Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
I only bring that up because it might be part of the confusion that's happening here.
- Hans-Werner Hammen
- Posts: 145
- Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
I am referring to all that is an idea = no-thing (un-real = imaginary)
being elicited, made up, fabricated, FAKED -
FROM/ABOUT all that is real.
If you assert that a real person be Harry Potter THEN Harry Potter is very real.
If you assert that Harry Potter is, as such, it-self, in its essence - the idea = the Reference = no-thing made up and symbolized by the author of the respective book, THEN Harry Potter is imaginary.
"Harry Potter" is - indeed - a veeery good example.
HOWEVER!
If you are unwilling to deem the symbol "Reference" in the good ole' Semiotic Triangle be symbolizing "no-thing" then my assertions are an exercise in futilty and quite likely not for you.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
Semiotic triangle, symbols, made up brain/mind duality etc. you are way overcomplicating this.Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑December 27th, 2020, 3:45 amIndeed, you are factually entitled to call whatever you want on the assertions of mine.
Which has no bearing on the following, namely that
I am factually founding my assertions on- = my assertions are factually caused by:
Some-thing, observable that is, namely my organs of detection, my brain, my organs of exertion, and the very symbol picture called Semiotic Triangle.
On the other hand, how do you account for an ominous thing that you call the mind? I mean, did you not just assert that my mind be doing something? I respectfully yet frankly disagree, on this occasion. I assert that you are factually referring to my brain. Nobody has ever factually shown me a mind, let alone factually measured a mass from/about the mind. Thus, I assert that the mind does not exist factually. The mind is rather, factually, no-thing (imaginary also called inside-brain effect) momentarily being made up (fabricated = faked) BY some-thing (also called the brain) and FROM/ABOUT some-thing (all that is around the brain, via a perceiving process, first and foremost my own body).
If you assert that the mind be per definition existing, in that it is being symbolized = asserted all days long, THEN, by the same assertion of standard, Winnie the Pooh, the tooth Fairy and the powerful QuadrUnity of the 4 Great Big Zampanos DO exist, just bcz I assert them, for the sake of argument.
If you assert that your mind ought, should, must be existing, in that you be feeling it, then I ask you: Can you
- factually -
see, hear, smell, taste, feel your mind?
And if you answer that yes, you do feel your mind, then I will remind you that
- factually -
any feeling is an awareness FROM/ABOUT some-thing that you (in other words somebody = some-thing) are touching and that is touching you, respectively.
I was simply talking about how our brain/mind automatically divides the world into separate objects. I mean my brain/mind doesn't do that anymore, but for most people that's how it works.
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
No, those were the clarifiers I was asking for on that point.Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 4:52 am If you are unwilling to deem the symbol "Reference" in the good ole' Semiotic Triangle be symbolizing "no-thing" then my assertions are an exercise in futilty and quite likely not for you.
I'm still trying to drill into the quantity piece however. Taking my example earlier where I say 'a bee' or 'lots of bees', are you saying that quantity is imaginary? If it is there's a metaphysics behind that which I feel like I'm missing and the semiotic triangle doesn't really help clear it up unless it's the very idea that two apples are two apples rather than 'this apple' and 'that apple'.
- Hans-Werner Hammen
- Posts: 145
- Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
Some-thing is just there, and you make the property "quantity" up FROM/ABOUT it or them.
Now I admit that I have quite a hard time at explaining. Let me just try THIS, and cover one apple with my hand, when you were yet to see the whole set of three apples. Now, how many apples "are there" I ask, and you will rightfully say "two" bcz I hid the third apple, and I can as rightfully say "three" and uncover the third apple.
- Hans-Werner Hammen
- Posts: 145
- Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
Good for us. If the brain did not all that it factually does, we would not survive.
For an example, when our brain elicits the no-thing = imaginary = Reference symbolized "pain sensation", FROM/ABOUT some-thing = Referent , for an example a wound on our limb, then it does indeed separate more or less accurately "here is a wound" from "there is no wound" and it will manifest (materialize) the thought by respective action.
Regardless whether I see (detect, observe, realize) some-thing far outside my body or I feel (detect, observe, realize) some-thing on- or inside my body, the respective awareness = Reference = no-thing is being elicited - beyond any shred of a doubt - inside my brain. YET, the brain is capable of allocating the awareness = Reference = no-thing, accurately at the Referent being observed, which Referent is obviously located outside my brain.
HOW does the brain do that? This is imho the "real core" of the "assertion of a mind-body-problem"
IF the brain did NOT do all that it does we would not survive. It fabricates illusion "in order to make things right" -
which "in order to" is also called "intentionality" - both are References, the utterations of which can be included into a description why the brain is causing populations of living beings to survive. In any case, the Reference as such, it-self, on its own, can be called a symptom of the actions of the brain, which symptom as such does not cause some-thing, hence called epiphenomenon.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
All referents are located inside your brain because human consciousness is representational.Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 1:26 pmGood for us. If the brain did not all that it factually does, we would not survive.
For an example, when our brain elicits the no-thing = imaginary = Reference symbolized "pain sensation", FROM/ABOUT some-thing = Referent , for an example a wound on our limb, then it does indeed separate more or less accurately "here is a wound" from "there is no wound" and it will manifest (materialize) the thought by respective action.
Regardless whether I see (detect, observe, realize) some-thing far outside my body or I feel (detect, observe, realize) some-thing on- or inside my body, the respective awareness = Reference = no-thing is being elicited - beyond any shred of a doubt - inside my brain. YET, the brain is capable of allocating the awareness = Reference = no-thing, accurately at the Referent being observed, which Referent is obviously located outside my brain.
HOW does the brain do that? This is imho the "real core" of the "assertion of a mind-body-problem"
IF the brain did NOT do all that it does we would not survive. It fabricates illusion "in order to make things right" -
which "in order to" is also called "intentionality" - both are References, the utterations of which can be included into a description why the brain is causing populations of living beings to survive. In any case, the Reference as such, it-self, on its own, can be called a symptom of the actions of the brain, which symptom as such does not cause some-thing, hence called epiphenomenon.
What I was talking about, the automatic division into separate objects, is a way how the representation is usually constructed.
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
That's kind of what I was saying with the bees - the correct answer for the apples then might be 'however many apples exist right now, have existed, or ever will exist both seen and unseen, covered by hands or not covered by hands'.Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 12:52 pm Now I admit that I have quite a hard time at explaining. Let me just try THIS, and cover one apple with my hand, when you were yet to see the whole set of three apples. Now, how many apples "are there" I ask, and you will rightfully say "two" bcz I hid the third apple, and I can as rightfully say "three" and uncover the third apple.
- Papus79
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
I consider that a local frame issue where whatever you're seeing in front of you is not all of said thing in existence.
- Hans-Werner Hammen
- Posts: 145
- Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
I mean, this computer display and sentence you are seeing right now are technically inside your brain. They are a representation of the outside world, we can directly access the outside world and know what it's actually like.Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 4:56 pmThe individual consciousness is imaginary - is just the entirety of awarenesses (imaginaries) being fabricated in an individual brain at an instant.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
- Hans-Werner Hammen
- Posts: 145
- Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
I disagree. We can measure = fabricate and proclaim, namely a Reference called distance FROM/ABOUT my head and the display.
Sure is, the observed-hoods = awarenesses = truths = References = properties - now THESE are being fabricated inside my brain.
The "representation of the outside world" is imaginary, it is simply the observed-hoods = References - FROM/ABOUT the observ-ABLE = Referents!
As far as I understand you are committed to the same assertion as is our dear beloved friend Deepak Chopra.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
You can disagree but I was simply stating facts, the philosophy of direct realism (naive realism) is untenable today. You need to start over with your philosophy.Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: ↑December 29th, 2020, 3:38 amI disagree. We can measure = fabricate and proclaim, namely a Reference called distance FROM/ABOUT my head and the display.
Sure is, the observed-hoods = awarenesses = truths = References = properties - now THESE are being fabricated inside my brain.
The "representation of the outside world" is imaginary, it is simply the observed-hoods = References - FROM/ABOUT the observ-ABLE = Referents!
As far as I understand you are committed to the same assertion as is our dear beloved friend Deepak Chopra.
- Hans-Werner Hammen
- Posts: 145
- Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Re: Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2
and kindest cigars and very best dishes to your friend Deepak!
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023