Dear Brent,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 6:08 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/11/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Bruno, > > You wrote: > "AR provides the neutral monism! > Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as primitive. > Both emerge from the additive-multiplicative structure of arithmetic (AR), > and that structure provides the neutral stuff." > > Ontological neutrality is that there are no particular properties or > orders. > > > So there are things with no properties?? Or there are things with vague > and ambiguous properties? I've never heard of this "ontological > neutrality". Can you cite some references? > I am not considering "things" here, I am considering the ontological ground from which "things" are defined. Prof. Standish's Nothing, as discussed in his book* A theory of Nothing*, is a good example. > > > AR has a particular set of properties and an order, thus it cannot be > considered as neutral. It must includes all possibilities and orderings > equally. Numbers have particular properties and orders so how is it that > you can think of them as being a neutral monism? > > > Because "everything is arithmetic" IS neutral monism: > > "Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality > is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with > idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better > known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate > reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures > the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in > nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two." > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ > I like that reference, but do not agree with some of the definitions of words that it uses. For example, "reality" as it is used implies that there are degrees or level of reality, such that the notion of an "ultimate reality" is possible. This way of thinking assumes a separation between observers and what is observed such that the two somehow are completely independent of each other as classes or categories. This makes no sense. What is an observer that has nothing as its observations? Seriously! We should use the concept of ontological ground. Grundlagen. Foundation. Many philosophers have discussed the idea. Standish's Nothing is good. I would stay with it. Now, note the sentences: "What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is *neither mental nor physical*. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two." "...neither mental nor physical..." My claim is that arithmetic is mental and thus is not neutral. It has specific properties that a mind can distinguish. Given the inseparability of an observer from its observations or, better, what which it can distinguish it follows that all that a mind can distinguish falls under the umbrella class of Mental observations, thus we cannot claim that what which is capable of being distinguished mentally is a neutral class. AR is a form of Mental monism. It is not Neutral monism. > > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
