Karl

So then begin with the genus 'material' Space is the material..........

Stosh dude, dont you have internal rules that you follow ? Like not getting on a train before it stops, or drinking bleach ? Where did these rules originate ? How do you know these things ? In maths aren't there specific rules for solving equations and performing sequential functions ? Do you just ignore them ? The rules are specifically defined by logic in order that the definition is sound. It's not as easy as mathematical operations, but it works in a similar way.

It looks to me like you don't want to do it. I don't know why you are wasting your time trying. I'm not judging your definition, I'm judging the following of logical rules to form that definition and that's all. I'm completely objective in that regard. Did you or did you not follow the rules, if you did then it's a valid definition.

Stated positively and without breaking the rule of circularity Where things aren't IS space isn't it ? You said at first that it was a material, now you are saying its minus any material. You are saying that space is a region ?

You haven't got one. When we have our definitions then we communicate. It's no good if you realise that the definition you are using is not a clear one. As long as it's clear then you can write it hear as a definition in accordance with rules for definitions-which of course you deny are required on no basis what so ever and then you end up in CTs camp of denying reality.

Oh I have a ring side seat.

And hence you rule yourself out of any further discussion. What you are saying is reality can't be known, but as you are basing your argument on solid reality you have trodden on your own carefully placed land mine and blown yourself up. You are using a stolen concept. The concept on which you are relying to 'prove' your argument is the one you are seeking to destroy.

Do you use it materially ? When you say is there a space for me in the car then what precisely do you mean. Are you asking if there is some material in the car for you ? Should I take it that when you say space, that you envisage some material like treacle or iron ?

It's totally definable, just define it, we made it, we should make it properly and know how to use it like any good workman looks after his tools. It is also quantifiable we can measure it. We can produce equations to measure it. All these things are of course human concepts, but that still means they relate directly to the real world that we perceive. We can test that relevance and see that it does infact stand up.

Define 'space' as you use the word in all the ways you use the word. You can then divvy up the other things you know about what constitutes about objects. I'm not a scientist, I've long given in trying to understand complex scientific theories and proofs, but what I do understand as clearly as newly washed glass is conceptual relationships and man. You are saying a rope is a snake, not because your perception is erroneous, but because you have failed to define rope and snake. Sure you can make an error and percieve the snake as rope, but that isn't the error you are making here. Your error is conceptual only, so you don't have to keep wondering what space is because you, Stosh can define it for all time for the Stosh cognitive mechanism. You are deliberately using a word that you don't have a clear understanding for. You are groping for a definition by chucking everything plus the kitchen sink at it. That's just bloody lazy thinking. It's fine if you are ignorant of your ignorance, but when it's spotlighted and you still insist on kicking up a pile of dust, then that's down right evasion. It means you don't want to dispel your ignorance because it suits you not to. Remember I'm not defining it, that's your task entirely for you, I'm not marking your work I'm only pointing out that you are generally not doing any work. When you define it, then you will define it for you, it will be a beautifully polished thing, a work that you will feel immensely proud of achieving. Once you do it once then you will want to do it over and over to all the other concepts that are half formed. You aren't alone, I did the same for 54 years ! When I cracked my first definition it took me over 2 days of grinding thought. I looked on the work and said 'that's good' .

They will provide an accurate perception of reality-as things as they are. Space is a human concept and is totally understood even if people struggle to define it. The problem is that they don't define it and then they get to using it to mean all sorts of other things which ends up confusing their conceptual integrations and thus corrupts knowledge.

In a sense, yes, space is the human concept of the relation between things. That doesn't mean that sans humanity that relationships don't exist between things, but space is our word for how we relate to these things. It's the same for time and distance. A length of wood is just that, it has no measurable relationship with gas or water. We gather things in categories which we compare against each other and ourselves. You are thinking of space as an object, some kind of material, but this is an error, it is purely the relational concept and all concepts are human.

Time and space are both relational aspects of mans conception. There is no time or space in the universe. There is causality and relative positions. Those things exist in a singularity, the singularity is the universe. Maybe Dao isn't how you try to understand it. Perhaps Dao only relates to the Daoist and you assumed it meant universal Genesis ?

Depends how you understand it. I'm meaning here that every conception (of which space is one) is directly related to something perceived in reality.

Do you need a partner that also shares your taste in food or drink or scratching you balls ? Filter out your values from your activity. Does your partner share your values - not necessarily interests- which enhances your life. Sometimes values are encapsulated in the interest of course and that can become a deal breaker. My wife doesn't share my passion for philosophy and economics and I don't share her passion for shopping. However we share common values in our treatment of honesty, integrity, independence, pride, productivity, justice. We value rationality and not blind emotion and therefore prepare to discuss differences of opinion rather than scream at each other-but, each to their own.

The senses are infallible, whatever they sense IS what's out there. It's is the conceptual formation which is fallible. The old bent stick in the beaker of water example illustrates that perfectly.

Ah yes, scale, relationship, comparison. These are fundamentals in the formation of concepts which is a mathematical process. If we define the volume of a sphere as 4/3pi r 3 we are defining a relationship. On its own, this relationship is a pure conceptual abstraction. When we bung in the numbers it moves from concept to perceptual concrete. We can now make this sphere to contain the volume. We can determine what material is used-another relational conceptual abstraction related to a perceptual concrete.

That's trying to describe space. Try and define it. You use the word Often enough and have no issues grasping the concept. When you try to define it you will discover your mind goes walkies and tries to escape. The mind seems to have a real issue staying on track and it's noticeable when trying an exercise like this. Most minds want to goof around and make a joke of it.

Broken rule of circularity. No using the word directly or indirectly to define the subject.

That violates the rule of obscurity-which Kant did as a matter of evasion IMO. If you use the word 'space' then presumably you have a purpose in using that word. You surely wouldn't substitute that entire paragraph in place of the word space ? I know you are thinking it through when you are writing it, but you aren't focusing. If you have a concept that is undefined then shouldn't you question its use in your communications ?

Define 'medium'. Do you mean that which we occupy directly, or what surrounds us ?

Everything is a product of perception so that's a truism.

Don't you all use the term 'space' quite often without ever pointing at the stars, or thinking in terms of some kind of material. Take for instance 'a space to park the car' or sufficient 'space' in the boot/trunk to put luggage. When you get on a aircraft do you ever wish there was more 'space' to stretch out ? In none of those cases are you using the word incorrectly, so how are you using the concept ? There is a tendency towards silo mentality-that one must define the space in terms of its composition- but that's not what we mean by 'space' in every day conversation. We aren't thinking of how space bends, propagates light etc.

Tease. I know where you are putting your cross anyway.

Can we get back to 'the definition' of space ? So far we have had one attempt. I'm not judging by the way, just wondering what people come up with.