Where have I implied that there is a category of *all* things? This is something you've made up for no reason other than to find errors where none exist.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What I mean is that "thing" is not a category simply because there's no other category of non-things. Because then this new category would still be a thing, falling under the other category again: regression! A category is simple a thing-as-container. Which all identifications are. The object as container for assigned properties.
How does one "assign" properties to something that one is identifying as a thing? For that matter, how does one create a container for properties *after* assigning them to that container? Tell you what, create the container commonly known as a "Swiss bank account" in my name, and assign the properties of a balance of 1000000000 USD and a non-negative interest rate to it. Then I will concede the point....I promise!Assigning properties to anything implies creating a container for it. In that sense a thing is nothing but a categorization.
You've made this up. I call consciousness physical because that's what it appears to be. It appears to exist as electronic signals in the brain, and it appears to arise, change and perish concomitantly with the brain and the body. If that's not "philosophical" enough for you then that is *your* problem, and you need to sort it out if you want to progress.You still seem to believe "things" exist and are busy justifying "physical things" as some absolute reality, as if the finite would in any way represent the infinite or equal it.
Yes it is. But...you have a problem with that. Well, I can only reiterate my last sentence in reply to Diebert. The desire not to equate the relative with the absolute can only come from the desire to escape the relative, which you admit is impossible. But perhaps the problem lies precisely in this "admission". You seem to treat like a term of surrender. You won't progress unless you start treating it like a nuptial vow.Russell Parr wrote:But is the latter argument (we cannot escape the relative) being used to defend the former (relative=absolute)?
And no, I am not claiming that I myself treat it like that. The thought is painful to me, but I can't un-think it.