Essentialism

[Agent Intellect]

A quick thought experiment - how would one define what a lion is? Perhaps we might, in words, define a lion as "a predatory cat that lives in Africa". Now let's say that ten years from now, scientists make a breakthrough and discover that lions are actually part of the dog family; unfortunately, lions have gone extinct except for in American zoo's. Are lions still lions, even if they do not fit our prior definition? Most people would probably say yes, that lions are still lions.

So how do we define something? What makes a lion have the intrinsic 'essence' of being a lion?

Studies by psychologists Frank Keil, Susan Gelman, and Henry Wellman (related research) suggests that older children are essentialist about animals but younger ones are not. (Steven Pinker, How The Mind Works).

Humans seem to have an innate tendency to imbue things with essence - even if it does not fit what we would describe as it's definition, it just is what it is. Things intuitively have haecceity.

I find this interesting because I'd want to know where essence is located. Where is the essence of "me" in a person? If someone has half of their brain removed, are they still the same person - do they maintain the essence of who they were? What if someone had their mass cut in half due to amputation of both legs and arms, are they still who they were? What if someone suffers amnesia, forgetting everything that happened to them, and because of this they undergo a personality change - are they still the same person?

What constitutes essence - do thorns serve a rose the same purpose that barbs serve to a wire? If a car no longer has an engine, is it still a car? If a coffee machine is used to make tea, is it still a coffee machine? If a chair is cut in half, no longer able to support a person, do both halves still maintain the 'essence' of being a chair?

Another thing that interests me about this is it's ties with evolution, which is undoubtedly a rather counter intuitive theory. People think of organisms as having an 'essence' of being the organism that it is, and the notion of it becoming a different organism doesn't jibe with the way our minds work. Something is what it is; if someone paints stripes on a lion and shaves it's mane, it still contains the "essence" of being a lion in our mind - nobody would say that it has changed on a any fundamental level. This, I suppose, could also be seen in the way people perceive those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery - most people will still claim that someone still is the sex that is "essential" to them.

I myself would fall under the philosophical worldview of existentialism. I do not think that anything has a particular essence; we are all objects in space. Essence is something that comes only from the subjective realm, and is completely relative - not only from person to person, but from instance to instance. A hammer might have the 'essence' of a tool one moment, and the next the 'essence' of a deadly weapon, or the handle might be imbued with the 'essence' of firewood.

[Beat Mango]

We can not define anything, only describe. Words only point. It's a great question you ask though and something I find fascinating, and very relevant to the age old philosophical question, "who am I?" Personally, I think there is essence (in the vein of the Taoist Way, Pirsig's Quality or Derrida's Trace), but it's constantly in flux and never able to be grasped, like what you said in your last paragraph. All we can really know for sure is that there is difference, ie, relative essence. In the case of the lion, for example, we can't pinpoint what it is, but we know that it is different from a Cheetah. And it is these differences that push and pull the world in all its directions and put it in motion.

What constitutes essence - do thorns serve a rose the same purpose that barbs serve to a wire? If a car no longer has an engine, is it still a car? If a coffee machine is used to make tea, is it still a coffee machine? If a chair is cut in half, no longer able to support a person, do both halves still maintain the 'essence' of being a chair?

It should be pretty clear that the "chair", the "coffee machine", never really existed as such in the first place. I like the idea of being-in-the-world too (Heidegger), my idea of which is that something only has an essence so to speak when it does something, when it interacts with the world - it does not have a separate identity of its own. The subject-object distinction, ultimately, doesn ot hold up. So a coffee machine is a coffee machine when it makes coffee, and a tea machine when it makes tea. If a coffee machine made coffee and no-one was there to drink it, would it have made the coffee at all? Unanswerable question, but the answer's closer to no than yes.

[jhbowden]

What constitutes essence

To do justice to an essentialist position, we shouldn't attribute essence to things that are pragmatically defined. Rather, essence should apply to the ultimate nature of things. A proton, for example, is essentially a 1/2-spin fermion composed of two up quarks and one down quark, with one unit of positive charge. Here we are attributing properties to substances.

Perhaps you're thinking about something different, namely, whether anything is substantial-- the existentialist apple doesn't fall far from the idealist tree. I like to think of substance in a minimalist sense, that is, anything which is a concrete particular. But perhaps nothing is concrete, or nothing is particular. Existentialists pride themselves on being worldly, which is why they use slogans like "existence precedes essence" to cloak the idealist implications of what they're suggesting.

When I go to art museums, I frequently hear people claim that "I like his use of color." Few are aware of the sense of agency in a painting, or what the artist is trying to communicate, or what kind of world or vision of life he is showing us. For contemporary men, everything has become contemporary art, just blotches of color.

So when I read writers like Camus, Sartre, etc. it seems as if existentialism is just logical positivism outside of the laboratory. They're both numb to everything outside of sensation.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by Banana Mango

We can not define anything, only describe. Words only point.

I do wonder where words come into the idea of giving essence (or perhaps 'meaning' is a better word) to things. Definition and meaning are two different things. Words are only adequate to describe something.

It's a great question you ask though and something I find fascinating, and very relevant to the age old philosophical question, "who am I?"

I wonder if it's possible to change the essence of "me" from my own subjective perspective. I suppose this could go back to cryptonia's change of heart thread. What is it about me that makes me me? I can sit here and describe myself in enough ways to probably fill a book, but is all of that stuff the essence of me? Would it still be me if all of it changed? (which it is, since more is being added to it all the time).

Personally, I think there is essence (in the vein of the Taoist Way, Pirsig's Quality or Derrida's Trace), but it's constantly in flux and never able to be grasped, like what you said in your last paragraph. All we can really know for sure is that there is difference, ie, relative essence.

Essence is something that does not have to be there, either. I would say that a book floating in deep space would have no meaning in the words written in it - they would be meaningless 'properties' of the object.

In the case of the lion, for example, we can't pinpoint what it is, but we know that it is different from a Cheetah. And it is these differences that push and pull the world in all its directions and put it in motion.

Can the lion have an essence of lion, though? Is the individual lion not different from another individual lion, even if it's in a small way? This is why I bring up evolution, too - how far removed from what's considered "lion" does a population need to become in order for it to no longer be a lion? "On The Origin of Species" Darwin breaks species down into 'varieties', which are populations within a species that are slightly different - the example he uses is an area where in one part, all the wolves are slightly thinner and swifter because they mainly hunt dear, while in another part they are slightly shorter and stouter because they mainly prey on livestock; yet these are both classified as the same species, just different 'varieties' - hence my question, when does a wolf of a certain species cease having the 'essence' of being that species of wolf?

It should be pretty clear that the "chair", the "coffee machine", never really existed as such in the first place. I like the idea of being-in-the-world too (Heidegger), my idea of which is that something only has an essence so to speak when it does something, when it interacts with the world - it does not have a separate identity of its own.

Interesting concept. I wonder, though, does an object require agency, consciousness, or even sentience in order to instill it with 'essence' or 'meaning'? Does a meteor hitting a barren planet in deep space have the 'essence' of being a crater-maker or atmosphere-upsetter?

The subject-object distinction, ultimately, doesn ot hold up. So a coffee machine is a coffee machine when it makes coffee, and a tea machine when it makes tea. If a coffee machine made coffee and no-one was there to drink it, would it have made the coffee at all? Unanswerable question, but the answer's closer to no than yes.

I suppose this just becomes to dissonance between 'essence' and definition - we will still define it as a coffee machine, and maybe even claim that the purpose for it's creation is for the manufacturing of coffee, even when it's used for making tea.

Originally Posted by jhbowden

To do justice to an essentialist position, we shouldn't attribute essence to things that are pragmatically defined. Rather, essence should apply to the ultimate nature of things. A proton, for example, is essentially a 1/2-spin fermion composed of two up quarks and one down quark, with one unit of positive charge. Here we are attributing properties to substances.

Perhaps I'm simply using the wrong word with 'essence'. What I'm mainly talking about is the intuitive feeling one gets that something about the object/organism is preserved even if something is altered. A taxidermist stuffs a bear for us, and we probably would not think that it's "bear-ness" is preserved, but if we somehow gave it extreme plastic surgery and gave it reptile skin, most people would probably still consider that it's "bear-ness" is preserved, even if we think it's just a freakish bear.

This goes back to what I was talking about with people getting sexual reassignment surgery. Even if a male has their sex completely changed, a lot of people would still probably intuitively feel that some "male-ness" has been preserved, even if biologically speaking they could be considered a female.

Perhaps you're thinking about something different, namely, whether anything is substantial-- the existentialist apple doesn't fall far from the idealist tree.

I prefer the realism tree

I suppose the way I see it is that 'essence' or 'meaning' has to be instilled into the objective reality - that subjectivity is, in addition to sentience, basically what banana mango said - the ability to utilize objects to interact with the world.

In this sense I tend to believe in the anthropic principle; the world we experience is shaped by the experiencer (which I suppose does sound more akin to an idealist philosophy). We see a screen with two dots moving around and we experience it as one dot 'chasing' the other dot around the screen, giving things meaning and even agency. We rarely do something without reason - I do not randomly get up, walk into the bathroom, turn around and walk out. If someone saw a video of me doing that, they would probably automatically assume that I had gone in there to get something and forgot what it was.

When I make a distinction between object and subject, I am saying simply that an object has no meaning, intent, or reason for doing what it does - they are just objects in space moving around, indifferent to each other; they are objects that move through a certain area of space at a certain time without a purpose. It is conscious, subjective entities that instill meanings: a meteor heading to earth is 'going to kill us', giving that meteor an "is-ness". A human can even go so far as to hate the meteor for what it's 'intending' to do, but the meteor does not care, it's just an object in space.

I like to think of substance in a minimalist sense, that is, anything which is a concrete particular. But perhaps nothing is concrete, or nothing is particular. Existentialists pride themselves on being worldly, which is why they use slogans like "existence precedes essence" to cloak the idealist implications of what they're suggesting.

I say substance is dependent on scale. Water on the scale of individual molecules does not have the property of being "wet", nor does water on the scale of the entire galaxy (our planets oceans would not even be noticable). The scale would also determine the 'essence' or 'meaning' of water; within our cells, the polar molecules are utilized for their hydrogen bonds, and in the ocean it's used to carry freight from one place to another. The way I see it though is that, at any scale, water could be said to be the same as an 'object', just merely observed at different scales.

When I go to art museums, I frequently hear people claim that "I like his use of color." Few are aware of the sense of agency in a painting, or what the artist is trying to communicate, or what kind of world or vision of life he is showing us. For contemporary men, everything has become contemporary art, just blotches of color.

I am not advocating a world where everything should be looked at for the objects they would be in our absence, I suppose my questions are, aside from my own pondering, semantic in nature. Essence, I argue, is relative and dependent on subjective consciousness for it to exist. Hence why I say realism - I think objective reality would exist independent of us, and that there is one 'truth', even if it cannot be known to us.

So when I read writers like Camus, Sartre, etc. it seems as if existentialism is just logical positivism outside of the laboratory. They're both numb to everything outside of sensation.

The problem with any epistemology is that it is ultimately shaped by our own subjective experience. I suppose this is one of the points I could make - there may be a distinction between existence and essence, but essence is the epistemology everyone uses - it shapes our emprical, constructivist etc experiences. I don't think empiricism is the only epistemology thats valid, but I would say it's the one that's mainly focused outward, where other epistemologies seem to come more from within (generated more by how one 'experiences' their experience as opposed to how they experience the world).

[Da Blob]

One can not measure essence, so what's the point?

We can describe essence with words and can define essence as the set of the essential.

To me there is something similar between the concept of essence and the concept of isomorphism as presented in "Godel, Escher and Bach"

[fullerene]

I know I read a Greek argument over this at some point. They used a big ship whose parts gradually wore out over time. One day the rudder broke, and it needed to get repaired... so they gave it a new one. Is it the same ship? The author presumed the reader would say yes. Another day the sail was torn, so the people made it a new sail and put it on the ship. Again, the author presumes you would say that the ship is still the same ship. One by one, if every piece of the ship were replaced, so that not a single nail that was on the original remained, there's really no point that they could decide "it's now a new ship"... so they fell back on saying that the "essence" of the ship were unchanged. Basically, I think it was taken for granted that the essence of a thing could not lie in its materials.

I don't think you're far off, in saying that essence comes from the subjective realm somewhere, because I'd be willing to bet that you could argue that your relationship to a thing changes what one considers it's essence, too. I don't know too many people who would argue with bowden's properties-based definition of a proton, because nobody has any special personal relationship with a proton.

Try to make the same argument to a car-owner, and see if he balks if you offer to substitute out his car for one of identical mileage. If they were of the same essence just because their properties are the same, then I can't imagine he would care... but since he's had time to develop a relationship with that car, it is in some way different from cars of the same model. I don't think you would have the same problem if he were buying a brand new car, and thought he was going to get car A for 3 minutes, until the car salesman goes and tells him he's getting car B, of the same model, instead. Without the relationship, all similar things are equal.

I think that this can also be used to show that, even if they've never met before, people have some intrinsic relationship. Hypothetically, if they didn't, then people who hadn't met them yet would consider identical twins to be essentially the same... but I don't think they would. Just being of the same species introduces enough of a relationship to make you think that the essence of the person is in the individual themselves, rather than their properties.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

One can not measure essence, so what's the point?

This is why I would say that essence comes from the subjective realm. But, on the other hand, can "nothing" have essence - can there be essence, meaning, purpose, or even intent for something that isn't there? I would say no, which is where my idea that subjectiveness requires 'input' from the objective, but I imagine that's debatable?

We can describe essence with words and can define essence as the set of the essential.

To me there is something similar between the concept of essence and the concept of isomorphism as presented in "Godel, Escher and Bach"

Intriguing idea. Care to expand?

Originally Posted by cryptonia

I know I read a Greek argument over this at some point. They used a big ship whose parts gradually wore out over time. One day the rudder broke, and it needed to get repaired... so they gave it a new one. Is it the same ship? The author presumed the reader would say yes. Another day the sail was torn, so the people made it a new sail and put it on the ship. Again, the author presumes you would say that the ship is still the same ship. One by one, if every piece of the ship were replaced, so that not a single nail that was on the original remained, there's really no point that they could decide "it's now a new ship"... so they fell back on saying that the "essence" of the ship were unchanged. Basically, I think it was taken for granted that the essence of a thing could not lie in its materials.

I've asked this question about the brain, before - if someone had small pieces of their brain replaced with pieces of someone else brain, would there be any point when that person ceased having the essence of "me-ness"? I suppose in this sense consciousness or sentience could be seen as the 'ultimate essence' being that it's not a measurable phenomenon, but does it lie in it's materials? Perhaps, going back to what banana mango said, consciousness is simply the ability of our brain to interact with itself, causing the epiphenomenon of sentience to emerge - our brain gives itself it's own 'essence'?

Every one of us has been replaced, as far as constituent molecules and cells go, several times over, but we all would still consider ourselves "me".

I don't think you're far off, in saying that essence comes from the subjective realm somewhere, because I'd be willing to bet that you could argue that your relationship to a thing changes what one considers it's essence, too. I don't know too many people who would argue with bowden's properties-based definition of a proton, because nobody has any special personal relationship with a proton.

I imagine bowden is referring to a pluralist view on philosophical substance. This sort of dichotomy seem to me what existentialist thought is based on, the 'existence precedes essence' that he mentioned. This is generally a precept that I endorse, because I would say that objects exist even in the absence of meaning - ie, there is no meaning or purpose to life except what we as individuals give it.

Try to make the same argument to a car-owner, and see if he balks if you offer to substitute out his car for one of identical mileage. If they were of the same essence just because their properties are the same, then I can't imagine he would care... but since he's had time to develop a relationship with that car, it is in some way different from cars of the same model. I don't think you would have the same problem if he were buying a brand new car, and thought he was going to get car A for 3 minutes, until the car salesman goes and tells him he's getting car B, of the same model, instead. Without the relationship, all similar things are equal.

I think that this can also be used to show that, even if they've never met before, people have some intrinsic relationship. Hypothetically, if they didn't, then people who hadn't met them yet would consider identical twins to be essentially the same... but I don't think they would. Just being of the same species introduces enough of a relationship to make you think that the essence of the person is in the individual themselves, rather than their properties.

Well, people distinguish animate and inanimate objects even from a young age (1) (2). It does make me wonder about the hypothetical idea of 'body snatchers'. If someones twin killed them and completely stole their identity, we would still give them the essence of the person we believe they are, and for all intents and purposes, to everyone but themself they could be that person. This is, I suppose, where the logic of my 'one objective truth' and the subjective realm requiring input from the objective realm is based on - in objective truth, they are not the same person, even if all subjective experiencers believes that they are.

[jhbowden]

Agent Intellect, thanks for the intelligent response. I appreciate where you're coming from, and we likely agree in spirit, though I would probably use the idea of intentionality to do the heavy lifting when explaining the human life-world.

Existentialism does grow on idealist soil though. In the early 1900s, there was a shift to the situational. Moore in a sense is an outgrowth of McTaggart. Heidegger, Husserl. Dewey, Royce. The idealists of the late 1800s were looking for rigorous, systematic foundations. But their successors thought that if we're going to be true to experience, we should ground our "foundations" in the immediacy of daily life as it is lived provisionally and unsystematically. This became a new starting point.

I feel somewhat conflicted about this development. There is something David Stove called the "Ishmael Effect" that is common in philosophy. If Ishmael said that everyone on the Pequod died, he would be speaking falsely, since he was on the Pequod, and his statement implies his own non-existence. Many of the grand idealist edifices of the Gilded Age made little if any friction with empirical reality. McTaggart, for instance, was famous for denying the reality of time. I suspect it was the advances in physics around 1900 that shook up philosophers. Given science was making rapid progress, there was a sense that the entire Western philosophical tradition contains a fundamental error or went wrong at some point.

On the other hand, there is so much bs out there today. Young Earth creationists. 911 truthers. New Age healers. Holocaust deniers. They'll act like they shouldn't be judged, and worse, that science has no standards, so we all ought to believe what we want. And, when pressed, they'll tell me that science is really about power, and that rationality is a myth. It seems like their minds have been infected somehow with the ideas of Sartre and Heidegger-- as if commitment and authenticity trump evidence and logic.

So I'm not convinced Existentialism can stand on its own legs. Without the objective component, it turns into mush. But if there is too much epistemological structure in it, we mutate Existentialism into a new species.

Thoughts?

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by jhbowden

Thoughts?

You know a lot more about philosophy then me

Your last statement, about mutating existentialism into a new species, is certainly true with me. I have not read a substantial amount of literature on the subject of philosophy, much less existentialism - the reason I say that my world view is that of the existentialist is mainly because a lot of the existentialist precepts were things I had thought of before I'd ever even heard of Sartre, Kierkegaard, or Camus; there is probably a lot that they have written about that I don't know of and probably would not agree with.

The main part of existentialism that I derived independently and only later found out that it was an aspect of the philosophy is the idea of existence preceding essence. I see reality as being objective - the Truth, in perhaps almost a pantheist way - and essence being relative, based on the mental models that subjective, conscious organisms construct in their minds (the idea of a hammer being a tool to one person and a weapon to another). I have also came independently on what is known as having 'existential moments' which I believe is known as angst in the existentialist nomenclature.

I agree with you on the subject of science - that is an, I suppose, epistemology that I am more familiar with (and time spent reading about it is why I haven't gotten around to reading much philosophy). I have been 'accused' on this forum of being a logical positivist before, and I suppose in some ways it's true, but that is more because of having a strongly skeptical outlook on just about everything (even to the point of doubting whether something that happened just moments before really happened at all, but thats a whole different topic).

Perhaps I'll have to educate myself more on the subject of existentialism, idealism etc before I can back up my positions adequately.

[sniktawekim]

Originally Posted by cryptonia

I know I read a Greek argument over this at some point. They used a big ship whose parts gradually wore out over time. One day the rudder broke, and it needed to get repaired... so they gave it a new one. Is it the same ship? The author presumed the reader would say yes.

i would ask him what he meant by "ship".

[NoID10ts]

Random thoughts inspired by this thread and the "How the Mind Works" thread. They may or may not be relevant, or even accurate but here goes ........

Sometimes it seems like, to me at least, people describe "essence" in terms of "soul" like it is that undefinable, mysterious, quality that makes each one of us, us. I think there is a temptation to explain this with metaphysical language, but I don't think that's necessary.

What if there isn't any one thing, but a whole series of things that blend together to give what we perceive as an essence. Perhaps it's like a fingerprint composed of all sorts of factors from appearance, to tone of voice, to the way we walk, mannerisms, ticks, reactions, funny looks, style, tastes, etc. There are an infinite number of attributes that can combine and, as pattern seeking entities, we recognize these patterns in those around us, and other living creatures, and even in inanimate objects.

Perhaps we even break these down subconsciously into the essence of a human or a lion, that is, we have a standard repository of features that are typically common to any one thing. Much of this is based on context, personal history, and all sorts of other contributing factors and is broken down into all sorts of levels like human, tall human, Asian human, or NoID10ts human. And then we break it down even further into the essence of "Tom" or "Susan" and it is wholly contingent on those factors that have been available to us at present or in the past.

And maybe essence is contingent on the one observing the person and is subject to all sorts of variables that can change. How many of us in this forum sense an essence to one another? But if we met and spent a lot of time together, how much would that essence transform in our minds?

It also seems that if a dramatic enough change occurs, we ascribe it a new essence, but if the change is slow enough, we still consider it of the same essence no matter how much change is involved. In the example of the boat, if a captain worked on the ship and went on leave then came back a week later only to find that every single thing on the boat was new, he would certainly see it as a new boat. But if over a period of 40 years aboard the boat, if everything had changed, he would not perceive it as a different boat. Maybe immediacy is a factor as we make lightning fast decisions and catalog all of this so quickly we scarcely notice it is comprised of many things, rather than one thing that we can clearly perceive.

I think that mysterious things we have reduced down into a single idea, such as love or music or art, are really a symphony of characteristics that all play as one symphony. I wonder if complexity, not simplicity, is at the heart of these great mysteries of the human condition and the world around us. Complexity that we naturally perceive, yet struggle to define. Maybe we can't clearly define it, because "it" isn't an "it", but a "them".

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by NoID10ts

Sometimes it seems like, to me at least, people describe "essence" in terms of "soul" like it is that undefinable, mysterious, quality that makes each one of us, us. I think there is a temptation to explain this with metaphysical language, but I don't think that's necessary.

I do not discount the hypothesis that there might be something 'metaphysical' to it, but I have yet to encounter a coherent reason why regular physical reality would be insufficient as a substrate for consciousness. Emergent properties in complexity theory and so forth have posited promising theories as to how something 'more' can emerge from lesser parts. I think the problem is that, it seems counter intuitive to think that non-feeling, non-experiencing components (namely chemicals) cause feelings and experiences - it seems like whatever is doing the feeling and experiencing should be able to feel and experience itself.

What if there isn't any one thing, but a whole series of things that blend together to give what we perceive as an essence. Perhaps it's like a fingerprint composed of all sorts of factors from appearance, to tone of voice, to the way we walk, mannerisms, ticks, reactions, funny looks, style, tastes, etc. There are an infinite number of attributes that can combine and, as pattern seeking entities, we recognize these patterns in those around us, and other living creatures, and even in inanimate objects.

I don't think 'essence' is something intrinsically a part of something, but something that can only be given by consciousness. The essence of Me is different to me then it is to you, and different yet again to my parents etc. While objective reality is necessary for something to be able to posses an essence, I do not think that essence comes from it's physical properties. An alien finding our record might not see it the same way a human does, even though it's physical features would be the same.

Perhaps we even break these down subconsciously into the essence of a human or a lion, that is, we have a standard repository of features that are typically common to any one thing. Much of this is based on context, personal history, and all sorts of other contributing factors and is broken down into all sorts of levels like human, tall human, Asian human, or NoID10ts human. And then we break it down even further into the essence of "Tom" or "Susan" and it is wholly contingent on those factors that have been available to us at present or in the past.

Our brains make inferences based on our experiences. A child can see a lion killing a gazelle and infer that all lions must kill gazelles without having to test and falsify this. It makes sense that we would bestow the same "lion" essence on all lions.

I guess what would be interesting is if someone ran into our lion dressed up like a tiger, they would perceive it as having the tiger essence until someone told them that it was actually a lion - that tiger would suddenly have a certain "lion-ness" to it just from being told this information.

And maybe essence is contingent on the one observing the person and is subject to all sorts of variables that can change. How many of us in this forum sense an essence to one another? But if we met and spent a lot of time together, how much would that essence transform in our minds?

This is pretty much the point I'm making - essence is relative. Essence has more to do with the observer then that which is being given essence. A hammer can be a weapon, a tool, or firewood to an observer, but a hammer on it's own is just an object in space.

It also seems that if a dramatic enough change occurs, we ascribe it a new essence, but if the change is slow enough, we still consider it of the same essence no matter how much change is involved. In the example of the boat, if a captain worked on the ship and went on leave then came back a week later only to find that every single thing on the boat was new, he would certainly see it as a new boat. But if over a period of 40 years aboard the boat, if everything had changed, he would not perceive it as a different boat. Maybe immediacy is a factor as we make lightning fast decisions and catalog all of this so quickly we scarcely notice it is comprised of many things, rather than one thing that we can clearly perceive.

This is an interesting point. But, it makes me wonder about animate and inanimate things, too. We seem to have this notion for inanimate objects - fast change causing a change in essence - but for something like another person, not as much. To me this is why we have a concept like unconditional love, because no matter how much a person changes (think amnesia and large personality change; is it the same person?), we still feel as if they have some intrinsic part, or essence, of them that never goes away.

I think that mysterious things we have reduced down into a single idea, such as love or music or art, are really a symphony of characteristics that all play as one symphony. I wonder if complexity, not simplicity, is at the heart of these great mysteries of the human condition and the world around us. Complexity that we naturally perceive, yet struggle to define. Maybe we can't clearly define it, because "it" isn't an "it", but a "them".

You should read about emergence and complexity theory.

[adso1980]

Hah. Arguements like this come up all the time in the car restoration world.

If I take my old car that I wrecked in high school, fix the fender and bumper, and paint it.. No one would argue that it's still my old car from high school.

If I take that car, and change every panel that bolts on.. Again, no one would argue. But what if I use say, the frame of my car, that everything else attaches to, but, use a new body shell? Is it still my old car?

New Shell, Old frame, old drivetrain.. Old "bolt on parts". Still the same car? (most would argue no).

[sniktawekim]

Originally Posted by adso1980

Hah. Arguements like this come up all the time in the car restoration world.

If I take my old car that I wrecked in high school, fix the fender and bumper, and paint it.. No one would argue that it's still my old car from high school.

If I take that car, and change every panel that bolts on.. Again, no one would argue. But what if I use say, the frame of my car, that everything else attaches to, but, use a new body shell? Is it still my old car?

New Shell, Old frame, old drivetrain.. Old "bolt on parts". Still the same car? (most would argue no).

altogether.. depends on what you mean by "car"
if you mean an arrangement of certain materials. then yes - new car.

[adso1980]

Some people take car parts and arrange them in the form of dinosaurs.

Is it a control arm, or a spine on the back of a stegosaurus?

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

A quick thought experiment - how would one define what a lion is? Perhaps we might, in words, define a lion as "a predatory cat that lives in Africa". Now let's say that ten years from now, scientists make a breakthrough and discover that lions are actually part of the dog family; unfortunately, lions have gone extinct except for in American zoo's. Are lions still lions, even if they do not fit our prior definition? Most people would probably say yes, that lions are still lions.
So how do we define something? What makes a lion have the intrinsic 'essence' of being a lion?

One would go about describing the lion with enough distinguishing characteristics to separate it from other things/animals. One would establish adequate boundaries .... what it is not. Such a definition may need to change with time as we learn new things, such as the introduction of identifying DNA which was not known before.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Studies by psychologists Frank Keil, Susan Gelman, and Henry Wellman (related research) suggests that older children are essentialist about animals but younger ones are not. (Steven Pinker, How The Mind Works).

Admittedly not everyone will be able to grasp the definition.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Humans seem to have an innate tendency to imbue things with essence - even if it does not fit what we would describe as it's definition, it just is what it is. Things intuitively have haecceity.

The essence is in its definition. Go with the definition agreed upon by many as intuition is subjective and faulty.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I find this interesting because I'd want to know where essence is located. Where is the essence of "me" in a person? If someone has half of their brain removed, are they still the same person - do they maintain the essence of who they were? What if someone had their mass cut in half due to amputation of both legs and arms, are they still who they were? What if someone suffers amnesia, forgetting everything that happened to them, and because of this they undergo a personality change - are they still the same person?

What constitutes essence - do thorns serve a rose the same purpose that barbs serve to a wire? If a car no longer has an engine, is it still a car? If a coffee machine is used to make tea, is it still a coffee machine? If a chair is cut in half, no longer able to support a person, do both halves still maintain the 'essence' of being a chair?

I will try to give my answer to this but refer you to my unfinished thread, "How to UnderStand Anything" for reference:
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=5860

I'm going to assume the existence of two (and more) worlds. One is the world of existence. This is the world of the way things really are as they exist. It is a world we can never see directly. Then there is the world of our perspective. When we work together socially we combine our perspectives to come up with attempts to identify things: what they are and what they are not. That is their essence. Admittedly this "essence" is relative to ourselves, but that is the best we can do. (I've coined the word "FUZZINESS" to aid understanding.) Since it is only our best effort and not perfect, we can always retain doubts and be ready to revise our opinion.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Another thing that interests me about this is it's ties with evolution, which is undoubtedly a rather counter intuitive theory. People think of organisms as having an 'essence' of being the organism that it is, and the notion of it becoming a different organism doesn't jibe with the way our minds work. Something is what it is; if someone paints stripes on a lion and shaves it's mane, it still contains the "essence" of being a lion in our mind - nobody would say that it has changed on a any fundamental level. This, I suppose, could also be seen in the way people perceive those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery - most people will still claim that someone still is the sex that is "essential" to them.

Yes. This depends on agreed upon definitions. As people refine their experience, details reveal differences. In the above cases we may split the definitions along the lines of the differences. Male, female, ex-females, ex-males, etc. We are not committed to retain something in an old box after we have encountered something new. Nevertheless we are still in the world of perspective which is relative. The world of essence is still claimed to be "out there" and objective. [This last sentence I need to edit.]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I myself would fall under the philosophical worldview of existentialism. I do not think that anything has a particular essence; we are all objects in space. Essence is something that comes only from the subjective realm, and is completely relative - not only from person to person, but from instance to instance. A hammer might have the 'essence' of a tool one moment, and the next the 'essence' of a deadly weapon, or the handle might be imbued with the 'essence' of firewood.

One way of putting it is, we could think of the world of existence as atomized. That world is out there consisting of lots of parts or pieces we know not of what they are. Because we have perspective, and because of our nature, we put those parts together and call them something. This "something" emerges as a new form of reality.

I think this example was given in this thread: WATER.

Water molecules exist as H2O. When we experience water, "wetness" emerges. This wetness is our perspective. It exists only as our perspective. When we peer down on the ocean from outer space this same water becomes a flat reflective surface losing all wetness. Flat reflective surface emerges. Only the molecules exist in objective reality. But subjective reality exists also and at various levels: molecules, wetness, flat surface.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

One would go about describing the lion with enough distinguishing characteristics to separate it from other things/animals. One would establish adequate boundaries .... what it is not. Such a definition may need to change with time as we learn new things, such as the introduction of identifying DNA which was not known before.

So the essence of 'lion' resides in it's DNA? If we take the reductionist approach, which DNA? Genes undergo methylation, suppression, paramutation, promotion, allele transvection activation/regression, horizontal gene transfer etc etc - how many genetic changes (whether done naturally in an epigenetic way, or synthetically through gene therapy of some sort) can the lion undergo before it is no longer a lion?

The via negativa approach of describing existent Being is still a reductionist act of attempting to derive an essence from the deconstructing of existence - it's like trying to to to say that a coffee cup is not a spaceship by isolating it's non-spaceship-ness through it's lack of thrusters.

The essence is in its definition. Go with the definition agreed upon by many as intuition is subjective and faulty.

Lion: a large, usually tawny-yellow cat, Panthera leo, native to Africa and southern Asia, having a tufted tail and, in the male, a large mane. (Source)

a large heavily built social cat (Panthera leo) of open or rocky areas chiefly of sub-Saharan Africa though once widely distributed throughout Africa and southern Asia that has a tawny body with a tufted tail and a shaggy blackish or dark brown mane in the male. (Source)

My point being, the definition of lion does not imply the essence of lion. A lion living in a Los Angeles zoo, or a male lion with it's mane shaved and fur painted like a tigers, will still have the 'essence' of lion to someone - they would not say that, because it does not fit the standard definition of lion that it is no longer a lion.

I will try to give my answer to this but refer you to my unfinished thread, "How to UnderStand Anything" for reference:
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=5860

I'm going to assume the existence of two (and more) worlds. One is the world of existence. This is the world of the way things really are as they exist. It is a world we can never see directly. Then there is the world of our perspective. When we work together socially we combine our perspectives to come up with attempts to identify things: what they are and what they are not. That is their essence. Admittedly this "essence" is relative to ourselves, but that is the best we can do. (I've coined the word "FUZZINESS" to aid understanding.) Since it is only our best effort and not perfect, we can always retain doubts and be ready to revise our opinion.

Essence is, as Sartre might say, being-for-something. Consciousness is defined as being-for-itself because it is no-thing (has no physical existence) but it is an existences, or a beings, for-itself. When we utilize objects, we are making them into a part of our being-for-itself as we make them a being that is for ourselves. I would agree that essence is relative, because essence is only something being made for our self.

On the other hand, and this is probably where I part ways with much of existential thinking, is that I don't think there is a duality of existence/essence, or of consciousness/physical reality. Essence is the negation of being, the negation of somethings full positivity to instill 'meaning' in just one aspect of it's being - an attempt to deny it's full positivity to make it mean one thing. I don't think meaning or purpose is transcendence of Being's immanence, but the negation of it's totality for a single point of view in the same way that consciousness negates the totality of existence for presence in one forever shifting point in spacetime.

I hate to use the tired analogy of quantum mechanics, but I would liken the synthesis of mind-body unity to that of the wave-particle unity. The mind and body exist simultaneously and as two properties of it's wholeness, just as an electron or photon exists as both wave and quanta simultaneously, and as two properties of it's wholeness. The curious thing about the wave-particle phenomenon, too, is that any presence to the wave-particle negates all of it's possibilities for a single one - an isomorphism to the singularity of conscious point of view.

I always found the idea of relative essence is an interesting one, because it infers that there is no objective purpose. Essence is something that can change because essence is incomplete, lacking any objective standard and lacking all possible essence implied in an object. Firstly, one cannot say that an object is intrinsically for anything since it is only for what an individual makes of it. Secondly, one persons meaning for an object is only a single, isolated aspect of all that is implied in the objects Being - it's like looking at a house, one only gets the view of one side of it, unable to see all other sides or the inside.

A friend of mine might have a certain essence of me, a relative a different essence, and a co-worker yet another - yet even all of these essences of me summed together does not add up to the fullness of me of the positivity of my existence.

Yes. This depends on agreed upon definitions. As people refine their experience, details reveal differences. In the above cases we may split the definitions along the lines of the differences. Male, female, ex-females, ex-males, etc. We are not committed to retain something in an old box after we have encountered something new. Nevertheless we are still in the world of perspective which is relative. The world of essence is still claimed to be "out there" and objective. [This last sentence I need to edit.]

I'm attempting to say that, on an intuitive level, humans in general have a visceral feeling that something is what it is, despite any change it may undergo. People deny macro evolution because it goes against common sense that fish could evolve from bacteria, that dinosaurs could evolve from fish, that humans could evolve from rodents etc. There is, in peoples minds, something so distinctly human about being human that puts an impassible chasm between us and our prehistoric ancestors. It's almost as if what makes us human has to be quantified, and the idea that humanity emerged little by little over a long period of time instead of just becoming screams in the face of common sense.

The same could go for people that undergo sex reassignment surgery. The idea that what assigns our sex is about 3% of our total chromosomal material, and the ensuing alterations in a few chemicals, is also counter-intuitive. The deep down intuition is that there must be some essence of male-ness and female-ness that separates us on a level that can never be changed. A male that has intercourse with a male-to-female transsexual (or vice versa) will probably be accused by our homophobic society of committing a homosexual act, because no matter how many hormones the person has taken, even if they have had sexual reassignment surgery, there is still (and this is a generalization, there are probably people that are exceptions) an intuitive feeling that the person retains some of their "original" sex.

One way of putting it is, we could think of the world of existence as atomized. That world is out there consisting of lots of parts or pieces we know not of what they are. Because we have perspective, and because of our nature, we put those parts together and call them something. This "something" emerges as a new form of reality.

Is the construction of something new not the destruction of what it once was? I still maintain that essence is the negation, or destruction, of existences totality. Just a passing thought.

I think this example was given in this thread: WATER.

Water molecules exist as H2O. When we experience water, "wetness" emerges. This wetness is our perspective. It exists only as our perspective. When we peer down on the ocean from outer space this same water becomes a flat reflective surface losing all wetness. Flat reflective surface emerges. Only the molecules exist in objective reality. But subjective reality exists also and at various levels: molecules, wetness, flat surface.

This is my idea of consciousness as an emergent property of the brain. This is why I propose a mind-body unity, as the mind exists only a part of the brain, as the brains presence (of) self - indeed, as existence presence (of) Being. This is all explained in my Presence or Self thread, so I won't get into too much here.

Consciousness is also only a certain perspective - at a "higher level" (similar to looking at water from space, except on a subjective plane) all of the consciousnesses together, an entirely new property emerges: the meta-organism of cultures, memes, and populations. Each consciousness is like the emerged property of wetness of water up close, and the meta-organism is like the property of a flat reflective surface of water - two different ways of thinking about the same thing. And yet, neither view fully captures to totality of consciousness as being or even the fullness of it's positivity as a mind-being unity.

[ashitaria]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

A quick thought experiment - how would one define what a lion is? Perhaps we might, in words, define a lion as "a predatory cat that lives in Africa". Now let's say that ten years from now, scientists make a breakthrough and discover that lions are actually part of the dog family; unfortunately, lions have gone extinct except for in American zoo's. Are lions still lions, even if they do not fit our prior definition? Most people would probably say yes, that lions are still lions.

So how do we define something? What makes a lion have the intrinsic 'essence' of being a lion?

Okay, to better explain what I think, let me present an example. Let's say I have an uncle. He smokes, his hair is messy, he wears offending clothes, etc. Then let's say he shaves his hair, stops smoking, goes to college and starts dressing nicely, is he still my uncle? In the same way that a lion is still a lion no matter what.

Studies by psychologists Frank Keil, Susan Gelman, and Henry Wellman (related research) suggests that older children are essentialist about animals but younger ones are not. (Steven Pinker, How The Mind Works).

Humans seem to have an innate tendency to imbue things with essence - even if it does not fit what we would describe as it's definition, it just is what it is. Things intuitively have haecceity.

Religion tends to imbue things with essence. Science on the other hand is always changing. At first Pluto was a planet, but now it's not. It's no longer defined as a planet, yet we do not instictively define it as a planet. It is proven by science that it is a planet. Thus, it is a planet.

I find this interesting because I'd want to know where essence is located. Where is the essence of "me" in a person? If someone has half of their brain removed, are they still the same person - do they maintain the essence of who they were? What if someone had their mass cut in half due to amputation of both legs and arms, are they still who they were? What if someone suffers amnesia, forgetting everything that happened to them, and because of this they undergo a personality change - are they still the same person?

I think that essence is located where the conscious is. In the brain. If let's say you were a child who were just born into the world, you wouldn't know which is "right" and which is "wrong". It is your upbringing that determines the limits of your conscious, and your enviroment, and what your instict tells you to do.In the same way, essence is made. You are not born with your personality, you were raised into your personality or driven by instict to act in that way. Let's say you experience a physical change. Let's say you experienced such a traumatic event that you changed. You changed, but you are still you, and you are you depending on whether you let that event change you.

What constitutes essence - do thorns serve a rose the same purpose that barbs serve to a wire? If a car no longer has an engine, is it still a car? If a coffee machine is used to make tea, is it still a coffee machine? If a chair is cut in half, no longer able to support a person, do both halves still maintain the 'essence' of being a chair?

Like I said. Whether you change or not, you are still you, except in another different way. Like for example, your analogy about a coffee machine. If it was used to make tea, it still has the essence of a coffee machine, though slightly altered. If a chair could no longer support a person, it still has the essence of a chair, but it's essence is altered to have the essence of a broken chair. Have you ever read Eragon? People have true names that define their personality, but if people change their personality, so do their true names. It is the same with essence I guess. If lions were shown to be dogs, their essence will still be of lions, but slighly changed to add in the detail that they belond to the dog family.

Another thing that interests me about this is it's ties with evolution, which is undoubtedly a rather counter intuitive theory. People think of organisms as having an 'essence' of being the organism that it is, and the notion of it becoming a different organism doesn't jibe with the way our minds work. Something is what it is; if someone paints stripes on a lion and shaves it's mane, it still contains the "essence" of being a lion in our mind - nobody would say that it has changed on a any fundamental level. This, I suppose, could also be seen in the way people perceive those who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery - most people will still claim that someone still is the sex that is "essential" to them.

Evolution isn't actually purely an intuitive theory. It's been proven that evolution does occur, though it's something that you can PM me about really.
So let's say an organism changes. Is it still that organism? Yes? No? Actually the correct answer is yes and no. Although it changed, it still retains certain characteristics of it's previous race. Same thing with sex change.

I myself would fall under the philosophical worldview of existentialism. I do not think that anything has a particular essence; we are all objects in space. Essence is something that comes only from the subjective realm, and is completely relative - not only from person to person, but from instance to instance. A hammer might have the 'essence' of a tool one moment, and the next the 'essence' of a deadly weapon, or the handle might be imbued with the 'essence' of firewood.

Or a hammer could have the essence of all three. Essence shouldn't be specifically one thing. Essence is basically what something is, actually to be more specific, essence is everything of that one thing. If a hammer can be used as a weapon, firewood and a tool- that's it's essence. If a firehose can be used as a noose, fire extinguisher and a nozzle- that's it's essence. Unless we change it's physical properties, it's essence stays the same, no matter how we use it.

Tell me if I have missed anything.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by ashitaria

Okay, to better explain what I think, let me present an example. Let's say I have an uncle. He smokes, his hair is messy, he wears offending clothes, etc. Then let's say he shaves his hair, stops smoking, goes to college and starts dressing nicely, is he still my uncle? In the same way that a lion is still a lion no matter what.

The term "uncle" is denoting the persons relation to you (a symbolic abstraction representing a sharing of genetic material). The essence of him as a person would be changed - one might even make the statement that he is "a new man".

Religion tends to imbue things with essence. Science on the other hand is always changing. At first Pluto was a planet, but now it's not. It's no longer defined as a planet, yet we do not instictively define it as a planet. It is proven by science that it is a planet. Thus, it is a planet.

Science has not proven that anything "is a planet" because science can only describe the properties of something and how it works - it is people that designate what essence something has, what abstract category it fits into. One cannot scientifically prove that something is a planet, they can only arbitrarily set the standard for what constitutes being a planet, scientifically measure and quantify an object and space and determine whether it meets the subjective standard for being a planet - you can't crack open Pluto and find it's 'planet-ness'.

I think that essence is located where the conscious is. In the brain. If let's say you were a child who were just born into the world, you wouldn't know which is "right" and which is "wrong". It is your upbringing that determines the limits of your conscious, and your enviroment, and what your instict tells you to do.In the same way, essence is made. You are not born with your personality, you were raised into your personality or driven by instict to act in that way. Let's say you experience a physical change. Let's say you experienced such a traumatic event that you changed. You changed, but you are still you, and you are you depending on whether you let that event change you.

One can judge someones essence based on the way have have behaved and thought in the past, but if one is no longer the same as that past (facticity) in their present - if it is not their current consciousness that this past is for, then can one place the judgment of this essence on them as the who they are, as opposed to the what they are? If someone suffers a brain injury and therefore amnesia and a personality change, then their facticity no longer applies to the consciousness they are at present - they have become, for all intents and purposes, a new person, and therefore attributing the acts and thoughts of the person they are not is mis-attributing essence.

Who one is depends on the continuity of their consciousness - that one's past is a past for-them-self and not just a past of-them-self.

Like I said. Whether you change or not, you are still you, except in another different way. Like for example, your analogy about a coffee machine. If it was used to make tea, it still has the essence of a coffee machine, though slightly altered. If a chair could no longer support a person, it still has the essence of a chair, but it's essence is altered to have the essence of a broken chair. Have you ever read Eragon? People have true names that define their personality, but if people change their personality, so do their true names. It is the same with essence I guess. If lions were shown to be dogs, their essence will still be of lions, but slighly changed to add in the detail that they belond to the dog family.

The essence we imbue into objects is relative, and therefore not an intrinsic part of the object. The essence of an object is it's purpose for us. A chair was built for the sole purpose of being sat on, and if it no longer satisfies this purpose, can it really be said to be a chair?

The essence of an organism, I guess, would probably be more accurately described as it's haecceity but essence can be used, even if it's not describing the essence of the organism for any specific purpose - but, more speaking of it's intrinsic this-ness (ie, a lions sense of "lion-ness").

I think the idea of a true name is an interesting one. The problem is, the symbolic abstraction of language is inadequate to encompass the true-ness of someone.

Evolution isn't actually purely an intuitive theory. It's been proven that evolution does occur, though it's something that you can PM me about really. So let's say an organism changes. Is it still that organism? Yes? No? Actually the correct answer is yes and no. Although it changed, it still retains certain characteristics of it's previous race. Same thing with sex change.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I never said that evolution is an intuitive theory - in fact, I would say it's very counter-intuitive (which was sort of my point in using it as an example). The fact that something like a lion gradually becomes a lion is counter-intuitive; at some point, was there an animal that was not a lion that gave birth to what we would call a lion? No, because the essence (or haecceity) of lion-ness is a human abstraction. Being a lion doesn't really mean anything intrinsically, but is only a meaning for someone. Does a lion that lives thousands of miles away from another lion have the same essence of lion-ness, even though there is a level of genetic variety between the two? At what point would two isolated species stop being classified as having the same essence of their this-ness?

Or a hammer could have the essence of all three. Essence shouldn't be specifically one thing. Essence is basically what something is, actually to be more specific, essence is everything of that one thing. If a hammer can be used as a weapon, firewood and a tool- that's it's essence. If a firehose can be used as a noose, fire extinguisher and a nozzle- that's it's essence. Unless we change it's physical properties, it's essence stays the same, no matter how we use it.

Essence would be implicit in it's physical form, but essence is only imbued in parts. I don't use a hammer as a tool, a weapon, a paper weight and any and all possible uses for a hammer at once, but I use the hammer for myself one essence at a time. The essence of hammer only 'exists' inasmuch as it's use for someone - to say that it contains all essences at once presupposes that essence is an intrinsic, objective, permanent property of it's very existence. Essence requires a consciousness of the object to utilize the object for the self. A hammer floating in space with no one around, no one aware of it, has no essence, only existence.

[BigApplePi]

BAP normal type except for a few words, AI bold, (I opened 2 tabs & copied to do this). I'm hoping this will aid in keeping track. BAP new is in red.

One would go about describing the lion with enough distinguishing characteristics to separate it from other things/animals. One would establish adequate boundaries .... what it is not. Such a definition may need to change with time as we learn new things, such as the introduction of identifying DNA which was not known before.

So the essence of 'lion' resides in it's DNA? If we take the reductionist approach, which DNA? Genes undergo methylation, suppression, paramutation, promotion, allele transvection activation/regression, horizontal gene transfer etc etc - how many genetic changes (whether done naturally in an epigenetic way, or synthetically through gene therapy of some sort) can the lion undergo before it is no longer a lion?

The via negativa approach of describing existent Being is still a reductionist act of attempting to derive an essence from the deconstructing of existence - it's like trying to to to say that a coffee cup is not a spaceship by isolating it's non-spaceship-ness through it's lack of thrusters.

The essence is in its definition. Go with the definition agreed upon by many as intuition is subjective and faulty.

Lion: a large, usually tawny-yellow cat, Panthera leo, native to Africa and southern Asia, having a tufted tail and, in the male, a large mane.Source)

a large heavily built social cat (Panthera leo) of open or rocky areas chiefly of sub-Saharan Africa though once widely distributed throughout Africa and southern Asia that has a tawny body with a tufted tail and a shaggy blackish or dark brown mane in the male.Source)

My point being, the definition of lion does not imply the essence of lion. A lion living in a Los Angeles zoo, or a male lion with it's mane shaved and fur painted like a tigers, will still have the 'essence' of lion to someone - they would not say that, because it does not fit the standard definition of lion that it is no longer a lion. ( (

Let me say first, AI, that I am not trying to define the essence of a lion here though it can be used as an example to show what I'm getting at. I'm trying to define "essence" and am not sure yet if I can formulate it. Let's see. I'm trying to define something very abstract so I will have to go over these abstractions to see if I can come up with something usable and clear.

If we go about specifically with a lion and wish to do a good job, I'd want to pull in a zoologist for help. The zoologist would provide a practical definition. This need not be the definition used by an amateur. There would be different meanings and therefore definitions for zoologist, amateur, child = 1, 2, 3.

Now to get to your msg. DNA would only be the working definition. Something an ISNP would use. Let the DNA change precisely as you have pointed out. If it wants to change into a liger or a tigon, that is the business of the ISTP or professional zoologist. I'm after the intuitive meaning.

Let me make another point. Suppose we have a working definition (= essence) of a lion and a tiger. Think of these definitions as CENTRAL to their essence. On the periphery would be "fuzzy" lions and fuzzy tigers. These would be animals where we are not sure. A liger/ tigon would be an animal on the boundary. We could give if a new name if we wish. (Such has been done with a mule = offspring of a horse and donkey.)

This idea of a CENTER with fuzzy boundaries for a definition (words describing an essence) I claim is a practical one. Example: One runs water into a bathtub. You want the temperature to be "warm." You get in the tub and declare it perfectly warm. But when is is hot (too warm) or cold (not warm enough)? The answer is the central temperature along a linear scale of heat.

As I read on, back again to the lion. Shaving and painting a male lion can change the essence of a lion for some and not for others. The essence is relative to who one is. An absolute lion does not exist but we still have those working definitions describing working essences for the ISTP.

I will try to give my answer to this but refer you to my unfinished thread, "How to UnderStand Anything" for reference:
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=5860

I'm going to assume the existence of two (and more) worlds. One is the world of existence. This is the world of the way things really are as they exist. It is a world we can never see directly. Then there is the world of our perspective. When we work together socially we combine our perspectives to come up with attempts to identify things: what they are and what they are not. That is their essence. Admittedly this "essence" is relative to ourselves, but that is the best we can do. (I've coined the word "FUZZINESS" to aid understanding.) Since it is only our best effort and not perfect, we can always retain doubts and be ready to revise our opinion.

Essence is, as Sartre might say, being-for-something. Consciousness is defined as being-for-itself because it is no-thing (has no physical existence) but it is an existences, or a beings, for-itself. When we utilize objects, we are making them into a part of our being-for-itself as we make them a being that is for ourselves. I would agree that essence is relative, because essence is only something being made for our self.

On the other hand, and this is probably where I part ways with much of existential thinking, is that I don't think there is a duality of existence/essence, or of consciousness/physical reality. Essence is the negation of being, the negation of somethings full positivity to instill 'meaning' in just one aspect of it's being - an attempt to deny it's full positivity to make it mean one thing. I don't think meaning or purpose is transcendence of Being's immanence, but the negation of it's totality for a single point of view in the same way that consciousness negates the totality of existence for presence in one forever shifting point in spacetime.

You mention Sartre and consciousness and no physical existence. Then your next paragraph rejects a "duality of existence/essence" which I agree with. I'm not sure I grasp the rest of the paragraph so you may want to clarify if what I say next is not clear.

I have now decided (working thoughts) that essence is a PART OF existence. Existence is all. Essence it just a grouping of pieces of existence of which we are witnesses. Essence emerges out of existence. It still remains true that we can never get at the real world of existence and that we do a poor job of grasping essences, as I've pointed out in an earlier paragraph.

Let me see if I can clarify by an example before I read what you have to say about quantum mechanics while it is fresh in my mind.

Let's say we have three sticks about the same size and a flat 2'x2' piece of wood. I will call those existences because they seem to communicate as concrete entities. Now what do we have? We have four things with no particular meaning. Suppose I make the three sticks veritical with the platform on top. Now we have a stool. The stool has emerged out nothing. The sticks and platform are still there. Their special arrangement has caused something that did not exist to come into being. (We can go on to attempt to describe the essence of a stool but I won't bother.) Note that there is a surprise. This new form of existence doesn't exist to everything. A bacterium can't recognize it. (I'm ready to say the floor recognizes it, but that is an unfinished thought.) A fish won't recognize it either unless the fish bumps into it floating by.

I hate to use the tired analogy of quantum mechanics, but I would liken the synthesis of mind-body unity to that of the wave-particle unity. The mind and body exist simultaneously and as two properties of it's wholeness, just as an electron or photon exists as both wave and quanta simultaneously, and as two properties of it's wholeness. The curious thing about the wave-particle phenomenon, too, is that any presence to the wave-particle negates all of it's possibilities for a single one - an isomorphism to the singularity of conscious point of view.

I always found the idea of relative essence is an interesting one, because it infers that there is no objective purpose. Essence is something that can change because essence is incomplete, lacking any objective standard and lacking all possible essence implied in an object. Firstly, one cannot say that an object is intrinsically for anything since it is only for what an individual makes of it. Secondly, one persons meaning for an object is only a single, isolated aspect of all that is implied in the objects Being - it's like looking at a house, one only gets the view of one side of it, unable to see all other sides or the inside.

A friend of mine might have a certain essence of me, a relative a different essence, and a co-worker yet another - yet even all of these essences of me summed together does not add up to the fullness of me of the positivity of my existence.

These quantum examples apply here too. The wave-particle and mind-body get together and form a unity. Is that not like the stool?

Relative essence yes, but I would like to add absolute essence. The stool in one sense exists only by those who understand it. Yet is there not an absolute stool that in its form exists even when there is no observer? The first existence is relative; the 2nd is unknowable.

So far I'm trying to get across a meaning using the stool. I use that because it is simple. Intuitively I surmise what goes for the stool goes for far more complex things as with your friend's view of the "you" that is you. Same with the lion.

BTW I can't resist writing this paragraph. Do you recall when I said I wasn't going to bother with the meaning of the essence of a stool? Recalling your lion modification dilemma has me saying the essence of a stool is slippery --

1. Take away 0 legs and you have a fine stool.
2. Take away 1 leg and you have a damaged stool.
3. Take away 2 legs and you have a destroyed stool.
4. Take away 3 legs and you have no stool at all. Yer stooless, lol.

Yes. This depends on agreed upon definitions. As people refine their experience, details reveal differences. In the above cases we may split the definitions along the lines of the differences. Male, female, ex-females, ex-males, etc. We are not committed to retain something in an old box after we have encountered something new. Nevertheless we are still in the world of perspective which is relative. The world of essence is still claimed to be "out there" and objective. [This last sentence I need to edit.]

I'm attempting to say that, on an intuitive level, humans in general have a visceral feeling that something is what it is, despite any change it may undergo. People deny macro evolution because it goes against common sense that fish could evolve from bacteria, that dinosaurs could evolve from fish, that humans could evolve from rodents etc. There is, in peoples minds, something so distinctly human about being human that puts an impassible chasm between us and our prehistoric ancestors. It's almost as if what makes us human has to be quantified, and the idea that humanity emerged little by little over a long period of time instead of just becoming screams in the face of common sense.

Evolution that you bring up is a great example of what we face. People have an intuition about what a human being is and that intuition is so clear and well-defined they can't stray from it. Yet evolutionists say there is an error. Using the current language of this post, they have failed to intuit large stretches of time. That's not surprising because it's beyond individuals' experience. Intuiting such time stretches require a measure of education.

The same could go for people that undergo sex reassignment surgery. The idea that what assigns our sex is about 3% of our total chromosomal material, and the ensuing alterations in a few chemicals, is also counter-intuitive. The deep down intuition is that there must be some essence of male-ness and female-ness that separates us on a level that can never be changed. A male that has intercourse with a male-to-female transsexual (or vice versa) will probably be accused by our homophobic society of committing a homosexual act, because no matter how many hormones the person has taken, even if they have had sexual reassignment surgery, there is still (and this is a generalization, there are probably people that are exceptions) an intuitive feeling that the person retains some of their "original" sex.

The transsexual example is another great point. To me it speaks to what could be called a "clash of definitions." Is one this or is one that? When we deal with the uncertainty of boundaries, it's like the bathtub and the warm water example.

One way of putting it is, we could think of the world of existence as atomized. That world is out there consisting of lots of parts or pieces we know not of what they are. Because we have perspective, and because of our nature, we put those parts together and call them something. This "something" emerges as a new form of reality.

Is the construction of something new not the destruction of what it once was? I still maintain that essence is the negation, or destruction, of existences totality. Just a passing thought.

Interesting thought. No end of challenges in your message. My first reaction is if it's constructed as new, nothing is destroyed but empty space. If you haven't stated it already, I'd have to ask you what is destroyed? I have some thoughts on "destruction" but they are outside the topic of this post.

I think this example was given in this thread: WATER.

Water molecules exist as H2O. When we experience water, "wetness" emerges. This wetness is our perspective. It exists only as our perspective. When we peer down on the ocean from outer space this same water becomes a flat reflective surface losing all wetness. Flat reflective surface emerges. Only the molecules exist in objective reality. But subjective reality exists also and at various levels: molecules, wetness, flat surface.

This is my idea of consciousness as an emergent property of the brain. This is why I propose a mind-body unity, as the mind exists only a part of the brain, as the brains presence (of) self - indeed, as existence presence (of) Being. This is all explained in my Presence or Self thread, so I won't get into too much here.

Consciousness is also only a certain perspective - at a "higher level" (similar to looking at water from space, except on a subjective plane) all of the consciousnesses together, an entirely new property emerges: the meta-organism of cultures, memes, and populations. Each consciousness is like the emerged property of wetness of water up close, and the meta-organism is like the property of a flat reflective surface of water - two different ways of thinking about the same thing. And yet, neither view fully captures to totality of consciousness as being or even the fullness of it's positivity as a mind-being unity.

I completely agree with the above. Individual consciousness is emergent. Culture is emergent and we give names to things found after doing cultural analysis. Culture is at LEAST one level above individual consciousness and is different from it.

I'll have to take a look at your Presence or Self thread at some future time.

One thing I'd like to say. I feel a gratitude that the webmasters here re-opened this thread because I think what has been said here belongs here and not on the Why Does God Exist? thread even though it was suggested to me by that thread.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

Let me say first, AI, that I am not trying to define the essence of a lion here though it can be used as an example to show what I'm getting at. I'm trying to define "essence" and am not sure yet if I can formulate it. Let's see. I'm trying to define something very abstract so I will have to go over these abstractions to see if I can come up with something usable and clear.

If we go about specifically with a lion and wish to do a good job, I'd want to pull in a zoologist for help. The zoologist would provide a practical definition. This need not be the definition used by an amateur. There would be different meanings and therefore definitions for zoologist, amateur, child = 1, 2, 3.

Problem is, even in zoology and genetics there is, what you call, 'fuzziness' involved. There is no real definition of what a gene actually is, and the distinction of species is blurred (there are even what biologists call 'variations' within the same species, and one could even blur it to the point of individuals).

Essentially one would have to attribute a different this-ness to each lion, taking them on an individual basis. But, this is not how the human mind works - we see patterns and we categorize things. Things that are lions have a certain this-ness that makes them able to be categorized as lions - they have enough similarity, and the fact that one intentionally changes that similarity doesn't tend to take away from their lion-ness.

Now to get to your msg. DNA would only be the working definition. Something an ISNP would use. Let the DNA change precisely as you have pointed out. If it wants to change into a liger or a tigon, that is the business of the ISTP or professional zoologist. I'm after the intuitive meaning.

Let me make another point. Suppose we have a working definition (= essence) of a lion and a tiger. Think of these definitions as CENTRAL to their essence. On the periphery would be "fuzzy" lions and fuzzy tigers. These would be animals where we are not sure. A liger/ tigon would be an animal on the boundary. We could give if a new name if we wish. (Such has been done with a mule = offspring of a horse and donkey.)

This idea of a CENTER with fuzzy boundaries for a definition (words describing an essence) I claim is a practical one. Example: One runs water into a bathtub. You want the temperature to be "warm." You get in the tub and declare it perfectly warm. But when is is hot (too warm) or cold (not warm enough)? The answer is the central temperature along a linear scale of heat.

As I read on, back again to the lion. Shaving and painting a male lion can change the essence of a lion for some and not for others. The essence is relative to who one is. An absolute lion does not exist but we still have those working definitions describing working essences for the ISTP.

To me, something in between a lion and tiger would no longer hold the essence of either. It may still have a "big cat-ness", but I wouldn't classify as a lion or tiger, but something completely new. Of course, human thought happens in metaphors and analogies, so they would still be considered "tiger-like" or "lion-like", which means they still maintain at least a partial essence of them.

You mention Sartre and consciousness and no physical existence. Then your next paragraph rejects a "duality of existence/essence" which I agree with. I'm not sure I grasp the rest of the paragraph so you may want to clarify if what I say next is not clear.

I agree with the existentialist notion of for-itself being the crux of essence, but I reject any pluralism involved, and I stated this in the first line of my second paragraph (mentioning that it's where I part ways with the existentialist thinking). Duality may be a way of looking at it, since they are two aspects of the same thing, but I would consider it a unity - it's like a magnet, it has two poles, but both poles are required for it to be a magnet. If you cut the magnet in half, both resulting magnets will have two poles. One cannot have just a north or south pole, but only the unity of both poles making the complete unity of a magnet - the poles are just two aspects of the same thing.

I have now decided (working thoughts) that essence is a PART OF existence. Existence is all. Essence it just a grouping of pieces of existence of which we are witnesses. Essence emerges out of existence. It still remains true that we can never get at the real world of existence and that we do a poor job of grasping essences, as I've pointed out in an earlier paragraph.

Let me see if I can clarify by an example before I read what you have to say about quantum mechanics while it is fresh in my mind.

Let's say we have three sticks about the same size and a flat 2'x2' piece of wood. I will call those existences because they seem to communicate as concrete entities. Now what do we have? We have four things with no particular meaning. Suppose I make the three sticks veritical with the platform on top. Now we have a stool. The stool has emerged out nothing. The sticks and platform are still there. Their special arrangement has caused something that did not exist to come into being. (We can go on to attempt to describe the essence of a stool but I won't bother.) Note that there is a surprise. This new form of existence doesn't exist to everything. A bacterium can't recognize it. (I'm ready to say the floor recognizes it, but that is an unfinished thought.) A fish won't recognize it either unless the fish bumps into it floating by.

The stool is only a stool if some consciousness is there in order for the stool to be a stool for them. It's 'stool-ness' arises with it's construction only because of the intention to build it's constituent parts into a stool. If three sticks and a flat piece of wood just so happened to fall together into the formation of a platform out in the middle of nowhere, it would not be a stool. Someone could walk by and find it and use it as a stool, and it would become a stool for the person while s/he used it, but it does not possess any intrinsic property of being a stool. The constructed one was either conceived as a stool in the conscious entities mind before hand, or the conscious entity accidentally put three sticks and a piece of wood together in the right formation that using it for them self as a stool occurred to them - if they had not been there for the essence to occur to them, it would not be a stool.

But, this is what I mean by somethings essence being implicit in it's structure. One would not use a piece of tissue paper for something to sit on, but the structure of a stool implies it's utility for the essence of a sitting device. The thing is, there has to be a conscious entity there in order for it's "stool-ness" to be instilled by the realization through conscious thought of it's utility.

These quantum examples apply here too. The wave-particle and mind-body get together and form a unity. Is that not like the stool?

Relative essence yes, but I would like to add absolute essence. The stool in one sense exists only by those who understand it. Yet is there not an absolute stool that in its form exists even when there is no observer? The first existence is relative; the 2nd is unknowable.

So far I'm trying to get across a meaning using the stool. I use that because it is simple. Intuitively I surmise what goes for the stool goes for far more complex things as with your friend's view of the "you" that is you. Same with the lion.

I guess this is where our definitions of essence becomes incongruity. Essence, the way I see it, is meaning, and meaning is only something that applies to conscious beings, because consciousness is the for-itself aspect (remember the magnet analogy?) of the mind-body unity. Objects in space are meaningless, meaning only arising through presence (of) self being for-itself. I only have meaning to myself because I am present (to) myself; if I were not conscious, I would not mean anything to myself and would therefore be meaningless and lack essence.

The stool shape would exist independently of an observer, but the essence of it's 'stool-ness', it's meaning (which can only be for someone) would not exist independently of an observer, to whom it would mean something to.

Evolution that you bring up is a great example of what we face. People have an intuition about what a human being is and that intuition is so clear and well-defined they can't stray from it. Yet evolutionists say there is an error. Using the current language of this post, they have failed to intuit large stretches of time. That's not surprising because it's beyond individuals' experience. Intuiting such time stretches require a measure of education.

I don't think anyone is truly capable of intuiting time on a geological (much less cosmic) scale. One may be able to understand it on an intellectual level, but I think it's beyond our true comprehension how long it really is.

I think the gradualness of the evolutionary process is not something that can be fully grasped, either. We look at fossils and see them lined up right next to each other and the idea of millions of years becomes just empty words - people are incapable of fully grasping the perspective of how many intermediary species were between one fossil and the other, especially when talked about in such casual ways. Something that happened fifty years ago probably has an intuitive feeling of distance more than fifty million years, simply because we can't comprehend such an immense amount of time, but we can comprehend something like fifty years - and experiencing fifty years feels longer than simply talking about things that took millions of years (yet we can see all of the effects of those millions of years all at once).

Interesting thought. No end of challenges in your message. My first reaction is if it's constructed as new, nothing is destroyed but empty space. If you haven't stated it already, I'd have to ask you what is destroyed? I have some thoughts on "destruction" but they are outside the topic of this post.

Conservation of mass/energy says that nothing can truly be destroyed, but like an algebraic expression, only shifted around. But, to make something, one has to shift it's mass and energy around, which 'destroys' it's former shape. It's similar to having the algebraic expression Y=3X-6; if one wants to 'construct' X they have to dismantle the former arrangement of the expression, thereby 'creating' "Y+6=3X". Now it is no longer the same, even if all values have been conserved, and one could essentially say that "Y=3X-6" has been 'destroyed' in order to 'create' "Y+6=3X". Just because that which has been dismantled in order to create something was meaningless to us does not suggest that nothing was dismantled.

[ashitaria]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

The term "uncle" is denoting the persons relation to you (a symbolic abstraction representing a sharing of genetic material). The essence of him as a person would be changed - one might even
make the statement that he is "a new man".

He may have changed, his characteristics may have been displaced, but he is still the same man. If you cut off the ears of a rabbit and it's tail, is it not still a rabbit? People may make the statement that he is "a new man", but he is still him, albeit in a different way.

Science has not proven that anything "is a planet" because science can only describe the properties of something and how it works - it is people that designate what essence something has, what abstract category it fits into. One cannot scientifically prove that something is a planet, they can only arbitrarily set the standard for what constitutes being a planet, scientifically measure and quantify an object and space and determine whether it meets the subjective standard for being a planet - you can't crack open Pluto and find it's 'planet-ness'.

But Science is used exclusively to classify things into categorizes. For example, a being a mass is shown to be a planet because of it's characteristics. Though Pluto was shown not to be a planet, it still did not change the fact that it was Pluto. And though we can't crack it open and find it's essence, we know it is not a planet because of the fact that it's mass is hardly equivalent to that of a planet's. Yes, Science can only set standards, but it can also define things and provide proof and reason for why things exist. How do you know there is gravity? Science is there to explain it.


One can judge someones essence based on the way have have behaved and thought in the past, but if one is no longer the same as that past (facticity) in their present - if it is not their current consciousness that this past is for, then can one place the judgment of this essence on them as the who they are, as opposed to the what they are? If someone suffers a brain injury and therefore amnesia and a personality change, then their facticity no longer applies to the consciousness they are at present - they have become, for all intents and purposes, a new person, and therefore attributing the acts and thoughts of the person they are not is mis-attributing essence.

Did I ever say essence couldn't be changed? Essence can be changed as I have stated, but not entirely. If a person were to suffer a personality change and amnesia, his essence changes to fit his new description, yet he is still him, though not him.

Who one is depends on the continuity of their consciousness - that one's past is a past for-them-self and not just a past of-them-self.

The essence we imbue into objects is relative, and therefore not an intrinsic part of the object. The essence of an object is it's purpose for us. A chair was built for the sole purpose of being sat on, and if it no longer satisfies this purpose, can it really be said to be a chair?
It can be said to be a chair- a broken chair actually. It is common sense it that matter that though it can no longer satisfy it's purpose, it still retains several of the properties of a chair.

The essence of an organism, I guess, would probably be more accurately described as it's haecceity but essence can be used, even if it's not describing the essence of the organism for any specific purpose - but, more speaking of it's intrinsic this-ness (ie, a lions sense of "lion-ness").

I think the idea of a true name is an interesting one. The problem is, the symbolic abstraction of language is inadequate to encompass the true-ness of someone.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I never said that evolution is an intuitive theory - in fact, I would say it's very counter-intuitive (which was sort of my point in using it as an example). The fact that something like a lion gradually becomes a lion is counter-intuitive; at some point, was there an animal that was not a lion that gave birth to what we would call a lion? No, because the essence (or haecceity) of lion-ness is a human abstraction. Being a lion doesn't really mean anything intrinsically, but is only a meaning for someone. Does a lion that lives thousands of miles away from another lion have the same essence of lion-ness, even though there is a level of genetic variety between the two? At what point would two isolated species stop being classified as having the same essence of their this-ness?
Despite the fact that the two lions have a different genetic variety, they are still lions, because they both came from the same lion(s) at one point of time, so they both have some similar genetics. And because all lions have that particular genetic, they are lions.

Essence would be implicit in it's physical form, but essence is only imbued in parts. I don't use a hammer as a tool, a weapon, a paper weight and any and all possible uses for a hammer at once, but I use the hammer for myself one essence at a time. The essence of hammer only 'exists' inasmuch as it's use for someone - to say that it contains all essences at once presupposes that essence is an intrinsic, objective, permanent property of it's very existence. Essence requires a consciousness of the object to utilize the object for the self. A hammer floating in space with no one around, no one aware of it, has no essence, only existence.

My reply is incomplete at the moment. I'll finish it later.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by ashitaria

He may have changed, his characteristics may have been displaced, but he is still the same man. If you cut off the ears of a rabbit and it's tail, is it not still a rabbit? People may make the statement that he is "a new man", but he is still him, albeit in a different way.

How are they the same? Physically, one has all of their cells and molecules replaced every 7~ years (some things take longer than others). Emotionally and mentally he would be behaving and processing information differently. By your logic, couldn't one call a pair of twins the same person, since they might actually think more alike than the uncle did prior to his change of attitude and after his change of attitude?

This is basically the point I'm getting at - people have a strong, intuitive sense that someone has an innate them-self-ness, an essence that remains permanent and immutable, no matter what happens. Even though every atom we are made of has at one point been in the core of a super-massive star, many of them have probably been a part of some plant, animal, or even the center of the earth, and none of them will be permanently a part of our self, we still intuitively feel a sense of continuity in someones Being through a constant essence of self-ness that transcends whatever physical, or even mental/emotional alterations they may undergo.

But Science is used exclusively to classify things into categorizes. For example, a being a mass is shown to be a planet because of it's characteristics. Though Pluto was shown not to be a planet, it still did not change the fact that it was Pluto. And though we can't crack it open and find it's essence, we know it is not a planet because of the fact that it's mass is hardly equivalent to that of a planet's. Yes, Science can only set standards, but it can also define things and provide proof and reason for why things exist. How do you know there is gravity? Science is there to explain it.

I think there is a breakdown in communication here. Somethings planet-ness is a human abstraction, a symbol used to represent an object in space, the totality of it's being suspended in existence. Pluto does not posses any innate planet-ness that makes it planet, no matter what we call it (the word itself is nothing more than a mental symbol). Science can make objective measurements, it can describe it's properties and characteristics, but ultimately it is human consciousness, human subjectivity, that gives names and categories (symbolic abstractions) based on these measurements. Being that the categories are completely human constructs, they are free to 'move the goalposts' as they please.

Did I ever say essence couldn't be changed? Essence can be changed as I have stated, but not entirely. If a person were to suffer a personality change and amnesia, his essence changes to fit his new description, yet he is still him, though not him.

What is it about the person that is preserved? What still makes the person them self beside another persons conception of who they are? The only thing preserved is a) the persons constituent particles (which will change within 7~ years) and b) another conscious persons idea of their essence. There is nothing objectively immutable about the person.

It can be said to be a chair- a broken chair actually. It is common sense it that matter that though it can no longer satisfy it's purpose, it still retains several of the properties of a chair.

A broken chair, yes, but no longer a chair. It no longer serves the same purpose as it did as a chair (purpose being only a human abstraction), and therefore it's essence has changed.

Despite the fact that the two lions have a different genetic variety, they are still lions, because they both came from the same lion(s) at one point of time, so they both have some similar genetics. And because all lions have that particular genetic, they are lions.

Humans and rats came from the same common ancestor at one point in time, does that mean we could consider ourselves the same species? All organisms share at least about 50% of their genetics, does that mean we are the same species as moss or helicobacter pylori? At what point does the differences in genetics become great enough that two populations of organisms that were once considered the same species are no longer the same species? At what point did a non-lion give birth to what we would consider a lion? This is what I mean by evolutions counter-intuitive gradual-ness; lion-ness is not something that can be quantified, and a population slowly, gradually becoming a lion without a real cut-off point, no distinct place where they could be said to have grown into their lion-ness, doesn't jibe well with human intuition about somethings essence.

And the same logic can be applied to the future, too - eventually, the genetic make-up of lions (and this won't be until long after you and I are dead) will have changed enough that they have become distinct from their current 'form'. It's easy to look at two skulls, hundreds of thousands to millions of years apart, and see the distinction between the two, but to think about the slow, grinding, eventual change from generation to generation screams in the face of human reason.

[ashitaria]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

How are they the same? Physically, one has all of their cells and molecules replaced every 7~ years (some things take longer than others). Emotionally and mentally he would be behaving and processing information differently. By your logic, couldn't one call a pair of twins the same person, since they might actually think more alike than the uncle did prior to his change of attitude and after his change of attitude?
But despite his different thinking attitudes, despite the change in cells and molecules, his genetic trail is the same. Just because a person has became a "new man", his blood relations do not change, nor does his genetics. Technically, he is still the same man. Abstractly, he is a new man. My logic is not what you think it is though. So let me be more specific. A lion is a lion not because of it's appearance. A lion is a lion because it has the genetic trait that all lions have.

This is basically the point I'm getting at - people have a strong, intuitive sense that someone has an innate them-self-ness, an essence that remains permanent and immutable, no matter what happens. Even though every atom we are made of has at one point been in the core of a super-massive star, many of them have probably been a part of some plant, animal, or even the center of the earth, and none of them will be permanently a part of our self, we still intuitively feel a sense of continuity in someones Being through a constant essence of self-ness that transcends whatever physical, or even mental/emotional alterations they may undergo.

Since I agree with you this somewhat, there's not much for me to say, but that our intuitive sense of essence of something isn't really consistent. The him-ness of someone will feel different after a period of time, and the essence we feel when we first meet someone almost always changes as we get to know him.

I think there is a breakdown in communication here. Somethings planet-ness is a human abstraction, a symbol used to represent an object in space, the totality of it's being suspended in existence. Pluto does not posses any innate planet-ness that makes it planet, no matter what we call it (the word itself is nothing more than a mental symbol). Science can make objective measurements, it can describe it's properties and characteristics, but ultimately it is human consciousness, human subjectivity, that gives names and categories (symbolic abstractions) based on these measurements. Being that the categories are completely human constructs, they are free to 'move the goalposts' as they please.

If we could feel the essence that Pluto wasn't a planet, why did we name it a planet in the first place? If Science wasn't there to set the standards, we may have very well went on in our own ignorance. Of course, the term 'planet' can symbolize something suspended in space, but it can also symbolize a body of material circulating around a star. If a body of material wasn't held by gravity, it wouldn't be a planet, and no amount of intuition can go against that. Yes, Science was created by human consciousness, yet no human consciousness is the same and labels and categorizes must be maintained- therefore Science exists.



What is it about the person that is preserved? What still makes the person them self beside another persons conception of who they are? The only thing preserved is a) the persons constituent particles (which will change within 7~ years) and b) another conscious persons idea of their essence. There is nothing objectively immutable about the person.

What is unchanged is:

1) Their name.
2) Their genetic trail.
3) Their brain.
4) Talents
5) Memories

Despite the fact that they change, they still have the same brain, genetic trail and name. These cannot change as you are born with them, including talents.
If let's say I suddenly became an ESTJ, I will still retain my memories, my intelligence, my talents, etc.

A broken chair, yes, but no longer a chair. It no longer serves the same purpose as it did as a chair (purpose being only a human abstraction), and therefore it's essence has changed.
No longer a chair, yet still a chair. It's essence may have changed, but it still retains the purpose why it was created and by that alone, it has retained some of it's previous essence.


Humans and rats came from the same common ancestor at one point in time, does that mean we could consider ourselves the same species? All organisms share at least about 50% of their genetics, does that mean we are the same species as moss or helicobacter pylori? At what point does the differences in genetics become great enough that two populations of organisms that were once considered the same species are no longer the same species? At what point did a non-lion give birth to what we would consider a lion? This is what I mean by evolutions counter-intuitive gradual-ness; lion-ness is not something that can be quantified, and a population slowly, gradually becoming a lion without a real cut-off point, no distinct place where they could be said to have grown into their lion-ness, doesn't jibe well with human intuition about somethings essence.

Are you sure everything was born from one organism? According to my beliefs, the rats were born from the rats, the humans from the humans, etc. And let's say that all organisms share 50% of their genetics with each other. But there is sure to be a gene somewhere the differentiates one organism from the other, a gene that all lions have that make them lions, a gene that makes all dinosaurs dinosaurs. The point by which one species become alienated from the other is whereby that specific gene is tampered with or changed. And that gene is gradually mutated and evolved. Hope you get my jibe.

And the same logic can be applied to the future, too - eventually, the genetic make-up of lions (and this won't be until long after you and I are dead) will have changed enough that they have become distinct from their current 'form'. It's easy to look at two skulls, hundreds of thousands to millions of years apart, and see the distinction between the two, but to think about the slow, grinding, eventual change from generation to generation screams in the face of human reason.

I hope that I don't have to explain this one.

MY ANSWER IS DONE! CAME BACK FROM THE LIBRARY! :P

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by ashitaria

But despite his different thinking attitudes, despite the change in cells and molecules, his genetic trail is the same. Just because a person has became a "new man", his blood relations do not change, nor does his genetics. Technically, he is still the same man. Abstractly, he is a new man. My logic is not what you think it is though. So let me be more specific. A lion is a lion not because of it's appearance. A lion is a lion because it has the genetic trait that all lions have.

I touched on the problem of genetics as a definition in a reply to AppliePi, so I'll just respost it:

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Problem is, even in zoology and genetics there is, what you call, 'fuzziness' involved. There is no real definition of what a gene actually is, and the distinction of species is blurred (there are even what biologists call 'variations' within the same species, and one could even blur it to the point of individuals).

Essentially one would have to attribute a different this-ness to each lion, taking them on an individual basis. But, this is not how the human mind works - we see patterns and we categorize things. Things that are lions have a certain this-ness that makes them able to be categorized as lions - they have enough similarity, and the fact that one intentionally changes that similarity doesn't tend to take away from their lion-ness.

Originally Posted by ashitaria

If we could feel the essence that Pluto wasn't a planet, why did we name it a planet in the first place? If Science wasn't there to set the standards, we may have very well went on in our own ignorance. Of course, the term 'planet' can symbolize something suspended in space, but it can also symbolize a body of material circulating around a star. If a body of material wasn't held by gravity, it wouldn't be a planet, and no amount of intuition can go against that. Yes, Science was created by human consciousness, yet no human consciousness is the same and labels and categorizes must be maintained- therefore Science exists.

I have a feeling this will turn into a "yes it is" "no it's not" back-and-forth, and I'm not sure how to explain my reasoning any better, so I'm going to leave this subject alone.

What is unchanged is:

1) Their name.
2) Their genetic trail.
3) Their brain.
4) Talents
5) Memories

Despite the fact that they change, they still have the same brain, genetic trail and name. These cannot change as you are born with them, including talents.
If let's say I suddenly became an ESTJ, I will still retain my memories, my intelligence, my talents, etc.

I don't think name has anything to do with someones essence - a tree or a rock is still the same thing physically whether someone is there to call them a tree or rock. The word is just a mental representation.

They would not have the same memories if they have amnesia (which was part of the hypothetical). But, even still, is someones memory what makes them who they are? Are we doomed to be tied to our past? If I am not experiencing my past anymore, if I am not in the presence of my past, does it truly represent me?

If someone suffered a brain injury, resulting in amnesia and a personality change, their brain would be altered, and probably wouldn't have the same talents they had before the accident.

So, are genetics the only thing left? Which gene(s) make us who we are? The DNA that codes for the polymerase that pieces together our genes during DNA replication? The DNA that codes for the receptor proteins that pick up endocrine signals? The genes that switch different processes on and off during fetal and infant development - surely those are the genes that make us who we are, since they are the ones that build our brain, which makes it ironic that those are junk DNA for 99% of our life, could be removed and not change who we are when we're adults.

If someone undergoes gene therapy, or has natural epigenetic changes during life, does that take away their essence?

I would say that someones essence, their self-ness is only an aspect of someone else. Intuitively, I feel like there is an intrinsic me-ness, but logically I don't think there is anything immutable about me - alterations in my physical self could completely change who I am.

No longer a chair, yet still a chair. It's essence may have changed, but it still retains the purpose why it was created and by that alone, it has retained some of it's previous essence.

Once again, I think this will just degrade into a "yes it is" "no it's not" discussion, but I'll take one last attempt.

The essence of the object - a chair - is what it is for me. If the object is no longer a chair for me then it is no longer a chair. One could call it a half-chair, or a ruined-chair, but I would not say it is a chair any longer, since it can no longer serve the purpose a chair is meant for. At least, I guess, that's the conclusion I have drawn, but this might just be a difference in our definitions of essence.

Are you sure everything was born from one organism? According to my beliefs, the rats were born from the rats, the humans from the humans, etc. And let's say that all organisms share 50% of their genetics with each other. But there is sure to be a gene somewhere the differentiates one organism from the other, a gene that all lions have that make them lions, a gene that makes all dinosaurs dinosaurs. The point by which one species become alienated from the other is whereby that specific gene is tampered with or changed. And that gene is gradually mutated and evolved. Hope you get my jibe.

Rats are born from rats, but they were not always rats - they evolved from something that came before it:

Spoiler:

The genes that are different between two distinct species were not always different. Natural selection acts on mutations that occur at an almost steady rate between parent and offspring (1) (2) so even the genes that are different between two species, giving them the phenotype of their specific species, can differ (even if by a couple nucleotides) within the species. The point is, even genetic material is not a precise way of measuring an organisms essence.

Once again, I'm going to quote myself from one of my responses to AppliePi that applies to this:

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

So the essence of 'lion' resides in it's DNA? If we take the reductionist approach, which DNA? Genes undergo methylation, suppression, paramutation, promotion, allele transvection activation/regression, horizontal gene transfer etc etc - how many genetic changes (whether done naturally in an epigenetic way, or synthetically through gene therapy of some sort) can the lion undergo before it is no longer a lion?

Originally Posted by ashitaria

I hope that I don't have to explain this one.

I would appreciate it if you did

[ashitaria]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I touched on the problem of genetics as a definition in a reply to AppliePi, so I'll just respost it:





I have a feeling this will turn into a "yes it is" "no it's not" back-and-forth, and I'm not sure how to explain my reasoning any better, so I'm going to leave this subject alone.



I don't think name has anything to do with someones essence - a tree or a rock is still the same thing physically whether someone is there to call them a tree or rock. The word is just a mental representation.
True, but at least you still retain your name. That by itself retains some essence at the very least. It will feel weird to call Mark, John, wouldn't it. And people are known for making first impressions over what a name sounds like.

They would not have the same memories if they have amnesia (which was part of the hypothetical). But, even still, is someones memory what makes them who they are? Are we doomed to be tied to our past? If I am not experiencing my past anymore, if I am not in the presence of my past, does it truly represent me?
I'm not very knowledgeable in this subject, but since experiences and situations make up your character, yeah, our history and our interpretation of it does make up who we are. We don't have to be doomed to our past if we give it up or forget it, but our past does kinda represent us.

If someone suffered a brain injury, resulting in amnesia and a personality change, their brain would be altered, and probably wouldn't have the same talents they had before the accident.
Probably, there's still a sound chance that they will retain some of their talents. Though their brain is affected, their physical body is not, and let's say you are talented at martial arts because of the natural flexibility you possess. I don't think that could be something tampered with by a brain injury.

So, are genetics the only thing left? Which gene(s) make us who we are? The DNA that codes for the polymerase that pieces together our genes during DNA replication? The DNA that codes for the receptor proteins that pick up endocrine signals? The genes that switch different processes on and off during fetal and infant development - surely those are the genes that make us who we are, since they are the ones that build our brain, which makes it ironic that those are junk DNA for 99% of our life, could be removed and not change who we are when we're adults.
Once again, many of my responses are based solely from my thoughts and not from proof or knowledge, but the genes that we have make up our physical appearance, and once again our sensing of essence from a person is greatly affected by the physical aspect of a person. I'm guessing it's the genes that we inherit from out parents that make up who we are, and taking away those could change who we are. Like wolves, for instance. They inherit their savage nature, fangs, body, etc. from their parents. It makes up who they are. But for the most part, it's up to decisions and environments to make up our personality. Or instinct for that matter.

If someone undergoes gene therapy, or has natural epigenetic changes during life, does that take away their essence?
I don't know. I'm not the scientist. I'm the fourteen-year-old who's bored and thinking. But my guess is no, unless they are stripped out of everything else- memories, name, etc. Then, yeah, kiss their essence goodbye.

I would say that someones essence, their self-ness is only an aspect of someone else. Intuitively, I feel like there is an intrinsic me-ness, but logically I don't think there is anything immutable about me - alterations in my physical self could completely change who I am.



Once again, I think this will just degrade into a "yes it is" "no it's not" discussion, but I'll take one last attempt.
Actually, I think this kind of discussion is too broad for this to fit into two simple categorizes like yes or no. If you look back at my previous posts, you will find that I did not say, "Essence cannot be changed no matter what." I said, "According to the circumstances that you have presented, the essence has not changed, at least not entirely. It has changed partially." Meaning that it has still retained some of it's previous essence. Anyway....

The essence of the object - a chair - is what it is for me. If the object is no longer a chair for me then it is no longer a chair. One could call it a half-chair, or a ruined-chair, but I would not say it is a chair any longer, since it can no longer serve the purpose a chair is meant for. At least, I guess, that's the conclusion I have drawn, but this might just be a difference in our definitions of essence.

Since you already know what I am going to say (I think), I guess I'll draw the line at that.


Rats are born from rats, but they were not always rats - they evolved from something that came before it:

Spoiler:

Once again, I'm not the scientist. I'm just bored.

The genes that are different between two distinct species were not always different. Natural selection acts on mutations that occur at an almost steady rate between parent and offspring (1) (2) so even the genes that are different between two species, giving them the phenotype of their specific species, can differ (even if by a couple nucleotides) within the species. The point is, even genetic material is not a precise way of measuring an organisms essence.

I believe I said, "But there is sure to be a gene somewhere the differentiates one organism from the other, a gene that all lions have that make them lions, a gene that makes all dinosaurs dinosaurs. The point by which one species become alienated from the other is whereby that specific gene is tampered with or changed. And that gene is gradually mutated and evolved."
And to your other belief, yes. Genetics are not a precise way of measuring essence. But it's the best we've got.

Once again, I'm going to quote myself from one of my responses to AppliePi that applies to this:





I would appreciate it if you did

Basically, summing up from our discussion, we have different views. It's time for us to accept that we have different views, so let's just stop this discussion at that. But it was very mentally challenging and very fun. I look forward to another discussion.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I agree with the existentialist notion of for-itself being the crux of essence, but I reject any pluralism involved, and I stated this in the first line of my second paragraph (mentioning that it's where I part ways with the existentialist thinking). Duality may be a way of looking at it, since they are two aspects of the same thing, but I would consider it a unity - it's like a magnet, it has two poles, but both poles are required for it to be a magnet. If you cut the magnet in half, both resulting magnets will have two poles. One cannot have just a north or south pole, but only the unity of both poles making the complete unity of a magnet - the poles are just two aspects of the same thing.

Don't know what "for-itself" means (unless it means independent and isolated) but let me go on and maybe it will work itself out. We don't need anything as esoteric as a magnet. An arrow will do. The tip at the front with the feathers at the tail are part of a unity called "arrow."

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

The stool is only a stool if some consciousness is there in order for the stool to be a stool for them. It's 'stool-ness' arises with it's construction only because of the intention to build it's constituent parts into a stool. If three sticks and a flat piece of wood just so happened to fall together into the formation of a platform out in the middle of nowhere, it would not be a stool. Someone could walk by and find it and use it as a stool, and it would become a stool for the person while s/he used it, but it does not possess any intrinsic property of being a stool. The constructed one was either conceived as a stool in the conscious entities mind before hand, or the conscious entity accidentally put three sticks and a piece of wood together in the right formation that using it for them self as a stool occurred to them - if they had not been there for the essence to occur to them, it would not be a stool.

But, this is what I mean by somethings essence being implicit in it's structure. One would not use a piece of tissue paper for something to sit on, but the structure of a stool implies it's utility for the essence of a sitting device. The thing is, there has to be a conscious entity there in order for it's "stool-ness" to be instilled by the realization through conscious thought of it's utility.

So out there in space with no witnesses we have an existence arranged in the form of a stool but with no essence. The essence comes into being when the arrangement is recognized by a conscious entity. That has me thinking of the arrow. The conscious entity/stool is a unity! Next I want to say the stool's essence lies within the conscious entity, but that is not enough. I'm after where this "essence" is located. Try this: it is located in the relationship between the conscious entity and the stool arrangement. I can simplify this with another example but wil hold off as I read on.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I guess this is where our definitions of essence becomes incongruity. Essence, the way I see it, is meaning, and meaning is only something that applies to conscious beings, because consciousness is the for-itself aspect (remember the magnet analogy?) of the mind-body unity. Objects in space are meaningless, meaning only arising through presence (of) self being for-itself. I only have meaning to myself because I am present (to) myself; if I were not conscious, I would not mean anything to myself and would therefore be meaningless and lack essence.

The stool shape would exist independently of an observer, but the essence of it's 'stool-ness', it's meaning (which can only be for someone) would not exist independently of an observer, to whom it would mean something to.

Then we are closer to agreement. Essence lies within the meaning. Meaning lies within our minds as we observe things. We need our selves and we need the thing. Now as we describe the thing we combine that description with others (more observers) until we arrive at greater agreement a la the scientific method. We have refined an essence and call it "the essence of the thing." The essence is precise or not to the degree to which collective minds agree.

As an example you may say the essence of a lion is that. I may say it is this. We get together and work at a compromise. We agree a liger/tigon is not a lion.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I don't think anyone is truly capable of intuiting time on a geological (much less cosmic) scale. One may be able to understand it on an intellectual level, but I think it's beyond our true comprehension how long it really is.

I think the gradualness of the evolutionary process is not something that can be fully grasped, either. We look at fossils and see them lined up right next to each other and the idea of millions of years becomes just empty words - people are incapable of fully grasping the perspective of how many intermediary species were between one fossil and the other, especially when talked about in such casual ways. Something that happened fifty years ago probably has an intuitive feeling of distance more than fifty million years, simply because we can't comprehend such an immense amount of time, but we can comprehend something like fifty years - and experiencing fifty years feels longer than simply talking about things that took millions of years (yet we can see all of the effects of those millions of years all at once).

That describes a time scale. What about a spacial scale? Would you say we can't comprehend what we see through a microscope? They are the same aren't they? Both are beyond the senses. We can't conceive of ourselves being on a microscopic scale. But we do comprehend shrinkage of space and pieces of time. When we line up fossils, we see something. I'm not ready to say this is different than looking back fifty years ago. I can look back, but with what understanding? How does this understanding compare with 50 million? Is my understanding of 50 years that much better than 50 million? I dare say we are intelligent enough to grasp it in some sense. Can this paragraph be elucidated or is it enough? Do we understand or not? Could we say some do and some don't (grasp evolution) and there is only the disagreement of loosely connected collective minds?

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Conservation of mass/energy says that nothing can truly be destroyed, but like an algebraic expression, only shifted around. But, to make something, one has to shift it's mass and energy around, which 'destroys' it's former shape. It's similar to having the algebraic expression Y=3X-6; if one wants to 'construct' X they have to dismantle the former arrangement of the expression, thereby 'creating' "Y+6=3X". Now it is no longer the same, even if all values have been conserved, and one could essentially say that "Y=3X-6" has been 'destroyed' in order to 'create' "Y+6=3X". Just because that which has been dismantled in order to create something was meaningless to us does not suggest that nothing was dismantled.

Would it be correct to say, "Something has been rearranged!" What was before has been "destroyed." What is now has been "created."

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

Don't know what "for-itself" means (unless it means independent and isolated) but let me go on and maybe it will work itself out. We don't need anything as esoteric as a magnet. An arrow will do. The tip at the front with the feathers at the tail are part of a unity called "arrow."

The for-itself is consciousness. Without the concept of for-itself (which is a very broad term - think of it more as 'for-yourself') the inanimate matter that constitutes your body would not do anything for itself; it would simply be 'being-in-itself'.

I thought the magnet analogy worked better, simply because there is no such thing as one-pole magnet - if you cut one in half, both halves have a north and south pole. If one breaks an arrow in half, they have two distinct halves of an arrow. The analogy was meant to represent the inseparable unity of mind and body (ie, the inseparable unity of north and south poles).

So out there in space with no witnesses we have an existence arranged in the form of a stool but with no essence. The essence comes into being when the arrangement is recognized by a conscious entity. That has me thinking of the arrow. The conscious entity/stool is a unity! Next I want to say the stool's essence lies within the conscious entity, but that is not enough. I'm after where this "essence" is located. Try this: it is located in the relationship between the conscious entity and the stool arrangement. I can simplify this with another example but wil hold off as I read on.

You really should read my presence of self thread.

I proposed the 'extended essence', wherein something that we imbue with essence is synthesized with our own essence - the clothes I'm wearing are my clothes for me. This is one of the tenets of my mind-body unity hypothesis, that objective and subjective reality are a synthesis and not necessarily a duality; objects imply their own essence through their properties (ie, I can't use a baseball as a coffee cup, it's shape doesn't imply this use) and subjectivity imbues them with meaning - which you put nicely "[the essence] is located in the relationship between the conscious entity and the stool arrangement".

Then we are closer to agreement. Essence lies within the meaning. Meaning lies within our minds as we observe things. We need our selves and we need the thing. Now as we describe the thing we combine that description with others (more observers) until we arrive at greater agreement a la the scientific method. We have refined an essence and call it "the essence of the thing." The essence is precise or not to the degree to which collective minds agree.

As an example you may say the essence of a lion is that. I may say it is this. We get together and work at a compromise. We agree a liger/tigon is not a lion.

I was with you for what I have bolded. While I think input from other people can influence the essence we imbue with things, I think it is still us who has final say on what something means to ourselves and that essence/meaning is ultimately relative. I also disagree that science can explain what the essence of something is, but that it can only tell us what something is (objective). Science can describe that an atom is a particle that has a probability amplitude that spreads it out, and I might see that as being beautiful while someone else thinks it's stupid. It might be an interesting thing to learn about for me but it might mean a quantum computer for someone else - just because science has explained what something is does not designate what it's essence is to me or anyone else.

That describes a time scale. What about a spacial scale? Would you say we can't comprehend what we see through a microscope? They are the same aren't they? Both are beyond the senses. We can't conceive of ourselves being on a microscopic scale. But we do comprehend shrinkage of space and pieces of time. When we line up fossils, we see something. I'm not ready to say this is different than looking back fifty years ago. I can look back, but with what understanding? How does this understanding compare with 50 million? Is my understanding of 50 years that much better than 50 million? I dare say we are intelligent enough to grasp it in some sense. Can this paragraph be elucidated or is it enough? Do we understand or not? Could we say some do and some don't (grasp evolution) and there is only the disagreement of loosely connected collective minds?

Like I said, I think people can understand these timescales on an intellectual level, but not on any intuitive level.

You should also check out my perspectives thread.

Would it be correct to say, "Something has been rearranged!" What was before has been "destroyed." What is now has been "created."

You had said:

Interesting thought. No end of challenges in your message. My first reaction is if it's constructed as new, nothing is destroyed but empty space. If you haven't stated it already, I'd have to ask you what is destroyed? I have some thoughts on "destruction" but they are outside the topic of this post.

So I replied that something is destroyed (or at least dismantled), because I had said that creating one thing is the destruction of another. This made it sound as if nothing was being destroyed if what was destroyed didn't matter to anyone ("nothing is destroyed but empty space.")

When we erect a building, we have to destroy a part of the earth where the gravel and cement ingredients were harvested. When we build furniture or a house we have to cut down trees. When we make a meal, we have to kill another organism (and then proceed to turn them into excrement). My point was more of a passing fancy, that nothing is ever truly created without some level of collateral damage somewhere else (there are always 'reagents' and 'products')

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I thought the magnet analogy worked better, simply because there is no such thing as one-pole magnet - if you cut one in half, both halves have a north and south pole. If one breaks an arrow in half, they have two distinct halves of an arrow. The analogy was meant to represent the inseparable unity of mind and body (ie, the inseparable unity of north and south poles).

The magnet does differ from the arrow. Both can be split but the magnet parts behave like the whole. Reminds me of the more complex fractal.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

You really should read my presence of self thread.

I began to read carefully but there was so much I began to skim.. There was a lot to deal with. What to choose? Where to go? How to return?

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I proposed the 'extended essence', wherein something that we imbue with essence is synthesized with our own essence - the clothes I'm wearing are my clothes for me. This is one of the tenets of my mind-body unity hypothesis, that objective and subjective reality are a synthesis and not necessarily a duality; objects imply their own essence through their properties (ie, I can't use a baseball as a coffee cup, it's shape doesn't imply this use) and subjectivity imbues them with meaning - which you put nicely "[the essence] is located in the relationship between the conscious entity and the stool arrangement".

Your language differs a little from mine but I think we're getting closer to the idea. I recall you talking about clothes over there. Let me comment on that over there. 02-05-10, 511p EST. I'm not too fond of the idea of any duality because it would have to be explained. If there is a duality, it is between existence which is what is and we can never know versus essence which is subjective.

I am NOT satisfied when I referred to essence being located in the relationship. It is MORE than that and remains to be told.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

While I think input from other people can influence the essence we imbue with things, I think it is still us who has final say on what something means to ourselves and that essence/meaning is ultimately relative..

I agree. The boundaries of essence are fuzzy and dependent on the observer.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I also disagree that science can explain what the essence of something is, but that it can only tell us what something is (objective). Science can describe that an atom is a particle that has a probability amplitude that spreads it out, and I might see that as being beautiful while someone else thinks it's stupid. It might be an interesting thing to learn about for me but it might mean a quantum computer for someone else - just because science has explained what something is does not designate what it's essence is to me or anyone else.

I don't recall how I put it, but I intended to use "scientific method" in a special sense. Not any formal science, but rather the practicing of the steps of scientific method. Accordingly a child learns from experience by practicing the scientific method. It begins with ignorance and "grows its essence." It does so by observation, taking in data, testing behavior accordingly, formulating a way to behave, failing and retesting until it comes up with behavior, thoughts and understanding it can incorporate into itself. It grows its essence. That's what I meant by "scientific method."

Now to the atom. Science can't tell us what the atom is, but scientists using the scientific method can work on its essence and we relate to that and we relate in turn to what they say. We could call the result, "scientific atom essence #1." A child can read about that and call it "stupid" and form their own opinion. I call that, "child atom essence #2.) As the child grows, it may modify its opinion. As scientists grow, they can do likewise refining their previous essential opinions. The components of this "atom" still exist out there in time-space somehow but we don't know what they are.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Like I said, I think people can understand these timescales on an intellectual level, but not on any intuitive level.
You should also check out my perspectives thread.

I read your beautiful thread. I think you've proposed a great Q. I'd wish to reconcile the intellectual with the intuitive you are speaking of but haven't put enough thought into it. Great issue.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

The magnet does differ from the arrow. Both can be split but the magnet parts behave like the whole. Reminds me of the more complex fractal.

It's possible that the mind-body unity could be seen as fractal. At both ends of the spectrum one can discern each from each other, but there is no distinct line that separates them, in the same way that the self similarity of the Mandelbrot set does not have any identifiable line where one goes from a certain scale to the next.

Spoiler:

I began to read carefully but there was so much I began to skim.. There was a lot to deal with. What to choose? Where to go? How to return?

The nice thing about philosophical discussions is there is never any clearly correct methodology to go about it. Philosophy, to me, is the study of the subjective aspect of reality, and the interactions of the objective-subjective 'recursive' unity. The concepts used in these discussions are abstract symbols, tantamount to the mathematical symbols that science uses to explain the inner workings of objective reality - it's merely representations used to better understand it.

Your language differs a little from mine but I think we're getting closer to the idea. I recall you talking about clothes over there. Let me comment on that over there. 02-05-10, 511p EST. I'm not too fond of the idea of any duality because it would have to be explained. If there is a duality, it is between existence which is what is and we can never know versus essence which is subjective.

I am NOT satisfied when I referred to essence being located in the relationship. It is MORE than that and remains to be told.

The problem with a duality is that it both feels intuitively correct, and it cannot be disproven. I don't feel like my body, I feel like my mind. There is an intuitive separation between the two, and the very notion that my mind is nothing but the emergent property of the inner workings of my brain doesn't jibe well with the feeling that there is an innate me-ness that is distinct from my physical body - how can something that can't feel (ie chemicals) cause me to feel? How can something inert experience? Wouldn't there have to be something above this physical form interpreting these things, a true essence of me that is merely experiencing reality using this body as a conduit?

The complex system and emergence of consciousness via these dynamic interactions flies in the face of humans limited ability to reason or even imagine. Only consciousness can beget consciousness, so we invent dualities to explain this by positing a me that simply inhabits this otherwise lifeless physical body.

In the same way that the essence of me emerges from the interactions in my biochemistry and neural synaptic connections, this essence of me can expand outwards through my physical interactions with the material world. Like a signal propagating through the axon and synaptic junction of a neuron, essence is passed from me to my surroundings in a conscious projection, a memetic phenotype, as opposed to a chemical signal. Just as that single brain cell, unconscious and benign on it's own, is a part of the totality of me because of it's ability to conduct the signals of my thoughts, the object is a part of me because of it's ability to conduct the essence that I imbue it with, utilizing it for my own devices in the same manner that the neuron was utilized for my thoughts.

I don't recall how I put it, but I intended to use "scientific method" in a special sense. Not any formal science, but rather the practicing of the steps of scientific method. Accordingly a child learns from experience by practicing the scientific method. It begins with ignorance and "grows its essence." It does so by observation, taking in data, testing behavior accordingly, formulating a way to behave, failing and retesting until it comes up with behavior, thoughts and understanding it can incorporate into itself. It grows its essence. That's what I meant by "scientific method."

Ok, I agree with this. The way in which we decide the essence to instill into an object comes from our experience with it. I simply think that experience is a better way to put it, even if much of our experience is gained using a slightly looser version of the scientific methodology.

Now to the atom. Science can't tell us what the atom is, but scientists using the scientific method can work on its essence and we relate to that and we relate in turn to what they say. We could call the result, "scientific atom essence #1." A child can read about that and call it "stupid" and form their own opinion. I call that, "child atom essence #2.) As the child grows, it may modify its opinion. As scientists grow, they can do likewise refining their previous essential opinions. The components of this "atom" still exist out there in time-space somehow but we don't know what they are.

The scientific method can describe the properties of the atom, which can imply it's possible essence, but the essence of an atom itself is dependent on the observer. What the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or spectral ID, or periodicity of an atom means to me requires the input of these various properties of the atom, but their meaning to me, their essence comes only from myself.

I read your beautiful thread. I think you've proposed a great Q. I'd wish to reconcile the intellectual with the intuitive you are speaking of but haven't put enough thought into it. Great issue.

That thread was my attempt at reconciling it with myself, by means of bringing such large, abstract terms like 'light years' into a perspective that we are used to. Unfortunately, even this fails, because looking at the numbers, with all of their digits, they become just more abstract symbols that can't truly be comprehended. Only every once in a while, in deep thought about the vastness of existence, do I even skim the surface of a true comprehension, and it just about causes vertigo to even think about it. Some people will feel a sense of existential horror at the very notion of it, while I can't help but feel a sense of humbling awe and dazed wonder.

Looking at that thread is like doing drugs to me.

[Jesin]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

It's possible that the mind-body unity could be seen as fractal. At both ends of the spectrum one can discern each from each other, but there is no distinct line that separates them

At both ends of the spectrum, though? There are regions where most people will tend to say that a given phenomenon around that region is "mind" and regions around which people will tend to say that it is "body". But if you try to go too far in either direction, towards the singularities, you eventually get things that are so far removed from humanity that they are no longer recognizable as either mind or body.

You would probably enjoy the book Thief of Time, by Terry Pratchett. It does a lot with this sort of question.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Some people will feel a sense of existential horror at the very notion of it, while I can't help but feel a sense of humbling awe and dazed wonder.

Hah, yes, I am reminded of something from Symphony of Science, specifically this:

YouTube- Symphony of Science - 'Our Place in the Cosmos' (ft. Sagan, Dawkins, Kaku, Jastrow)

YouTube- Symphony of Science - 'Our Place in the Cosmos' (ft. Sagan, Dawkins, Kaku, Jastrow)

Matter flows from place to place
And momentarily comes together to be you
Some people find that thought disturbing
I find the reality thrilling

[BigApplePi]

Quotes brought down from Sun, February 7, 2010 12:33:21 PM

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I began to read carefully but there was so much I began to skim.. There was a lot to deal with. What to choose? Where to go? How to return?

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

The nice thing about philosophical discussions is there is never any clearly correct methodology to go about it. Philosophy, to me, is the study of the subjective aspect of reality, and the interactions of the objective-subjective 'recursive' unity. The concepts used in these discussions are abstract symbols, tantamount to the mathematical symbols that science uses to explain the inner workings of objective reality - it's merely representations used to better understand it.

I don't know if I have any methodology but I 'm always after clarifying what I already have tentatively in mind. That is, to fit new things into the old. Interesting you mention mathematical symbols as I would like that also. I didn't expect to mention that here, but I would use aRB to represent perspective. That is, an observer "a" has a certain relationship "R" to the object "b." b exists. There is essence in aRb. There is more to the essence surrounding b than just R, but a and R. Not sure how to work that out. Perhaps that can be looked at later.

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

Your language differs a little from mine but I think we're getting closer to the idea. I recall you talking about clothes over there. Let me comment on that over there. 02-05-10, 511p EST. I'm not too fond of the idea of any duality because it would have to be explained. If there is a duality, it is between existence which is what is and we can never know versus essence which is subjective.

I am NOT satisfied when I referred to essence being located in the relationship. It is MORE than that and remains to be told.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

The problem with a duality is that it both feels intuitively correct, and it cannot be disproven. I don't feel like my body, I feel like my mind. There is an intuitive separation between the two, and the very notion that my mind is nothing but the emergent property of the inner workings of my brain doesn't jibe well with the feeling that there is an innate me-ness that is distinct from my physical body - how can something that can't feel (ie chemicals) cause me to feel? How can something inert experience? Wouldn't there have to be something above this physical form interpreting these things, a true essence of me that is merely experiencing reality using this body as a conduit?

The complex system and emergence of consciousness via these dynamic interactions flies in the face of humans limited ability to reason or even imagine. Only consciousness can beget consciousness, so we invent dualities to explain this by positing a me that simply inhabits this otherwise lifeless physical body.

In the same way that the essence of me emerges from the interactions in my biochemistry and neural synaptic connections, this essence of me can expand outwards through my physical interactions with the material world. Like a signal propagating through the axon and synaptic junction of a neuron, essence is passed from me to my surroundings in a conscious projection, a memetic phenotype, as opposed to a chemical signal. Just as that single brain cell, unconscious and benign on it's own, is a part of the totality of me because of it's ability to conduct the signals of my thoughts, the object is a part of me because of it's ability to conduct the essence that I imbue it with, utilizing it for my own devices in the same manner that the neuron was utilized for my thoughts.

It's going to be hard to give a summary reaction to that. What I claim is happening is as we gain new knowledge and experience, a hierarchy of knowledge and experience emerges. We call this higher level knowledge and experience also. Think of a 3 year old, a 13 year old, a 23 year old, a 43 year old, a 73 year old, a 103 year old. Same person at each of these ages. Each age doesn't simply add knowledge but adds how to deal with most all earlier stages in a compact and quick manner. (Allow a breakdown for the 103 year old if you will.)

(Insert this thought. Take the 23 year old. Can this 23 years old possibly imagine what his 43 year old self will know? We can't understand higher levels of emergence. Can't be done because higher levels are new and different.)

Now what is this "distinctness" of the mind from the body that suggests a duality? Well I would claim no such distinctness is necessary. Give me an example of experiencing such a distinctness. The 3 year old has little mind. The 13 year old is not developed. The 23 year old knows a lot more than the 13 year old.

Me-ness? What me? Our inner selves constantly jump from one thing to another just as we do when we dream. When we are awake our "self" reacts to immediate sensual input plus reflections on past experiences of essences. All this floats around in our consciousness and periphery. Where is this "me"? It moves as our brain moves.

Chemicals? But chemicals DO react. They do so with other chemicals. Think of H2 + O atoms. They react. But we react with them to feel wetness. So what's to stop us from higher levels than just wetness? Try thiis example. In the distance a form moves toward you. As it gets closer, a human shape emerges (quite literally). Suddenly you recognize the person. They enter your consciousness where there were only general human contours earlier. Three stage awareness occurred. This doesn't happen for a 3 month old. It takes experience and growth.

To go from neural synaptic connections to consciousness is way too big a hierarchy jump for understanding. Where are all those levels in between?!

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I don't recall how I put it, but I intended to use "scientific method" in a special sense. Not any formal science, but rather the practicing of the steps of scientific method. Accordingly a child learns from experience by practicing the scientific method. It begins with ignorance and "grows its essence." It does so by observation, taking in data, testing behavior accordingly, formulating a way to behave, failing and retesting until it comes up with behavior, thoughts and understanding it can incorporate into itself. It grows its essence. That's what I meant by "scientific method."

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Ok, I agree with this. The way in which we decide the essence to instill into an object comes from our experience with it. I simply think that experience is a better way to put it, even if much of our experience is gained using a slightly looser version of the scientific methodology.

I love the idea of calling it scientific method. But I realize lab scientists won't like it. Psychologists might. Philosophers may not have the credentials. But there is a bias in favor of using those two words toward the hard sciences. I don't wish to limit my view when a truth can be generalized.

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

Now to the atom. Science can't tell us what the atom is, but scientists using the scientific method can work on its essence and we relate to that and we relate in turn to what they say. We could call the result, "scientific atom essence #1." A child can read about that and call it "stupid" and form their own opinion. I call that, "child atom essence #2.) As the child grows, it may modify its opinion. As scientists grow, they can do likewise refining their previous essential opinions. The components of this "atom" still exist out there in time-space somehow but we don't know what they are.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

The scientific method can describe the properties of the atom, which can imply it's possible essence, but the essence of an atom itself is dependent on the observer. What the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or spectral ID, or periodicity of an atom means to me requires the input of these various properties of the atom, but their meaning to me, their essence comes only from myself.

I realize what those "Heisenbergers" are saying but don't have a good handle on it. Do they mean observing is like picking up marbles with thickmittens? That is, the act of observing messes up finely tuned things? Or do they mean a very fast and sensitive observer can't get position and direction at the same time even in theory? I almost get the picture but am missing the details.

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I read your beautiful thread. I think you've proposed a great Q. I'd wish to reconcile the intellectual with the intuitive you are speaking of but haven't put enough thought into it. Great issue.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

That thread was my attempt at reconciling it with myself, by means of bringing such large, abstract terms like 'light years' into a perspective that we are used to. Unfortunately, even this fails, because looking at the numbers, with all of their digits, they become just more abstract symbols that can't truly be comprehended. Only every once in a while, in deep thought about the vastness of existence, do I even skim the surface of a true comprehension, and it just about causes vertigo to even think about it. Some people will feel a sense of existential horror at the very notion of it, while I can't help but feel a sense of humbling awe and dazed wonder.

Looking at that thread is like doing drugs to me.

Are we saying the human mind can't take this in? Are we going to stand here defeated? This spacial issue is like the evolution-vast time issue. If we are going to be defeated physically, I'm not ready to give up mentally yet. Dangerous. As a kid I once listened to a mystery radio program where a character was thought to have discovered the secret of the universe. Next day the witness to this found the character and all traces of him had disappeared. Dangerous stuff I suppose.

[Starfruit M.E.]

As far as I am concerned, we just call things as we see them. Nothing made that a lion except that everyone decided to call that thing, with certain distinct characteristics, by that name. Once distinctions are made and the memory passes on, people continue to call things as they see them, just according to their own new mental organization of the thing. So, to us a lion is "a predatory cat that lives in Africa", just because we currently all understand what set of characteristics is being referenced by the term. The facts of the thing might change, but for now it is simply efficiency of language with limited knowledge. And since we cannot seem to achieve unlimited knowledge, we should be satisfied with doing the best we can.

[walfin]

Originally Posted by Starfruit M.E.

As far as I am concerned, we just call things as we see them. Nothing made that a lion except that everyone decided to call that thing, with certain distinct characteristics, by that name. Once distinctions are made and the memory passes on, people continue to call things as they see them, just according to their own new mental organization of the thing. So, to us a lion is "a predatory cat that lives in Africa", just because we currently all understand what set of characteristics is being referenced by the term. The facts of the thing might change, but for now it is simply efficiency of language with limited knowledge. And since we cannot seem to achieve unlimited knowledge, we should be satisfied with doing the best we can.

Umhm.

This problem does not arise with fuzzy logic.

Can something not be more atom than another?

Which came first, the lion or the word?

This is the problem with categorisation. If the categories were tags, and we understand that our understanding of anything is necessarily incomplete, we would not care about essence, or whether we are defining something by its properties or not. Something is more defined when more of its properties are more accurately known. If something is less well defined an operation on that thing may be less likely to produce the intended result.

If you replace every part of me, would I be me? That depends on the frame of reference. If you compare 2 closely spaced slices of time, I might be essentially the same. If you compare 2 widely spaced slices of time, I might be different. But I might still be more same (i.e. similar) than another person.

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I don't know if I have any methodology but I 'm always after clarifying what I already have tentatively in mind. That is, to fit new things into the old. Interesting you mention mathematical symbols as I would like that also. I didn't expect to mention that here, but I would use aRB to represent perspective. That is, an observer "a" has a certain relationship "R" to the object "b." b exists. There is essence in aRb. There is more to the essence surrounding b than just R, but a and R. Not sure how to work that out. Perhaps that can be worked at later.

Funny, I have always thought of attempting to 'mathematically quantify' the synthesis (ie relationship) of subjectivity and objectivity. I think I lack the mathematical prowess to do such a thing, though.

It's going to be hard to give a summary reaction to that. What I claim is happening is as we gain new knowledge and experience, a hierarchy of same emerges. We call this higher level knowledge and experience also. Think of a 3 year old, a 13 year old, a 23 year old, a 43 year old, a 73 year old, a 103 year old. Same person at each of these ages. Each age doesn't simply add knowledge but adds how to deal with all earlier stages in a succinct manner. (Allow a breakdown for the 103 year old if you will.)

(Insert this thought. Take the 23 year old. Can this 23 years old possibly imagine what his 43 year old self will know? We can't understand higher levels of emergence. Can't be done because higher levels are new and different.)

We can only imagine during our present what the past and future self will know or think. This is what I was getting at the 'presence to self' thread with the concept of the Y-axis. When we imagine our self in the past or future, those thoughts are occurring now, we are not actually projecting ourselves forward or backward, not are we actually taking the mindset of our self at any time but the present. This means that imagining of the self in the past or future will only be known through the context of the present - it's sort of like witnessing a chess game that is already in the middle of the game, where we can only infer what may have happened up that this point, or what might happen afterwords, in the context of how the board is arranged now. We can only infer about our own past and future based on the formation of our mind-brain unity in the present. We will experience these imaginings through our present sentient experience.

Now what is this "distinctness" of the mind from the body that suggests a duality? Well I would claim no such distinctness is necessary. Give me an example of experiencing such a distinctness. The 3 year old has little mind. The 13 year old is not developed. The 23 year old knows a lot more than the 13 year old.

While I agree with you, the dualist will probably argue that the knowledge the person receives through the course of time is either a) a revelation to the physical self via the "soul" or b) the physical body used as a conduit to "transfer" knowledge the self, soul, or 'me-ness' that is interpreting/controlling the physical self.

Me-ness? What me? Our inner selves constantly jump from one thing to another just as we do when we dream. When we are awake our "self" reacts to immediate sensual input plus reflections on past experiences of essences. All this floats around in our consciousness and periphery. Where is this "me"? It moves as our brain moves.

Chemicals? But chemicals DO react. They do so with other chemicals. Think of H2 + O atoms. They react. But we react with them to feel wetness. So what's to stop us from higher levels than just wetness? Try thiis example. In the distance a form moves toward you. As it gets closer, a human form emerges (quite literally). Suddenly you recognize the person. They enter your consciousness where there was only a general human form earlier. Three stages occurred. This doesn't occur for a 3 month old. It takes experience and growth.

I agree. This is the crux of the mind-body unity - to alter one is to alter the other, because they are one in the same. Using my magnet analogy, you can't make the N pole of it non-magnetic while preserving the S pole's magnetism, if you alter one aspect of the magnet it alters the whole thing.

I think the problem is that people think too linearly about it. Brain matter = non feeling; mind = feeling. Brain matter = doesn't 'experience'; mind = experiences. The conclusion they would draw is that "feeling and experience can't come from non-feeling and non-experience, therefore there has to be something made completely out of feeling and experience that resides within the physical brain". This is the top-down approach. My hypothesis is that the brains own emergent property, it's own epiphenomenon, is what's "residing" (for lack of a better word) within the brain. In this sense, a change to the brain is a change to the "me-ness" that 'resides' within it.

Off topic (because I'm a stickler for chemistry): you'll never get H2 and an O atom together, because Oxygen atoms are always in the molecular form. You would need 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

I realize what those "Heisenbergers" are saying but don't have a good handle on it. Do they mean observing is like picking up marbles with mittens (very crude). That is, the act of observing messes up finely tuned things? Or do they mean a very fast and sensitive observer can't get position and direction at the same time even in theory? I almost get the picture but am missing the details.

If the probability amplitude is spread out:



We can know the momentum of the particle, but not it's position (it's positions probability is spread out over a large distance).

But if the probability amplitude is 'collapsed':



We know it's position better (the higher amplitudes is where the particle is more likely to be) but we don't know it's momentum as accurately.

So, if
And
Then

With h being Planck's Constant.

[BigApplePi]

Quote:Originally Posted by BigApplePi
I don't know if I have any methodology but I 'm always after clarifying what I already have tentatively in mind. That is, to fit new things into the old. Interesting you mention mathematical symbols as I would like that also. I didn't expect to mention that here, but I would use aRB to represent perspective. That is, an observer "a" has a certain relationship "R" to the object "b." b exists. There is essence in aRb. There is more to the essence surrounding b than just R, but a and R. Not sure how to work that out. Perhaps that can be worked at later.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

Funny, I have always thought of attempting to 'mathematically quantify' the synthesis (ie relationship) of subjectivity and objectivity. I think I lack the mathematical prowess to do such a thing, though.

I have a degree in math but I don't know how it would help much here. (Feel free to ask.) I can go symbolic but need to know where it is we are coming from. Subjectivity and objectivity? Not sure how or if those terms need be matched up with existence and essence. Should we? Subjective is from my POV; objective is more of a social agreement as to how things are. Existence would go further but we can't see that objectivity. Is this language okay or is something else preferred?



Quote:Originally Posted by BigApplePi
It's going to be hard to give a summary reaction to that. What I claim is happening is as we gain new knowledge and experience, a hierarchy of same emerges. We call this higher level knowledge and experience also. Think of a 3 year old, a 13 year old, a 23 year old, a 43 year old, a 73 year old, a 103 year old. Same person at each of these ages. Each age doesn't simply add knowledge but adds how to deal with all earlier stages in a succinct manner. (Allow a breakdown for the 103 year old if you will.)

(Insert this thought. Take the 23 year old. Can this 23 years old possibly imagine what his 43 year old self will know? We can't understand higher levels of emergence. Can't be done because higher levels are new and different.)

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

We can only imagine during our present what the past and future self will know or think. This is what I was getting at the 'presence to self' thread with the concept of the Y-axis. When we imagine our self in the past or future, those thoughts are occurring now, we are not actually projecting ourselves forward or backward, not are we actually taking the mindset of our self at any time but the present. This means that imagining of the self in the past or future will only be known through the context of the present - it's sort of like witnessing a chess game that is already in the middle of the game, where we can only infer what may have happened up that this point, or what might happen afterwords, in the context of how the board is arranged now. We can only infer about our own past and future based on the formation of our mind-brain unity in the present. We will experience these imaginings through our present sentient experience.

I would see this differently. If we visited a chess game in the middle, that would be true. But we are not visitors. But actually recall much of the past. We are able to partly predict or control the future because we are not passive to the situation. (BTW I should return to that thread you mentioned.)




Quote:Originally Posted by BAP
Now what is this "distinctness" of the mind from the body that suggests a duality? Well I would claim no such distinctness is necessary. Give me an example of experiencing such a distinctness. The 3 year old has little mind. The 13 year old is not developed. The 23 year old knows a lot more than the 13 year old.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

While I agree with you, the dualist will probably argue that the knowledge the person receives through the course of time is either a) a revelation to the physical self via the "soul" or b) the physical body used as a conduit to "transfer" knowledge the self, soul, or 'me-ness' that is interpreting/ controlling the physical self.

Let's see what I can say to that. Perhaps there is no disagreement and it's just a matter of language. Perhaps the "soul" the dualist is talking about is the emergent experience and knowledge given to the body. While technically this "emergence" is based on prior component selves or experiences, it is new and therefore separate in the sense that the new is always separate from the old. When I look back on my foolishness of years ago I want to say, "That is not me. It is a separate self. I disown that self. He may belong to my same body (actually replaced by other cells) but he is a different "soul."

Spoiler:

Actually disowning my entire past self is not fair to that being. He went through the trials of checking out the way things go wrong and the wrong way to be and discarding them.

Quote:Originally Posted by BAP
Me-ness? What me? Our inner selves constantly jump from one thing to another just as we do when we dream. When we are awake our "self" reacts to immediate sensual input plus reflections on past experiences of essences. All this floats around in our consciousness and periphery. Where is this "me"? It moves as our brain moves.

Chemicals? But chemicals DO react. They do so with other chemicals. Think of H2 + O atoms. They react. But we react with them to feel wetness. So what's to stop us from higher levels than just wetness? Try thiis example. In the distance a form moves toward you. As it gets closer, a human form emerges (quite literally). Suddenly you recognize the person. They enter your consciousness where there was only a general human form earlier. Three stages occurred. This doesn't occur for a 3 month old. It takes experience and growth.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I agree. This is the crux of the mind-body unity - to alter one is to alter the other, because they are one in the same. Using my magnet analogy, you can't make the N pole of it non-magnetic while preserving the S pole's magnetism, if you alter one aspect of the magnet it alters the whole thing.

I think the problem is that people think too linearly about it. Brain matter = non feeling; mind = feeling. Brain matter = doesn't 'experience'; mind = experiences. The conclusion they would draw is that "feeling and experience can't come from non-feeling and non-experience, therefore there has to be something made completely out of feeling and experience that resides within the physical brain". This is the top-down approach. My hypothesis is that the brains own emergent property, it's own epiphenomenon, is what's "residing" (for lack of a better word) within the brain. In this sense, a change to the brain is a change to the "me-ness" that 'resides' within it.

Off topic (because I'm a stickler for chemistry): you'll never get H2 and an O atom together, because Oxygen atoms are always in the molecular form. You would need 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

I guess I was all wet with H2 and O. After this, I'll double up on those atoms.





Quote:Originally Posted by BAPi
I realize what those "Heisenbergers" are saying but don't have a good handle on it. Do they mean observing is like picking up marbles with mittens (very crude). That is, the act of observing messes up finely tuned things? Or do they mean a very fast and sensitive observer can't get position and direction at the same time even in theory? I almost get the picture but am missing the details.

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

If the probability amplitude is spread out:



We can know the momentum of the particle, but not it's position (it's positions probability is spread out over a large distance).

But if the probability amplitude is 'collapsed':



We know it's position better (the higher amplitudes is where the particle is more likely to be) but we don't know it's momentum as accurately.

So, if
And
Then

With h being Planck's Constant.

That sounds like a good start in nuclear physics. I'll note the formulii. Possbile for a new physics thread. Meanwhile I'm not conviced about this "probability" since I don't know what controls the action. Probability to me means we don't know. I'm not read up on this.

[Vatroslav]

My categorisation would surely be an essentialist. I think that the essence of a Lion is equally not expressible as my essence, and, of course, as a pure number one.

What is One? One apple? One lion? No, here we express the QUANTITY. But ONE... what is it? Can you say? You cannot give a pure definition. And you still calculate and calculate and think about maths and you even make use of it on practical objects and physical reality. (In case you do...)

The physics cannot define mass, nor energy, and we still can calculate and calculate precisely. So we have lasers, computers, communications, internet...

if transcendental is irrelevant and senseless... how come?

It is more about the Intuitive function then the Thinking one... But we are Intuitive Thinkers. Or are we?

There is nothing horrible in abstraction, and no need to verbalize everything...

[Agent Intellect]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I have a degree in math but I don't know how it would help much here. (Feel free to ask.) I can go symbolic but need to know where it is we are coming from. Subjectivity and objectivity? Not sure how or if those terms need be matched up with existence and essence. Should we? Subjective is from my POV; objective is more of a social agreement as to how things are. Existence would go further but we can't see that objectivity. Is this language okay or is something else prefer

(Sl+Su)^I+O(x,y,z)=Essence
R^2

Sl = Level of consciousness
Su = Sentient Self
I = Ingenuity
O = Object
(x,y,z) = The properties of the object
R = Distance from object

Where

C(Ac(a,b,c)+N(t))=Sl

C = Number of connections
A = Astrocyte population
(a,b,c) = Brain regions
N = Number of Neurons
t = Neurotransmitter conduction rate

And

Su = B(y,p,f,v,q)

y= (v+r+q)
p = f*(y/p)^(v+r)
f = (y+p)/(v+r+q)^-1
v = f*(p/y)^(r+q)
q = 1/(v+r)

Spoiler:

The point of the last one is that it makes no sense, because there's really no way to quantify sentience

I would see this differently. If we visited a chess game in the middle, that would be true. But we are not visitors. But actually recall much of the past. We are able to partly predict or control the future because we are not passive to the situation. (BTW I should return to that thread you mentioned.)

The point of the chess analogy was that, when we see it at a certain point, it's already setup the way that it is. We can imagine it setup in different ways, but we are only present to it's current formulation (just like we are only present to this point in time, even if we imagine ourselves in the past or future).

Let's see what I can say to that. Perhaps there is no disagreement and it's just a matter of language. Perhaps the "soul" the dualist is talking about is the emergent experience and knowledge given to the body. While technically this "emergence" is based on prior component selves or experiences, it is new and therefore separate in the sense that the new is always separate from the old. When I look back on my foolishness of years ago I want to say, "That is not me. It is a separate self. I disown that self. He may belong to my same body (actually replaced by other cells) but he is a different "soul."

Spoiler:

Actually disowning my entire past self is not fair to that being. He went through the trials of checking out the way things go wrong and the wrong way to be and discarding them.

I think when dualists think of the soul, they actually think of a self that is inhabiting (in the fashion of a demon possession) their physical body. The soul is one's existence on a 'spiritual dimension', and is one's way of being present to God.

That sounds like a good start in nuclear physics. I'll note the formulii. Possbile for a new physics thread. Meanwhile I'm not conviced about this "probability" since I don't know what controls the action. Probability to me means we don't know. I'm not read up on this.

Probability is the way the quantum world acts, whether one finds it intuitively satisfying or not.

Check out:

Double slit experiment.
Path Integral Formulation.
Copenhagen Interpretation and Schroedinger's Cat.
Wavefunctions and Atomic Orbitals.

Or, skim through all that and then watch the Richard Feynman lectures on Quantum Electrodynamics.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Vatroslav

What is One? One apple? One lion? No, here we express the QUANTITY. But ONE... what is it? Can you say? You cannot give a pure definition. And you still calculate and calculate and think about maths and you even make use of it on practical objects and physical reality.

There is nothing horrible in abstraction, and no need to verbalize everything...

I don't know about "one", but I'll try to define "unity" for you. This is what I remember:

If you start with a collection (set) of things and these things operate on each other generating something in that collection, then

Unity = that thing in the set which when it operates with anything else in the set gives back that anything.

Symbolically,
1 is the unity if a belongs to the set and 1 x a = a. Actually instead of "x", I should say 1 R a = a. R = relationship.

Guess what zero is!

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by walfin

If you replace every part of me, would I be me? That depends on the frame of reference. If you compare 2 closely spaced slices of time, I might be essentially the same. If you compare 2 widely spaced slices of time, I might be different. But I might still be more same (i.e. similar) than another person.

I believe Agent Intellect discussed this. Here is how I would say it:

There is common usage of words and there is how you would use a word. In the case of "different", that word requires definition if we can't agree on a common usage. That results in each to their own. Each of us decides how they want to define "different." In the case of "me" there was a search for what that means. I don't think we came of with a common and clear answer which leaves the answer open.

[Vatroslav]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

I don't know about "one", but I'll try to define "unity" for you. This is what I remember:

If you start with a collection (set) of things and these things operate on each other generating something in that collection, then

Unity = that thing in the set which when it operates with anything else in the set gives back that anything.

Symbolically,
1 is the unity if a belongs to the set and 1 x a = a. Actually instead of "x", I should say 1 R a = a. R = relationship.

Guess what zero is!

Is not number 1 only number that actually exists, and 0 its negation? (I don't use mathematical terminology, but you can translate it to that "language" if you want)

Every other number is multiplication or dividing of number 1. Pardon my philosophical approach if you don't like it... it is all matter of personal language we use... and I try to be as universal as I can.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Vatroslav

Is not number 1 only number that actually exists, and 0 its negation? (I don't use mathematical terminology, but you can translate it to that "language" if you want)

Every other number is multiplication or dividing of number 1. Pardon my philosophical approach if you don't like it... it is all matter of personal language we use... and I try to be as universal as I can.

No need for apology. Any idea may come up with something new. I don't quite follow you about zero being the negation of one. Do you mean all others number can be gotten from one but zero contributes nothing?

[Vatroslav]

Yes, in a way. As number one means essentially just that- one, so zero means absolutely nothing, an abstraction of nothingness. I'm considering the purest form of number, number itself, not representing value, quantity, degree. Which means, the minus scale is completely imaginary- there is NO minus scale, it's just something we need when we want to value or measure, it's completely relative but needed... actually, I consider zero as negation of ANYTHING. Which means, both "something" (1, or 1*n, or 1/n) and infinity as well. It is nothing in nothing.

[Vatroslav]

I mean- they say it's meaningless in algebra to divide a number with zero...but how then can be rational in any sense from NOTHING to subtract something, to get minus something?

Oh yes, and minus scale DOES exist in our number system. Not in binary one...(cause if I say that 1 and 0 are only numbers that exist, and are the basis of any number system, that means that binary system is only true one in highest abstraction!)

[Vatroslav]

I say all this to point out various perspectives on numbers... there is much relativity in mathematics itself...

[Agent Intellect]

I would say that "one" is the only thing that can exist as being-in-itself from an objective point of view. It requires consciousness to differentiate being into higher numbers. A single 'thing' does not exist contingent to other 'things' that exist. If I look at a beech, I see the accumulated epiphenomenon of the billions of grains of sand, where the phenomenon of beach only exists because of a conscious being observing the interactions of each grain of sand. The existence of every other grain of sand does not add to or take away from one individual grain of sand on an objective level.

In this way, numbers greater than one can almost be viewed as 'essence', since it requires a conscious being in order to apprehend the epiphenomenon of 'beach-ness'. If I say three people standing around talking, I can group it up however I please - two of them are in a group and one is by them self, or all three are in a group and any combination thereof. On an objective level, each of them is an individual (one) and the existence of the others do not add or take away from each other (from an objective point of view).

In this way, something like a table or a coffee cup is nothing more than the temporary close proximity of it's constituent particles in a three dimensional geometric form that we can subjectively and abstractly group together into a set that we designate "table" or "coffee cup". Our designation of their use or essence adds and removes nothing from these things - five billion years from now, their constituents will not preserve any essence.

There are ways for these things to interact with one another, via the laws of physics and chemistry (which we use mathematics to symbolize). It's only because of our interpretations that these interactions have values greater than one, though. It could be just as likely that the speed of light is considered "one", and when you think about that on a 4-momentum standard, everything is going the speed "one" just in different directions.

The interactions of particles create the epiphenomenon of the world that we see, but these interactions do not add to or take away from the particles themselves. All we are and all we see are the properties of these interactions, and the essence that we give to objects are our interactions with these objects - and they add and take away nothing from them. My differentiating the coffee cup from the table is not what makes the coffee cup and the table different from each other, it has not affected them at all.

Slightly off topic:

I'm interested, now though, if existence would be possible without properties. Or, if there could be properties divorced from an existence. For example, could there be such thing as a universe with no things inside of it - it's simply just empty space throughout the 'whole thing' - no energy, no matter (perhaps not even physical laws, just an empty existence)? Or, could there be "red", "smooth", "round", "soft" and so forth but not contingent on any existent object (perhaps all objects are is the properties that make them up)? Or could there be such thing as an object that has zero properties?

My hypothesis is that existence itself is contingent on it's properties, and it's properties are what make the universe exist. Maybe the 'fabric of spacetime' is merely the non-zero wavefunctions of every constituent particle, and in that way the particles are more or less "inside themselves" as opposed to inside a 'ground of being' - the big bang was simply the beginning of 4-momentum, when the probability amplitudes of the particles became spread out at a constant momentum (light speed) throughout some n-dimensional bulk.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Vatroslav

Yes, in a way. As number one means essentially just that- one, so zero means absolutely nothing, an abstraction of nothingness. I'm considering the purest form of number, number itself, not representing value, quantity, degree. Which means, the minus scale is completely imaginary- there is NO minus scale, it's just something we need when we want to value or measure, it's completely relative but needed... actually, I consider zero as negation of ANYTHING. Which means, both "something" (1, or 1*n, or 1/n) and infinity as well. It is nothing in nothing.

Before we give words to concepts, I'd like to see some description of the concept. Absolutely nothing is okay. I don't know what "number itself" means. That's not clear.

You may be describing concepts for which the words, "zero" and "one" are not normally used. Zero has a function in mathematics beyond absence of quantity. It is a place holder. If I start HERE, going to the right is positive, going left is negative. Zero is the starting point. No quantity is involved! One is just a term for how we start measuring quantity.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I would say that "one" is the only thing that can exist as being-in-itself from an objective point of view. It requires consciousness to differentiate being into higher numbers. A single 'thing' does not exist contingent to other 'things' that exist. If I look at a beech, I see the accumulated epiphenomenon of the billions of grains of sand, where the phenomenon of beach only exists because of a conscious being observing the interactions of each grain of sand. The existence of every other grain of sand does not add to or take away from one individual grain of sand on an objective level.

In this way, numbers greater than one can almost be viewed as 'essence', since it requires a conscious being in order to apprehend the epiphenomenon of 'beach-ness'. If I say three people standing around talking, I can group it up however I please - two of them are in a group and one is by them self, or all three are in a group and any combination thereof. On an objective level, each of them is an individual (one) and the existence of the others do not add or take away from each other (from an objective point of view).

In this way, something like a table or a coffee cup is nothing more than the temporary close proximity of it's constituent particles in a three dimensional geometric form that we can subjectively and abstractly group together into a set that we designate "table" or "coffee cup". Our designation of their use or essence adds and removes nothing from these things - five billion years from now, their constituents will not preserve any essence.

There are ways for these things to interact with one another, via the laws of physics and chemistry (which we use mathematics to symbolize). It's only because of our interpretations that these interactions have values greater than one, though. It could be just as likely that the speed of light is considered "one", and when you think about that on a 4-momentum standard, everything is going the speed "one" just in different directions.

The interactions of particles create the epiphenomenon of the world that we see, but these interactions do not add to or take away from the particles themselves. All we are and all we see are the properties of these interactions, and the essence that we give to objects are our interactions with these objects - and they add and take away nothing from them. My differentiating the coffee cup from the table is not what makes the coffee cup and the table different from each other, it has not affected them at all.

If one means "the thing in itself and not something else" that is okay. If we observe the essence of a beach, that is okay also. But I would also say there is the group of many grains of sand clinging to each other residing in a saucer shaped area even if we were not present. This shape would have no name. There would be multiple grains all somewhat alike even though no one is present to count them. The "beach" without a name would exist but not as we see it. By the same token the myriad of atoms composing a single grain of sand would exist. These atoms would be acting as atoms do but their accomplishment would have no name. Existence without essence. I would agree it takes an observer to witness this "sand" and "beach" and we call it sand essence and beach essence as we observe them.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Agent Intellect

I'm interested, now though, if existence would be possible without properties. Or, if there could be properties divorced from an existence. For example, could there be such thing as a universe with no things inside of it - it's simply just empty space throughout the 'whole thing' - no energy, no matter (perhaps not even physical laws, just an empty existence)? Or, could there be "red", "smooth", "round", "soft" and so forth but not contingent on any existent object (perhaps all objects are is the properties that make them up)? Or could there be such thing as an object that has zero properties?

My hypothesis is that existence itself is contingent on it's properties, and it's properties are what make the universe exist. Maybe the 'fabric of spacetime' is merely the non-zero wavefunctions of every constituent particle, and in that way the particles are more or less "inside themselves" as opposed to inside a 'ground of being' - the big bang was simply the beginning of 4-momentum, when the probability amplitudes of the particles became spread out at a constant momentum (light speed) throughout some n-dimensional bulk.

I would say we'd have to look at what is existing (without looking). What are we talking about?

A universe with nothing inside? We would have to identify the area. If we are to have a defined universe, then there must be boundaries. After all we are outside and such a universe is at least bounded by us.

Properties? What are properties? You mean like "smooth"? Smooth is an adjective. It modifies a noun. Smooth has to have something to be smooth about. I'm thinking "properties" are just arrangements of existing entities. But I'm wondering if there is a little chicken and egg here. That is, there has to be something to be arranged yet the existence of something means it is composed of something smaller which may not have a clear form that is arrangeable.

But then I have not yet read some links AI gave me in an earlier msg.

[Vatroslav]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

Before we give words to concepts, I'd like to see some description of the concept. Absolutely nothing is okay. I don't know what "number itself" means. That's not clear.

You may be describing concepts for which the words, "zero" and "one" are not normally used. Zero has a function in mathematics beyond absence of quantity. It is a place holder. If I start HERE, going to the right is positive, going left is negative. Zero is the starting point. No quantity is involved! One is just a term for how we start measuring quantity.

Hmm...indeed... but I'm talking about them as themself- with no application. Zero IS a place holder in carthesian coordinate system. But I'm not talking about analytical geometry...