The NSTP ( Non-Spatial Thinking Process ) Theory
The term NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process) in the NSTP theory means thinking process existing in the form of mp3 плееры Panasonic non-spatial feelings. The theory is comprised домашние кинотеатры JVC of 7 theorems that are stated and demonstrated below.
Theorem 1:
Phenomenal mind (i.e. feelings or qualia) is non-spatial. In other words, no kind of feeling, e.g. feeling of bodily pain, can be represented by any spatial structure.
1. The feeling of bodily водонагреватели Dex pain, for example, is conceptually distinct from its bodily counterpart (i.e. identification of some electrochemical signal in brain) for the following two reasons.
a. This conceptual distinction is obvious or self - evident or axiomatic to me. (It is important to note that I advocate ‘the principle of universal doubt’: anything may be possible, for that холодильники Fagor which is believed кофемолка Exido to be absolutely (or 100 %) certainly true at present could be false as the intellectual capacities of the believer may be limited. Thus all axioms are 99.99…% certain to me.)
b. The knowledge of the process of identification of electrochemical signal is not at all sufficient for the knowledge of the feeling of bodily pain, for example.
2. Theorem 1 is axiomatic to me. The abstract nature of a spatial structure and mechanism, involving transfer of information (in general, spatial actions), and the abstract nature of a feeling (which can only be experienced) are not equivalent.
Theorem 2:
All kinds of experiences, even abstract thoughts I know I am having, are ultimately feelings (or qualias).
1. When I know I am thinking, for example, this knowledge ultimately comes through some kind of feeling.
2. Theorem 2 is axiomatic to me.
Theorem 3:
I am a (temporal) stream of (non-spatial) mental events (i.e. feelings). I am an NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process).
1. I am a group of feelings. I am not something other than feelings.
a. The feeling of pain, for example, is itself sufficient for its own existence. There is no need of some other substance (which is not a feeling itself) for the feeling of pain, for example, to exist.
b. When I know that I am feeling pain this knowledge itself, according to theorem 2, is ultimately represented as some feeling.
2. The feeling of bodily pain, for example, represents the idea, concept, or thought of the feeling of bodily pain (itself). Thus demars international inc every feeling represents some thought. So I am an NSTP.
Theorem 4:
Feelings are most certainly real and thus physical or material.
1. The proposition ‘feelings are real’ is axiomatic to me. I cannot deny I am feeling something at the moment. This feeling is the most real thing while the whole space, with all spatial entities including my body, could be a form of illusion. (I feel therefore I am.)
2. If something is real then it is physical or material. (The only exception to this rule is supposed to be the laws of logic which are meant to be eternal as they must exist forever. They cannot be changed and thus, despite being real, are not called physical or material.)
Theorem 5:
Space ( as a room or void out there: whether three or higher dimensional, bounded or unbounded ) is a mere form/kind of illusion. ( i.e., exclusively / only a virtual reality; a projection of non-spatial mind; a kind of feeling.)
1. The problem of spatial - non-spatial interaction and ontological [Ontology means theory of being. Here the term ontological is thus meant to be that which exists as real (esp. physical/material).] complexity- If space and non-spatial mind are both realities (i.e. ontologically existent) then there are following two possibilities:
a. Spatial and non-spatial entities interact
b. Spatial and non-spatial entities do not interact but rather follow a parallelism
In the first case there is a problem ‘how spatial and non-spatial entities physically interact’ and in the both cases the model of the universe becomes unnecessarily (ontologically) complex as there are two real (ontologically existent) entities involved rather than just one.
2. The Zeno’s paradoxes -
a. The racecourse or dichotomy paradox:
‘There is no motion because that which is moved must arrive at the middle of its course before it arrives at the end. In order to traverse a line segment it’s necessary to reach the halfway point, but this requires first reaching the quarter-way point,
(more…)