On the reference of the idea of nothing
It seems to me that there can be no absolute nothing.
an idea is not nothing; indeed, every posible cognitive system is material and, therefore, is a function of matter; it is something material: as a material state of a material system; therefore, until we have any idea, the absolute nothing cannot be.
on the other hand, if the quantity of energy from universe is constant, that is, if energy cannot be destroyed, but only transformed from a state in an another state, than outer nothing cannot be, therefore absolute nothing cannot be, that is nothing both inside and outside, cannot be. If the empty space is indestructible, than the same it holds.
On the content of the idea of nothing
By our experience of relative nothing(e.g., an empty box or by the experince of relative destruction) we can arrive, by mental operations, at the idea of absolute nothing, by extension. Or by thinking at a continuously reduction of a cognitive content of an idea(e.g., we can arrive until the idea of 0). As we can arrive at the idea of infinit That is, by increasing continuously somehow an cognitive content.
But, any idea in order to be understooded should to have a content. This idea (of absolute nothingness) is not any idea and, in order to be “understooded” it should not be even considered an idea. Thus, the idea of absolut nothingness should not have a content because it can not be understooded, because it is not an idea. Thus, idea of nothing cannot be understooded without starting or relating it with something positive content. It can be understooded not relating it to anything outside its sphere, outside nothingness. I relate it only to itself, to nothingness but I don’t get anywhere. 0 is understooded relative to quantity. The empty can be understooded only relative to matter or physical and space and time.
That is why, the idea of nothing have, however, a content it is not merely negation, in addition is the negation of all that is . I don’t agree : it has a content because you gave it one. It is not the negation (because it gave birth to all that is) but the definition ground, the condition that makes posible everything.
On the other hand, we must to understand that the idea of nothing is something material, is a material state of a material system.
Only together it is inteligible.
~ single have not any meaning.
Even single, ~ have a content, although not a meaningful (the key) content.
On the other hand, we must to understand (I don’t beleive you can make philosophy with this kind of expresion> philosophy is the ground[the nothingness] of possibilities, not of certitudes) that the idea of nothing is something material, is a material state of a material system.
Therefore, the idea of nothing does not involve an ideatic nothing.
However, we can think somehow at the idea of absolute nothing positive content, but this idea is not content-empty. We can anticipate the idea of absolute nothing, but we cannot arrive to it
My fundamental idea is that
there can be no absolute empty-content idea
But, the content can come from many sensorial systems, not only from visual system.
And, many animals have contents.
I think that, that there are animals with better senses than humans
That is, why mental opertations/processings/computations
are very important.
As was argued by Quartz and Sejnowsky in The neural basis of cognitive development , evolution of cognition lead to a more flexible capacity of forming free representation but, as they argue, development also involve an increase of the complexity of representations not a reduction to nothing
Therefore, a depeer understanding of everithing involve more logical/scientific/rational coerence of all that is from bothom to top.
Nothing cannot increase the inteligibility. I fear that idea of nothing is a sterile one.
Over there idea of nothing
About the relation between any posible mind and human brain