frosty77 wrote: Thinking things are different from singular things like rocks. A rock exists internally by functioning in a manner that makes the idea of "rock" . Notice that I said "idea" because that rock exists by inter-functioning with the circumstances of its existence in a system with its environment and other circumstances. A thinking thing does that too, but has a personal component whereas the personal existence can dictate various circumstances that a rock cannot.
I don't know what you mean by 'singluar' things really. A rock is only different from a thinking thing because of the way it operates - it's just a more complex thing.
If you define the personal self as dictating various circumstances then a flower would also fall under this definition, in the world of floweriness.
Assuming that the rock exist alone is merely an idea, not a fact.
Trying to get my head around this, but I can't. Can you go ahead and explain more?
Reply to quoting system: I am new to this forum and I really don't know exactly how to use this system. Please explain
Well you seem to be using it okay at the moment. Just remember that the first name stated at the top of the quote is the one who is being addressed. Quotes within quotes just relay the conversation.
Only_Humean wrote:How can your mind tell your hand to raise? What tells your mind to tell your hand to do so? And who tells whatever that is to tell your mind?
You raise your hand, or you don't. Or you try, but are prevented. No-one tells anyone anything.
Yeah man, that's a big part of my hardcore physicalist argument. It's like the separation of the doer from the deed thing; the brain is what what a person is, nothing 'tells' the mind to do act in certain ways. A quote from good ol' Neech' to demonstrate the point -
Nietzsche wrote: For just as the popular mind separates the lightning from its flash and takes the latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum behind the strong man, which was free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no "being" behind doing, effecting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction added to the deed—the deed is everything.
—"Good and Evil," "Good and Bad," §13