Quote:
Rhinoqulous wrote
[
This has what to do with my objections to you exactly? Maybe you should take a look at proposition 2 of chapter 3.
"The body cannot determine the mind to think, nor can the mind determine the body to motion or rest, or anything else (if there is anything else)."
Sorta puts a damper on your brilliant "proof", doesn't it?
|
And how about you actually read the next paragraph of the same proposition and chapter;
"
Note.--This is made more clear by what was said in the
note to II. vii., namely, that
mind and body are one and the same thing, conceived first under the attribute of thought, secondly, under the attribute of extension. Thus it follows that the order or concatenation of things is identical, whether nature be conceived under the one attribute or the other; consequently the order of states of activity and passivity in our body, is simultaneous in nature with the order of states of activity and passivity in the mind. The same conclusion is evident from the manner in which we proved
II. xii."
Quote:
|
Funny, I was thinking the same about you.
|
yawn
Quote:
|
Sorry, Spinoza was not a "dual" aspect monist (even if Wikipedia wrongly claims that he is). There are (necessarily) an infinite number of modes of existence under his metaphysics. "Mind" and "Matter" are just two of those modes. Besides, theories that show dualism as an aspect of language and not reality itself (such as Davidson's) are on much firmer ground. You need not assume the existence of some non-tangible mode-of-existence to explain (the descriptions of) mental phenomena.
|
You simply have not actually read his Ethics... and the part that you have read you did not understand.
Quote:
|
You're still avoiding all the other problems I brought up, such as logic being value-neutral (meaning you can't prove the existence of any "thing" through logic), the limitations of language, etc. Maybe an extra layer of tinfoil will help you in finding the answers.
|
I have responded to this... but I will do it in another way just for you (but try re-reading what I said to you because I won't repeat myself);
(Christopher Langan)
"God topologically contains the endomorphic points which descriptively contain God."
We have a tautology, which defines God on inclusion in the endomorphic points, which is itself defined on the predicate God. This reflects semantic duality, a logical equation of description and inclusion whereby perceiving or semantically describing an attribute of an object amounts to perceiving or describing the object's topological inclusion in the set or space dualistically corresponding to the predicate. According to semantic duality, the description of the attributeof God on the endomorphic points from within God makes God a self-defining predicate, which is analogous to a self-including set. An all-inclusive set, which is by definition self-inclusive as well, is called "the set of all sets".
We can infer that empirical proof will be mapped in, through, by, and of God.
(Christopher Langan)
"The description of God is mapped through the endomorphic points in God."
Endomorphism is a mathematical concept where an object is mapped through itself.