it just a make up name, like force, or magnetism or gravity, we don't actually see these things. Thus Locke is argueing that a lack of energy can still have an existing preception, Because actual non-existence is not there to percieve.concieve. Because its non-existent.

Let me clarify. My comment was not in reply to Locke's argument, but Sidewalker's observation that
"If you cannot conceive of nothing and you cannot even think about nothing, then you can't argue about nothing."
My initial comment was only an attempt (obviously a very ill one indeed) to prove that you can argue about something you cannot conceive, even something that does not exist. I would concede, of course, that of what one cannot think, they necessarily cannot argue.
"I would die at the stake rather than change a semi-colon!"