2012/12/8 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
> On 12/7/2012 6:01 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Fantastic links, specially the latter. I´ll read it.
> This is my standpoint now:
> First is necessary to define existence. My standpoint is that what
> exists is what the mind assumes that exist (because it is relevant) .
> Dear Alberto,
> But this makes existence subservient on the ability of a mind to
> apprehend what might exist. This is requires an explanation of how that
> could occur! How can a mind cause something to exist? I see this as
> conflating the notion of existence with the notion of definiteness of
> In my philosophy, I take *existence* as ontological primitive and
> completely divorsed of innate properties; it replaces 'substance' as the
> neutral 'bearer of of properties'. Existence is eternal, it cannot be
> created or destroyed. Properties are that which the mind selects as actual
> from the possible. If we demand that an entity's existence requires a
> priori properties, then I would stipulate that all possible properties are
> implied by bare existence.
> Dear Stephen:
...Here you express a belief that is coherent with my notion of existence.
Mine is historically called Realism, that is, what the mind aprehend is the
reality because apart from that, there is no other reality that we can
access. Phisical reality is part of this mind created reality. Your idea of
existence is also an instance
I take an operational approach from outside, and I said that the
ontological concepts are the ones in each individual mind shares with
others. Outside of that I can not imagine other notion of existence apart
from mathematical existence. Do men exist? This is because we have a
hardwired category for men. Do cars exists? yes because we have a hardwired
categories for man-made things, fast things, dangerous things and so on
that are used to construct the category of car.
Mathematical existence may be also a necessary consequence of the existence
of the mind.
I don´t fall into relativism, since the hard and soft architecture of the
human mind are the same in all men, and so the categorizations. There are
universal categories because there are universal feelings, worries and
problems. that humans have and we deal with them in similar ways. If not,
there would be no translation possible between languages, and the Arabs
would not like south-american soap-operas, as the relativist culturalists
used to believe.
> In this case, the process is what make the category. That something is
> a substance means that there are patterns in the processes that have a
> recognizable structure recognized as substantial. A processis composed of
> patterns, these patterns are categories or substances.
> Yes, Process defines categories. Substances, in my thinking, are
> collections of similar bundles of properties.
> That is unavoidable, because the mind has no infinite power neither the
> brain has a infinite quantity of connections, therefore it has to reuse
> functional components, some of which are hard wired. Metaphors are a sign
> of this re-usability: I can kill an insect, but a bacteria can kill me, I
> can "kill" a program...
> I disagree. The mind has infinite power but is contained such that it
> can only have extensions that are consistent with precedent. No 'new idea'
> or thought can be in logical conflict with previously held truths!
> Remember, a mind is not a fixed 'thing'!
> So a mind is not consistent with or is the efect-cause of the activity of
the brain? how a limited computer like the brain can have infinite power?.
At least it is quite slow for some tasks, if we compare with an ordinary
calculator. So some limitation apply to the mind, at least in the time
> In al these processes, the pattern is the same: something that existed
> before does not exit now because an active subject has acted to kill it.
> the category of killing has certain properties: it is nor reflexive, has
> a relation of order etc.
> Not in my thinking. Some new properties become known to be the case,
> thus a mind can evolve by gaining new knowledge. Existence is completely
> Sure, you can make subcategories. But for sure when you and a Yanomamo
think about the concept of "killing" for sure that both of you are thinking
about exactly the same concept and could compose phrases in which both of
you will agree.
> I can philosophize about the notion of killing, abstracted from the
> concrete situation . In the same way I can think about love, or reason, or
> any other category because they can applied to different processes but have
> certain patterns and properties that make them different one from the other
> and thus they are substantial. I can relate one category with other in the
> abstract, like for example: if you kill something, you don´t love it.
> I try to not base my philosophical mussing on reasonings that are so
> emotionally charged. You are in the area of etheics here, not ontology,
> The phrase is only an example. we theorize about abstract categories and
talk everyday about these things with friends (even the positivists
materialists) . To reduce serious thinking only to
materialistic-positivist-mathematicist concepts is like a group of
zoologists living in a zoo that no one care of, but everyone, every
morning go out to study the skyline of the city. This has disastrous
consequences, because we do not accept giants which, upon the shoulders of
them we can build a philosophy for living and acting socially!!!. This
alone explains the existence of a wild emotionalism in an age of supposed
> The categories may look ambiguous because they may be applied to very
> different processes for the sake of reusability and computational
> efficiency, (so they have subcategories) but in essence they can be
> rigorously defined in terms of category theory.
> But this makes categorization a field that the mind of an individual
> has a tyrannical rule over. I see categories as democratic, they are
> collections of mutual agreement and consent between entities, not captives
> to be commanded.
> this is emotionally charged and contradict your previous statement ;)
> The mere fact that I say I "killed the browser" without any conscious
> thinking and the fact that you understand it immediately without further
> concern means that categories are in the human mind, and therefore,
> configure the reality that we perceive.
> Umm, you might be bringing in ideas from semiotics and considering the
> problem of the signified. Please watch this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo (I presume that you can
> understand Spanish)
> To say that these abstract things do not exist is the
> nominalist-positivist- materialist standpoint that I see deeply flawed in
> philosophical, mathematical, computational, experiential and even
> materialistic and moral terms.
> I am weaving together ideas from both nominalism and universalism to
> overcome problems within each one (taken individually).
> 2012/12/7 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
>> On 12/7/2012 9:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>> "There are no "substances", there are only processes"
>> In terms of category theory, this is like
>> "there are no categoríes, there are only arrows!"
>> Dear Alberto,
>> Indeed! Have you studied a bit of N-Category
>> Any "object" is constructed from arrows of another level. What I am
>> claiming is that all of the properties that we define "substances" as can
>> be shown to be merely invariances in some collection of transformations. In
>> other words, there are no primitive substances, there are only processes.
>> Please read this article on the concept of Substance in philosophy to see
>> the ideas that I am considering:
>> The discussion of "substantivalism" in physics is particularly
>> interesting as seen here:
>> 2012/12/7 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
>>> On 12/7/2012 7:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>> I think that's just more materialist wishful thinking, because mind and
>>> are completely different substances, no matter what your philosophy or
>>> science, and cannot interact. The failure to solve the "hard problem"
>>> shows that.
>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]>
>>> Dear Roger,
>>> There are no "substances", there are only processes.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at