Humean Substances

[chikoka]

I thought the following up on my own but i later found out that hume had said simmilar stuff generations ago:

Duality is an illusion brought about by how the mind deals with the totality.Take a peice of paper with a hole in it.
Does the hole exist independantly of the paper.
I agree that it doesnt, but does the hole exist independantly of another hole i may choose to make somewhere else on the paper.
Yes.
But their still connected, you say, .
I disagree , and to do this i invoke the ealitic principle.
To exist is to cause.
If the second hole doesnt cause anything in the other hole then to each other they do not exist.And that is the proper definition of a thing.
An existant that does not get caused (the ealitic principle) or affected by another existant for it to be.

[chikoka]

Why cant moments be humean substances?

[Russell Parr]

Causation is also circumstantial. The characteristics of the first hole directly influence the second hole in a number of ways, e.g., the first hole leaves enough room for the 2nd hole on the sheet of paper, or, the source of the hole (scissors, hole puncher, what have you) must exist before the 2nd hole can arise.

[chikoka]

Causation is also circumstantial. The characteristics of the first hole directly influence the second hole in a number of ways, e.g., the first hole leaves enough room for the 2nd hole on the sheet of paper, or, the source of the hole (scissors, hole puncher, what have you) must exist before the 2nd hole can arise.

Good point but if the first hole does not leave enough room for the second then the first hole and the possibility of the second hole are not separate substances.
If the hole does leave enough room then they are separate substances.
Introducing possibility in a non mental or ideal manner means we might need to accept an ontology of tractarian facts being possibilia too.(Which is heavily debatable)
Also one hole can "scroll" around the paper without affecting the other. this freedom of movement is derivative of the scource of free will.

[Russell Parr]

Good point but if the first hole does not leave enough room for the second then the first hole and the possibility of the second hole are not separate substances.
If the hole does leave enough room then they are separate substances.
Introducing possibility in a non mental or ideal manner means we might need to accept an ontology of tractarian facts being possibilia too.(Which is heavily debatable)
Also one hole can "scroll" around the paper without affecting the other. this freedom of movement is derivative of the scource of free will.

The holes are separate entities because they are identified as such, but that doesn't mean they aren't causally connected. The holes, particularly their characteristics (location, ability to 'scroll') arise from something that which is not the holes themselves. They share the same source, in this manner, simply because they are both caused.

To exist is to cause.

Yes, but to exist is also to be caused.

[chikoka]

chikoka wrote:
Good point but if the first hole does not leave enough room for the second then the first hole and the possibility of the second hole are not separate substances.
If the hole does leave enough room then they are separate substances.
Introducing possibility in a non mental or ideal manner means we might need to accept an ontology of tractarian facts being possibilia too.(Which is heavily debatable)
Also one hole can "scroll" around the paper without affecting the other. this freedom of movement is derivative of the source of free will.
The holes are separate entities because they are identified as such, but that doesn't mean they aren't causally connected. The holes, particularly their characteristics (location, ability to 'scroll') arise from something that which is not the holes themselves. They share the same source, in this manner, simply because they are both caused.

If they share the "same source" then they should be "the same thing". That difference between them must have a different source.

[Russell Parr]

They are the same thing, it is only in the presence of a differentiating consciousness do the boundaries arise.

[chikoka]

They are the same thing, it is only in the presence of a differentiating consciousness do the boundaries arise.

I'm interested in this differentiating of yours. How does it happen?

[Russell Parr]

Differentiation is built into the nature of consciousness. There can be no identification without the appearance of separation. This phenomena has arisen due to the memorization capabilities of our minds. Think about that for a second, is there such a thing as "consciousness" without memory? The degree of consciousness is completely dependent on the way the mind utilizes memorization (along with the obvious sensory receptors). This is why we normally consider animals to be generally "unconscious," no matter how brilliant their instincts.

Yet we see only what our memories/receptors allow (cause) us to see. Batman can't be called upon without a cloud (cause) to reflect the light of the bat signal.

This isn't to say that nothing is really there/happening. In a sense, we can never directly observe what is really happening (except that it is causation). Rather, whatever we do observe, is only what we are presented with by our receptors and memories, i.e. the causes of our consciousness.

Another quick example, we don't observe the atoms of a object until the means of doing so (a microscope/logical deduction) is available to us. Consciousness is comparable to the "invisible" atoms, the only way to observe it is through a sort of "feedback loop" utilized by our brains, i.e., it only exists as an abstraction, as do all things.

[chikoka]

Differentiation is built into the nature of consciousness. There can be no identification without the appearance of separation. This phenomena has arisen due to the memorization capabilities of our minds. Think about that for a second, is there such a thing as "consciousness" without memory? The degree of consciousness is completely dependent on the way the mind utilizes memorization (along with the obvious sensory receptors). This is why we normally consider animals to be generally "unconscious," no matter how brilliant their instincts.

Yet we see only what our memories/receptors allow (cause) us to see. Batman can't be called upon without a cloud (cause) to reflect the light of the bat signal.

This isn't to say that nothing is really there/happening. In a sense, we can never directly observe what is really happening (except that it is causation). Rather, whatever we do observe, is only what we are presented with by our receptors and memories, i.e. the causes of our consciousness.

Another quick example, we don't observe the atoms of a object until the means of doing so (a microscope/logical deduction) is available to us. Consciousness is comparable to the "invisible" atoms, the only way to observe it is through a sort of "feedback loop" utilized by our brains, i.e., it only exists as an abstraction, as do all things.

What i am asking is , what are things a function of.
If you say memory and memory itself is made from the totality (i.e. has the same source as everything else, .is the same as everything else:

They are the same thing

then things are a function of a continuum , which doesnt make sense.

if you say memory and memory is made of things then what are the things memory is made from a function of.

It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

[Russell Parr]

It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

Causation is the continuum, as sure as time passes by moment by moment.

What is time but a measurement of causation?

The trouble in understanding this is in the fact that the infinitude of causation is not observable empirically, whereas 'functions' are. This makes the two seem unrelated, precisely because empirical observations are dependent on a finite focus, i.e. a differentiating consciousness. Therefore, the realization of infinite causation (and ultimate reality) is reliant on logical abstraction.

The premise is simple: All things are caused, in other words, there is no 'thing' that is not caused. Furthermore, causation is necessarily infinite.

Of course we need to make sure we understand what constitutes a "cause." It's easy enough to see the chain-reaction, billiard ball form of causation, but circumstantial causation is equally important, and most often overlooked. Back to your example of holes on a paper: while the emergence of the holes do not interact with each other directly, they both stem from the same circumstantial causes, e.g. the sheet of paper. All things in existence are related in this way; they exist because circumstances allow for it.

When we observe things empirically, even the circumstances become 'things' themselves. For example, "empty outer space" is a thing, in that it maintains the specific characteristic of 'giving way' to the existence of galaxies. As you can probably tell, there is an infinite amount of ways to decipher a cause in any given thing.

[chikoka]

chikoka wrote:
It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.
Causation is the continuum, as sure as time passes by moment by moment.

So things are causation. you said :

They are the same thing, it is only in the presence of a differentiating consciousness do the boundaries arise.

so acording to you two apparently different things are the same thing.
I need to get this clear , so the same thing that they are is causation?

Also you said "they are the same thing, so you imply that the totality is a thing?
Choose your words carefully.

[Russell Parr]

When I said "they are the same thing," I mean they are equally part of the unity that is the Infinite. I know this sounds like double speak, but I'm really talking about two different concepts in that statement, one being the universe is ultimately boundless, whereas a conscious phenomena within the universe utilizes duality to differentiate 'parts' of the Totality into 'things'.

Fact is, when conversing about the Totality, acts that involve conscious input, the appearance of this sort of double speak is unavoidable as far as I can tell. It takes a bit of practice to be able to see the non-duality beyond the words, and indeed, all things.

[Kunga]

It takes a bit of practice to be able to see the non-duality beyond the words, and indeed, all things.

One way I do this is to break everything down into atoms....then nothing has it's own form...it all blends together...

[chikoka]

When I said "they are the same thing," I mean they are equally part of the unity that is the Infinite. I know this sounds like double speak, but I'm really talking about two different concepts in that statement, one being the universe is ultimately boundless, whereas a conscious phenomena within the universe utilizes duality to differentiate 'parts' of the Totality into 'things'.

Fact is, when conversing about the Totality, acts that involve conscious input, the appearance of this sort of double speak is unavoidable as far as I can tell. It takes a bit of practice to be able to see the non-duality beyond the words, and indeed, all things.

But earlier on you said that "causality is the continuum":

chikoka wrote:
It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

Causation is the continuum, as sure as time passes by moment by moment.

then:

one being the universe is ultimately boundless

so here you seem to be suggesting that the totality is literally causation???

[Russell Parr]

No, the totality is the totality; causation is the fundamental "law", or "principle" of Reality.

I'm starting to think that you're just going to stay stuck in these 'word games'. You're going to have to sort out these concepts with a good deal of your own thinking. The words of other people can only get you partly there.

[chikoka]

Its not word games. Your failure to follow an argument in a straight line is what put "your knickers in a twist"

I said this:

It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

My point was that things cannot be a function of the totality as thats what i thought you meant by continuum.

You (deliberately or not) chose to squeeze you way out of that one by choosing to say that the continuum was causality.

Then later on after you thought i had forgoten my first point you say this:

No, the totality is the totality; causation is the fundamental "law", or "principle" of Reality.

So now that we are back on track answer the passage you did a walkabout to avoid:

What i am asking is , what are things a function of.
If you say memory and memory itself is made from the totality (i.e. has the same source as everything else, .is the same as everything else:

Russell wrote:
They are the same thing


then things are a function of a continuum , which doesnt make sense.

if you say memory and memory is made of things then what are the things memory is made from a function of.

It seems to me ,descrete things can only be a function of other descrete things , not a continuum.

[Dennis Mahar]

If a thing has self-nature as a sort of substance, then that thing can never participate in change or,by extension, causality.

[chikoka]

If a thing has self-nature as a sort of substance, then that thing can never participate in change or,by extension, causality.

But if it doesnt have self nature then there will be no change (no things to guage any sort of change by), just a continuum.
It seems to me that the more self nature things have (the realler the boundaries are) the better we are off at observing change.Its boundaries that give causality something to work with.But your statement above makes plenty sense. it is true by definition.
I fail to find the fault in my veiws that i just stated.

What do you think?

[Dennis Mahar]

That things lack self-nature is accorded the status of normal order and that there is no 'other-nature' apart from that things lack self-nature.

are you attempting to subvert the normal order?

ouch!

[chikoka]

That things lack self-nature is accorded the status of normal order and that there is no 'other-nature' apart from that things lack self-nature.

are you attempting to subvert the normal order?

ouch!

Do you do this on purpose..deliberately refuse to address the points in my post?
Adress this:

Its boundaries that give causality something to work with

besides ..how can you say "things arent things"? as in "things lack self nature"?
Is making blatant contradictions like this the normal character of your ideas?

[Dennis Mahar]

ultimately nothing is separate despite appearances.

[chikoka]

ultimately nothing is separate despite appearances.

But if nothing is separate then there can be no change.

And if something is really separate then , as you pointed out, change will still not be possible.

Do you agree with the above analysis.

[Russell Parr]

chikoka, I'm not avoiding anything. It just seems to me that you're confused across a whole array of these subjects. No offense.

I'm curious, you've been here for quite a while, how much of David's or Kevin's material have you gone through? Or Dan's videos?

Anyway I'll try to clear a couple things up. When I said "They are the same thing," I was referring to how all things blend into this 'uncharacteristic-ness' in the absence of consciousness, i.e. it blends into the emptiness that is Reality. 'Things' are only what their characteristics are, or else they simply cannot be referred to.

Consciousness provides a 'perspective' on finite occurrences in causation. If our consciousness were somehow shifted into only observing things at an atomic level, to use Kunga's illustration, then the whole world of observation would be totally different. Our environment would perhaps look only like a sea of tiny balls. But this perspective is neither more or less 'valid' than the ones we are used to, with paper sheets with holes.. so what does reality really look like?

[chikoka]

Hi Russell

chikoka, I'm not avoiding anything.

Well you managed to avoid the passage i asked you to respond to, again.

I'm going somewhere with my questions.

Qsr doctrine is logical on the surface but when you try to go deeper into it it doesnt hold water. In particular finite things can only be a function of other finite things.

Say things are a function of memory and memory is a function of things, then , by transitivity things are a function of things.

If you are going to reply then only do so by responding to my points and not (like dennis) just ignore them, otherwise theres no point.

And i have read "wisdom of the infinite.