On Things and Multiplicity

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I know about Metaphysics.

The fact is, the basic ''point'' you are trying to say is that you do not believe that concepts exist due to their non physical nature.

Which means that you do not understand Metaphysics as you are disagreeing the existence of abstract concepts.

I made this argument a few times now: everything exists, including abstract concepts. The question is, what do they exist as? Ring any bells?

I am not trying to be mean here I am trying to save you from continuing to appear a fool. Saying abstract concepts do not exist is a metaphysical statement. Speaking about the nature of things and objects is metaphysics. Saying everything is physical is metaphysics. Saying everything is not physical is metaphysics.

Thoughts exist, do you not agree?

Not until you write them down or speak them do they exist, which I mentioned in the OP if you had read it a little better.

Metaphysics is an area of study as Science and Philosophy, the concept of ''existence'' is not something that in Metaphysics is referred to as 'trying to be clever' sound bites. There are theories and theorists that explain these things, it is to this you should refer instead of trying baiting ATS members to answer a ridiculous assumption. You are not being profound.

I suggest you try to read this article about Existence.

You are saying I should refer to theories and theorists and bow to your self-proclaimed authority? I am not allowed to practice philosophy and metaphysics? This might be the least appetizing comment I have ever read on ATS. You speak in fallacy when you let your emotions trump your reason.

a reply to: TzarChasm

what prompted this dissertation?

Boredom. Always boredom.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: TzarChasm

what prompted this dissertation?

Boredom. Always boredom.

ah. i thought so.

a reply to: Aphorism
Can any thing appear to have existence without experiencing?
Experiencing is what existence is made of.
Experiencing is not made of two things - but concepts can appear to divide experiencing into an experiencer and that which is experienced - this is where the separation begins, not really though - it's just a dream of separation.

Experiencing has never been divided - it is one without a second - no thingness.

a reply to: Aphorism

I believe in spiritual forms because differing lifeforms all show signs that they can see them. It is made apparent by seeing the interpretations that life translates into their bodies.

It is so blatantly obvious in evolution and thought, itself, that I would not even consider this a debate - it is more like me telling you so that you can see it too.

The reason I responded is because I feel that my interpretation is the truth, and your interpretation, though it started out well, is wrong. Had you not even been remotely close, then I likely would not have responded at all. But you were remotely close in the beginning, and like you, I want to reproduce the truth as I see it, so I responded.

You want to see the one true apple, then see convergent evolution, stare at it until you can understand what it is.

Plato... ummm, Idk. From having just looked up Platoism, I think he believes awareness first and only, but I think form exists within the spirit, then awareness see(d)s / translates it into the body. Like you feel an impulse, a will, or desire, and then you look at it and in doing so you conceptualize it and translate that into the form / image / body, into an action of the body. But maybe he thought the same thing? Really, I just did a quick google search of platoism, so idk.

As for labeling it, I would just call it the truth I have seen while searching for God and answers of all kinds. I want to know what this place is, so l looked, and that is what I have seen so far.

a reply to: Aphorism

Perhaps you should go back and read the things you actually said. IMO, and presumably you are asking for OPINIONS is that non physical things can and do exist, such as thoughts, thoughts exist even if they either aren't said or written, which is a physical definition.

You said the comment below, therefore you are suggesting your opinion is that ''things'' and having the ability to ''exist'' as only physical.

I suggested you read about Metaphysics and principles of existence, Plato etc so it is an astounding leap of logic suggesting other than that.

To say that something exists, yet it has no discernible boundary nor a beginning and an end, is human folly.

What about numbers?

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Perhaps you should go back and read the things you actually said. IMO, and presumably you are asking for OPINIONS is that non physical things can and do exist, such as thoughts, thoughts exist even if they either aren't said or written, which is a physical definition.

You said the comment below, therefore you are suggesting your opinion is that ''things'' and having the ability to ''exist'' as only physical.

I suggested you read about Metaphysics and principles of existence, Plato etc so it is an astounding leap of logic suggesting other than that.

Yes I agree that thoughts exist. But what do thoughts exist as? is my question, which I’ve asked a few times now. I claim that in order to explain what “thoughts” are, you can only ever refer to what has been said about them, and never any thought as such. Therefor, although thoughts do exist, what they exist as is found only in the form of language.

How do you know know there are non-physical things? Where are they? By what means have you detected them? I’d love to hear your reasoning and your evidence, and if you say “go read Plato”, or otherwise point me to more words, you would only be proving me correct, that you can only refer to words, physical objects, rather than any non-physical object as such.

Aaah a fellow Plato lover. How is what I’m speaking about any different than what Plato wrote in “The Sophist” in regards to being and not-being? I’d love to hear your expert opinion.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

If it is blatantly obvious I beg you to point it out. Take a video or picture of what you are speaking about. The thing is, the truth as you see it doesn’t involve seeing at all. Relate what you see, bleeeeep, so that others may see as well.

Feeling that something is wrong is not good enough. Humanity once felt the Earth was flat or that the sun revolved around it. We felt that Poseidon moved the sea or Jupiter threw lightning bolts. Feelings simply do not suffice, my friend. Instead, govern your feelings before they might govern you.

Non physical things can be experienced. Our physical senses are the detectors of physical and nonphysical.

We can hear but is hearing a ''thing'' yes, as it is a known process but it not a physical object itself though it is a physical process.

We experience the non physical from it's affect on the physical as we are in a physical world influenced and affected by non physical principles. The sciences are studies of these very principles.

Physics uses evidence from controlled experiments as proof of principles, laws etc, it is via such evidential based learning that the 'existence' of such non physical principles can be accepted.

Yes these are conceptualised in the mind, and physically tested in experiments and the data physically written.

Although non physical, these are measured within the parameters of the physical world.

Though on a micro scale, the physical is not so clearly defined, similarly for a macro scale, for example the Universe and it's energies.

Humanity does not yet comprehend all the energies that exist and therefore cannot fully conceptualise as yet, the subtleties of existence and the absoluteness of energies as influencing factors on matter.

How do you know know there are non-physical things? Where are they? By what means have you detected them?

a reply to: Aphorism

a reply to: Words

Yes, numbers too.

One, uno, 1, I, solo, a singular form - none of them are the 1, like no wing of a creature is the wing - they are just translations, interpretations, or approximations, which are modeled, or imaged, after the 1, like wings are modeled after the wing [which, in truth, exists as a form of desire / purpose / or spirit.]

The reason they look different from one another is because the true form of the desires / spirits are being mixed with other desires / spirits and so what is seen and translated becomes an approximation or interpretation of the truth - just like Aphorism is interpreting the truth of form differently than me and the other posters.

I think it should be obvious that, if we are all speaking of it differently, if lifeforms are all imaging it differently, then it is a matter of seeing / interpreting / translating it differently, and not a matter of it being different -- ESPECIALLY when all the forms are holding, or are the image of, the same basic purpose/will/desire/spiritual form.

What makes 1, uno, I, one, the same is not their physical image, or being, it is their spiritual image, their purpose, their desire, the will of it.

The true apple is what the apple tree sees in his spirit, not the image he produces.

Did that answer what you were asking? XD


Think about it like this: Where does one end and another begin? It is what I see in my spirit, it is what I desire it to be. If I desire to see 1 as all of reality, then there is not a number 2. So 1 is a spiritual form - an approximation or interpretation.

a reply to: Aphorism

Yes I agree that thoughts exist. But what do thoughts exist as? is my question, which I’ve asked a few times now. I claim that in order to explain what “thoughts” are, you can only ever refer to what has been said about them, and never any thought as such.

So you are aware of thought appearing, yes?
What is awareness made of?
Is awareness made of a thought or a sensation or do all thoughts and sensations appear in awareness?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

So far your awareness appears to be made of words. What other than words are you speaking about?

a reply to: Aphorism
I am not speaking about words - I am speaking about the knowing space that thought appears in.
Are you 'aware' that thoughts appear prior to speaking or writing?

So far your awareness appears to be made of words.

Can you see my awareness?
Can you see your awareness?
What do you think the word 'awareness' is pointing to?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I am not speaking about words - I am speaking about the knowing space that thought appears in.
Are you 'aware' that thoughts appear prior to speaking or writing?

Can you see my awareness?
Can you see your awareness?
What do you think the word 'awareness' is pointing to?

I am aware yes. I don't consider myself a knowing-space, however.

You are speaking about words. You have spoken about nothing but the word awareness. Your word points to the word awareness.

a reply to: Aphorism

Your word points to the word awareness.

Can you point toward the thing that the word refers to?
Can you describe it to me?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It's right here between parenthesis: (awareness).

a reply to: Aphorism
Is awareness a thing that can be seen, heard, smelt or touched?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You can write a word, you can read a word, you can speak a word. Yes.

a reply to: Aphorism
When you say that you are 'aware' what does that mean?
Would you say that you appear to be experiencing words on a screen?
What does the word 'experiencing' mean?