I’ve noticed ‘Laws of Form’ but when I tried reading it, found it quite daunting. Maybe we should start a discussion group on it. — Quixodian

I'd love to have a go at it, but I too find it daunting. A logician, a mathematician, and an electrical engineer would be useful contributors. @Anyone?

BBC: "Everything we can see is because of how our eyes detect the light around us." — RussellA

This one is correct. Our eyes detect 'visible' light. And that's why we call it "visible light" Seeing IS the detection of light by the eyes, but the light that enters the eyes is not seen but absorbed so that it is no more, in the process of seeing.

What you have produced above is not "the general opinion" but "the general way of talking". which is generally understood by anyone but a philosopher, who cannot see for looking.

We use the same word for the radiation and its source; perhaps that observation might help folk see the light?

The observer sees green light ( — RussellA

The observer directly sees the green light as it enters the eye, — RussellA

Maybe stop trying to teach me schoolboy optics, and think about the philosophy, and particularly the language with which you are confusing yourself. No one sees light, it is not visible. Rather, when light enters the eye, one sees the source of the light. There is no such thing as green light because light is not visible; there are green sources of light and green reflectors of light. Just as there is no green in the mind, there is no green in the light, One speaks of a green light when one sees a green source, and out of that misunderstanding a whole metaphysics is developed. And Wittgenstein has carefully undone that knot for you, and you insist on retying it.

Consider for a moment, that you have sent me an image of seeing in order to show me that I cannot see what you have just put in front of me. Rather ambitious, I'd say.

As a rule, I have coffee in the morning, but if there is no coffee I'll have tea, just as the peasants will eat cake if there is no bread. I used to have a cigarette with the coffee, but that rule has lapsed. Likewise, the rules of planting times for gardeners are changing because the climate is changing.

It seems to me that mathematics is the study of form in the abstract. Existence must have some form or other, even if it is entirely random, and therefore some mathematics will always apply to it, in the sense of describing its form.

But the notion of change, of succession, of time itself can only arise in the context of stability. A stable self has a cigarette, and then does not have a cigarette. A stable Earth has a change of climate. Without the stable background there would be nothing to make the 'order of succession' — I cannot have coffee in the morning if there is never again a recognisable morning, and a recognisable me. Time and cause depend on that stability. If tomorrow, everything were different, there would be nothing to say it is tomorrow and not a billion years hence, or a billion years ago, or another timeline altogether.

Language, (mathematics is an abstract language) presumes and requires a context of stability and change. Names are given to things that persist, and stand out from the background. And then to processes that recur. To name something is to make a distinction between what is named and 'the rest'.

And that distinction, of 1 from 0, or observer from observed, gives rise to a logical language that can describe all the forms of the world, and all possible worlds.

http://www.siese.org/modulos/biblioteca/b/G-Spencer-Brown-Laws-of-Form.pdf

Science tells us that a wavelength of 550nm travels from the runner beans to our eyes, where an electromagnetic wave is an oscillation of electric and magnetic fields and its wavelength is the distance between two adjacent crests.

How can a wavelength of 550nm have an intrinsic colour, and if wavelengths have an intrinsic colour, what would be the intrinsic colour of a radio wave having a wavelength of 3 metres ? — RussellA

Yes scientists have explained in some detail how we see colour. And then philosophers persist in suggesting that something else has colour than the things we see. First the mind, and now wavelengths.

If ever I see a wavelength, I will be sure to let folks know what colour it is. In the meantime, I will stick with the runner beans that are green, and maintain that they and their greenness are in the garden and not in my eyes which are greyish blue, nor in my mind which is quite clear. And if I imagine runner beans in the winter time, and someone asks where the green is in my dreams and imagination, I will tell them "in the summer, in the garden, of course" because I have a realistic imagination.

Heresy of the day.

Climate change is already killing people faster than covid ever did. We should be in carbon lockdown.

I'd like to point out that "spirituality" is also usually and advisedly a social practice, done in monasteries.
One can explore inner space alone, but one can get very badly and irrevocably lost. Better to have a companion on the outside holding the end of a thread that one unwinds as one goes, thus enabling one to retrace ones path. One needs solitary homework, and one needs tutorials in an education, spiritual or philosophical.

Yesterday the idiot box had a discussion. "Is a degree worth it these days?" There was much talk about how much they cost, and whether or not work experience, was worth more to employers. No one was able to step outside the confines of the economic value-system to even wonder whether education might have intrinsic value. That's the value of philosophy - to see things invisible to the merely clever.

If a sensation is colourless, then how do we know that objects in the world, such as leaves and flowers, have colours at all. — RussellA

I use my eyes, personally. The runner beans I can see through the window here are green with orange-red flowers. The runner beans are in the garden. What I cannot see, because my eyes do not point the right way, is into my mind. So I confess I do not know how my mind distinguishes things. I distinguish colours using my eyes, though; I'm fairly sure of that.

I'm also pretty sure I do not look at my sensations to see what colour they are, because I would need special eyes in my my mind that I do not think I have. And even supposing I did, they would surely require eyes in the mind's eye to examine the sensations produced, and those eyes would also need eyes to look at their sensations etc, ad infinitum.

I spent a few braincells wondering why the global temperature seemed to mimic the N. hemisphere seasons. Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N.

*Puts the tinfoil hat down again, gently.*

Yet this cannot be the case, as "I" am no more than the set of my sensations. My sensations are what comprise "me". — RussellA

Well speak for yourself; I am a good deal more than the set of my sensations.

But do you see the difficulty of your diagram, that recreates colours 'in the mind'; it would require someone to be looking at the mind, to see what colour things were in there. That is the recursion we really need to avoid. And the way to do it is to leave colours where they are, in leaves and flowers and stuff, and let all the 'mind-stuff' including sensations be colourless and featureless electrochemical shenanigans, or moving spirit, or some such.

I prefer to say that sensations are not the kind of thing that has colour. The sensation of green is no more green than the sensation of big is big, or the sensation of having made a mistake is a mistake.

Therefore, the sensation of green is green. — RussellA

Then what Is anyone supposed to understand by this, and the accompanying diagram?

In the world are two objects. One has been named "red" and the other has been named "blue". No-one knows the true colours of these two objects. However, let them be green and orange for the sake of argument. — RussellA

In my dreams, which take place in the dark, I can have the sensation of colour. — RussellA

Exactly. But if I were to ask you what colour the sensation of colour was, you might wonder what I meant.

You might want to say that the sensation of each colour is the colour of the sensation it is, or that the colour of the sensation is different from the colour it is a sensation of. Whichever you said, I would be wondering what you could possibly mean.

It seems to me that the sensation of colour has no colour; it takes place in the dark.

1. Discover your thinking is muddled.
2. Ask others to clarify and explain.
3. Get them in a muddle about it.
4. Start reading up down and all around about it.
5. Notice that it is a topic in philosophy.

Yes, of course fictions have functions too and speculation and even deliberate nonsense, in the appropriate setting, and so on.We don't need to go into that do we? I think there is agreement.

Oh wait!

'practical fictions' (reductive maps) — plaque flag

What is this? A map the size of the territory with every feature marked would be unwieldy. Sometimes one draws a map of a cell, maybe, larger than life, and sometimes one draws a map of Narnia. We, I hope, but now I am worried, understand that the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory... Don't we? In general a map is reduced to "salient features". The reduction is not a fiction any more than the failure to say everything that is true all at once is a fiction

So we've already got persons in a world and language together. And they can be wrong about this world individually. — plaque flag

Yes moral and rational beings with language in a world together. So ontology has to account for all that in some way.

The critical-rational ontologist embraces a second-order critical-synthetic oracular tradition. 'We the rational' articulate the real together, fallibly, against a kind of horizon. It's implicitly adversarially cooperative. — plaque flag

But here, I think is where I start to become deviant. Because this is exactly what science has claimed to be doing since Descartes or Newton or thereabouts, that arrived at a mechanical world devoid of meaning. Fallibly, indeed! And what they have left out is what you are still leaving out, which is the tradition of meaning.

To be a bit more specific, critical-rational ontologists do not appear fully formed, but arise out of that tradition that questions its own moral worth, which is the religious tradition. That aspiration to the ideal community is the religious aspiration in modern dress.


.

I think I've went out of my way in many posts to stress the irreducibility (for philosophers) of normativity. — plaque flag

Indeed. A brute fact then of the human world? It's necessary to our discourse. It's necessary probably to our social life.

Respectfully, I think you are reading it only for what interests you at the moment. — plaque flag

Well in a sense, yes. I am trying to make sense of something that sounds at times interesting, and then at other times seems a bit thin. I have myself argued very simply here many times that language functions as communication and depends on the prevalence of truth. Aesop illustrated this very clearly with the fable of the boy who cried "Wolf". without a commitment to truth language loses meaning and function and becomes empty 'sound and fury'.

But how do I, or you, get from there to an ontology? It seems to me that nothing in what you have said here entails anything ontological. What am I missing?

Am I not supposed to assume that what there is (apart from our dialogue) does not depend on our dialogue taking place or coming to a conclusion?

As far as I can tell, your concern is that theological metaphors might lead to superstitious denials of personal death — plaque flag

No, I think that is rather an evasion of my point. Think Plato's cave, since you seem to have an allergic reaction to religion. The scientific turn has had huge success, but at the cost of neglecting if not reducing to mere physics, subjectivity, rationality, and morality. For Plato, that world is analogised as the cave wall, a realm of shadows that is the illusory world of matter and bodies, as distinct from the real world of forms, the concern of the philosopher. Your project, as I understand it through many threads, is to marry the two worlds. I am pointing out a problem that Plato had and that you inherit. with or without gods or afterlife.

Whatever rationality is going to be in the scheme of things, if you want a monism, it is going to be problematic.

I take ontology in in this context to be “critical” or “scientific” in its intention, as opposed to relatively irresponsible myth-making. Granted that we put on the heroic robes of the “scientific” (critical) philosopher, as opposed to the mystic who denigrates dialectic as a means to truth, what have we already assumed in so doing ? — plaque flag

You already have assumed both the body, and a moral and rational robe. And these garments cannot then be reduced to bodily functions, on pain of ceasing to be fundamental and disappearing into epiphenomena. So it looks like you need a non-physical realm, of forms, if not of gods and angels.

Or else this whole thread amounts to no more than 'we have to talk in language, get used to it.' And that certainly does not rule out afterlives and much else, except procedurally and dictatorially.

I really don't agree that you're posting in good faith. — Quixodian

:100:

It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist.

Yes. So we have to avoid both typical mistakes. The world is not our dream, for we are flesh in the world, or 'subjectivity' could have no sense in our talk. But we only know our world, strangely, through this same flesh. — plaque flag

And that which only exists dependent on what we think, I shall call a dream, a myth, an idea, or an image.
— unenlightened

Yes. So we have to avoid both typical mistakes. The world is not our dream, for we are flesh in the world, or 'subjectivity' could have no sense in our talk. But we only know our world, strangely, through this same flesh. — plaque flag

With Kant we cannot know anything about God. So we could not make the inference that we are baby-gods or anything of that sort. That claim could not be justified by a Kantian rationality, but it can be justified in a Hegelian rationality. — Moliere

Forgive me, the thread moves fast, and my Hegel rather Vaguel. But when God is introduced, reality is turned on its head. This world of flesh becomes the dream, and rationality and morality becomes the real.

As little gods, we become the architects of our fate, and time sees the realisation of our plans and ideas and dreams within the great dream which is God's Creation. And our nightmares. For little gods it is all-important to think happy thoughts. But then, talk of the real has to start to look like this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p28

Or else we relegate ideas to mere infectious memes. Flesh or spirit – is it possible not to choose? I'm reminded of Mervyn Peake's Mr Pye.

This seems to assume that Reality exists independently of what we think about it, — plaque flag

Yes, I think that looks like a foundational truth, sorry about that. And that which only exists dependent on what we think, I shall call a dream, a myth, an idea, or an image.

How does it avoid being the same kind of lostness in language it points out ? — plaque flag

By being oracular, or poetic. Rationally, one cannot be lost in language or be anywhere else than in the real world. Therefore there is no problem in the first place of 'ontology'. It's all 'engine idling'.

a kind of playful speech act that calls the theorist home for supper. — plaque flag

That was my first response, self-censored; Dinner realism, I eat therefore I am, and try not to eat the menu.

Am I eating the menu here?

Conditions for the possibility of critical discussion cannot be rationally challenged without performative contradiction. — plaque flag

As the proverbial Irishman says on being asked for directions to - anywhere, really, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here."

Critical discussion is all performative contradiction. Or to put it contrariwise, a philosopher is one who has become lost in language, and is trying to argue his way back to reality.

I still haven't answered the question, I notice. The attraction of nomadic life is an imagined escape from social responsibility. The reality is that social dependence and the accompanying responsibility are inescapable and nomads are far more dependent and vulnerable than the settled.

There is a tropical agriculture known as 'slash and burn' where one clears a patch of jungle, grows crops for a few years and then abandons it when the soil is exhausted and moves on to clear a new patch. This is a slow migratory system, that will only be sustainable for a very small tribal population.

To support an urban population requires a more intense use of land involving crop rotation, irrigation, domesticated livestock, and so on, including mining for lime and phosphates to maintain soil fertility. This is what 99% of the population relies on for food, and therefore it takes up all the most convenient land which of necessity is permanently settled. Nomads foraging for food in the fields cultivated by others leads to conflict, so generally nomads these days are confined to marginal land - mountains, deserts, and remote jungles. And they probably don't have great internet access, or health insurance.

Monsanto is a science and technology group.

Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. — Benkei

Here's your answer:–

The cost of winning an argument is that now they hate you because you made them lose. — frank

Some of us have this magical ability to change our minds when we find out we were wrong, and others just get angry. If only they could realise that it was them being wrong that made them lose...

Agriculture.

Those with morals are always at a disadvantage with regard to those who are amoral, because they limit their own options. Join the forces of evil now!

My theory is that with only two parties, political identity becomes much more entrenched. Part of that identity is hating the other party so even if an amoeba runs for your side, you're still going to vote for it because it's not the other side. — Benkei

Here's an alternative hypothesis. that when two patties are 99% politically identical, matters of style become all important: back to the future v forward to the good old days hatred of tolerance v tolerance of hatred. When there is nothing to choose between the parties, the monsters of mythology must be invoked on each side to create a significant difference, otherwise no one will bother to vote at all.

I hadn't heard that term before. — frank

That explains a lot.

So how about just walk away? — frank

You walk away if you want to, but I haven't entirely given up on you. And I haven't given up on the topic either. A lot of people are going to die, more than a few already have died, and a lot of environments are going to die, but we can go on making things worse, or we can start trying to make things less awful. I'm for doing the latter, even if it means being a little bit harsh with people who pretend to a knowledge they do not have.

You understand that "climate denial" is an umbrella term, that should not be taken absolutely literally? From 'its not happening', to 'it's not that bad', to 'there's nothing to be done', to 'it's always happened', to 'it might get colder soon', to 'seasonal change is greater than climate warming' . I mean, really, what is that last one for shit posting? You want us to discuss why that is problematic?

Yes. We do not discuss flat Earth theory, because it is nonsense, and would prevent us from having sensible conversations. The climate 'debate' is as over as the flat Earth debate, and the smoking/lung cancer connection debate. To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation.

I didn't rationalize that it's ok to hurt people. — frank

You appear to be rationalising that your interventions here will not hurt anyone, but you may be very wrong. If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. A high price for us to pay for your delusion of innocence.

The problem for me, is that I don't think I'm smart enough to know when I'm deluding myself. — frank

But it doesn't stop you telling us how to behave. So it looks like your claim above is one of your delusions.

But in an emergency, what is moral changes. When the boat is in danger of overturning, it is moral to restrain the guy rocking the boat. When there is no danger, let him have his fun.

Let's be civil. — frank

It is civility and civilisation that are under threat. Civility has to stop at the point where the conditions for its existence are threatened, just as 'freedom' does. Your moral scruples will not save us here, but are themselves out of order. It's a climate emergency, not a climate chat show. Let us resist catastrophe, by any means necessary, even including being a bit rude occasionally.

You have a right to think whatever you want. — frank

Says who? And with what authority? It has always been the case and will always be the case that one does not have the right to think what one likes. If one thinks that all Jews should be exterminated, or that children need introducing to sex by pedophiles. one ought to be locked up, and very likely will be sooner or later.

I have no doubt peddling lies about the climate will be similarly regarded once the effects of climate change begin to bite and the megadeath toll begins to mount.

No irony, I mean it literally. I merely point out that set theory presupposes the set theorist commanding the realm of forms into existence, and this is exactly the same story as the bible creation myth of God hovering over the void. Neither is real, or both are real; and as I am unable to decide, I am inclined to call this a limit of thought, and say no more about it.

Yes Cantor is even more Godlike than the set theorist. Perhaps Hindu mythology could relate to him? I don't know enough of it. But the diagonal proof is beautiful. No matter how many gods you worship, there are always more ...

The empty set is an empty circle. So it's circles inside circles inside circles, and one can build up to the real numbers and beyond — plaque flag

It's been done before.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the empty set. Now the empty set was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said "there is the empty set and it is the only one, so the set of sets is one, and thus there are 2 sets, the empty set and the set of empty sets. and god divided the light from the darkness, and called the darkness the empty set and the light he called 'one'.

Mathematics is fabulous!