The Ontology of Language: What is a CONCEPT?

A concept is a process i.e. the activity of signals between the neurons in your brain to maintain the state of your thought. Your thought establishes a relation between objects.
A concept is a process i.e. the activity of signals between the neurons in your brain to maintain the state of your thought. Your thought establishes a relation between objects.
Abstract Concept - a relation of other concepts and objects.
Abstract Concept - a relation of other concepts and objects.

INTRODUCTION

Some people have a tough time understanding what a concept is and what constitutes its underlying ontology. Atheists and Mathematicians are particularly known to attribute mysticism, magic and supernatural powers to concepts. They believe that concepts such as ENERGY, MASS, TIME, FIELD and FORCE are some type of mystical incorporeal entities in the Universe; akin to invisible souls or spirits. They specifically ascribe motion to concepts and have them perform phenomena in the Universe, like coming in contact with stars, planets and people, or even swallowing astronauts and clocks. These folks CANNOT tell you what these alleged entities are; they can’t visualize them or even describe them for you. But they will fight tooth & nail to get you to BELIEVE that their alleged conceptual “entities” are real, exist out there in the Universe and they directly affect our daily lives.

Fortunately, most people do understand that concepts are nothing but thought processes which are mediated by the atoms of our brain. Concepts are the fundamental building blocks of not just words, but of our intelligence. Concepts necessarily imply MEANING. You cannot refer to or even use a concept in its proper context without an explicit understanding of what it associates. Without concepts it becomes impossible to invent words and tautological systems, to imagine and visualize objects or to understand anything at all. Everything we understand comes from concepts, and concepts only!

This article will explain in detail what a concept is, why concepts don’t exist, how concepts define words, build languages, facilitate understanding and why they are the basis of our intelligence and a measure of our IQ.




WHAT IS THOUGHT?

Thought is ultimately rooted in the atomic activity of our brain. Atoms interact with each other via surface-to surface contact and signal transmission. But from a higher level of abstraction that we can directly relate to our experience, thought results from a process of mental identification and association. This is exactly what we do even for the most basic of thoughts. Just try to think of anything and attempt to mentally account for the source of that thought. You will realize that you are inevitably identifying entities and associating them. This whole process you’ve just performed is what we call conceptualization. The resulting mental construct or association from this process is what we call thought, idea or concept.

The primary purpose of concepts is for cognition, not for communication, as is usually assumed. Communication is merely the application of utility, not the primary purpose of conception. Cognition precedes communication; obviously, because the necessary precondition of communication is that we understand something before we communicate it, not only with words, but with other methods. By associating entities into concepts, we are able to organize, classify and generalize complex thoughts into simpler and therefore more easily usable cognitive units that take less brain activity to process.

The primary utility of concepts is to allow intelligent beings to understand and communicate their cognitive units to each other. Concepts are therefore used to build languages and to provide beings with a system of cognitive classification and organization, which enables them to acquire intelligence on an unlimited scale.




WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING FOUNDATION OF A CONCEPT?

Unlike images that we can visualize of real standalone entities, concepts cannot be visualized as discrete entities. Why? Because they are the result of atomic activity in the brain, not of standalone entities in our environment. Concepts are associative, they relate objects, and only result from thought. They can only be thought about or referenced by means of the name we assign them. The name is what we call a “word”. Words are labels for concepts; they label the explicit association between objects so the specific association can be referenced as a whole during communication.

Concepts lighten the load on memory and enhance our ability to communicate. For example, at the airport when asked what you have in your suitcase, you never answer with a detailed list of items: 2 jackets, 3 pairs of shoes, 4 T-shirts, pants, the Bible, The God Delusion, magazines, documents, and so forth. More likely your answer will be "clothes" and "reading material". This is an example of how we can use concepts to abstract individual related entities into categories.

Without a doubt, concepts are the underlying basis of all our thought processes. They are rooted in our ability to form languages, communicate and comprehend not just words, but complex abstractions which are invented on a daily basis. All words are first and foremost concepts of language, known as: lexical concepts. Furthermore, all words have an intrinsic ontological basis that can be resolved and grouped into two distinct categories: OBJECTS or CONCEPTS. We rationally justify this ontological basis in detail later; but first, we must understand the foundation of the word “concept”. And to do so, we need to define for our readers some key terms, specifically: object and concept.

Since we are using the word “object” as a KEY TERM which underlies the basis of our whole discussion, we had better be able to unambiguously define this term which makes or breaks our argument, right? Otherwise, how will the reader understand in no uncertain terms what we mean by object?

Please visit the following article to understand what an object is:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-an-Object


Intelligent beings are a direct product of their environment. Even their thoughts are a direct product of their environment because anything they think about has a relative reference to something else in their environment. There is no thought that can be conceived by any being (human, alien or even God) that can be declared as absolute; i.e. not in relation to something within the context of their environment.

Consider for example, the concept ‘up’. The instant you think of it you automatically associate it with the concept ‘down’ in reference to a surface and an observer. Thinking of the concept ‘running’ automatically associates a being that performs this action on a surface. The point of this is to understand that we can’t even conceive of any concept or imagine anything without referencing associations between objects. Those who disagree or those who believe in “absolutes” are welcome to post their reasoned argument in the comments section. The instant you conceive of any thought/idea, you have automatically invoked a minimum of 2 objects with some type of association between them - whether you realized it or not. Absolutes are impossible to conceive (and that’s why there is NO absolute truth).




HOW DO WE DEFINE "CONCEPT"?

Concepts are the thought associations we establish with entities in our environment for the purposes of:


a) Ascribing meaning to these associations.

b) Facilitating understanding.

c) Applying utility to these associations (i.e. language, math, logic, technology, business, etc.)


Before we formulate a rational and unambiguous definition for ‘concept’ that can be used consistently, let’s get a basic impression at what some popular dictionaries have to say. Note that we will not use a dictionary or reference for the purposes of forcing it down people’s throats as an Argument from Authority. Only those who can’t understand and justify their definitions and arguments commit such fallacies, right?

Oxford Dictionary: An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities.”

Webster Dictionary: “An abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.”

The Free Dictionary: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.”


They are pretty much on the right track but they need to clean up their painful ambiguities (i.e. Fallacy of Equivocation) and eliminate synonyms (i.e. rhetoric) to make their definitions crisp, clear and to the point. Like Einstein said: even a bar maid should be able to understand our definitions. Dictionaries are written by English graduate students and usually list definitions in quick & loose ordinary speech with ambiguity, rhetoric and inconsistency. Obviously we need to come up with a rational definition which can be understood by anyone, even a shoe shine boy.

Looking at the key terms in the definitions above, we can understand that a concept is a thought process (i.e. idea) that is dependent upon establishing an association between objects (i.e. entities, instances, occurrences). This is unavoidable. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of an idea which does not have any associations (i.e. corresponds, generalizes, infers) with some objects. And of course this makes sense because as humans, our thoughts and our words are a direct product of our natural environment (i.e. reality/existence) which only consists of objects.

As an example, when we invented the concept “surfing”, this notion tacitly associated the objects ‘water’, ‘surfboard’ and ‘human’ in a dynamic relation. These three objects are directly inter-related because each performs its own specific activity to collectively mediate this phenomenon we call “surfing”. Even though it may not be readily apparent to us, this is how people invent words in all languages. As concepts, words are nothing more than relations between specific objects which will convey our intended meaning.

Now that we have a clear understanding of what a concept is we have all the ammunition required to rationally define ‘concept’ in no ambiguous terms.


Concept: A relation between two or more objects. (Synonym: idea, thought, notion, cogitation, conception, conceit)


REMEMBER: All words are lexical concepts. What they reference may either be an object or a concept. The concept is our fundamental unit of understanding as this is the only way we can give meaning to the syntactic labels of language we call “words”. Furthermore, the concept is the fundamental unit of intelligence, as discussed later.




ALL CONCEPTS ARE DEFINED

Without concepts there are no thoughts or words, much less language. Any form of cognition or communication becomes impossible. Even sign-language (arm/hand movements), smoke signals (smoke patterns), Morse Code (audible sequences), caveman grunts (audible sequences), etc. are all based on concepts (i.e. relations between objects).


Q: Other than concepts, what do all the various modes of communication have in common?

A: MEANING! All concepts necessarily have meaning that is derived from the explicit relationship between the invoked objects.


Without the conveyance of MEANING, what would be the purpose of words, sign-language, smoke signals, Morse Code, cavemen grunts, etc? Would we do this stuff to please the gods? If so, they must have meaning then; it is inescapable! Even the word “concept” has a meaning.

Believe it or not, there are proponents of the claim that words don’t have and should not have any meaning whatsoever. No, it’s not just the patients in the asylum....I am talking about actual folks who are out there advertizing their ignorance in society and on the Internet. They don’t realize it, but their position is self-refuting because they used “words” to convey their expressive desired meaning to us. They can’t have it both ways. Regardless, a concept without meaning is an oxymoron and those who perpetuate such nonsense are obviously morons. I see some people laughing, but please.... have some respect and political correctness for these simple-minded ignoramuses; nobody deserves to be ridiculed for no legitimate reason.


Since all concepts convey meaning, it goes without saying that concepts must be defined in no ambiguous terms. Words with multiple meanings are committing one of the Fallacies of Ambiguity, specifically, the Fallacy of Equivocation!


Sure, there are words which have acquired various meanings in ordinary speech, like the word “band”, for example. This is fine for ordinary speech and colloquialisms. But the proponent of a critically-reasoned argument is responsible for defining his key terms (which underlie his argument) in NO ambiguous terms – equivocation is not allowed. This means that his key terms must only have one defined meaning that is used consistently in the context of his own argument. Otherwise not even the author will understand what he is talking about if his terms have various irreconcilable meanings. Eliminating ambiguity is a very simple task. Laziness is no excuse in academics, right?

Definitions must be rational, clear, precise and to the point; i.e. they must fully capture what is conveyed by the concept they represent. They must capture, either explicitly or implicitly, all the relations between the objects associated by the concept in question. Only then will the definition be rational and unambiguous. Only then can one use it consistently in their critically-reasoned argument. As an example, look at the definition of the word “concept” above and compare it to the sloppy ambiguous definitions provided by most dictionaries. No wonder there has been a lot of confusion over what constitutes an object and a concept. No wonder Atheists and Mathematicians don’t understand what a concept is or whether concepts exist as standalone entities in reality.

When we don’t define words unambiguously we inject much confusion, if not mysticism into our imprecise meanings. This allows the proponent of an argument to play Double-Dutch with his intentionally loose key terms. His intentions are disingenuous. He aims to deceive, not to elucidate. He builds his argument with handy dualities used as sleights-of-hand to confuse you by pushing forward various irreconcilable positions in his argument. His goal is to persuade you to accept his argument from various points of entry. This is no different than what the Sophists did in Ancient Greece with their tricks of circular logic, dualities, contradictions, rhetoric, ambiguities/equivocation, reification, etc. Their aim was to confuse, deceive and persuade. Those who don’t define their key terms are using the same linguistic tricks, mental gymnastics and obfuscations to deceive you. Obviously, intellectual discussions will not be influenced by such circus shows.

Regardless of whether one’s usage of concepts is knowingly or inadvertently dishonest, they are forewarned that it will be extremely easy to expose all their sophistry in detail. These tricks are old news.....over 2500 years old!




WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING ONTOLOGY OF A CONCEPT?

Naturally, the critical reader will ask: What objects are responsible in mediating the relation of the lexical concept “concept” or of any other lexical concept in and of itself?

Since any lexical concept, like “concept”, is indeed a concept in and of itself, then it is a relation between objects. This whole abstraction of the underlying inter-related objects is what we collectively refer to as a CONCEPT. The concept is the referent (i.e. that which a word refers to) of the word unto itself. We say that such words fall into the category of ‘concepts’ as opposed to ‘objects’.

The objects that a lexical concept relates are what mediates the brain activity which we usually call THOUGHT. Specifically, the concept (i.e. mental thought) of any word ontologically relates the neurons in our brains and the mediation of signals between them. It is this synchronous motion of neurons (and ultimately atoms) which mediate this phenomenon or state in our brain that we call concept, idea, thought, etc. Since our definition of concept was rational and unambiguous, we were able to use it consistently onto itself without ambiguities or contradictions.




IS IT POSSIBLE FOR CONCEPTS TO EXIST?

Our environment is the Universe which is only comprised of objects that have standalone physical presence and are said to exist. Since a concept is an association between objects, it is crystal clear that it is impossible for associations or relations to be standalone entities. Hence, it is impossible for concepts to exist. The individual objects that are being related can be said to exist as long as they are not abstract (i.e. concepts). But it is impossible for a concept to exist because its ontological primacy is not that of discreteness; i.e. that of a standalone entity. Its ontological primacy is that of an action (verb); i.e. that of a process of inter-atomic signal transmission. Verbs don’t exist. Only objects exist; and it is objects that mediate verbs, right?

I mean, there are no concepts running around wreaking havoc or getting chased by dogs, right? And there are no concepts in the Universe grabbing the Earth and moving it around the Sun like a carousel, right? And there are no concepts acting like vacuum cleaners swallowing light, planets, astronauts and clocks; despite what some with a wild imagination will have you believe, right?

You see, neither God nor alien nor man can manufacture concepts. And they certainly don’t acquire length, width and height in zero-time and pop out of the void and into reality, right? Intelligent beings can only think of concepts, assign words to them, define them, understand and apply them.




SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR vs CONTEXTUAL GRAMMAR

Some folks may have forgotten the Syntactical and Contextual Grammar constructs of language they were taught in Grammar School. Sentences in linguistic grammars are context-sensitive and thus have two stages of grammatical verification: syntax and context. Once we verify that the syntax conforms to the syntactical rules of grammar, we ascribe meaning to the sentence using the analytical phase of contextual grammar.


1. SYNTACTICAL GRAMMAR - The initial parsing phase of sentential syntax that ensures sentences comply with the syntax rules of grammar; i.e. qualifying nouns with adjectives, verbs with adverbs, etc, etc.

2. CONTEXTUAL GRAMMAR - This final parsing phase of sentences renders comprehension by ascribing meaning to words and clauses while maintaining the contextual domain of their referents.


Despite these and other linguistic issues which underlie the primacy of our understanding of words and sentences, there are some out there who will vehemently oppose them:

“Dude, you sound just like my teacher. This semantic stuff is for educational purposes only. This is all unnecessary and pedantic grammatical problematizing. I am experienced enough to guarantee you that I KNOW how to interpret and understand anything. LOL, you’re such a tool.”


Hmmm....unnecessary and pedantic grammatical problematizing, huh?

a) Do you know how to interpret the Bible? If so, why haven’t you enlightened the 30,000+ sects of Christian denominations out there who still haven’t resolved the issue?

b) Do you know how to interpret the many theories of truth? After 3000 years, Philosophers are still arguing on what truth is. Can you enlighten them on the correct theory?

c) Do you know how to interpret the 6 irreconcilable hypotheses of gravity (i.e. 0D gravitons, waves, warped space, force, field, energy)? Which is the correct one in reality?

d) Do you know how to interpret the proceedings of a murder trial and guarantee that sophistry or abuses in language will not persuade you as a member of the jury to put an innocent person behind bars? After all, don’t the members of the jury draw conclusions from their own personal interpretation of the statements presented?

e) Can you guarantee that every person out there will interpret statements in the EXACT SAME way as you?


Clearly, some people lack the ability to think and reason the ultra-basics. I didn’t know this opposition to reason was out there until I ran into these folks online. If they can’t even identify the self-refuting remarks in their own statements, would you trust these clowns to be the jury in YOUR murder trial if you ever get wrongfully accused? It really doesn’t take many of these clowns to lock you up forever....only one will do! But these lost souls underscore all the points in this article. I welcome such statements from clowns because they die at their point of conception. Their bellyaching is not an argument.

The critical issue with grammar and language is that of comprehension. Some will make wild claims that they don’t need to understand words, definitions and grammar in order to understand a sentence or to even write a Physics article. Isn’t that a self-refuting statement? Without clear and precise language there is no understanding to be had, even for the author of the argument. It is the proper use of concepts in grammar which allow us to present the proper context of our argument before the audience. Purposeful abuses in language have only one purpose: to deceive. Don’t whine and complain that you don’t understand your own argument when cornered. Clean up your linguistic failures and it will be crystal clear to you.

In the sections that follow we explore how to evaluate the “referent” of a concept for the purposes of determining its ontological usage in a sentence.




WORD ONTOLOGY: ALL WORDS RESOLVE TO EITHER AN OBJECT OR A CONCEPT

All words can be grouped into two distinct categories by way of their resolved ontology: OBJECTS or CONCEPTS. But how do we accomplish this?


Q: Since all words are first and foremost lexical concepts, how do we reference a rock in our sentences? Wouldn’t the rock be a concept?

A: No! This issue is resolved objectively by way of ontology. Opinion plays no role here. It is the ontology of the referent (i.e. that which a word refers to) which determines whether the word in question will be categorized as either an object or a concept.


The word “rock”, in and of itself, is obviously a lexical concept. We already explained previously that atomic brain activity is the referent of any lexical concept, like “concept” or “rock”; i.e. the referent is a verb or process (i.e. a concept!) That’s why all words are concepts in and of themselves. And this is what our brain does when we parse a sentence from a syntactical point of view, as sentential syntax strictly deals with concepts. But we don’t derive the meaning of words and sentences from syntax. Surely, there must be objects out there like rocks, planets and stars which are not just petty linguistic syntax of our brain activity. These are objects which must have their own physical presence because they exist, right?

Of course, in order to consistently resolve this issue we need to consider such words in their proper context. This means that we must evaluate the REFERENT of the word in question (i.e. “rock”) as this is what ultimately allows us to resolve its underlying ontological context. And this is exactly what we did previously when we evaluated the referent of the lexical concept “concept” as a process of atomic brain activity; i.e. a concept! But in our current case the referent of the word “rock” does not resolve to a concept or a process of brain activity. It specifically resolves to a standalone object.

Why?

Because all objects have shape! This is the only objective criterion which can be consistently used to determine whether the referent of a word is either an object or a concept (i.e. a relation or process). When we evaluate the word in question, we ask:


Q: “Does the Ontological Context of its Referent have shape?”

If so, then the word in question resolves to an object; otherwise it’s a concept. Since a rock (i.e. referent) has shape, then the word “rock” is placed in the category we call: OBJECTS.


Words in any language, even in God’s language will, without question, fall in one of two categories: OBJECT or CONCEPT. There is no other option, ever!

Why?

Because shape is the only objective (i.e. observer-independent) property that can be used to distinguish between objects and concepts by way of their ontology. There is no other property which is intrinsic to the object itself. Any other word you can imagine which doesn’t fall in the category of object is a concept because concepts specifically refer to the process of brain activity; i.e. the state or phenomenon we call “thought”. Hence concepts are not standalone entities in reality. The Moon was an object with shape before any being evolved to sense it and give an opinion on the issue. Hence the Moon is a standalone entity independent of observers and their thoughts. Of course, there are those who will disagree and I welcome them in the comments section.

Linguistic grammars are context-sensitive and it is this Contextual Grammar phase of language which elucidates the context and meaning of words from the ontological context of their referent. We use the Ontological Context of the Referent to OBJECTIVELY resolve whether a word can be classified as either an ‘object’ or a ‘concept’. Opinion or guessing plays no role here.

Whether you realize it or not, you are mentally performing this contextual phase of grammar each time you read and parse a sentence. This is how you are able to place all words and phrases in their proper context and extract the intended meaning of a sentence. If the meaning is ambiguous or not what the author intended, then it’s the author’s job to remedy these issues and convey the meaning he originally intended. This is not the job of the audience, right? Evaluating the Ontological Context of the Referents is the only objective method by which the author can guarantee his sentences to be free from ambiguities of ontology.

In the following section we will explore the construct of Contextual Grammar with an example and explain how to avoid the pitfall of the Fallacy of Reification.




FALLACY OF REIFICATION: CONVERTING CONCEPTS INTO OBJECTS

Most of the confusion we have with words revolves around maintaining the proper context of our concepts when ascribing meaning to a sentence. Some are oblivious to this phase of contextual grammar when ascribing verbs to syntactical nouns that are pure concepts. They sometimes unwittingly convert a CONCEPT to an OBJECT; thus making the sentence irrational. Since we use concepts to extract meaning within the scope of a sentence, we must be prudent of contextual consistency to avoid this common pitfall of language: Fallacy of Reification. Those who fall victim to this fallacy don’t understand the difference between a noun of Syntactical Grammar and a noun of Contextual Grammar. The difference may not only be huge, but also fatal to your sentences.

Reification is the irrational conversion of a concept into an object. For example, the conversion of the concept of “love” into an alleged entity which can move mountains is irrational and most certainly, impossible!


Consider the following sentence: “After the contractor received his payment, his obligation flew out the window.”


1. In syntactical grammar, the word ‘obligation’ is a NOUN OF SYNTAX, only. As a noun of syntax it is a concept because the syntactical-correctness phase of grammar deals exclusively with concepts. There is no contextual resolution here.

2. In contextual grammar, the word ‘obligation’ does not convey the meaning of a noun. It conveys the meaning of a VERB; i.e. the course of action which the contractor is legally bound to. This means that ‘obligation’ can no longer be treated as a noun, as we are past the syntactical-correctness phase. In the final, contextual phase of grammar, ‘obligation’ explicitly refers to an action (i.e. concept) which must be performed by the contractor. This is what is expected of the contractor in reality - his course of action. There is no noun of reality called ‘obligation’ which literally emanates from the contractor and flies out the window, right?


The above sentence is using ORDINARY SPEECH to figuratively tell us that after the contractor was paid, he ceased to abide by his ‘obligation’ (i.e. verb). This sentence cannot be taken literally because it applies the verb (flew) to the concept (obligation). Concepts don’t fly like birds. In fact, concepts do not exist, so you cannot ascribe motion to them as it doesn’t make sense.

The sentence is NOT telling us that the syntactical noun ‘obligation’ magically transformed (i.e. reification) into a noun of reality (i.e. object) and literally flew out the window, like a bird flies out the window. During the contextual grammar phase, the ontological context of the referent of the word ‘obligation’ resolves to a concept, not an object. Nobody in their right mind would convert the concept ‘obligation’ to an object (noun of reality) and ascribe motion to it. Obviously, sentences which literally ascribe motion to concepts are irrational. But there are people out there making these hasty mistakes without even realizing it because they don’t understand the object vs concept ontology of the referent.

The point of all this is to prevent our sentences from erroneously introducing magical “spirits” (i.e. concepts) into reality when it is impossible for them to be there. Reality (i.e. existence) is comprised of objects which exist. In Contextual Grammar they are known as the “nouns of reality”. All the nouns of reality are unequivocally, objects! Objects are the mediators which perform actions unto other objects; i.e. “the bulldozer moved the mountain”: objects (bulldozer, mountain), concept (moved). The concept “love” cannot move a mountain. There are no concepts in reality. Concepts do not exist. Not even God Almighty can make them exist, much less a sentence which ascribes motion to them.




WHAT IS AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT?

An abstract concept is a higher-order concept which encompasses an underlying relation of objects and concepts in perhaps a nested, hierarchical or other type of pre-defined association.


Q: Why do we need such complexities as abstract concepts?

A: Because they are useful for invoking ideas such as categories, hierarchies, links, sets, schemas, axioms, etc. for the purposes of generalizing, establishing complex relationships and solving problems in tautological domains. They are widely used in applications such organizational-type disciplines, mathematics, logic, technology, medicine, engineering, computer science, etc.


Abstraction is a method of expanding a being’s intelligence by reducing the number of entities the being needs to associate (and memorize) in order to convey more complex ideas and meanings. It is essentially a systematic means to an unlimited integration of cognitive data into our memory. By implementing abstract concepts we can represent condensations of knowledge and understanding. They facilitate quicker understanding by reducing cognitive labor through the process of abstraction.

As stated previously, our thoughts and our words are the product of our environment. But they can also be the product of abstract concepts, like the many tautologies that we invent. For example, we invented the concept “infer” to be used in the context of abstract concepts such as logic and mathematics. In this case, the concept “infer” relates a set of premises (abstract concept) to a person (object) who performs the action of inferring (verb/concept) a conclusion (abstract concept).

As another example, we can conceive of the abstract concept called “musical instrument” which relates the concepts “wind instrument” (flute, trumpet) and “string instrument” (guitar, violin), each of which is a relation between the specified objects.




HOW DO INTELLIGENT BEINGS USE CONCEPTS TO DEVELOP LANGUAGE?

All intelligent beings in the Universe invent their language directly from the bounty of their natural environment. As we explained earlier, any grunt, sign-language, smoke signal or word they utter will necessarily associate at least 2 objects from their environment. Only objects exist in the Universe because only objects can possibly have physical presence.

Whenever intelligent beings evolve in the Universe and become more sophisticated (i.e. begin to communicate ideas to each other) they develop languages. How do they go about doing this? In two simple steps:


1) They first look at all the objects in nature, point to them and utter a word to name them. Remember, this is exactly how it was done in Biblical Times when God brought the animals before Adam who pointed at each animal and gave it a name for the record:

Genesis 2:19-20 “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”

Looks like God is a rational guy. I mean, even God realizes that objects can only be named....NOT defined! Yep, the old man knows that it is impossible to define an object because it is a standalone entity - it has no meaning in and of itself. Those who disagree will have to explain how objects have otherwise acquired intrinsic self-meanings. Was it from God? These folks are unwittingly making the same argument that Banana-Man Ray Comfort made: God made the banana with meaning for us; i.e. to conveniently fit into our hand and into our mouth. It even has a protective wrapper to keep it fresh!


Q: So where do we get meaning from? What is it exactly that gives meaning to words if not individual objects?

A: A word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, whose meaning consists of the associations we establish with objects. Standalone entities have no way of giving meaning to the words which reference them. Words like “rock” resolve to a referent which explicitly has the ontology of a standalone object. Meaning is only obtained by associating at least 2 objects in a relation that is defined for its applicability to some purposeful utility.


2) After we name the entities of our environment we have a collection of objects that can be used as referents in our sentences. For example: In the sentence “The ball fell to the floor”, the words “ball” and “floor” are referents to objects in our environment.

Furthermore, these objects of our environment are also used in associations which explicitly define and provide some intended meaning, like a type of motion. In the above example, the word “fell” is a dynamic concept which describes and gives meaning to the relation between 2 objects, specifically, the motion between the ball and the floor. It is impossible to define the word “fell” without associating at least 2 objects. For example, you CANNOT define “fell” by simply referencing the ball by itself without any other relation. You cannot even imagine a lone ball falling in a Universe that is comprised of a single lonely ball. Even the dynamic concepts of energy, mass, time, field or force cannot even be imagined or conceptualized on a lonely object. Not even God Almighty can conceptualize them! Now you should be able to understand exactly why ENERGY, MASS, TIME, FIELD and FORCE do not exist, they never have....and they never will. It is Atheists & Mathematicians who believe these wordsto represent incorporeal entities akin to invisible spirits. Why? Because they don't understand the difference between an object and a concept!

During our initial conception of these associations between the objects in question, we can easily visualize how we link objects and how they relate to each other as a whole, in order to provide the intended meaning to our concept. This is how each and every concept is conceived and defined. There are no exceptions. Learning to speak does not consist of memorizing sounds. This is what a parrot learns to “speak”; just sounds. Learning consists of grasping meanings by associating the referents of words, i.e., the objects that words denote in reality. This is how we understand words and learn their proper usage in sentences.


And that’s how we’ve built languages and other systems of thought, like mathematics, logic, the legal system, governments, societies, etc. All words from every languages are concepts i.e. relations between 2 or more objects. For example...husband & wife are concepts (relations between 2 humans, like Adam & Eve). Running is a concept (a relation between the legs of a living being and the ground).

We invent new concepts every single day because of our necessity to evolve our society, education, technology, etc. Without question, this is exactly what any intelligent species does. They invent new concepts, define them unambiguously, and apply them toward the communication of new ideas or for solving problems in some domain of utility.

NOTE: Meaning is what WE explicitly define in the relation within each concept. Concepts don’t magically self-acquire meaning nor are they devoid of meaning, despite what some people will have you believe.




CONCEPTS ARE THE UNDERLYING BASIS OF OUR INTELLIGENCE

It is inescapable....you cannot understand or communicate anything without first performing the following 3 steps:

1) Conceiving of concepts.

2) Understanding their definition and what they associate.

3) Understanding how to apply them in their proper context.


This is the underling basis of our intelligence, concepts! Without objects....and without associations between them....we have no concepts....and no words! This means that the concept is our fundamental unit of intelligence. And indeed, you will find that this is exactly what an IQ test measures and scores you on: how many concepts you understand well enough to utilize in solving problems within a given time. That is all there is to an IQ test. There is no magic, mysticism or prestige. Are you not satisfied with your IQ score of 100? No problem....just study up on your concepts, practise solving problems and you can score 190+ if you are so inclined. There are no God-gifted geniuses or super-intelligent beings out there.

Please visit the following article for a detailed analysis of the concept of intelligence:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-INTELLIGENCE-Is-Intellect-LIMITED-or-UNLIMITED




CONCLUSION

Concepts are your friends, so be nice to them: If you use them as KEY TERMS in your arguments, do them justice and unambiguously define them. Don’t wait for a member of the audience to showcase your contradictions and ridicule you. This is the only way you can demonstrate to the audience that you are smart enough to understand your own argument. Otherwise you have committed the Fallacy of Equivocation!

Don’t ascribe verbs to objects otherwise you have committed the Fallacy of Reification! Ensure that you always resolve the Ontological Context of the Referent.

It goes without saying that nobody can argue against the importance of consistency in concepts, definitions, semantics, grammar and contextual meaning. Those who disagree are declaring war against language, human understanding and rationality. But they are welcomed wholeheartedly to post in the comments section a rational justification for their position. If they cannot justify their venom, then they are merely protesting against rationality because it destroys their Religion.

More by this Author


Comments 137 comments

monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Awesome sauce, Fatfist!

Now anyone can point at the point on their head and say pointedly, point!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Once we understand where all words come from and WHY they have meanings.....all Religions collapse like a house of cards: absolutes, energy, time, mass, force, field, foton, singularity, black hole, white hole, warped space, quantum fluctuations, and other spirits and souls.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Can't a concept also resolve to two or more (other) concepts?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

SOL,

That would be an abstract concept. But at the end of that whole nested chain, you are left with some relation between 2 or more objects.

Remember: there are no standalone concepts. A concept is conceived from associating the objects of our environment. This is the ontology of a concept....an association/relation....not a standalone entity.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Let me parse this one out a bit so I'm with you...

Object: that with shape

Concept: relation of objects

Abstract concept: relation of concepts

I'm now trying to think of an abstract concept so I can write out an example all the way down from abstract concept through to concepts through to objects.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Musical instrument is an abstract concept. So is furniture.


puella 4 years ago

how does a metaphor plays in with "noun of syntax" and why do you have to be so convoluted when simpler is easier than not...;(

what do you think of this an e.e. cummings poem:

i carry your heart with me

i carry your heart with me(i carry it in

my heart)i am never without it(anywhere

i go you go,my dear; and whatever is done

by only me is your doing,my darling)

i fear

no fate(for you are my fate,my sweet)i want

no world(for beautiful you are my world,my true)

and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant

and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows

(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud

and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;which grows

higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)

and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart(i carry it in my heart)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

"how does a metaphor plays in with "noun of syntax"

Syntactical grammar is ok with metaphors. Contextual isn't. "Love moves mountains" is syntactically correct, but contextually fails reality. In reality, concepts are not qualified by verbs, only objects are.

"why do you have to be so convoluted "

I may need an exorcism!


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

I gone dun made a hub about the CONCEPT of space. Let me know if it's crap.

But yes you do need an exorcism, Fattie. But as a trained Space Shaman, I strongly recommend 3 Tequila Slammers followed by 5 Jager Bombs. That should viciously eject any sobriety daemons haunting you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

SOL, yes I read it. Good job!


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Thanks, you were a big inspiration for my interest in philosophy and science thanks to your well-written, detailed articles.

Mine are more simplistic but I'll try to cover more niche areas in future. I may reference some of your material from time to time.

I'd like to work on a glossary actually, with the help of yourself and your followers. A reference hub with a list of key terms.

Also I'll be breaking down some atheist arguments, like The Amazing Atheist and Stefan Molyneux, etc.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

SOL,

You are just starting out so the road may be a little rough, as it was for me when I started out. But you will hone your skills with each hub and they will get better with time. A glossary of terms will be a good idea, but you will need to be able to defend them against trolls who will nitpick at irrelevancies because your terms destroy their precious Religion. Thank you very much for your kind words. I am glad you've found my articles useful and inspiring. If you would like to join the Rational Science fb group, please come by and we'll let you in. Lots of interesting discussions and fights there ;-)


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Oh thanks, but I'm stubbornly holding out against Facebook!

Thanks for the writing advice; will definitely keep that in mind. I'm getting used to the troll attacks now, after a while I've noticed the same trolley patterns repeating in their 'criticisms'!


Bill Allen 4 years ago

all right, let's take it line by line, shall we?

"Some people have a tough time understanding what a concept is and what constitutes its underlying ontology. "--this first line is true, as evidenced by the constant circular evasions posted by jake and fatfist, and the sadly distorted reality suggested by paul.

"Atheists and Mathematicians are particularly known to attribute mysticism, magic and supernatural powers to concepts. "--this sentence is a falsehood, or fabrication. it is a strawman, trying to discredit the views of atheists by accusing them of being 'supernatural' or 'magic', since such concepts are anathema to the atheist...basically, it's meant to insult, not inform, and is an irrelevant bit of bias that distracts from the main issue. this is the first piece of complete bullshit in the article, the first of many examples of this article's purpose to belittle others in the hopes that making others look inferior implies a superiority of the author exists, when the author is incapable of demonstrating any superiority on his own merits.

"They believe that concepts such as ENERGY, MASS, TIME, FIELD and FORCE are some type of mystical incorporeal entities in the Universe"--again, with the petty perjoratives....the author is incapable of understanding that there are things that do exist even if they are not 'objects'...that there exist things that have no physical form. the author would insist that mass does not exist, that gravity does not exist, that time does not exist....this is when the author slips into bullshit semantic games and this stops being a scientifically valid discussion. noncorporeal things can and do exist...but the author has no real understanding, he's stuck with this bizarre little cult-mind of his, the kind of cult mind that would lead someone to believe that water is not an object, but a concept, even though water has a physical presence.

" They specifically ascribe motion to concepts and have them perform phenomena in the Universe, like coming in contact with stars, planets and people, or even swallowing astronauts and clocks. "--this looks like more bizarre preaching, and seems like a pointless sentence altogether; we'll see if the author comes back to this and elaborates further, or if this is just another blind alley.

"These folks CANNOT tell you what these alleged entities are; they can’t visualize them or even describe them for you."--this, i think, is why the core of your whole outlook is complete bullshit: this rather insane absolutism the author, and his acolytes hold on to: if a hundred questions are asked, if even one answer is 'i don't know' then all previous answers are invalidated and automatically wrong. this is the same kind of stupid bullshit jake pulled recently on another thread: 'he didn't explain things', jake said, and i named the book, where the gent in question actually did explain things. 'yes but he didn't completely explain everything' came the reply...so the criterion these morons use is one of omniscience; if one does not have all the answers right now, one is completely wrong, and the parts that are right must be discarded instantly in favor of their religion (and let's ignore the fact that they do not have all the answers themselves....ask a question, you get an answer only half the time, the other half you get nothing but insults and evasions.)

now, apparently, the idea of 'invisible' is what troubles them....if it cant be 'visualized', it must not be real. magnetism is not real, gravity is not real, nothing is real but what we see...everything else is some kind of lie or deception, a smokescreen.

...and before i post part two, let me say one thing: Fatboy, when you talle someone to be patient, make it advice you are prepared to follow. your errors in your article, your fucked up excuse for 'scientific reasoning' or whatever bullshit label you are slapping on to justify that tripe, is so riddles wit herrors and misconceptions that a line-by-line analysis will take time to type out. so instead of waiting two minutes and assuming i have no response, take a moment ot consider how colossally fucked up you are, and that it will take quite a while to go through all your mistakes...the sum of your failiures will be revealed in its entirety, but you need to, as you advice others, Be patient.


Bill Allen 4 years ago

whay fatfist is an idiot, part 2:

"Fortunately, most people do understand that concepts are nothing but thought processes which are mediated by the atoms of our brain."--this one is half right; concepts are thought processes, but to say they are 'nothing but' thought processes reveals a sever limitation of cognitive awareness, either through intentionally choosing to be ignorant, or simply because of a lack of intellectual development.... maybe someday, the author will come to a greater understanding of his shortcomings, and will develop new, refined insights...

now, just to show that this is not some unbalanced bashing of the author, i'll point out that the rest of that paragraph, the one describing concept, is correct: the author got it right.

"The primary purpose of concepts is for cognition, not for communication, as is usually assumed...The primary utility of concepts is to allow intelligent beings to understand and communicate their cognitive units to each other."--this is just really poorly formed. the author explains that there is a difference between 'purpose' and 'utility'--though considering how often the jackass stresses the importance of clarity and precision on this forum, i am surprised that his explanation is so sloppy and vague; 'utility' and 'purpose' are concepts that often are synonymous--and i am left wondering if this is just the author's attempt to pretty up a few ideas of his without really having a solid grasp of the vocabulary necessary, or if this is intentionally misleading, in order to try to distract people by making a comment that looks but is not, quite, self contradictory...either way, it isn't properly constructed, and if the author ever reaches a point where he wishes ot discuss the issue, this is likely a reasonable point to begin: a definition of 'utility' and 'purpose', and an explanation of this sloppy, poorly worded paragraph.

"Unlike images that we can visualize of real standalone entities, concepts cannot be visualized as discrete entities."--this is a false statement. concepts can be visualized as discrete entities...it is true that the nature of such a visualization is different from the visualization of 'real' entities, but hten, the visualization of 'real' entities differs from each other. the visualization of 'sun' is different form the visualization of 'kitten'. the author wishes toi create some kind of arbitrary standard that separates one type of visualization from another, but his is where he starts to get a bit circular...if its real, it's real, but if it is not real, it's a concept. and that looks fine on the surface, but the failure lies when the author tries to reverse this reasoning: and make the assumption that all concepts are not real. some concepts are real, some concepts are not real; and (so far as i know) all objects are real...though i do not claim omniscience; there may well be an exception to that last bit.


Bill Allen 4 years ago

Part 3:

"... concepts cannot be visualized as discrete entities. Why? Because they are the result of atomic activity in the brain, not of standalone entities in our environment. "--so, here the author claims that a 'concept' is something that only exists as atomic activity within the brain...yet earlier, he named some things as concepts, such as 'mass'. now, i suppose it is possible that if there is no brain, nor observer looking at an object, then that object has no mass...but this would fly in the face of reason. something has mass only when it is observed by something. gravity (which is a force--another of those pesky 'concepts' from the intro) exists where mass is present. so gravity through the universe ought to fluctuate along with mass...this is, i think, the core of what is wrong with this article (and with some of the comments presented by the jackass society in this discussion thread)...there is either a third category that has not been named, or else the breakdown used of 'object' and 'concept' by the author is inaccurate, leading to erroneous groupings of certain things into categories where they do not fit.

now, the author's mistake probably lies with the assumption that a concept cannot represent a real thing (i am careful not to say 'object', since, according to the jackass and his followers, the term 'object' is reserved only for those things that have shape) or that a thing can exist without our having total and complete understanding of it. our understanding of gravity is currently incomplete. this does not mean gravity does not exist; it means our available knowledge of what gravity is does not fully exist. so we have concepts that have varying degrees of completeness, but the author holds on to his bizarre absolutism with the religious zeal of a catholic clutching his prayer beads....unless a thing is fully understood, then the understanding present is automatically nonexistent or false.

"All words are first and foremost concepts of language, known as: lexical concepts. Furthermore, all words have an intrinsic ontological basis that can be resolved and grouped into two distinct categories: OBJECTS or CONCEPTS."--this is where the thing starts to lose coherence, and where the comments in this thread give the author of the article an appearance of sanity: "words are concepts. concepts are either objects or concepts."--he's very good about specifying right here that there are 'lexical concepts' and there are 'concepts'. --this is where the twisting up begins....a couple different kinds of concepts in play here. first there is the kind of concept which is 'something in the head', then there is the kind of concept that is 'not an object'. the two are sometimes the same, but sometimes not. concepts like mass, and time, and gravity and energy are type 2 concepts, which are real whether or not a person is there to observe them and think about them. (though this thought loops us back to the beginning of this thread--or perhaps one of the other asinine threads on this subject--where we got lost in deciding if an object exists of no observer is there to see it. i'm still not clear on why the cult of the holy jackasses makes distinctions that exclude some things but not others....the selective application of specific criteria gives them the appearance of insanity, at times.)

"Otherwise, how will the reader understand in no uncertain terms what we mean by object?

Please visit the following article to understand what an object is:"--OK i'm not including the link to the article; this is beginning ot look like some bizarre recursion of the 'elephants all the way down' variety...first, fatboy says to discuss this, his article MUST be read. and in that article, fatboy says this other article MUST be read to even understand that article...is there a link in that article where we must read another to understand some other critical concept? i know that the desire to stir up traffic is strong, that fatboy is lonely and wants to feel like his other site is busy, but still, that's really sad.

"There is no thought that can be conceived by any being (human, alien or even God) that can be declared as absolute; i.e. not in relation to something within the context of their environment."--this part is fine (see, here i am, being fair-minded again), but the follow up dismissing absolutes in general seems flawed, considering the 'all or nothing' type of absolutist mentality expressed by the author. (a truth, an absolute, and an absolute truth are three separate things--concepts? objects? both? neither?--and the nonexistence of one of the three does not automatically negate the existence of the others.)


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Hahaha! Thanx! Here was one of my favorite lines:

"is so riddles wit herrors and misconceptions that a line-by-line analysis will take time to type out. so instead of waiting two minutes and assuming i have no response, take a moment ot consider how colossally fucked up you are, and that it will take quite a while to go through all your mistakes..."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bill Allen,

Thanks for coming by. But let me make a suggestion to you: Instead of posting only 10% content and 90% rants, raves, strawmen attacks, name-calling, bellyaches and your personal emotional drama......please concentrate on posting 90% content and only 10% of your aforementioned nonsense. I allow people to post what they want, but this is over the top. It’s hard for others to read thru your drivel to get to the meat of the issue.

“"Atheists and Mathematicians are particularly known to attribute mysticism, magic and supernatural powers to concepts. "--this sentence is a falsehood, or fabrication. it is a strawman, trying to discredit the views of atheists by accusing them of being 'supernatural' or 'magic', since such concepts are anathema to the atheist”

Discredit the views of atheists? Lol...atheism is based on BELIEF, just like theism. Atheism is a religion. In reality, if God exists, belief or lack thereof, will not make the Almighty disappear. And if God doesn't exist, belief will not make 'Him' appear. Belief has nothing to do with existence. Whether you 'believe' that your hand exists has no bearing on its independent existence. Whenever someone invokes the word 'exist' to make their case (e.g., atheists, theists, agnostics) they have knowingly or inadvertently crossed the line into Physics, the study of existence. It is the job of any rational individual to step in and explain to these 3 that they are talking in circles. And this is why they have been arguing for the past 2000 years without resolving their contradictions.

There is no difference between a theist, an atheist and an agnostic. All 3 are working under the same paradigm. The 3 believe in the existence, nonexistence, or that it’s not possible to know the existence/nonexistence of X. Some go even as far as saying that they can prove or disprove the existence of X.

The issue regarding God is NOT whether God exists, but whether it makes sense to say that you BELIEVE that God exists (or doesn't).

Similarly, the issue regarding atheism vs theism is NOT whether God exists (or not), but whether it makes sense to PROVE or produce EVIDENCE for or against the existence of X.

1. He who calls himself an atheist first claims that "atheism = he who does not believe in the existence of God".

2. So once it is established that belief has nothing to do with existence, the atheist changes his argument to protect his Religion, and now claims that "atheism = lack of belief in God". What he has done is remove the troublesome 'belief' factor by negating it, and now he thinks he solved the problem. Little does he know....

3. In Science, we don't say ‘lack of belief’ to get around the problem. We take the bull by the horns and deal with the God claim head on. Thus, issues of existence are resolved exclusively at the stage of the Scientific Method known as hypothesis.

4. In Science, we don't say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist." In Science, we say "Let us ASSUME that God exists". Now that the audience has taken the existence of God at face value, the presenter can proceed to explain his theory involving God; i.e. the Theory of Creation.

5. If the Theory of Creation is rational, God MAY indeed exist (it is possible). If it is irrational, then it is impossible for God to exist.

Again....it makes no sense to believe in the existence of X or to lack belief in it. Such petty reasoning is subjective and is divorced from reality. This is how a rational person explains why the CLAIM of God is self-refuting and impossible:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/God-Does-NOT-Exist

Sorry to destroy your Religion so easily, Bill.

“the author is incapable of understanding that there are things that do exist even if they are not 'objects'”

Oh, what do you mean by ‘object’ and ‘exist’ Bill? You thought you would throw words you don’t understand into the mix and attempt to pull a fast one on the audience? If you can’t define them (and we all know you can’t), just sit back and learn the basics (WHICH YOU WILL SELF-ADMIT TO LATER DOWN THIS POST...LOL!!!)

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

Exist: PHYSICAL PRESENCE (an object having location).

Does mass, energy, time, field, force have shape, Bill? If so, please post a link which illustrates them. You can’t!!! They are not object...they don’t exist – period!

See Bill, that’s why you are Religionist. That why YOU believe in spirits and souls.....because you don’t know the difference between an object and a concept.

“there exist things that have no physical form”

Oh, how do you know? Your God told you that incorporeal stuff exists, huh? Lol, go back on your Priest’s lap and ask him to explain.....don’t let him touch your private parts unless he explains first, ok?

What exists is what is real. Real is a synonym for exist. To be real, is to have physical presence....the ‘it’ has to be located somewhere in the Universe, otherwise it doesn’t exist. The ‘it’ has to be SOMETHING (i.e. object) rather than NOTHING (concept/incorporeal) as you blindly assert, got it?

“the author would insist that mass does not exist, that gravity does not exist, that time does not exist.”

Nothing to do with the author.....it has to do with reality!!! Mass is a concept invented by man. You need a minimum of 2 objects and an agreed upon standard kg voted by a show of hands by which to compare 2 objects relationally to determine how many of the kg-standards fit in the object. A single object is IMPOSSIBLE to have mass. Sorry!

Time is the metric of motion between a minimum of 3 objects: Earth, Sun and a counting device. A single object is IMPOSSIBLE to mediate time. Sorry!

And I’m not surprised how clowns like you don’t understand that gravity is an effect, a process of attraction. Gravity is a VERB, not a noun. Gravity is what a minimum of 2 objects do to each other. Please go to Grammar School and learn the difference between Syntactical and Contextual grammars (explained for FREE in this article).

“noncorporeal things can and do exist”

Lol, yes, YOUR God! See below.....LOL!

“" They specifically ascribe motion to concepts and have them perform phenomena in the Universe, like coming in contact with stars, planets and people, or even swallowing astronauts and clocks. "--this looks like more bizarre preaching, and seems like a pointless sentence altogether; we'll see if the author comes back to this and elaborates further, or if this is just another blind alley.”

Bill, don’t YOUR Priests preach in their Sermons that space (i.e. nothing) warps like a mattress......that light (an effect – verb) bends around stars......that time (concept) is stretched like your belly stretches your panties.......that a black hole (0D nothing) swallows astronauts and clocks???

Bill....I know it’s all fun and games and panty-twisting when you and your Religious friends have parties in your Monastery with your Priests. But the next time you are there, please tell your Priest to explain how ‘a’ concept (i.e. nothing) acquires motion and touches your privates. See....this is how your Priest keeps on molesting you.....he brainwashed you to believe that it was time & space that touched you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

“the kind of cult mind that would lead someone to believe that water is not an object, but a concept, even though water has a physical presence.”

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you hear what you said Bill??????

You said: PHYSICAL PRESENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You said: PHYSICAL PRESENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ha! This gets better as Bill has now UNDERSTANDS that only things with PHYSICAL PRESENCE can be real and exist. This clown has now contradicted himself.

Water exists because it has PHYSICAL PRESENCE --- water is an object (PHYSICAL) with location (PRESENCE). And like you said, only a CULT MIND LIKE BILL’S would lead someone to believe otherwise, like in the existence of incorporeal spirits and souls.

Bill.....I hope you don’t mind if the audience and I just pause here to get a good f***ing laugh from your ignorant ramblings. Okay everyone: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!! LOL.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bill Allen,

“this rather insane absolutism the author, “

Sorry, but I have to point out your obvious lying BS: absolutes are IMPOSSIBLE. Which part of IMPOSSIBLE are you having trouble understanding?

Nowhere in any of my articles do I ever endorse absolutes or absolutism. In fact....I have the only article in the history of humanity which explains in detail WHY absolutes are impossible. Here, educate yourself and rid your cult & religion:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are-...

“now, apparently, the idea of 'invisible' is what troubles them....if it can't be 'visualized', it must not be real. magnetism is not real, gravity is not real, nothing is real but what we see...everything else is some kind of lie or deception, a smokescreen.”

LOL, your ignorance gets even better. Just previously you said what is real is what has PHYSICAL PRESENCE.

Bill Allen: PHYSICAL PRESENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill, go to school. Magnetism, gravity, light, electricity are words which describe consummated events of natural phenomena. P H E N O M E N A, Bill....do you understand that much?? These words describe effects of nature. These words are VERBS/concepts i.e. relations between objects. These words do NOT resolve to an entity with PHYSICAL PRESENCE that can exist, as YOU said earlier. There are invisible mediators between the Earth and the ball which pull it to the ground when you let go of the ball. This is the EFFECT of gravity....a process...a concept....a VERB! The mediators between the Earth and the ball are objects. Learn the difference!

“concepts are thought processes, but to say they are 'nothing but' thought processes reveals a sever limitation of cognitive awareness, either through intentionally choosing to be ignorant, or simply because of a lack of intellectual development.... maybe someday, the author will come to a greater understanding of his shortcomings, and will develop new, refined insights.”

Oh, what are concepts then, Bill? Spiritual processes? Please elucidate to the audience these NEW REFINED INSIGHTS you allege...LOL. Fill in the blanks.

Concept:_________________

What a clown like you cannot reason is that thought is a VERB that is mediated by atomic activity in the brain. This is all there is in the brain....ATOMS, nothing else! No spirits no souls. Atomic activity is responsible for the conceptual effect we call concept-formation (i.e. thought). Conception and thought are synonyms. There is not a single thought in your brain which does not relate a minimum of 2 objects (i.e. a concept). If there is, you would have posted it here by now. And if you can, I promise to PayPal you $5000 USD.

"The primary purpose of concepts is for cognition, not for communication, as is usually assumed...The primary utility of concepts is to allow intelligent beings to understand and communicate their cognitive units to each other."--this is just really poorly formed. the author explains that there is a difference between 'purpose' and 'utility'”

Nope, this is YOUR strawman....after all, you need a straw puppet to stab to make your irrational non-points. If you take a course in Comprehension, you would understand that the key terms there are ‘cognition’ and ‘communication’.....not ‘purpose’ and ‘utility’. There was nothing for you to attack there, so you invented a lame ghost to stab to death. WOW! Breathtaking insight! And the ghost is not dead either. Why? There was no ghost to begin with...lol.

“i am left wondering if this is just the author's attempt to pretty up a few ideas of his without really having a solid grasp of the vocabulary necessary, or if this is intentionally misleading, in order to try and distract people”

Ha ha ha! Yes, it most certainly is, Bill. You just prettied up a few ideas about ‘purpose’ and ‘utility’ and used them to mislead the audience to think you had some miraculous point. Your petty strawmen are lame!

“a definition of 'utility' and 'purpose', “

Ordinary speech, Bill. These are not key terms. Ever heard of a dictionary?

“concepts can be visualized as discrete entities”

Oh, please tell the audience how a RELATION between objects is ‘a’ discrete entity. How can this ‘relation’ entity hit you over the head in the middle of the night? How does the concept of “love” like, a heart? What about “justice”, looks like Themis armed with a sword and balance scales? Is this what YOUR Priests do Bill, they attach a heart entity to the word “love”?

Wait....it gets even better...

“it is true that the nature of such a visualization is different from the visualization of 'real' entities,”

Great! Please visualize for the audience the concept of “absolute” and of “integrity” and illustrate them for us. A link online will do. If you can’t by your next post.....then you didn’t have the slightest what you said all along! You were just blowing smoke from your butt because you are Religionist (synonym for atheist) who believes in souls and spirits.

“the visualization of 'sun' is different form the visualization of 'kitten'. “

Duh, you think? I bet you gonna tell the audience next that the visualization of a tractor trailer is different than the visualization of your shoe, right? Wow! Where do you come up with such breathtaking knowledge? Your Church, perhaps? How can the audience gain insight into such incredible ingenuity as you and your Priests, huh?

And it gets better still.....

“and make the assumption that all concepts are not real”

Indeed, this is what you said previously: PHYSICAL PRESENCE!!!!!!

If it doesn’t have physical presence, then it does not exist; i.e. not real. Your words, Bill Allen.

“some concepts are real”

Nobody cares about ‘some’.....all the audience wants is just ONE....JUST ONE...got it, you ignorant fool???

So please.....name ONE concept which is real (i.e. exists) and please VISUALIZE it (like you claim) and then illustrate it for the audience so they can visualize it too. Please don’t keep this Godly knowledge to yourself. If you can’t do that by your next post, then let’s both agree that you are a numbskull, ok?

“some concepts are not real”

Whaaaaaaaaat?? Some??? Are you on crack cocaine, man?

No concept is real. No concept can possibly exist because it is not a standalone entity with shape and location. Like YOU said: IT MUST HAVE PHYSICAL PRESENCE to be real.

Do you enjoy eating your foot and refuting yourself with every statement? What did you think...that you were coming to a Tupperware Party?

“ and (so far as i know) all objects are real”

As YOU know? Who the f*** are you, Bill? My my my.....we think very highly or ourselves, don’t we, Mr. Bill Allen? An ideal cube is an object which is not real. You cannot show me an ideal cube with PHYSICAL PRESENCE as you agree to. A 2015 Corvette is an object but is not real....again, no PHYSICAL PRESENCE. Your ignorance is astounding!

The ultra-basics of thinking and language elude you, Bill Allen. Ask your mom and dad to get back together so they can pool their money to re-send you back to Junior Kindergarten, ok?

“though i do not claim omniscience; there may well be an exception to that last bit.”

Aha! Now it all fits into place. Bill Allen claims he may not be omniscient, but there may be an exception to that. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is a Religious Bigot with more arrogance than Yahweh. This clown is dogmatically asserting that he knows it all and the audience has no choice but to believe him.....even tho every single statement he has spewed has refuted itself. See....I told you that you are a Religionist, Bill.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bill Allen,

“.. concepts cannot be visualized as discrete entities. Why? Because they are the result of atomic activity in the brain, not of standalone entities in our environment. "--so, here the author claims that a 'concept' is something that only exists as atomic activity within the brain.”

Exists??? Lol, I never said that. Again, this is YOUR strawman puppet which you want to stab to death. Did you kill it, Bill?

Hey....ignoramus Bill Allen......I already told you before: atomic activity is an effect/phenomenon....a VERB which is mediated by objects we call atoms. The ‘effect’ (activity) does NOT exist....and YOU AGREED with this previously because you said: ONLY THINGS WITH PHYSICAL PRESENCE CAN EXIST!!

Exist: PHYSICAL PRESENCE

Lol, Remember???

“here is either a third category that has not been named, or else the breakdown used of 'object' and 'concept' by the author is inaccurate, leading to erroneous groupings of certain things into categories where they do not fit.”

Clearly, the breakdown is in YOUR intelligence. A fool like you with the intelligence of a potato doesn’t understand when he is contradicting himself with every sentence he utters. That’s correct, there is a THIRD CATEGORY: your ignorance!!!

The Universe embodies either SOMETHING (matter i.e. objects) or NOTHING (space i.e. concept). There is NO other option.....not now....not ever. Not even Bill’s God can magically invent another option. Matter has shape.....space & concepts lack shape. If Bill thinks there is a THIRD category, all he has to do is post it and I will PayPal him $10,000. And don’t give us some lame excuse like ....”Well, I don’t need your money, blah blah....” because not anyone on the planet is stupid enough to say that about money! It’s money that separates the little girls from the men....right, Bill?

“but the author holds on to his bizarre absolutism with the religious zeal of a catholic clutching his prayer beads”

Exactly!! Only an absolutist Religionist like YOU has the irrational zeal to assert that on one hand that... “concepts exist and can hit you over the head”....and simultaneously say on the other hand that....”only what has PHYSICAL PRESENCE can be real and exist”. I already asked this fool to show the audience the physical presence of the concept of “indoctrination” or of “love”. The audience wants to see these little critters for their own eyes before they believe Bills religious arrogance.

“unless a thing is fully understood, then the understanding present is automatically nonexistent or false.”

The Moon had PHYSICAL PRESENCE (object with location) before YOUR God created you, Bill. The Moon was already there and not understood by anyone. Obviously existence is only predicated on PHYSICAL PRESENCE like YOU said.....and not on anyone’s understanding. Reality is observer-independent.

“"words are concepts. concepts are either objects or concepts."--he's very good about specifying right here that there are 'lexical concepts' and there are 'concepts'. --this is where the twisting up begins....a couple different kinds of concepts in play here.”

Again, another lame strawman. All words are lexical concepts because they fall in the domain of language and specifically SYNTAX. This is just a grouping of terms for organizational purposes and for clear identification only. Yes, all words are concepts. But....some words RESOLVE to objects as explained in detail in the article with referents and such....go read with honesty this time.

“first there is the kind of concept which is 'something in the head',”

Indeed, this is what YOUR Ayn Rand Religion alleges: concepts can be MEASURED!!!

Q: How do we measure concepts, the audience asks?

A: The Randian responds: oh simple, we get a Priest to hold your head still. Another Priest comes to give you a trepanation with a 36V DeWalt drill. And the High Priest comes along to grab hold of that ‘concept’ which so desperately tries to escape from the hole in your head. Then he gets his tape measure and MEASURES THE CONCEPT.

What a clown you are, Bill. You believe that concepts are actual entities in your frickin’ head?????

“then there is the kind of concept that is 'not an object'.”

All concepts are NOT objects BY DEFINITION! What are you having trouble with? What will you tell us next....”Ummm, duh...there is a kind of tractor trailer that is NOT a dog!” Are you serious, man? Do you even understand what you write?

“concepts like mass, and time, and gravity and energy are type 2 concepts”

Invent more nonsense. There are NO type 2 concepts like Type 2 diabetes. There are only concepts.

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

We’re done!

“but the follow up dismissing absolutes in general seems flawed, considering the 'all or nothing' type of absolutist mentality expressed by the author. “

Sorry, but I have to point out your obvious lying BS: absolutes are IMPOSSIBLE. Which part of IMPOSSIBLE are you having trouble understanding?

Nowhere in any of my articles do I ever endorse absolutes or absolutism. In fact....I have the only article in the history of humanity which explains in detail WHY absolutes are impossible. Here, educate yourself and rid your cult & religion:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are-...

Absolutes are in your mentality, not mine. I suggest you resist getting handled by your Priest to remedy it, okay?

“(a truth, an absolute, and an absolute truth are three separate things--concepts? objects? both? neither?--and the nonexistence of one of the three does not automatically negate the existence of the others.)”

Like I said, read and learn:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are-...


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Trolls are coming thick and fast tonight.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bill Allen: “noncorporeal things can and do exist.”

Bill still hasn’t learned anything from his Pastor Dan Barker. At the 4:00 mark, Pastor Barker ridicules Bill Allen who believes in the existence of incorporeal spirits. Just watch how the audience laughs at the thought....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3dwUcI4ynQ

But what’s even funnier.....is that Bill knows that the definition of exist is “physical presence”, as he stated so in his own rebuttal.

Exist/real: Physical Presence

Bill thought he could pull this sleight-of-hand trick to fool the audience. By stating that INCORPOREAL spirits exist, Bill wants to play on both sides of the fence. He is using this DUALITY as a half-witted attempt to win every argument. Too bad it didn’t work out as he expected. Maybe David Huisjen can step in here and rescue his only begotten son.

Atheists believing in incorporeal magic..LOL.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Bill Allen: "whay fatfist is an idiot, part 2:

Bill Allen: "...and before i post part two, let me say one thing: Fatboy, when you ***talle*** someone to be patient, make it advice you are prepared to follow. your ERRORS in your article, your fucked up excuse for 'scientific reasoning' or whatever bullshit label you are slapping on to justify that tripe, is so riddles ***wit herrors*** and misconceptions that a line-by-line analysis will take time to type out. so instead of waiting two minutes and assuming i have no response, take a moment ***ot*** consider how colossally fucked up you are, and that it will take quite a while to go through all your mistakes...the sum of your ***failiures*** will be revealed in its entirety, but you need to, as you advice others, Be patient."

A fine example of arrogance putting its own foot in its mouth. Just let the clowns talk and they will always bury themselves. I just sit back and point their failures while they ridicule their own ignorant person.

The funny thing is.....this sorry excuse for a human spent about a WEEK typing up these responses, thinking he has some breathtaking colossal refutation to this article. And he even has the nerve to threaten me. Meanwhile, it only took me minutes to rip them to shreds. Standard responses no different than those I give to all the idiots coming here thinking they are High & Mighty.

Not only that....but this clown said he is writing PART 4, PART 5 and PART 6 continuations. After spending another week writing that diatribe, he will see how it instantly rips itself to shreds. He even said he will refute LINE-BY-LINE my other 20 hubs.

What makes this rodeo clown think that he can refute an article on CONCEPTS when he doesn’t even understand the difference between an ‘object’ and a ‘concept’? He can’t even define the terms.

1) No wonder he believes in incorporeal spirits.

2) No wonder he believes conceptions are more than just atomic activity. They must be SPIRITUAL activity.

3) No wonder he believes that concepts are actual entities living inside his head.....and drilling a hole will let them loose.

4) No wonder he claims to be able to SEE ‘a’ concept....like he sees a kitten. Seeing spirits is part of his Religion.

5) No wonder he claims there is a THIRD category besides objects & concepts....even tho he can’t even conceive its relation, name it or define it.

6) No wonder he believes in absolutes.

7) No wonder he believes that FORCE, MASS, TIME, ENERGY, FIELD are entities which exist in reality and whack him at the side of the head whenever he uses his God’s name in vain.

And what is one of Bill Allen’s most breathtaking statements which refute this article?

Get ready....here it comes: THE SUN IS DIFFERENT THAN A KITTEN!

No shit.....just read his posts. I am not making up this stuff.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

The Sun is different from a Kitten?!

Oh.

My.

God.


Otium profile image

Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

"whay fatfist is an idiot, part 2:", "***wit herrors***" "“here is either a third category that has not been named, or else the breakdown used of 'object' and 'concept' by the author is inaccurate, leading to erroneous groupings of certain things into categories where they do not fit.”"

...and so on.

Why does it suddenly smell of ancient, illiterate, Middle-Eastern, goat-herds here?


Hammer of god 4 years ago

Where do get the money for refuting your pathetic arguments... How much and when I do how can I trust someone so intellectually dishonest


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hammer of god?

god????

Blasphemy!

Poor God if He's got fans like you, Christ! That's not a way to treat a deity! Even women don’t like to be treated like that. Ever had a girlfriend, Hammer,.... or is one of your hands your girlfriend?

You should be more careful. I'm not going to let you off the hook, and I don't assume anything more than what is there before me. If you say 'god', I will 'assume' that you are talking about a god of Mt. Olympus. Got it? Now, if you’re gonna use the word God, let's put 'Him' in 'His' rightful place. Okay?

“Where do get the money”

Where do get???

Where do get?????????????

Jesus ferkin’ Christ!!!!!

Listen, you dildo.....at this moment, MONEY is the LEAST of your worries. You first need to learn how to speak, read and write. Perhaps after that, someone might take you seriously and offer you a job. Then you can start making some money. If not, then you’ll end up being a 48-year-old pear-shaped loser with white pasty thighs living in his Mom’s basement....understand?

“How much and when I do how can I trust”

when I do how can I???

when I do how can I???????????

Hey retard......a stupid jackass like you first needs to take that dildo out of his mouth and learn the basics of communication! If you don’t take my advice you’re gonna live your whole life as a masturbator in your Mom’s basement. No woman will ever want a disgusting reject like you. Even George Constanza will be better than you.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

I'm the left handed Screwdriver of God.


Otium profile image

Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Monkey,

Damn! I had you pegged for the monkey-wrench of Michael!


Otium profile image

Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@ Hammer of God

I didn't think the Church still kept its flock illiterate!

@Fatfist

It is Wednesday evening which, where I live, is church night...Don't walk on the sidewalks after work because these people will run your ass over in order to get right with God on time!


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Haha, haven't laughed so hard in a while! Thanks fellas!


Hammer 4 years ago

Where is your argument?

You want a refutation of what in particular?

State a proposition


Otium profile image

Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Well, Hammer, you might want to begin with one of the arguments YOU called 'pathetic,' when you crashed the Communion.

You were so loud about it all I spilled the friggin' Blood of Chr....er...I mean wine, down my wife's shirt. What are the kids gonna think?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hammer,

I'm sorry, I can't help you. You came here wanting money but had nothing to offer in return.

You claim that it is "I" who wants a refutation??

Is this the way it works in your Religion, Hammer?

Let me give you some advice, Hammer, and listen well....when people are unhappy about an article, they usually come in to offer a counter-argument. I am not unhappy about this article. In fact, I offered this idiot Bill Allen $10,000 if he can refute the article.

Why did I offer him a down-payment for a house?

Because this little pear-shaped pussy was kicking & screaming that he can refute my articles. So this is the protocol, Hammer. Those who make claims have to back them up. And it is $$$ which end all claims from those who regard themselves as High & Mighty.

If you don't know why you are here or who sent you here, then I suggest you pick up your toys from the floor and go home, ok? Otherwise, you are welcome to educate me.


Asno Mudo 4 years ago from London

Interesting idea. So what you are basically saying is that objects don't kill you concepts that don't exist do?

It's not the bullet shaped piece of metal but the concepts of velocity, spin and force ... etc?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Asno,

If you are going to throw projectiles at a Mathematician, then only the projectile can kill this assclown, right? You can attempt to throw your love at this dungbrain, as all ex-theists do, but that will only make the Mathematician more arrogant and more proud of himself. Concepts, like love, can't kill,....only objects can perform actions such as "kill", right?


Asno Mudo 4 years ago from London

I'm not sure I follow ... perhaps I'm missing something?

An object itself can't do anything without concepts ... a rock doesn't crush you without momentum and mass.

Surely any linguistic attempt at modelling reality can have no greater veracity than mathematical attempts - ultimately neither is reality, both just incomplete representations of something we can't grasp in it's entirety?

As an aside - a lack of 'love' has been scientifically proven to be detrimental to the life of babies ... even if they get food etc, without 'love' apparently they don't prosper. So it would seem that concepts can kill.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Ok Anso.....you gotta understand the difference between objects and concepts. Concepts are just relations between objects. We invent and establish all concepts. Concepts do not exist. Only objects can exist if they are located somehere.

Exist: something somewhere (i.e. an object having a location).

“An object itself can't do anything without concepts ... a rock doesn't crush you without momentum and mass.”

Existing objects perform actions whether or not humans are there to observe and conceive of these actions (i.e. conceptual relations). The Earth orbited the Sun before any life evolved here.

“Surely any linguistic attempt at modelling reality can have no greater veracity than mathematical attempts”

There is a difference, and a HUGE one.

Since math is only a descriptive language, it cannot be used to explain phenomena (i.e. Theories). It is impossible....yes impossible to use any sort of math to explain WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Math only DESCRIBES dynamic concepts. Math can describe the itinerary the pen underwent while falling to the floor....and how fast it did....and give you an equation describing it speed and motion, etc. That’s where the buck stops for math!

Only language, like English or Pig Latin can be used to explain the details of WHY objects fall to the floor instead of the ceiling. Example: the pen fell to the floor because God’s angels grabbed it and pulled down to the floor.

“As an aside - a lack of 'love' has been scientifically proven to be detrimental to the life of babies ... even if they get food etc, without 'love' apparently they don't prosper. So it would seem that concepts can kill.”

We need to understand the context of your usage of the term “love”. Love is an action between 2 entities: the baby and its parents. The baby needs this physical contact/interaction in order to flourish....just as it needs food to flourish. So yes, denying the baby of physical contact will have negative if not dire effects.

Remember: only objects can perform actions.


Asno Mudo 4 years ago from London

Ok, that all makes sense, but I'm still left with a couple things I don't quite understand.

I apologize if I'm stumbling towards something that you feel is more than clear ...

(1a) I'm finding it hard to understand where the WHY comes in. Doesn't gravity provide the explanation for WHY? But even if it doesn't and it really was an Angel ... aren't Angels just objects and therefore modelable?

(1b) If there were no perceptual beings, no language ... does the WHY even make sense ... actually I feel that I've failed to grasp some important part of your idea.

(2) I'm not sure if there is anything that isn't an object. Are there any attributes that are universally applicable to objects that don't regress into some sort of quantum sub atomic particle majingo.

Is gas an object? clearly the atoms that make up the gas are objects. Or is gas the concept of those objects relationship to each other? Isn't everything just relationships between atoms/sub atomic particles?

But that can't be right because it would imply that the relationship between the atoms in an iron ingot is the concept of the ingot and yet an iron bar feels kind of solid.

Now here's where I really get lost.

When I have a thought - is it something or nothing? Does it have a physical reality ... did a repeatable (unique?) arrangement of 'something' occur inside my brain to make that thought?

I.E. Do atoms in a relationship make up a concept such as love ... thus wouldn't it be arbitrary and incoherent to suggest that rock was an object and yet deny that love, by virtue of our own inability to see it as a coherent whole isn't?

I guess what I'm saying is that there are only objects in relationships to each other and anything else is simply the result of our inability to see reality as it is, so we assume that they are separate and distinct when in fact they are just part of a greater whole.

While we might see things and assume they are, or have good reason to believe, are objects. Which obviously has it's immediate practical benefits, but says nothing about the underlying nature of reality whatever that might be.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Asno,

“Doesn't gravity provide the explanation for WHY?”

No, it doesn’t. Just google gravity wrt Einstein, Newton, Quantum, etc and you will see that no mathematical priest has ever explained the PHYSICAL MECHANISM of why a pen falls to the floor. Actually....there are no explanations for any natural phenomenon (electricity, light, magnetism, etc.) from the so-called mathematical physicists. Equations do not explain mechanisms.....they only describe the motion i.e. from here to there. Description is not the same as explanation.

“aren't Angels just objects and therefore modelable?”

Of course and Angel is a HYPOTHETICAL object, and hence amenable to illustration. Even if the object is invisible, like the object which mediates light, gravity and magnetism....it is nonetheless still an object....it has shape. Air is an object we can’t see.....so is an atom.

The Theory of Gravity....or any theory, requires a Hypothesized object that will perform the events (i.e. attraction/gravitation) between objects. The Theory rationally explains these events, and thus, why the pen fell to the floor during our experiment.

“If there were no perceptual beings, no language ... does the WHY even make sense”

Science is a field of study used by humans to explain phenomena in nature.....evolution, light, gravity, etc. We use language to explain why these events happen the way they do by proposing objects which underlie these phenomena. Mathematics is not an explanatory language.....it is a tautological descriptive syntax.

“I'm not sure if there is anything that isn't an object.”

Plenty: space, time, energy, spacetime, photons and other 0D particles, black holes, force, field, love, justice, happiness, .....all these are concepts.

“Is gas an object? “

It had better be. Gas can perform events in nature.....like blow down a tree during a windstorm.

“Or is gas the concept of those objects relationship to each other?”

No, because we can illustrate gas, like an ozone molecule:

http://www.rkm.com.au/ozone/ozone-images/OZONE-mol...

object: that which has shape

If word can resolve to an entity with shape, then it is an object. We can point to or illustrate all objects. We can only define concepts. All words will resolve to either objects or concepts. There is no other category.

“Isn't everything just relationships between atoms/sub atomic particles?”

No. We conceive of relationships to define concepts. The concept of surfing is a dynamic relationship between a surfboard, body of water and a person. Surfing is not an object/entity....it is an idea (ie. relation/concept).

“When I have a thought - is it something or nothing? “

Read the top of this article. I explain how thoughts are just relationships you establish between the objects in your environment. Thoughts do not exist. Your brain exists and so do its atoms. It’s the atomic motion of your brain which causes this effect we call “thought”.

“Do atoms in a relationship make up a concept such as love”

The concept of love is a relation between 2 or more humans.....an action/verb. Love is what humans do. You are free to define it using words such as sex, affection, etc. The concept of love is subjective.....can’t be defined objectively. Some people will “love” differently than others. There is no correct way to love.

“While we might see things and assume they are, or have good reason to believe, are objects. “

We don’t believe in objects or in anything. We hypothesize objects, illustrate them.....and then use them as ACTORS to explain some phenomenon, like gravity or light. As another example, we hypothesize the Big Foot object to explain the phenomenon of footprints, broken branches and mauled campers in the forest. If the Theory proposed by the scientist is rational without any contradictions.....then this object Big Foot may be possible to exist and may have killed those campers. There is no knowledge or 100% absolute certainty in science. If the Theory is irrational....then it is impossible for such a Big Foot object to exist and cause these specific killings.


Scott 2 years ago

Fatfist,

Do you think that light exists?


Advocate 2 years ago

Bill Gaede say light is an electromagnetic rope being twisted and he is also say light is an object. But some of his brethren, such as Mike Huttner say in Freedomain Radio forum, EM ropes are mediated by atom and it is just a concept.


Mike Huttner 2 years ago

Advocate- WHAT?

Where did I say that the EM rope is just a concept?? The ropes connecting atoms, mediating light, are not concepts.... they are objects in their own right.


Advocate 2 years ago

Actually you did said it a year ago in Freedomain Radio forum during a conversation in your own thread entitled "The Scientific Definition of Life".

Someone asks to you in the forum "Is the magnetosphere an object? Is EM radiation an object? Even if you say that it's made of subatomic particles, well, subatomic particles are not objects."

Then you said, " The magnetosphere is a concept, it is the AREA in which some PHYSICAL object(s) extends from earth and performs the action we call "magnetism". The trick to Science is determining the configuration of that object, how it relates to earth, and how it performs the magic trick we call "magnetism".

EM radiation, likewise, is a CONCEPT. "To radiate" is what an object DOES, not what it is. Again, Science is about formulate a rational hypothesis to explain the phenomena known as EM radiation. What physical object could possibly mediate this behavior?

That is the goal of Science".

See?

Look here if you are still skeptical, http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/35430-the-s...


Mike Huttner 2 years ago

You have completely misunderstood if you think the CONCEPTS magnetosphere and radiation are synonymous with the ropes themselves.

Magnetosphere and radiation are abstractions of what the physical objects, the EM ropes, are doing. Magnetism is the action induced by threads (objects) spinning around an atom and radiation is the action of EM ropes twisting in place.

"See?"

All I see is that you've confused the concepts of radiation and magnetism with the objects which mediate them. I have never claimed that the ropes or threads themselves are concepts. They are the objects mediating the concepts discussed above.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 2 years ago from My Tree House

Gary, Allen, Advocate, Eric Gaede Fatfst, Gaede and Fatfist are all the same person (same IP) It is Mohammad Raymond.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Ahh….we have ourselves a disgruntled butthurt suicide bomber!

Mohammad: “How can a lone object even exist”

Whaaaat? A lone object can exist??? Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Mohammad, please tell us what you mean by the term ‘exist’.

Here, let me help you get started because I know it is impossible for you to answer this question…..

Mahammad’s definition of ‘exist’:________

Fill in the blanks, otherwise you are finished…..ha ha!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammed Atta, you dodged the question and you hot hammered! If you can't even define 'exist' for your alleged single object, you can't even use the word in a sentence.

See....you haven't a brain at all :)


Mohd 2 years ago

I don't dodge your questions obviously, fatfist. I define exist as object with location.

Exist = object + location

Why do you deleted my comments?

How can a lone object that you love to assumed, even exist if it don't have any motion, location, etc.? How can this lone object still retain its shape?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammed Atta: “I define exist as object with location. Exist = object + location”

Ahhhh….finally….. so now you answer questions and continue the dialogue. Good! See the POWER The Mighty Fist has over people? I mean, He can easily get anyone to answer their own questions!

“How can a lone object that you love to assumed, even exist”

Duh….yeah! That’s what the audience is wondering too, Mr. Atta. According to YOU (exist: object+location) a lone object does NOT exist as it has no location! Well….aren’t you the genius…..I mean, defining your much LOVED lone object out of existence!

See….you do have the love & potential to answer your own questions. You just need The Mighty Fist for encouragement :)

Let me ask you this, Mohammed Atta….why do you come here asking stupid retarded questions when you ALREADY answer them by yourself? I mean, did yo momma conceive you with defective drunken sailor semen?


Mohd 2 years ago

Nice new profile pic, fatfist.

You said, "According to YOU (exist: object+location) a lone object does NOT exist as it has no location!"

If it don't exist, does the lone object still retain its shape?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammed Atta, don’t get too comfy with your new profile. When you cower and refuse to answer questions, your old profile goes right back up as your wall of shame!

“it [lone object] don't exist”

Exactly! And that’s according to YOUR definition (exist:object+location) which YOU provided. Don’t ever forget that, as I will ALWAYS remind you :)

“does the lone object still retain its shape?”

Ahhh….another VERY EASY PEASY question….. Just watch how you will answer it yourself in your next post here....with The Mighty Fist's encouragement.

Please tell the audience what YOU mean by the term ‘object’ since YOU used it in a sentence. Let me help you out…..

Fill in the blanks…..object:_______


Advocate 2 years ago

Object is that which have shape & location.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammed Atta: “does the lone object still retain its shape?”

Mohammed Atta: “Object is that which have shape & location.”

According to YOUR definition of ‘object’, the object has shape! Read what you wrote.

See…..you CAN answer your own questions every single time :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Cut the sock puppet BS, Mr. Atta. It's old.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Someone is not having a good day...LOL. What do you expect when you define YOUR own terms and you shoot yourself in the face by not achieving the result YOU wanted (for lone objects to exist). Your lone object doesn't exist Mr. Atta, even though it does indeed have shape....and all this is according to YOU...ha ha ha!

Drink some vinegar and get over it....LOL!


Mohd 2 years ago

I am using your own definition. If you think deeply, actually you're contradicting yourself.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"I am using your own definition."

Nope, that's not my definition of object. That is yours. Stop lying and have an honest dialogue.

You own definition doesn't give you the result you desire.


Mohd 2 years ago

So what is the purpose of your article regarding object? Isn't object is something that which have shape & location?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Nope, that's not the definition of object I have in the article. You are autistic. You cannot even read or comprehend simple words....not even the ones YOU write. That's why you cannot achieve your end result. Funny, huh? Everyone is laughing at you! :)


Mohd 2 years ago

How can the assumption of the lone object still retain its shape if it don't, can't exist?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“How can the assumption of the lone object....”

Because it’s YOUR assumption! You made this up. That’s why you cannot define the term ‘exist’ that will apply to this lone object you pulled out of your hole! It is YOU who shot yourself in the face. I just pointed this out to you. And when you realized it, you became extremely embarrassed and agitated and started to cry like a little girl.

Here, let me make it easier for you: if you can define ‘exist’ that will apply to this lone object “ASSUMPTION” of yours, then I promise to PayPal you $10,000 USD in cash. I am on the record!

If you cannot define ‘exist’ to support a lone object, then obviously your ASSUMPTION is irrational and impossible. LOL….what else is new, right? You know what happens when YOU assume….you make an A** out of yourself. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! :)

The next comment you (Mohammed Raymond) post had better supply this definition of ‘exist’ that confirms YOUR ASSUMPTION…..otherwise you and your fake userids will be banned from ever posting here again….got it?

This is a world renowned Physics forum. Nobody puts up with intellectual dishonesty.


Mohd 2 years ago

Monk. E Mind said in his article "Atom & Cell", shape is relational. While you said shape is objective. Why?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammed Raymond, you do realize that this forum has nothing to with the discussions you have with other folks on the Internets. You need to grow up, look down your pants and make sure you're a man....a real MAN who can take charge of his CLAIMS and justify them…..not hide behind others and use them as scapegoats for his inability to justify his claims.

Very sad that people have to resort to these unscrupulous games of personal insecurity and try to advance them as some sort of pathetic “argument”. Hilarious!

Regardless…..the terms ‘relational’ and ‘objective’ are not opposites (antonyms) and have nothing to do with each other. The argument you are trying to raise is committing the Non-Sequitur Fallacy. i.e. relational does not follow your claim of not being objective (antonym of subjective). If you attended primary school you should know the ultra-basics. And this only shows that you are just here to troll. So as a troll…..you will be banned from these Physics forums as you can’t even justify your claim of a single object existing and claim your $10,000 USD PayPal cash. You are a sad worthless troll.


Mohd 2 years ago

If this standalone single object can indeed exist and still have its shape, but yet don't have any location, isn't it actually still "floating" in "nothing"?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“If this standalone single object can indeed exist”

You said…..

object: that which has shape and location

exist: object with location

So from YOUR definition, it is impossible for a single object to be CLAIMED to ‘exist’, as per the definition YOU provided. Why? Because it is impossible for a single object to have a location, much less TWO locations which YOU decreed in YOUR definition.

VERY EMBARRASING LESSON LEARNED by Mohammed Raymond:

-------------------

An object exists BY DEFINITION, only! If you want a lone object to ‘exist’, the onus is on YOU to define ‘exist’ so that the definition elucidates your wish!

-------------------

Mohammed, I can now feel your pain. I’m sorry to see you this traumatized, I truly am…..I hate to see my loving fans this down.

But there have been many others like you that had a taste of REALITY from The Venerable Mighty Fist who is MORE powerful than the 4 forces of the Universe. Very few ever got over this traumatic experience…. and were only able to live normal lives by understanding the difference between an object and a concept. While most became depressed,…. withdrawn from society,…. have no friends,…. their wife left them,…. they sought solace in Stefan Molyneux’s Cult for a few years….they left with brain damage, bipolar disorder, autism, impotence, a wider anus, etc…..became lonely again…..are looking for Mrs. Right, but no woman wants such a pathetic disgusting loser…..so they will spend the rest of their years pleasuring themselves on Internet porn – you know, like The Law of Identity A=A, which is Self-Rhetorically-Referential….and of course… “supposedly” Absolute, said the horse, of course of course!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“isn't it actually still "floating"

An object can perhaps float on water or in lava…..but NEVER ‘in’ nothing. You need a minimum of 2 objects for the ACTION of ‘float’ to be mediated! We learn this prior to Junior Kindergarten when mom & dad gave us bathtime.

“…in "nothing"

Is ‘nothing’ a CONTAINER or a Tupperware of sorts in your Religion, Mohammed? Is this what Muhammad & Allah told you…..or is your Mullah to blame for this idiocy?

Please draw an image (or link to one online) of this container YOU call ‘nothing’. Then the audience can see if we can actually put an object in it….ok?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammed, stop spamming clutter and preventing others from reading the comments section.

You said: "But you said that standalone single object still retain its shape? Can you explain it?"

We don't explain concepts like 'shape'. We define them. All terms have a meaning. Grammar 101. Go back to school and learn the basics. If you disagree, please give us an explanation for the concept of ‘good’. LOL….illiterate children!

It's only possible to explain a phenomenon (i.e. action) that has occurred.

An object has shape BY DEFINITION. It is impossible for an object not to have shape. Please name a single object without shape and I will PayPal you $10,000. You can make lots $$$ from the Mighty Fist!

"Nothing (i.e. space) don't exist."

Exactly! That's why the Earth cannot possibly perform the action of "floating" 'in' nothing. No interaction can be had with nothing....and most importantly, an object cannot possibly be encased 'IN' nothing :)


inquisitor 2 years ago

Can an object bring itself to exist?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

So we first have an object that doesn't exist?

Please give an example of such an object which doesn't exist...or link a pic of one. Then explain how it begins to exist.

And your definition of 'exist' will elucidate whether it can exist or not.

Fill in the blanks......exist:_____


inquisitor 2 years ago

I cannot give you an object that doesn't exist. I can only pick one that exists and ask myself "can this object bring itself into existence?"

We will use you definition of exist and your definition of object.

Pick any object you want.

Can that object bring itself into existence?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“I can only pick one that exists and ask myself "can this object bring itself into existence?"”

Ummmm….Sir inquisitor…..if the object you pick exists already (like an apple), why would a deranged lunatic ask himself if it can bring itself into existence?

Pwned!

Talk about pwning yourself, putting your foot in your mouth and shooting yourself in the face at the same time. Same old….same old.

LOL!!

What a looney asylum you got going there! Hilarious! I was right….you’re not doing any better than your little boytoy Mohammed Raymond. Two non-brains make no brain!

Have you been taking your medication….you know the Zoloft? Why did you go off it, Sir inquisitor?


inquisitor 2 years ago

a. I cannot give you an example of an object that does not exist.

b. An apple sitting on the table cannot bring itself into existence.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

There we go. See, you can answer your own questions every single time. Just like Mohammed Atta did. :)

Still waiting for (c)....YES or NO?


inquisitor 2 years ago

c. No

But now I am confused. An object cannot bring itself into existence? Is that absolute?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"No"

Good boy. Continue taking it!

"Is that absolute?"

There are no absolutes. Absolutes are impossible. But you already knew this. Here's a refresher:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are-...


inquisitor 2 years ago

But if "An object cannot bring itself into existence" is not an absolute,

there must be a situation where an object can bring itself into existence.

That's where I'm getting lost


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“But if "An object cannot bring itself into existence" is not an absolute, there must be a situation where an object can bring itself into existence.”

It doesn’t follow. Your statement is committing the Non-sequitur Fallacy. An object must exist BEFORE it can perform ANY action, even the supposed action of “bringing itself into existence”. Therefore, your proposition is contradictory.

Since it’s contradictory….then how can it be absolute?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

The troll cannot defend his single object contradiction because he knows that absolutes are impossible. Ha ha ha ha :)

That's why he ran with his tail....as always.

A votre sante!


Mich Andre 2 years ago

You are right about Jake Archer, fattie. His is mentally ill. I thought he had something with his mobius strip being absolute (as he claimed), but I now understand from your explanation why it cannot be so. Thank you for clearing up this issue. Jake tried to steal Gaede’s ideas and make a 2D mobius strip universe. He had us all fooled. Thanks to Nick to for opening our eyes. CERN images actually show the atom to be identical to that proposed by Bill's rope theory. No wonder Jake is upset and went mad. Everybody has abandoned him. I’d like to apologize for Mohammad and myself coming here under assumed aliases to stir up trouble. But it was Jake who sent us here to trick you into admitting Jake’s 2D mobius strip is an absolute object that exists. Thank you for opening our eyes. Cheers.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

It's ok, Mitch....thanks for your honesty.


Advocate 2 years ago

Mich PM'd me after this FF, and basically told me the same thing. He also said that Jake was a sapiosexual, whatever that means.

He said he was concerned for Jake's mental health, as he was rambling about 2D tubes and other non-sensical objects. What's next, he wonders, "square circles?"


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Looks like sensitive ladyboy Jake has lust for me. That's what the definition of sapiosexual is all about....hot sexual romantic everlasting lust and desire towards an intelligent person you cannot refute. No wonder he comes here to post under sock puppet ids and elaborate assumed aliases....pretending to be a student in University, etc. The only institution Jake has ever set foot in his pathetic miserable life is either a PUB or an Insane Asylum. That's why the mind of a raving lunatic is very easy to read. His posts instantly identify this delicate little Princess that always complains about how she is abused by her imaginary lover ;)


Wankers Anonymous (Liverpool chapter) 2 years ago

Hello, we are trying to locate an individual by the name of Jake Archer. He was abnormally fascinated with you and your material during his weekly sessions in our therapeutic facility. He missed his appointment last week and we haven’t been able to locate him. If you have a phone or email contact, please let us know. Thank you.


Michel Andre 2 years ago

fatfist, someone has deceived and abused you here. The post under the name "Mich Andre" is not mine. You're dealing with an imposter.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Is this a joke, Michel? And which Michel are you, btw? Never seen you post here before. There is no other post of a Michel here except you. And yes, everyone is an imposter on the Internets (including you) unless they post a pic of their government ID on their profile....and even that is highly questionable. I suggest you stop playing games like others have been doing here for the past month. Diversion of the issues presented in this article is not an argument against them.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Trolling sock puppets are not gonna get anywhere here. This is a Physics forum. Take your games to the kindergarten yard. I never delete comments for any reason, but this level of trolling is now finished.


Mohd 2 years ago

Fatfist, you said,

" I never delete comments for any reason, but this level of trolling is now finished."

Really?

Then if your def. of object is that which have shape, and your def. of exist is object with location, how can a standalone atom still retains its shape whereas this lone atom can't exist?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"this lone atom can't exist?"

You have ONE chance to justify why are not trolling along with your buddies here, Mohammed (if that is really you). You must define what you mean by exist in that very important question you asked.

I don't want to hear anybody else's version of 'exist' except yours.

Mohd's exist:______

fill in the blanks without posting anything else, otherwise you are trolling. This is your last chance to justify why you shouldn't be banned here.


Mohd 2 years ago

My definition of exist is object with location. Any problem?

Care to answer my previous question without deleting it? :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohd: "this lone atom can't exist?"

Mohd: “My definition of exist is object with location.”

Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘exist’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if a lone object passes your defn with flying colors…

Q1: Is a lone atom an object? Yes, it has shape. All good so far.

Q2: Does a lone atom have location? No! It can only be located with respect to another object. Oooops!

Therefore, according to YOU, mohd, a lone atom cannot be said to exist.

See...you just answered your own question.


Mohd 2 years ago

You're forgetting something, Fatfist. My definitions are just the same as yours. If it can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Thank you for not trolling, Mohd (whomever your sock may be). And thank you for answering your own question. This is what Physics is about....no trolling and 100% honesty.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohd: " If it can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?”

Oh, this is another GREAT question, mohd. I thank you for bringing it up.

Now, since you were so kind and honest to define ‘exist’ for the audience, please be kind and honest again to define what you mean by ‘shape’ in your question above so we can understand if existence (as YOU defined it) has any DEPENDENCE on shape (as you will define it now)…

I don't want to hear anybody else's version of ‘shape’ except yours….and please don’t post anything else so we can settle this burning issue of yours.

Mohd's shape:______

Please exhibit the same level of honesty and fill in the blanks for us.


Mohd 2 years ago

Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding or a relation between object and space.

If this object have shape, then it must be mean that this object exist. But if a lone atom have shape, why can't it exist even though if there are no other existing objects to relate with?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding or a relation between object and space.”

Ummmm….so which is the definition of ‘shape’

a) Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding

OR

b) Shape is a relation between object and space

It's either one or the other. A definition conveys the meaning of the term precisely without ambiguities, like OR-ing case scenarios and thus committing the Fallacy of Equivocation.

So which is your defn….a) or b) ?

Please tell us so we can answer your very important question.


Mohd 2 years ago

It is (a).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohd: “exist: object with location”

Mohd: " If it [a lone object] can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?”

Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘shape’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if the term ‘shape’ has any DEPENDENCY to the term ‘exist’.

Since a lone object is bounded from its immediate surrounding and not blended and vanishing within…. then as per YOUR definition, a lone object has shape and that’s the only property is has.

And the fact that an object has shape, speaks nothing of its existence. Existence and shape have nothing to do with each other as they are two independent concepts, as shown in YOUR definitions.

a) Shape certainly does NOT depend on existence, as shown in YOUR definition above!

b) Existence necessitates a location, as shown in YOUR definition above!

Even a square has shape, but doesn’t exist as it has no location. Only the paper and ink exist as they both have location.

CONGRATULATIONS: Your definition of ‘exist’ and ‘shape’ are RATIONAL and pass ALL THE TESTS with flying colors!

You should be very proud of yourself, Mohd. Can I please buy you a beer? I will be in northern Europe in a few months, would you like to meet up? Lunch, dinner and all you can drink on me!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

You are the very first rational person to post the definitions of 'shape' and 'exist' which justify WHY a lone object cannot be said to exist. I hope you are gloating right now, Mohd.


Heurist profile image

Heurist 2 years ago

The article was well written, but has major issues.

The main issue is that it is based completely upon physicalism.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Heurist....Not familiar with that Religion you call 'physicalism'. Is their worship day on Sunday or Saturday? I hope that it ain't during the weekdays cuz folks gotta go to work, come home, cook, feed the kids, help them do their homework, walk the dog, cut the grass, shovel the snow and stuff.

Anyway....it's obvious that this article isn't based on any such Religion otherwise you would have cut & pasted a quote from this article and explained how it contradicts itself in great luxurious detail for all our audience see with their own eyes....which would be VERY EASY for someone who makes such claims to do!

Thanks for your comment anyway. It gets lonely here at times....nice to see a soul drop by. Even if they had nothing to offer. We only get people who put their own foot in their mouths here, so you can imagine how bored I am....


Heurist profile image

Heurist 2 years ago

How did you determine that physicalism is a religion?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"physicalism"

Ok Baretta, what is this physicalism you speak of? What does this word mean? Please tell the audience so we can all understand.

Please define and don't whine....physicalism:____

Fill in the blanks....then you will answer your OWN question just like everyone else does.


Heurist profile image

Heurist 2 years ago

Who's "Baretta"?

Somehow I get this vision of someone smacking while chewing gum in their mouth, with hands on their hips, thumping their foot with a bunch of pent up hostility just waiting for someone to trigger it.

I came here with a serious intention of discussing the post. This has only to do with better understanding for me. I wasn't being critical towards anyone personally.

How do I know if you're taking me serious, when you don't answer my questions nor are you willing to at least look up my terms for yourself?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"How do I know if you're taking me serious, when you don't answer my questions nor are you willing to at least look up my terms for yourself?"

Well.....how do I??

Physicalism:_____

Fill in the blanks. 2nd time I ask!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammad Raymond!! What happened to you, bro? Did the Wanker of the Technology Asylum ban you for asking questions he couldn't answer? LOL....typical.....silence the opposition.

Mohammad my bro....here you ALWAYS answer your own questions and you do it with your foot in your mouth!

But you didn't answer my question from last time: Can I buy you a beer for being the first person in history to rationally define OBJECT, SHAPE and EXIST?


Mohammad Raymond 2 years ago

Is there someone here pretending to be myself?

I'd already defined those three formidable words that you loved so much, Fatfist. So if a standalone object can't exist, then it can't retain its shape. But if you are going to say that this standalone object still retain its shape, there are only two answers that you can give to me, Fatfist. It is :

1) It is certainly have shape like circle, square, triangles, etc. but unfortunately this is an abstract object as it don't have any location. So it is nothing.

2) It still retain its shape, and it is exist by itself.

Which answer that you will choose? Don't delete this question, Fatfist :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohd: “I'd already defined those three formidable words”

Mohd: “exist: object with location”

Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

Great! Thank you! Now let’s analyze YOUR statement…..

Mohd: “So if a standalone object can't exist, then it can't retain its shape. “

Whaaaaaaaat??????

Whoa! Hold on a sec…..not so fast. You’re dealing with FastFist here…..the FASTEST and MOST POWERFUL FIST IN THE UNIVERSE!!

But YOU said (and I quote): “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding” - Mohd

Since the standalone object you speak of IS indeed an object (as you referred to it as such), then of course it is bounded from the immediate surrounding! Therefore….it does indeed have SHAPE!!! Hence YOUR statement above is CONTRADICTORY!!

LOL….See, Mohammad….here you ALWAYS answer your own questions and you do it with your foot in your mouth….every single time!

“Don't delete this question, Fatfist”

Questions are NEVER deleted here, Mohd. Don’t confuse this place with the “Religion of Scatology & Technology” forum where rational questions are deleted and rational posters are always banned. RS&T thrives on Censorship…..you should know that since YOU got banned for contradicting their Religion. LOL!!!!!!!!!

Now how about I buy you a drink for answering YOUR own questions every single time?


Mohammad Raymond 2 years ago

Okay, that's nice if you're not going to delete questions anymore. :)

You said,

"Whoa! Hold on a sec…..not so fast. You’re dealing with FastFist here…..the FASTEST and MOST POWERFUL FIST IN THE UNIVERSE!!

But YOU said (and I quote): “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

Since the standalone object you speak of IS indeed an object (as you referred to it as such), then of course it is bounded from the immediate surrounding! Therefore….it does indeed have SHAPE!!! Hence YOUR statement above is CONTRADICTORY!!

LO….See, Mohammad….here you ALWAYS answer your own questions and you do it with your foot in your mouth….every single time!"

Yes, it still have its shape but you also said it don't have any location. So, this standalone object can't exist and don't exist just like circle, square, Superman, etc. That's mean shape isn't an intrinsic property of an object because a standalone object can't exist even though it still have its shape.


Mohammad Raymond 2 years ago

That's also mean that shape is depend on at least two objects. Thoughts?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohd: “So if a standalone object can't exist, then it can't retain its shape. “

Mohd: “Yes, it still have its shape”

Great! You finally see the error of YOUR ways! You’re one step closer to rationality.

Mohd: “but you also said it don't have any location”

Yes indeed!!!! A standalone object is NOT located anywhere since there is no other object around for which to gauge a location…..duh!! Hello…..Earth to Mohd!!!

LOL…I can tell that “having a brain” is not your best attribute, Mohd.

“That's mean shape isn't an intrinsic property of an object because a standalone object can't exist even though it still have its shape.”

Even though it still has shape (as you say), and it’s standalone (as you say)…..then shape is OBVIOUSLY the ONLY and INTRINSIC property of an object. Ha ha ha….there are NO other objects around, so no extrinsic properties are possible. Shape is THE intrinsic property. Ha ha ha!

LOL…. I can tell that “basic kindergarten-level thinking” is not even in your list of attributes, Mohd.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“That's also mean that shape is depend on at least two objects. Thoughts?”

Shape is a CONCEPT. We conceive this term by indeed conceptualizing two possible objects….1) what is bounded….and 2) the background environment. If this conceptualization is possible without contradictions, then we just conceptualized shape.


Mohammad Raymond 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

Are you deleting my comment again? Hmm. Please, Fatfist.

"Shape is a CONCEPT. We conceive this term by indeed conceptualizing two possible objects... 1) what is bounded... And 2) the background

environment..."

How can you relate an object to nothing?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“Are you deleting my comment again?”

That’s a very nice trick you got going and I LOVE it because you don’t fool anyone! Keep complaining about all your comments being deleted (even though I am answering them) because that’s the ONLY recourse that YOU and YOUR Priests who banned you from their forum have against the butt-kicking that you clowns are getting here..ha!

Please…..just keep complaining about your undeleted comments getting deleted since you can’t address my responses nor contradict anything here….LOL!! Too funny.

Now, let’s address your next undeleted-deleted comment:

Mohd: “How can you relate an object to nothing?”

I give up. Please tell me and the audience how? Do we sing your Willy-Bum-Bum song first? It is YOU and YOUR goofballs that explicitly relate nothing to nothing and things to themselves (i.e. A is A) which are clear contradictions.

Who said we are relating an object to “nothing”? LOL!!! We went through this BEFORE…..read the previous posts….REPETITION and WHINING that your undeleted comments are deleted is NOT an argument. Ha ha ha!

I will reference you (for the 10 the time) to the article that defines ‘shape’ and YOUR agreement with that definition:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Physics-What-is-SH...

Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

There is NO object, NO space and NO nothing mentioned in that definition. You are just pulling these terms out of YOUR ass to STRAWMAN the definition since you have NO argument at all….Ha!. Are you on crack cocaine again, Mohd?

And if you ever read that article someday, you will understand that a triangle has shape, but there is no space (i.e. nothing) around a triangle (like there is between your ears!) because the triangle is an abstract entity that is conceived, much like your 2D Religious garbage.

But a lonely object in the Universe is 3D and has space surrounding it and it has shape without even an observer (of course, since it’s the only object). And an observer comes along and simply uses his brain (hopefully you’ll get one of these some day) to relate what is bounded from the immediate surrounding (i.e. no mention of objects, space or nothing at all) and gives this relation the name: shape! Now the observer can define object as “that which has shape”.

See….just follow the definition of ‘shape’ and you won't embarrass yourself with your foot in your mouth. And of course, NO objects, NO space and NO nothing were harmed in the making of this definition!

Did you ever make it past Junior Kindergarten, Mohammad Raymond?? I hear prostitution is rampant in your neck of the woods. Couldn’t yo momma afford to send you to school, even though she was working hard...or hardly working?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

And you do realize that asking the same answered questions is called spamming too? Ha ha....zero arguments.....just spam!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammad, you already answered your questions with your foot in your mouth, remember? Here's the post to refresh your memory.

Mohd: “exist: object with location”

Mohd: " If it [a lone object] can't exist, why does it still retains its shape?”

Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘shape’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if the term ‘shape’ has any DEPENDENCY to the term ‘exist’.

Since a lone object is bounded from its immediate surrounding and not blended and vanishing within…. then as per YOUR definition, a lone object has shape and that’s the only property is has.

And the fact that an object has shape, speaks nothing of its existence. Existence and shape have nothing to do with each other as they are two independent concepts, as shown in YOUR definitions.

a) Shape certainly does NOT depend on existence, as shown in YOUR definition above!

b) Existence necessitates a location, as shown in YOUR definition above!

Even a square has shape, but doesn’t exist as it has no location. Only the paper and ink exist as they both have location.

CONGRATULATIONS: Your definition of ‘exist’ and ‘shape’ are RATIONAL and pass ALL THE TESTS with flying colors!

You should be very proud of yourself, Mohd. Can I please buy you a beer? I will be in northern Europe in a few months, would you like to meet up? Lunch, dinner and all you can drink on me!


Mohammad Raymond 2 years ago

Hey again Fatfist,

"And you do realize that asking the same answered questions is called spamming too? Ha ha....zero arguments.....just spam!"

I repeat those questions because all of your responses aren't really addressing my questions because you keep calling your definitions as mine.

"Thank you for giving us your defn of ‘shape’, mohd. Now let’s test your defn to answer your previous question and see if the term ‘shape’ has any DEPENDENCY to the term ‘exist’.

Since a lone object is bounded from its immediate surrounding and not blended and vanishing within…. then as per YOUR definition, a lone object has shape and that’s the only property is has.

And the fact that an object has shape, speaks nothing of its existence. Existence and shape have nothing to do with each other as they are two independent concepts, as shown in YOUR definitions.

a) Shape certainly does NOT depend on existence, as shown in YOUR definition above!

b) Existence necessitates a location, as shown in YOUR definition above!

Even a square has shape, but doesn’t exist as it has no location. Only the paper and ink exist as they both have location.

CONGRATULATIONS: Your definition of ‘exist’ and ‘shape’ are RATIONAL and pass ALL THE TESTS with flying colors!"

Remember this is your own definitions, Fatfist. And does Mother Nature depend on our unambiguous definitions or rational assumptions or explanations? You seems like you keep treating your definitions as mine whereas actually it's yours.

"You should be very proud of yourself, Mohd. Can I please buy you a beer? I will be in northern Europe in a few months, would you like to meet up? Lunch, dinner and all you can drink on me!"

I'm currently in Rome, so if you're really wanna meet me well it shouldn't be a problem, my friend. About the lunch, dinner and stuffs no thanks. :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“because you keep calling your definitions as mine.”

Ok, spamming, acting like an idiot, posting BS and other garbage here I can tolerate.

BUT LYING I WILL NOT TOLERATE!!!

Here are YOUR definitions which I asked you before. Read the previous comments where I explicitly asked you for YOUR definitions and this is what YOU posted:

Mohd: “exist: object with location”

Mohd: “Shape is a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding”

Now you are LYING by claiming these are not your definitions. This is your last option:

a) Either admit for the record that these are YOUR definitions, or

b) Post YOUR definitions of these 4 terms: object, exist, shape, concept

Failure to do will get you banned here. I tolerate everything except LIARS!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammad.....a or b. No more posting here unless you choose YOUR OWN weapons in this discussion.

Again...your options are:

object: that which has shape

shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding.

concept: a relation between two or more objects

exist: object with location

space: that which lacks shape

.

OR, you can post whatever definition you like. At Fatfist Inc, we NEVER force definitions down people's throats. But we do expect them to have the balls to choose their OWN definitions as THEIR weapons for the battle.

What WEAPONS do you have for the FIGHT, Mohammad? Please post them in your next post here!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

I have exposed my whole arsenal of weapons. You already know what your opposition has to defend himself.

But you and your ilk are nothing but are lame chickens. Always running scared in your life without any balls to face me head on and either destroy my weapons....or overpower me with yours!

Go back to your Religious Scatology & Technology group, Mohammad....a group for lame fools full of estrogen. You have no weapons at all....just here to troll.


Mohammad Raymond 2 years ago

Hmm. Hey Fatfist, I think I should add you on Facebook so we can have more conversation. Can you please unblock me?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

I don't have private discussions where people can HIDE their posts from the audience. All YOUR definitions must be made public here. No exceptions.

Show us your WEAPONS, Mohammad....please!


Mohammad Raymond 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

I don't have my own definitions yet. But isn't location is just a concept? If we think critically, objects don't have location but only shape to exist. Thoughts?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"I don't have my own definitions yet."

Thank you for being honest for once in your life.

Now please.....just go away and don't come back to post anything else ever again unless you have YOUR definitions for the following terms:

object, shape, concept, exist, space, location

No more discussion on any issue until then. Bye!


Mohammad 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist, its been awhile I don't have conversation with you.

In Gaede's Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory, how can the EM ropes superimpose each other as if the EM ropes are absolute nothing? How about the Thread? Is it finite or infinite? Assuming if there is a man with an infinite life or an immortal man, if he keeps going and going through the Universe, will he eventually arrived at an area where there are absolutely nothing? Or will he still moving through the EM ropes and Threads?

If there are any mistakes, please corrected it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammad....you guys must have some really strong psychedelic drugs in Malaysia. I mean....Holy Sweet Lord Jesus that brought me into the world… I wish I could speak the nonsense coming out of your pie hole….like: “as if the EM ropes are absolute nothing……Is it finite or infinite…..infinite life…..arrived at an area where there are absolutely nothing”.

Wow, just WOW!

Alas, Jesus only created me to be very boring and just talk rationally. Thanks for nothing, Jesus….you fu**er!

I just wish I had the brain damage you have. I wouldn’t have any worries or cares in my life as nobody would take me seriously after they see that I can’t possibly have a single serious brain cell in my head!

What a sweet existence you have, Mohammad. I really envy you. I wish I could be YOU! I’ll tell you what…..I am going to the Dollar Store today to buy a wig and a make-shift costume so I can dress up like you and do some cos play. You should consider that an honor to you!


Mohammad 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

I just want an opinion from you regarding my questions. I don't have any intention to argue with you by the way.

So, can we return to the topic? I hope you can add me back to Rational Scientific Method group.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Mohammad, if you got banned from the most irrational pseudo-Religious group on the Internet; i.e. Religious Scatology & Technology,....a place for brain-dead mentally ill nutcases that speak in gibberish and contradictions....then what makes you think you have what it takes to talk rationally in the only real Science group on facebook: Rational Scientific Method.

Perhaps you can make your case to Monk about that, it's not my group.


Mohammad 2 years ago

So can you give some thoughts about my question?


Mohammad 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

Yeah I hope Monk will give me an another chance to join RSM. Ok, now back to our topic. What are your thoughts about my question?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

If God can give you some eyes, maybe you can go back a few posts and read my thoughts on your question. Stop trolling Mohammad. I don't have time for your crap. I have important Scientific matters to attend to....


Mohammad 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

Sorry for the double post. I have read all your articles but still I have some difficulties with some of it. I am not trolling because I am not trying to make argument with you, obviously. But I am still learning.

What are your thoughts about my question? Btw I am just asking.


Mohammad 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist! It's been awhile.

Can the term "absolute" applied to "nothing" (absolute nothing)?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Malaysian Ladyboy Moh, you always wait for a few months to pass and then you come here asking the same questions over and over which have already been answered in detail for you hundreds of times. Enough trolling.

I am asking you kindly to stop trolling here. There are lots of places for you to troll. Maybe you're not wanted there either. But you are certainly not wanted here. Goodbye!


NephilimFree 23 months ago

Well done. Atheism is a contorted denial of reality. They are almost Platonic in their absurd ideas of emergent properties.


Jeslyn 23 months ago

Phoaemennl breakdown of the topic, you should write for me too!

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working