Dualism

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, not at all. I am asking about its existence. How is its existence similar to, or different from, the existence of material objects.

Well, if you're asking me I'd have to say that the number 3, and all other numbers, exists not the same as material objects exist.

Matter exists as the substance of energy I think, but, as an abstraction, numbers are a product of thought, which, I believe, is of the mind as apposed to the material existence of objects.

Mind(abstraction) and matter(material) suggest dualism is an aspect of reality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. The 'Lord of the Rings' is an abstract entity. It has many copies and has even been made into movies. One problem with granting existence to the abstract is that there are many different abstractions for each physical entity. 'The Lord of the Rings' includes many different editions, movies, games etc. Each variation is an abstract concept.

Sure thing.
We could also agree that each variation is an existent abstract concept that cannot exist on its own right, since it is other-dependent (it is merely a product of our World of Ideas, which it cannot exist on its own right and unconnected to the Physical World and to our Inner World).
Well, the same holds as regards your question about the brain.

If you agree with the above, you are non-dualist; if you disagree, your view is based on dualism😵

Originally posted by josephw
Hello bb, been awhile. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

I'll be honest, I don't know if I can explain why dualism is inescapable, much less whether or not I'd be right.

But here's a stab at it. Mind and matter. Mind may exist independent of matter, but not matter from mind. Maybe. Matter is energy, but mind is intangible with respect to the ...[text shortened]... all that is true, then dualism is inescapable.

I am interested in what you think about that.

Oh it 's been some time indeed; my Maria and the ones I love are good and I 'm good too, and I wish all the best to you and yours.

OK, about body and mind: I have the feeling the existence of this duality is unreal because there is no such a thing –existent is BodyMind in oneness; the dichotomy body/ mind is merely a product of the mind;

See it this way: energy and matter are interchangeable –they are the same thing from different perspectives; gravity is invisible, but it is existent, and it ‘s the footprint of matter/ energy; in absence of all matter and energy, gravity cannot be detected and therefore for the time being is considered non-existent.
Matter/ energy are rooted on a mind-only realm of existence which is not manifested (imagine a pool of probabilities out of which events emerge) and they cannot be conceived as separated entities that are existing in their own right –for one because the former cannot exist without the latter, and for two because they are the two sides of a single coin (and the “coin” itself is just a metaphor, and as such it must be discarded once the meaning it implies is grasped). The sole existing thing is the Observer Universe, in which every other observer is contained; for my convenience I regard Kosmos as the non-dual synthesis of the Physical World (that surrounds us), of the Inner World (Our inner world, that is) and of the World of Ideas (Our World of Ideas). Since there is a single Physical World which is perceived by each single one sentient entity according to her physical capabilities, the freedom and the limitation of her Inner World and the freedom and the limitation of her World of Ideas, methinks there are as many truths as sentient beings –all of them truths in full accordance with the nature of the sentient beings that perceive them.

This is, by and large, the non-dualist approach as regards your post😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, does a computer program that someone thought up and wrote, exist? Is it a single existence, or does it have multiple existences every time it is copped? Is Microsoft Windows 8, and existent entity, or are there merely many copies of that OS each of which exists, but for which there is no abstract existence?

[b]As for numbers, my first math book sai ...[text shortened]... on the paper? Is it a copy of the idea, or the exact same idea? Are there now two ideas, or one?

So, does a computer program that someone thought up and wrote, exist? Is it a single existence, or does it have multiple existences every time it is [copied]?

Abstractly, it is a single concept. Physically, it exists in multiple different places, on various hard drives, thumb drives, etc. I'm still not comfortable saying concepts 'exist'. I think concepts just are.

If the idea is written down on paper, does it still exist on the paper? Is it a copy of the idea, or the exact same idea? Are there now two ideas, or one?

There is only one idea; if one writes it down on paper, there are two instances of the one idea.

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh it 's been some time indeed; my Maria and the ones I love are good and I 'm good too, and I wish all the best to you and yours.

OK, about body and mind: I have the feeling the existence of this duality is unreal because there is no such a thing –existent is BodyMind in oneness; the dichotomy body/ mind is merely a product of the mind;

See it th ...[text shortened]... gs that perceive them.

This is, by and large, the non-dualist approach as regards your post😵

I need to think for a while. Will reply soon. Later today or tomorrow.

All is well here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you say the same about the abstract? I know you have religious reasons for some of your statements about the mind, so I would rather stay away from it to some extent.
Is the number 3, intangible with respect to matter? Is it undetectable by matter?

Maybe the number 3 is better thought of as an adjective than a noun. "Three ducks, red ducks." Or maybe it is a part of a predicate (a phrase containing a verb, that says something about the subject)."He is 33", He is tall."

But my question is a utilitarian question. What is the purpose of thinking of abstract objects corresponding to existent things, in the manner that we think of physical objects, if the notion of existence is not split by so doing, into a duality? All we are doing is creating two buckets in order to use one word -- "exist" -- to fit what we intuit is not one kind of being. Once we say "exist as a physical object" and "exist as an abstract object" we might as well say "exist" for the one and "is exemplified" for the other.

In fact, I think "tallness is exemplified" and "occurrence as a threesome is exemplified" is is better, as it avoids ontological dualism and any semantic need to split existence into kinds. Although once realized, the linguistics can be more specifically turned into "tallness is exemplified over there at the location of Tom." 🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
If you agree with the above, you are non-dualist; if you disagree, your view is based on dualism😵

I suspect, that if what you have said is correct, then I am a non-dualist.

Originally posted by black beetle
This is, by and large, the non-dualist approach as regards your post😵

I tend to find that you have a very mind centered approach whereas I do not.
Some here would hold that a word only has meaning if read by a mind. However I would argue that a computer or even a mechanical machine could be made to read and interpret a word and then destroy it without a mind ever being involved.

Originally posted by JS357
Once we say "exist as a physical object" and "exist as an abstract object" we might as well say "exist" for the one and "is exemplified" for the other.

So you are with BigDoggProblem in holding that 'exist' is probably not the right word.

So is the number 3, purely a product of the physical universe, or would it still be 'there but not exemplified' if there was no physical universe? Does my question even make sense?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are with BigDoggProblem in holding that 'exist' is probably not the right word.

So is the number 3, purely a product of the physical universe, or would it still be 'there but not exemplified' if there was no physical universe? Does my question even make sense?

There is a too-long discussion of some of this stuff at

http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~lee/exist.html

One point is that numbers are adjectives, but George Lakoff used "metaphor" by which he means a way of describing something by reference to something else hich it parallels in certain defined ways. So a number such as 3 is an adjective/metaphor that can be applied to certain things. The things that it fits that have physical instantiation (eg blind mice) are what exist (if they do) not the number of them. If we are talking about Dumas' fictional musketeers, then it is the imagination of the author or the reader that ascribes threeishness to them. So the number three can be exemplified in collections of physical or abstract objects. In neither case is the number an existent object.

That's more or less what I am thinking. At present.

Originally posted by JS357
So a number such as 3 is an adjective/metaphor that can be applied to certain things.

That is basically what 'abstract' means.

In neither case is the number an existent object.
I agree it is not an object. I am less certain about existence. Clearly there is something, that is independent of specific objects. If the musketeers had never been thought up, three would not vanish. There is no one instantiation that 'three' requires.

If 'I think therefore I am' proves existence, then surely 'I think, therefore my thought is' proves the existence of the thought? Or is it only the instantiation of the thought that is proven? And in the first instance is it an abstract mind that exists, or the instantiation of one?

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh it 's been some time indeed; my Maria and the ones I love are good and I 'm good too, and I wish all the best to you and yours.

OK, about body and mind: I have the feeling the existence of this duality is unreal because there is no such a thing –existent is BodyMind in oneness; the dichotomy body/ mind is merely a product of the mind;

See it th ...[text shortened]... gs that perceive them.

This is, by and large, the non-dualist approach as regards your post😵

Sorry bb, but I don't think you have managed, with this post, to explain how dualism isn't a valid perspective.

"The sole existing thing is the Observer Universe, in which every other observer is contained;.."

The universe observes the observers? Sounds dualistic. But back to something you said above.

"OK, about body and mind: I have the feeling the existence of this duality is unreal because there is no such a thing –existent is BodyMind in oneness; the dichotomy body/ mind is merely a product of the mind;"

Then how do you know when your mind is telling the truth? If, by the use of my mind, I believe that after the body dies my soul/mind/spirit lives on, and if that is the truth, then the non-dualist idea of existence is false.

How do you know whether or not the mind knows the truth? If, as you say, the body and mind, as with energy and matter, are one and the same, that the idea of their being separate and distinct dualistically is merely a product of the mind, then nothing has meaning, because now the mind can tell itself anything or nothing with the same results.

"... –all of them truths in full accordance with the nature of the sentient beings that perceive them."

Then what prevents a sentient being from thinking themselves into existing as an eternally existent entity?

If by non-dualism one means there is only matter/energy, that the mind/spirit idea as different in substance from matter/energy is only a product of the mind resulting in a dualist mentality, which then is only an illusion by definition, then how can one know whether or not it is an illusion that there is only matter/energy?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is basically what 'abstract' means.

[b]In neither case is the number an existent object.
I agree it is not an object. I am less certain about existence. Clearly there is something, that is independent of specific objects. If the musketeers had never been thought up, three would not vanish. There is no one instantiation that 'three' requires. ...[text shortened]... oven? And in the first instance is it an abstract mind that exists, or the instantiation of one?[/b]

"There is no one instantiation that "three" requires."

Do you mean there is no physical instantiation that "three" requires?

There is no one instantiation that "three" requires... in order for "three" to what? To be instantiated as an abstraction? To have the capacity to be physically instantiated? These are subtly different.

Also, is something instantiated by being thought of? Three as a number may be instantiated as an abstraction, but three as a physical instantiation is not made existent by being thought of, any more than is a unicorn physically instantiated by being thought of.

Finally, for now, looking at the etymology of "abstract" we have "Middle English: from Latin abstractus, literally ‘drawn away,’ past participle of abstrahere, from ab- ‘from’ + trahere ‘draw off.’"

What is an abstraction drawn away from? It seems like "three" is drawn away from physical instantiations of threeness. Without some (not any particular one) instantiation of threeness, would the idea of "three" arise?

I'm not sure. It seems that the square root of minus one arose as a mathematical object before it was seen to be instantiated in certain instances in fluid dynamics and other applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number#Applications

But I'm not certain that sqrt(-1) arose as a mathematical object prior to someone noticing a natural phenomenon that called for its use.

At any rate, I think the idea of a dualism between existence as a physical object and existence as a abstract object is reasonable and useful. In physical chemistry the "ideal gas" is a useful object of study. It's handy, as long as we don't make the mistake of treating the physical world like its idealized abstraction in all situations. IMO.

Originally posted by josephw
Sorry bb, but I don't think you have managed, with this post, to explain how dualism isn't a valid perspective.

[b]"The sole existing thing is the Observer Universe, in which every other observer is contained;.."

The universe observes the observers? Sounds dualistic. But back to something you said above.

"OK, about body and mind: I have the ...[text shortened]... nition, then how can one know whether or not it is an illusion that there is only matter/energy?

Edit: “The universe observes the observers? Sounds dualistic.”

“Observer” in the context of my post is any physical system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality, therefore an observer, in order to exist, must be made of elements of reality (exchangeable and finite packets of physical information). The “memory” of an observer is nothing but the complete collection of the observer’s elements of reality. Therefore our universe, a rock, a cat, a human being, a comet, a tree, a chunck of wood and a grain of sand are all observers; all the observers are existent strictly within the Observer Universe/ Kosmos and they are a part of the Observer Universe’s complete collection of elements of reality.


Edit: “Then how do you know when your mind is telling the truth? If, by the use of my mind, I believe that after the body dies my soul/mind/spirit lives on, and if that is the truth, then the non-dualist idea of existence is false.”

When I ‘m running wide I know I have to refrain from crackin’ it open, cause in the past I tasted the consequences of doing the contrary in our Physical World. This is how I know if the analysis of my mind holds or not when it boils down to causes and conditions, situations and events that take place in the Physical World that surrounds me.
As regards the level of my Inner World, my sole “truth” (which is not absolute) is the very feeling I have under specific circumstances, along with the analysis of my mind concerning that feeling (ie whenever I drive mad I know why I drive mad, I know who exactly is my target, I know how exactly and when I have to react, and I know exactly when I have to stop charging; in the absence of the above analysis of the mind, I have no control over myself).
Finally, as regards all the ideas, the theories and the beliefs, I test them by means of using scientific facts and evidence along with my intuition;

So, if you really believe that “after the body dies our soul/mind/spirit lives on” is true, all you have to do is bringing up evidence in order to back up your belief properly, present it as a valid theory and test it;


Edit: “Then what prevents a sentient being from thinking themselves into existing as an eternally existent entity?”

Common sense, along with scientific facts and evidence;


Edit: “If by non-dualism… …only matter/energy?

In the hidden, non-manifested realm of reality, dualism is not existent; where exactly within the pool of probabilities, or within the singularity before Big-Bang, dualism exists?
😵

Originally posted by JS357
[b]What is an abstraction drawn away from? It seems like "three" is drawn away from physical instantiations of threeness. Without some (not any particular one) instantiation of threeness, would the idea of "three" arise?/b]

It was the 'not any particular one' part I was commenting on. If threeness is independent of a particular instantiation, it suggests it has some reality other than mere instantiation. I am not sure what it implies if anything, but that is what I was getting at.