Psychology does have its scientific corners where real science is done. As a "science" of personality, not-so-much, or not at all. — tim wood

Some of the most important work in personality theory (Gendlin, Rogers , Kelly) offers a powerful critique of the concept of ‘real’ science , otherwise known as physics envy. It will likely take a few more generations before mainstream psychology realizes that rather than psychology trying to emulate the approach to science taken, physics, it is physics that needs to learn from what personality theory has discovered about the foundations of empiricism in subjective experience.

As Piaget wrote:

“…physics is far from complete, having so far been unable to integrate biology and a fortiori the behavioural sciences within itself. Hence, at present, we reason in dififerent and artificially simplified domains, physics being up to now only the science of non-living, non-conscious things. When physics becomes more 'general’- to use C.-E. Guye's striking expression-and discovers what goes on in the matter of a living body or even in one using reason, the epistemological enrichment of the object by the subject, which we assume here as a hypothesis, will appear perhaps as a simple relativistic law ot perspective or of co- ordination of referentials, showing that for the subject the object could not be other than it appears to him, but also that from the Object’s point of view the subject could not be different.”

It’s as easy as looking in the mirror, so it’s strange that such an idea is fraught with mystery. A regular old ID card will say more about the self than any philosopher. — NOS4A2

Ever notice how that image in the mirror is constantly changing? How that id card photo never quite captures what you or others think you look like ? How you dig up old writing of your and hardly recognize the person who wrote them ? Sounds like there’s a mystery there somewhere.

Misgendering is cruel and unusual — K Turner

It may be cruel but hardly unusual. It is still the norm in many places. Until only a decade ago it was the new pronouns that were unusual. I wouldn’t be surprised if i. another few decades a fresh set of pronouns become ‘correct’ and the ones you are using are considered cruel and unusual.

Sometimes a little pressure and ostracism goes a long way: How long would it take you to notice the issue if people started referring to you as a different pronoun when you misgendered someone? People learn quickly when the feedback is quick and direct. First offenses may be forgivable, but beyond that it's becoming egregious. — K Turner

That would work if there were a strong consensus in favor of the new pronouns, but this is not the case society-wide yet. It is currently concentrated in academia , some larger corporations and among younger populations. Conservative and rural communities are not applying any peer pressure or ‘ ostracism’ in this direction. Most likely the opposite is the case. Neither is the senior population likely to go along quickly.

Is there a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns? ( — Bradaction

How do you distinguish between philosophy and politics?
Would you say that we use philosophical worldviews to guide our political choices?

Intentional mis gendering and the usage of incorrect pronouns is assumed as a weapon by those who wish to showcase that they don't believe in the existence of GenderQueer people — Bradaction

Haven’t you answered you own question? There are many who don’t understand the philosophical-empirical underpinnings of gender as a separate category from sex. Thus, they justify their political decisions on the basis of this philosophical limitation.

referring to people by their correct pronouns is simple, and easy to do, it should be done — Bradaction

In order to answer the question of how to get people to use correct pronouns, you first have to deal with how to get people to understand the concept of psychological gender. Even when you achieve this , it will still
be a slow process to get the language to evolve. Edicts, pressure , cajoling and threats arent enough. Language changes on the basis of pragmatic usefulness. As people see for themselves the various advantages of changing pronouns , they will go along.

Before you can have an intention, you have to organize information. — Pop

Isnt organization anticipative? And if so, doesn’t that make it intentionally oriented?
Therex are mathematical definitions of information , like Shannon’s. Is that what you have in mind in your use of the word?

However, motion is possible, therefore motion is discontinuous as the OP suggests — Michael

Time is traditionally closely connected with motion. Does this mean that time is discontinuous too?

Why do micro-organisms do all the things you just mentioned, i.e. move towards light or maximize their functioning?
The answer is that they do it because - 1) they want to gain knowledge and 2) they want to reproduce and pass on this knowledge. — Kinglord1090

More fundamental than 1) and 2), they do these things before what an organism is is an interaction with its environment. It is in the nature of self-organizing systems to continue to maintain their style
of interaction with their environment , and in order to continue to function as the organism
they are, they must be able to modify and adapt their style of functioning to the novelties of their environment. Otherwise they disintegrate and die. So the organism’s aim isn’t merely to survive, it’s aim is to maintain it’s particular style of interactions. It is driven to protect and preserve its kind of order throughout all the changes and adaptations it must make in a changing environment.

try to understand it from my level, meaning from the same definitions that I am using.

For example:- You wouldnt go upto an Amish person and ask them if they have seen a cybertruck nearby would you? You would ask them if they have seen a weird metallic car which looks like a kid's drawing. — Kinglord1090

You have just hit on the key skill that is needed to produce peace in the world, being able to see the world from the other’s way of thinking, and being able to see the logic in it from their point of view. It is not emotions that prevent people from being able to do this , it is the fact that it is the most difficult breaks there is, and most people fail badly at it. You can eliminate every ounce of emotion in the world and it won’t make a dent in miscommunications and breakdowns in understanding. It wont change the fact that people will still accuse
others of ‘laziness’ and irrationality when they have difficulty living up to our expectations of them.

Micro-oganism gained knowledge and passd it onto thier offsprings without needing motivations.
Only because of their such action were we able to evolve from them to humans.
This proves that motivations arent required for achieving something. — Kinglord1090

micro-organisms do have motivation. They have bodily goals and aims, and interact with their environment in such a way as to maximize the attainment of those aims. A single called animal will be motivated to move toward the light , for example, because it maximizes the organism’s functioning. This isnt a simple reflex , because the animal can adjust and adapt this behavior to changes in the environment. All living creatures are self-organizing. That means they don’t just respond to their environment reflexively, machine -like. They change their environment to suit their needs, They are motivated. Human emotions and logic originate in these functions of learning and motivation in the simplest animals

I am assuming that you are trying to say that robots dont have 'free will' or the power of 'choice' like humans do, for which I only have one answer.
The answer is that humans dont have these either.
All of our decisions are based on some factor or the other. — Kinglord1090

Yes, but are you thinking that the world is one gigantic deterministic causal machine, and these are the factors you are talking about? Do you believe the idea that Stephen Hawking believed in, that if and when we finally arrive at a theory of everything in physics we could in principle merely run the world off a computer program?

The alternative to this way of thinking comes from
biology and the idea that time is irreversible. The living world only moves in one direction , toward the creation of novel possibilities that can’t be deduced from a deterministic formula. Life is truly creative , bringing forth patterns that never existed before and can’t be predicted on the basis of any prior scheme. Human rationality is like that too.

you still didnt follow the most important rule of the post.
Stop thinking about it in an emotional point of view. — Kinglord1090

I am not thinking about it in an emotional point of view, I am thinking it in a logical , rational point of view.
I think the issue here is, before you are ready to talk about the difference between logic and emotion, you have to get straight what logic is.
I think your notion of logic is an old , outdated one. Are you aware of Godel’s work on logical proof , or Wittgenstein , Putnam, Quine and Sellar’a claim that logic has to be understood as an aspect of language?
Basically , they’re pointing out the frame problem in A.I. That any logical scheme that a machine uses must be interpreted by a human , and that interpretation will get its sense by reference to a larger scheme, or frame. Think of how words in a dictionary are defined by reference to all the other words in the dictionary. A logical scheme that we program into a computer is like a word in a dictionary. The computer doesn’t ‘know’ the meaning of its scheme , only we do, because it’s meaning is defined by us in relation to a whole network of purposes.

When you say there would be peace and no suffering in a world without emotions , you’re saying it would be like a single logical scheme. We would all tap into and live on the basis is of that single universal
scheme. The problem with that idea is that , just like the xomuter doesnt ‘know’ the meaning of its logic , if all of humanity were running what would essentially be a single universal logical program to live our lives , there would be no meaning to be aware of. We would not in fact be alive , but only the program itself would remain to function automatically.

But the world of experience never doubles back on itself. No momwnt of experience ever duplicates the content of a previous moment. Humans have to devise constructs with a very different kind of logic than a computer uses. The logic of living systems like us requires that we device schemes that anticipate patterns and regularities in the world , but also constantly adapt to the changing logic of that world. Every time we construct a pattern to apply to the world, the very successful of our pattern changes our relation to the world. This means that we have to make our logical schemes so that they are not hermetically sealed. The rules of the game are always shifting , and successful human rationality means the rules of our schemes must adjust to these changes in the world. We will always have to prepare for periods of time when we are plunged into the darkness and fog of incoherent understanding, of a failure of our logical scheme of the moment. This ever present risk of breakdown and inadequacy in our construing of the world is what leads to violence , discord , wars and injustice, not ‘emotions’. When you call other people emotional, illogical, irrational , you are expressing a breakdown in your own logical schemes , their failure to adapt to the differences in others ways of thinking rationally.

in a world void of emotions, people who are able-bodied will work till death, and the non-able-bodied will accept death.
They wont feel bad about it, as they dont have emotions. — Kinglord1090

Describe for me what the experience of being motivated is like in the absence of emotions. To be motivated is to make distinctions on the basis of which to make a decision or choice between two or more options. Whichever choice we make , we make it because we prefer it over the alternative. What is this experience of preferring like without emotions? One would presumably always prefer one option over another because one finds it more rational, more logical. You could say one is impelled toward the logical over the illogical. We look in one direction and see a fog of chaos and disorder. We look in another direction and see predictability , order and harmony. It’s not much of a choice really. We simply can’t continue, can’t function according to our goals in a fog of chaos and disorder. So we don’t really even choose order and log over the alternative. We fall into it. The world is only recognizable to the extent that it is predictable. So we really have no choice but to make the world more recognizable , ordered, predictable lest we lose the world and ourselves entirely. Notice that I haven’t mentioned ‘feeling ‘ at all here. But we are talking about conscious awareness of experience. We are talking about meanings when we talk about order and disorder , chaos and predictability.

Question ; how much does it add to our experience to say that we ‘feel’ chaos and disorder as opposed to having a rational awareness of it ?

in a world void of emotions, no one would commit crimes.
The simplest way I can put it is that, one themselves will understand that living a life without gaining knowledge and leeching off of resources is wrong, and they themselves would — Kinglord1090

So you think that criminality equals emotionality? That the motivation for theft is the satisfaction of an emotion rather than the pursuit of a rational purpose? You can’t think of any situation in which someone would decide that it is necessary from a rational point of view to commit a theft?
Is it possible that you are failing to understand the logic that someone else is using from their point of view?
My favorite psychologist calls this hostility, the attempt to force someone else’s thinking into your logical categories because you can’t understand their own logic. They are ‘emotional’ and ‘irrational’ in your mind because their form of rationality. is at odds with what you are familiar with. I think the issue here is you believe that there is a one-size-fits-all logic to the world and any. eh wipe that deviates from this single frame is illogical to you.

So, the way the scientists worked around it is by adding a piece of code which imitates curiosity.
With this code in place, the A.I. no longer needed an indication to motivate it, the concept of being able to gain knowledge itself became its motivation — Kinglord1090

it shows how even giving fake emotions can sometimes lead to unwanted things. If we consider the A.I.'s curiosity to be an emotion, we can also make the assumption that emotions are coded in the same way in humans like it has been done in A.I.'s.
In both cases, emotions play a very important role and help facilitate logic faster, however it either needs some correction or we have to lose accuracy/efficiency. — Kinglord1090

You seem to be forgetting one thing. We can talk about coding for logic and coding fro curiosity-emotion as two entirely separate things. But we don’t have any way of knowing what a machine is doing when it is programmed solely for logic except by interpreting the machine’s behavior in relation to what we want it to do, and what we want it to do is framed by our own goals. Goals, aims, desires and needs are built into our understanding of what our machines are. They are just an intent heap of parts without a purpose that they serve for us. What they do cannot be simply separated from why we want them to do what they do.
It’s the same thing with our understanding of a logical proposition. The logic is driven by the axioms , but the axioms themselves are framed by more encompassing axioms and principles It s a hall of mirrors, an infinite regress of meanings defines by more encompassing meanings.

You made a very point point till the part you said that humans in such a world would still develop emotions.
I have said this before in a different reply, but for this hypothetical to work, we have to assume that emotions never existed, and never will — Kinglord1090

I didn’t say that humans in such a world would still develop emotions. I said that according to this psychologist , to be motivated purely by logic, that is, by the need to understand the world, to predict events and avoid loss of understanding , is to behave in all the ways that you call emotion , even though the only
motive is rationality. For instance, the characters Spock and Data on Star Trek are supposed to
operate purely on the basis of logic, it notice how they actually behave. They strive for outcomes and are disappointed if they don’t achieve those outcomes. I would also a argue that they behave in ways that are similar to guilt, anger and anxiety. The only difference between the way they that approach the world and people with ‘emotion’ approach the world is that their attitudes and desires are displayed coolly , subtlety. You’ll never see an ‘outburst’ of rage or weeping from them, but you’ll see the same processes of thinking that lead to rage and weeping in people with emotion. Basically, they are typical people on tranquilizers. Or one could say they act the way that autistic people do , claiming they don’t understand emotional behavior. But what we know about autistics is that they have feelings. Their difficulty is that they cannot process complex social interactions In other words, their difficulties in processing rapidly changing complex social logic is the cause of their inability to understand ‘emotion’.

This is why your dream world without emotion is merely a world of people on tranquilizers or a world of autistic people. It retains all of the changes in logical
processing that we are used to calling ‘emotion’, the only difference being they would occur more slowly, subtly.

Yes, I would argue that emotions as I see it is juice or energy.
The reason for it is simple, thats how we have been told it is.99% of people who arent interested in philosophy would give this same answer if asked.
Because thats what we have defined emotions to be.
If we were to ignore this definition, and use the psychologist’s definition instead, then we would have never had this problem. — Kinglord1090

I think you’re wrong that we would never have had this problem. We would have just about all of the problems that we do have now, for the reasons I stated above.
Let’s take guilt , for instance. You think it is a juice or energy?
Let me ask you this. You and I agree that if the only thing that motivates a person is logic, they will still be motivated to form friendships and social bonds. They will still want and need people in their life because we learn from each other , and the world makes more sense when we share ideas with each other. In order to maintain. the closet possible bond with another person (I’m not talking about emotional ‘love’, but an intellectual bond based on rationality) , we need to know how they see us, what role we play in their lives, how they see us helping them to understand their world better. In other words, we need to know where we stand with them. If I know that they ‘like’ me , what I am knowing is that they find me intellectually valuable to them.
So what happens when I meet someone new and discover that they are even more interesting than the person I had been bonding with previously? Will I feel an obligation toward that previous friendship? Or would I just continue to pursue my new bond and not concern my self with the previous one? You might think that if logic were my only motivation, I would simply not concern myself with the changed status of my previous relationship. But is this really true? What guarantees that I would understand fully why I found myself
preferring the second bond over the first? What guarantees that I would not feel ambivalent and confused? I am not talking here of ambivalence and confusion as ‘emotions’ . I am talking about them as logical, rational assessments of my relationships. When one relies solely on logic and rationality, there are many situations that one encounters that don’t seem to fit the logic one tries to apply to them because they require learning , a modification of one’s scheme of understanding. Until one can successfully update one’s understanding, one wil experience confusion, ambivalence, ambiguity , uncertainty , chaos. Again, I’m not talking about ‘emotions’ but features of the limits of rational processing. So I could very well be rationally confused about my responsibilities toward my previous bond. One could say that I was rationally torn between the old and then new relationship. Should I tell my old friend about the new one? Would the old friend rationally understand or would their logic be insufficiently flexible to glimpse why I abandoned them for my new friend? How are all these thoughts different from the ‘fluid energy’ of guilt? Because logical confusion, ambivalence and ambiguity doesn’t involve a feeling of suffering? But doesn’t it involve an awareness of confusion and loss? Isn’t that a ‘logical’ suffering’?

How does one deal rationally , logically with another person who hits me for no reason that I can see? It may be logical for me to assume or suspect that they knew better to attack me but they decided to do it anyway. Would it then be logical for me want to teach them a lesson, to make them mend their ways? What’s the difference between my desire to punish the other and the emotion of anger ? That anger is a fluid, an energy, and my ‘calm’ desire to punish the other is rational, logical ? But would a rationalperson act calmly if the other person is actively, immediately threatening them? Wouldnt it be logical to act aggressively, forcefully? Is this behavior still different from the emotion of anger? You would say yes, anger overcome sis and blinds us , but rational aggression and attack is logical.
What if I find out later that the person who attacked me mistook me for some one else , or beloved that I was the one who has wrong ed them first, and they were simply trying to ‘rationally’ punish me?
There could be an endless cycle of attack and counter attack, with each side believing that they were in the right. We could call this righteous anger , except that you would want to to eliminate the word ‘anger’ and substitute the term ‘logical indignation’, or ‘rational condemnation’.

At any rate , it seem to me that just about all of the situations in this world that keep it from being peaceful consist of two parties both believing they are in the right , and desiring to punish the other party, to show them a lesson, to get themto mend their ways. And all this violence , it seems to me, stems from people attempting to think as rationally and logically as they can about why the other person or persons could possibly do what they did and think what they think. All of this without the need to bring ‘emotion’ into the picture.
l

I am going to take example from life that existed before us, ones which existed without emotions, namely micro-organisms.
Ever since they are created, they only have 2 goals, these goals are the 2 most fundamental goals of life which can also be intepreted as the only logical meaning to life.
These 2 goals are- (can also be intepreted as 3)
1) Collect information and knowledge about the world.
2) Reproduce and pass on this information to the offsprings.
The reason these goals exist is because of mortality — Kinglord1090

There is a psychologist who argues that humans are motivated by knowledge. That is, we strive to make sense of our world, that each of us is like a naive scientist, and we are constantly devising hypothesizes and putting those hypotheses to the test. Let me bring this back to our hypothetical of a world
without emotions. I think we can agree that in this hypothetical people would still possess all the other mental capabilities: memory and learning , perceptual and cognitive abilities , and as you said, the sense of physical pain. We also would be goal-oriented, but we would be motives toward knowledge goals rather than emotions ones. Let me now elaborate on this model: as part our our desire to know, to predict events in our world and anticipate what will happen next, we would be driven toward friendship and social relations, because the world is a more interesting , intellectually challenging place when we interact with others , share information and ideas with others.

Now, since we would find others to be valuable to us in furthering our goals of understanding our world , we would be motivated to protect our friendships. We would als suffer from the loss of those friendships. Of course , it wouldn’t be an ‘emotional’ loss , but it would still be the experience of loss. So we would have all sorts and varieties of experiences of loss and gain of access to knowledge. This psychologist describes a few of these scenarios. For instance , he describes the anticipation of events that lie outside the range our our construct system He also describes the experience of being dislodged from ones core role. That is , we always have an understanding of what role we play with respect to other people in our lives , and there are times when our ideas and understanding change enough that our role changes with respect to these persons. We may become confused about where we stand , or disappointed that we aren’t fulfilling our obligations to them. Then there is the scenario where someone lets us down, falls short of our expectations of them and we react by trying to get them to do what we believe they should have done in the first place.

The reason I’m describing these scenarios to you is that these are the psychologist’s definitions of emotion. The three scenarios depict anxiety, guilt and hostility. He radically rethinks the usual definition of emotion as some sort of juice or energy. Instead, emotion to him is simply the scenarios that we find ourselves in where our access to knowledge is threatened, where we find ourselves in chaotic and puzzling circumstances that don’t make sense to us. I think you would probably want to argue that emotion as you see it is this juice or energy that comes over us and interferes with our ability to achieve understanding, but this psychologist’s view is that striving rationally to achieve gain of knowledge and prevent loss of understanding , and anticipation of situations that may pose a threat to such goals , is precisely what emotion is.

And even then, there is a world outside my mind. — fishfry

There is very definitely a world outside your mind. The issues is how we understand the relation between the subjective and the objective aspect of experience. There aren’t simply in themselves subjects and in themselves objects colliding with each other. Even Kant knew better than that. We have to understand that what it means to be an object is to play a role in a constructive process that a subject generates in an intersubjective space. And for its part , to be a subject is to be changed in its organization and understanding by the objects it construes. So each side of the equation is changed and shaped by the other.

“Knowledge is taken to consist in a faithful mirroring of a mind-independent reality. It is taken to be of a reality which exists independently of that knowledge, and indeed independently of any thought and experience (Williams 2005, 48). If we want to know true reality, we should aim at describing the way the world is, not just independently of its being believed to be that way, but independently of all the ways in which it happens to present itself to us human beings. An absolute conception would be a dehumanized conception, a conception from which all traces of ourselves had been removed. Nothing would remain that would indicate whose conception it is, how those who form or possess that conception experience the world, and when or where they find themselves in it.

It would be as impersonal, impartial, and objective a picture of the world as we could possibly achieve (Stroud 2000, 30). How are we supposed to reach this conception? Metaphysical realism assumes that everyday experience combines subjective and objective features and that we can reach an objective picture of what the world is really like by stripping away the subjective. It consequently argues that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the properties things have “in themselves” and the properties which are “projected by us”. Whereas the world of appearance, the world as it is for us in daily life, combines subjective and objective features, science captures the objective world, the world as it is in itself. But to think that science can provide us with an absolute description of reality, that is, a description from a view from nowhere; to think that science is the only road to metaphysical truth, and that science simply mirrors the way in which Nature classifies itself, is – according to Putnam – illusory.

It is an illusion to think that the notions of “object” or “reality” or “world” have any sense outside of and independently of our conceptual schemes (Putnam 1992, 120). Putnam is not denying that there are “external facts”; he even thinks that we can say what they are; but as he writes, “what e cannot say – because it makes no sense – is what the facts are independent of all conceptual choices” (Putnam 1987, 33). We cannot hold all our current beliefs about the world up against the world and somehow measure the degree of correspondence between the two. It is, in other words, nonsensical to suggest that we should try to peel our perceptions and beliefs off the world, as it were, in order to compare them in some direct way with what they are about (Stroud 2000, 27). This is not to say that our conceptual schemes create the world, but as Putnam writes, they don't just mirror it either (Putnam 1978, 1). Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned (Putnam 1990, 28, 1981, 54, 1987, 77)

It's been have known since Immanuel Kant that we have no direct access to knowing reality. But I don't think that's relevant to my point. I'm not saying that science is completely objective, but it's the best means we have of understanding the NATURAL world. Art and philosophy are ways of exploring the human condition. — Ross Campbell

It’s the best means we have if you believe that science should strive for complete objectivity ( even if it can never attain the thing in itself). That was Kant’s view, that science asymptotically approaches an objective understanding of the natural world as a limit.

According to the above thinking art can’t progress the way science can, because it only explores the human condition. The philosophers I read disagree. They argue that understanding f the objective world is only possible through understanding the human condition. Put differently ,what we call objectivity is itself an articulation of the human condition because the agreed upon object is constructed through inter subjective consensus and this interaubjective activity is the negotiated product of subjective perspectives.

They argue the only difference between what the arts and humanities, and the sciences do, is a matter of method and way of articulating ideas, but science is inextricably bound up with all other modes of human creativity and they all develop and change from one era to the next in tandom. In fact the cutting edge of philosophy tends to get to new vistas of discovery before the leading edge of the sciences( Kant vs Einstein, Nietzsche vs Freud, Hegel vs Darwin and Marx). The sciences
are just conventionalized versions of philosophical inquiry, defining ‘nature’ in a restrictive way as mathematizable objects rather than in the more comprehensive and fundamental way that philosophy does , and science’s conception of itself changes from era to era in parallel with changes in philosophy and other modalities of culture.


“Knowledge is taken to consist in a faithful mirroring of a mind-independent reality. It is taken to be of a reality which exists independently of that knowledge, and indeed independently of any thought and experience (Williams 2005, 48). If we want to know true reality, we should aim at describing the way the world is, not just independently of its being believed to be that way, but independently of all the ways in which it happens to present itself to us human beings. An absolute conception would be a dehumanized conception, a conception from which all traces of ourselves had been removed. Nothing would remain that would indicate whose conception it is, how those who form or possess that conception experience the world, and when or where they find themselves in it.

It would be as impersonal, impartial, and objective a picture of the world as we could possibly achieve (Stroud 2000, 30). How are we supposed to reach this conception? Metaphysical realism assumes that everyday experience combines subjective and objective features and that we can reach an objective picture of what the world is really like by stripping away the subjective. It consequently argues that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the properties things have “in themselves” and the properties which are “projected by us”. Whereas the world of appearance, the world as it is for us in daily life, combines subjective and objective features, science captures the objective world, the world as it is in itself. But to think that science can provide us with an absolute description of reality, that is, a description from a view from nowhere; to think that science is the only road to metaphysical truth, and that science simply mirrors the way in which Nature classifies itself, is – according to Putnam – illusory.

It is an illusion to think that the notions of “object” or “reality” or “world” have any sense outside of and independently of our conceptual schemes (Putnam 1992, 120). Putnam is not denying that there are “external facts”; he even thinks that we can say what they are; but as he writes, “what e cannot say – because it makes no sense – is what the facts are independent of all conceptual choices” (Putnam 1987, 33). We cannot hold all our current beliefs about the world up against the world and somehow measure the degree of correspondence between the two. It is, in other words, nonsensical to suggest that we should try to peel our perceptions and beliefs off the world, as it were, in order to compare them in some direct way with what they are about (Stroud 2000, 27). This is not to say that our conceptual schemes create the world, but as Putnam writes, they don't just mirror it either (Putnam 1978, 1). Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned (Putnam 1990, 28, 1981, 54, 1987, 77)

But surely the world didn't come into existence when you were born. Or when the first fish crawled out of the ocean (or whatever they did, I'm not a biologist). — fishfry

But when we model the world we’re not capturing it in a bottle, we’re interacting with it, making changes in it for our purposes. I know this seems counterintuitive. For centuries we assumed that the world is a set of object out there and our job is to mirror it with our representations.
But when we know something we are engaged in an activity involving that thing, transforming that thing in a certain way. Perceptual psychologists discovered this about the way that we perceive our perceptual world. To perceive something is not a passive inputting of a stimulus. It is a constructive activity involving anticipating of the way the world will respond to our behaviors in relation to it.
Looked at this way, the evolution of knowledge isn’t getting closer and closer to something sitting static out there. It’s the building of something always new, in conformity with our changing needs and purposes. At each step the ‘outside’ world only announces itself as affordances and constraints intricately responsive to our creative efforts.
Math and logic are a part of this but are only one element in a dance that moves back and forth between the fixing of set patterns and their dismantling and reformation as fresh structures.

If I understand what you're saying (and it wasn't till the very end that I thought I did), existence is what it is, and math is a secondary thing that humans use to model and explain it. In which case "math is everywhere" spoken by humans, is in the same sense that "echoes are everywhere" is to bats. Which is to say, "math is everywhere" is purely a human-centric conceit. Math is nowhere at all, except in the mind of humans. — fishfry

I didn’t mean to distinguish between the world for us as humans and the world as it supposedly is in itself. This distinction belongs to the abstracting act that makes math possible. Math and formal logic evolved along with the concept of the external object. Each implies the other, and both are abstractions from our pragmatic engagement with the world. We are always pragmatically involved with things. Things matter to us, are significant to us in relation to our concerns and goals. Out of these contexts of relevance , we abstract what we call empirical objects which supposedly exist in themselves, apart fromour interaction with them and the purposes for which we are involved with them. This abstracting and separating off of an external world from pragmatic subject-object engagement makes mathematics and formallogic possible , but at the expense of losing sight of the pragmatic contexts which not only generate mathematical and logical objects but give them their meaning. Math is everywhere is the same as saying empirical objects are all around us , as if we are just one object among the furniture of the world. But fundamentally, the idea of a world of things existing independently of us is incoherent.

“… we can see historically how the concept of nature as physical being got constructed in an objectivist way, while at the same time we can begin to conceive of the possibility of a different kind of construction that would be post-physicalist and post-dualist–that is, beyond the divide between the “mental” (understood as not conceptually involving the physical) and the “physical” (understood as not conceptually involving the mental)….
natural objects and properties are not intrinsically identifiable; they are identifiable only in relation to the ‘conceptual imputations' of intersubjective experience.”
(Evan Thompson)

going by what Hillary Putnam says, philosophy is math and vice versa since both seek patterns (generalizations) but mind the words "...we always lose..." which to my reckoning simply means that the patterns philosophy is interested usually don't cover all the bases i.e. there are exceptions that gum up the works. — TheMadFool

Post structuralist philosophy is based on the idea that what gives a pattern its meaning is it’s difference from a previous pattern This difference both defines the pattern and reminds us that patterns always depend on something outside of themselves in order for them to be what they are. Their condition of possibility is the flow of time and history. One could liken this to a hegelian dialectical movement , with the difference being that dialectic makes the flow of history itself into a logical pattern. Post structuralism, by contrast, sees the transition from pattern to pattern as not capturable in any logic. Even without. stable patterns themselves (cultural, empirical) we find this incessant movement , and this makes math and logic tricks that we use to ‘freeze’ the incessantly transformative movement of experience into abstracti objects and forms. To see math everywhere is to pay attention to a second order derived action that we perform that covers over its basis in living.

Mankind has a natural instinct to understand. — Ross Campbell

Yes, and understanding takes place relative to a personal construction system , which could also be called a value system. There is no direct knowing of the world. Instead , we construct interpretive frameworks and organize our understanding of the world through those frameworks.

What's this nonsense about science being a wiil to power. — Ross Campbell

Knowledge is pragmatic. That is, we recognize the meaning of the world as it relates to our interests and goals(our will). Will describes the perspectival nature of knowing. ‘power’ isn’t about dominance but about the fact that we assimilate the world into our schemes. So will to power is the motive of assimilating the world to our value perspective. Isnt that what scientific theorizing does?

For the most part our actions are determined ( determined by the information that composes us ), but in any moment of consciousness a multiplicity of causal information intersects, with some randomness, such that the unforeseen arises.. — Pop

That does sound like Varela:

“ It is perhaps is best to start with the notion of a state or phase space : a domain of variables or
measurements which attempts to completely specify a given process. Such specification is a law
or a rule, and these system are therefore deterministic, in contrast to a random dynamical
systems. The sequence of subsequent states evolving according to the dynamical rule describes a
trajectory in state space. In the case of continuous time, the system is defined as a flow.”

Purposes" are intentions and, as far as I can discern, it does not make sense to say "purpose" "underlies" anything. My (thread) purpose. — 180 Proof

If one begins from a framework of neo-Darwinian empirical causality , then purpose, intention and chance-randomness are co-determinative. Intention , by this thinking , is derivative of random
chance. It seems that enactivism may shift that thinking a bit, giving the self-organizing system a normative unity that is perpetually oriented toward purposes. I don’t know that this implies an endless regress though. Certainly the Nietzschean Husserlian and Heideggerian notions of intentionality don’t see change and randomness as the other side of the binary, since they are not beginning from objective causation Nor are they starting from a metaphysical ‘ purpose’. Rather, a radical interaction between subjectivity and objectify leads to a thinking which is neither of a chance-intention binary nor of metaphysically foundational purpose.

give me 1 reason on how a life without emotions wouldnt be peaceful, and if i am not able to solve it logically, i would accept that emotions are necessary. — Kinglord1090

Without emotion as you are understanding it, every major political conflict on earth would remain exactly as it is today. Keep in mind that violence doesn’t just consist of temper tantrums There is institutionalized violence. The justice system dispenses violence in the form
of punishment , law, incarceration. These are not ‘emotional’ and yet they are violent. Many wars are decided on via rational calculation of what is is in one’s county’s economic interest.

All of these conflicts are over ideas , not emotions.

I dont even understand what you are talking about anymore — Kinglord1090

Why do you think the word would be at peace without emotions ? Give me an example from
today’s politically polarized situation. Let’s say we remove
the emotional capacities from Trump supporters and Critical Race Theory supporters. How do you envision this to change their relationship and understanding of each other?

2) Live in a world with eternal peace, but no way of being happy.
My choice is clearly the second world.
I dont want to see anyone suffer. — Kinglord1090

Maybe you should check out the anti-natalism threads.

would you rather live in a world with murder and crimes instead of choosing peace? — Kinglord1090

The cause of such violence is not irrationality but rationality. That is to say , that there is only one correct version of the rational , the belief that the rational and the logical is not based on the subjective, that the order of the world has already been laid down for us as a perfect machine and all we have to
do is apprehend this perfect order. Because if that’s what you believe , then every time someone disagrees with your model, you will attribute their deviation as irrationality and emotionality.

You should get out more. — Protagoras

battery needs to be recharged

that important part isnt enough to compete with eternal peace. — Kinglord1090

We don’t get eternal peace by eliminating emotions , since they are not irrational. Instead we need to listen to what our emotions are telling us about the gap between our way of looking at the world and the way others do. The next time you feel anger or guilt or some
other emotion, rather than seeing it as illogical, try and see it as attempting to educate you that your frame of rationality needs to reconfigured. What you are doing f is blaming the messenger( emotion) for the message ( there is something in your world that you are failing to cope with )

Yes they were inspired by maths and logic, but math and logic were inspired by the human brain in the first place. — Kinglord1090

One could say that math and logic were generated in human brains , but that’s very different from saying that we understood how the brain works. The calculating machine model of the brain that you prefer can be very useful in physics , which is field that rose up
simultaneously with logic and math, but has proved to be much less useful in understanding biological and psychological phenomena.

my side of belief guarantees peace.
So, if its a trade between a part of intelligence for infinite peace, i am pretty sure you know which one people would choose. — Kinglord1090

My view is that what you are calling emotions is based in logic itself. Let me explain. Let’s say I am a scientist and I generate a theory to explain some aspect of the world. I have tested my theory and so have others and it does a pretty good job of describing, predicting and organizing the phenomena. But there is a rival theory. It also has been tested and does a pretty good job of describing things. But the two theories describe the same events in different ways. They both use airtight logic , because of course all logic is is a kind of window dressing to make sure that one’s theory is internally consistent. Logic can’t tell you which theory to choose because you can’t simply read that off of the world. The world is amenable to an infinite variety of interpretations. The generating of a theory isn’t a logical endeavor , it’s an intuitive creative endeavor. Logic only comes into play after we have created the model. The violence between people isnt a result of the failure of logic, of irrationality. Both theories I described in my example are rational , they just use different frames of rationality. Most violence is the result of clashing rationalities , and clashing logics. You cannot get rid of the basis of emotion in humans because it resides in the subjectivity of how we interpret our world.
No airtight logic will protect us from
frustration , hostility , anxiety , guilt and sadness. In fact , airtight logic’s can get us into trouble because they prevent us from adapting to logics that are foreign to us.

It is the nature of experience that it is constantly overturning logics. The only way to eliminate emotion is to eliminate experience.

Yep. i think people want to believe in an easy formula to guide their lives.The world is a giant machine and all we have to do is figure out how it works mThe. we can throw away such messy things as subjectivity, feeling , values , interpretation, and just follow a logical blueprint.

Well, animals and plants don't have emotions like humans do. — Kinglord1090

It used to be commonly thought that animals don’t have emotions. Now we know that they are capable of a huge range of complex emotions, just like we are.

We go through surgeries to remove appendix and wisdom teeth as they are vestigial.
Why can't we do the same with emotions, then? — Kinglord1090

Emotions are our body’s way of telling us how well we are coping with situations. But even without feedback from
the body we would still be affective beings. When a friend borrows your car , smashes it up and doesn’t tell you , you will feel anger because anger is your sense of disappointment combined with desire for retribution. When you have an upcoming root canal appointment you will feel anxiety because anxiety is out anticipating and preparing for a potentially negative unknown future. When you cheat on your wife you may feel guilt because guilt is just your sense of you letting yourself and others down.

emotions often goes against logic. — Kinglord1090

This is an older traditional notion of the relation between emotion and logic and it has been discarded by many psychologists today. Emotion was thought of as extraneous to thinking , a mere spice that was sprinkled on top of concepts, and usually disorganizing to thinking. The opposite is now thought to be the case.

Yes, computers and robots are not human.But the inspiration for making them was taken from human brain. Scientists tried to replicate the way a human brain works, and they ended up with computers.
Which is an undeniable proof that the way a computer works, that is, by logic, is an essential part of humans. — Kinglord1090

The inspiration for making them wasn’t the human brain initially. It was models derived from logic and mathematics. We then turned around and tried to model the brain on the calculative principles of our computers. That approach has recently been dumped because psychologists discovered that a brain doesn’t function like a calculating machine. It is intuitive, goal oriented, normative , wholistic, oriented rind what it cares about, what matters to it. These are all things that our computers lack, because we designed them with no concept of the role of afffectivity.

Did you know that individuals with damage to areas of the brain having to do with affect cannot function effectively, even though their intellectual capacities remain intact? This is because they cannot make any decisions. Nothing matters to them more than anything else so there is no basis for them to choose a path or form a goal.

Science begs to differ.
If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots.

I believe that emotions an — Kinglord1090

You’vegot a lot of catching up to do when it comes to the attitude of science , specifically cognitive science , regarding the role of affective with regard
to thinking.

According to current accounts, cognitive and affective processes are closely interdependent, with affect, emotion and sensation functioning in multiple ways and at multiple levels to situate or attune the context of our conceptual dealings with the world . According to
the newer thinking, affective tonality is never absent from cognition. As Ratcliffe(2002) puts it,“moods are no longer a subjective window-dressing on privileged theoretical perspectives but a background that constitutes the sense of all intentionalities, whether theoretical or practical”(p.290). In affecting reason, feeling affects itself.

One can hold the altruism without a foundation? — Tom Storm

Well, the altruism would have a foundation , albeit a contingent and local one. This reminds me of Derrida’s response to all those who say that deconstruction is an anything goes philosophy without any basis for norms.

“For of course there is a "right track" [une 'bonne voie "] , a better way, and let it be said in passing how surprised I have often been, how amused or discouraged, depending on my humor, by the use or abuse of the following argument: Since the deconstructionist (which is to say, isn't it, the skeptic-relativist-nihilist!) is supposed not to believe in truth, stability, or the unity of meaning, in intention or "meaning-to-say, " how can he demand of us that we read him with pertinence, preciSion, rigor? How can he demand that his own text be interpreted correctly? How can he accuse anyone else of having misunderstood, simplified, deformed it, etc.? In other words, how can he discuss, and discuss the reading of what he writes? The answer is simple enough: this definition of the deconstructionist is false (that's right: false, not true) and feeble; it supposes a bad (that's right: bad, not good) and feeble reading of numerous texts, first of all mine, which therefore must finally be read or reread.”

“Then perhaps it will be understood that the value of truth (and all those values associated with it) is never contested or destroyed in my writings, but only reinscribed in more powerful, larger, more stratified contexts. And that within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential-for example, socio-political-institutional-but even beyond these determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable, it should be possible to invoke rules of competence, criteria of discussion and of consensus, good faith, lucidity, rigor, criticism, and pedagogy. I should thus be able to claim and to demonstrate, without the slightest "pragmatic contradiction," that Searle, for example, as I have already demonstrated, was not on the "right track" toward understanding what I wanted to say, etc. May I henceforth however be granted this: he could have been on the wrong track or may still be on it; I am making considerable pedagogical efforts here to correct his errors and that certainly proves that all the positive values to which I have just referred are contextual, essentially limited, unstable, and endangered. And therefore that the essential and irreducible possibility of misunderstanding or of "infelicity" must be taken into account in the description of those values said to be positive.”