If I pinched you, and you screamed "ouch", then your utterance of "ouch" is not the idea of "ouch". It is a motor-system response, which is the biological nature. — Corvus

Ideas are both rooted in and grow from the soil of experience, as does language. The idea of equality is both the experiences of inequality that suggest it to the moral mind, and the expressions of tolerance, respect, etc., which it engenders.

In British empiricists like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, ideas were equivalent to perception itself. So perceiving an idea of apple meant, having an idea of apple. And also having an idea of the apple meant to be able to describe the apple linguistically. — Corvus

Hence my characterization of an idea as part of an overarching performative context, versus some kind of abstract noumenal entity. The Platonic conception of form ignores the dialectic reality that universals and particulars are mutual grounds for one another (gestalt).

There are different types of ideas.

1. Subjective
2. Objective
3. Platonic — Corvus

Ok. And how are you able to distinguish those? The only way you can discriminate a subjective from an objective idea is through the instrumentality of the words subjective and objective. The whole notion of an idea presupposes and entails its symbolization. Without that, it's just a "mental state".

You are in deep confusion on the utterance of Ouch as a motor reaction of the verbal expression as a representation of the mental state. — Corvus

We have wandered far astray the original point and this statement of yours isn't a rebuttal. If anything, it makes my point but tacks on an critical ad hominem for some reason. I'd suggest dropping it.

The word "ouch" reflects the idea of "ouch" sounds illogical. Words are uttered by the speaker, and it has no ability to perform reflection or consideration. They are passive entity. How does a word reflect an idea? — Corvus

Sounds illogical? The essence of language is the yoking together of sign and idea. The onomatopoeiac function highlights this connection where the word becomes a symbolic projection or extension of the sound. Chirp. If the word "chirp" could be uttered by a bird, it would be exactly what it is. And, presumably, it would also represent the mental state that evoked it. By your reasoning, nothing represents an idea.

Ouch.

edit. This from the RL Stevenson short story I'm reading, perfectly expresses the sense of the synthesis or synergy of the idea and the form of expression of the idea. The description of the parson's daughter as seen by an admiring mind:

It was not possible to separate her thoughts from her appearance. The turn of her wrist, the still sound of her voice, the light in her eyes, the lines of her body, fell in tune with her grave and gentle words, like the accompaniment that sustains and harmonises the voice of the singer.

But I didn't say it was the idea, I said it accurately reflected it, in the same way that (saying) the word "ouch" accurately reflects the idea of "ouch" because it is a manifestation the content of the idea (ouch).

Why did you write the "idea" twice? "the idea idea"? Why did you do that? — Corvus

Wouldn't that be syntactically correct? The word ouch accurately reflects the meaning of the idea ouch. The word idea...etc.

The vote distribution makes me suspect people did not understand the question. They would be more willing to go into the machine IF they kept their past memories and knew they were living a lie? Odd. — Lionino

Yes, I thought that too. But maybe the point is that people much prefer to keep their memories than to abandon them? So even though you said "could" forget perhaps it was interpreted as being a necessary condition, if you "had" to forget?

Agreed. The word idea accurately reflects the meaning of the idea idea.

but a die-hard materialist would consider this circular reasoning.
— Pneumenon

The circular reasoning is also an idea. — Corvus

It is. And rational-idealism is an idea that can be virtuously circular. Materialism isn't. Metaphysical materialism is "autologically unsound."

Stop accepting new input from the universe in favour of my own fantasies? That's a pretty unimaginative and unchallenging way to spend the rest of my life. The only scenario in which something like this makes sense for me is in the context of a prosthesis, where the simulation is an attempt to reproduce the full spectrum of events in the actual environment and includes the capability of interacting with them via external effectors.

I'll argue that the two categories of real existents in the poll present a false dichotomy. I didn't vote for either option since I deem them both mistaken. — javra

Exactly, because, as pointed out we are

trying to pull an immaterial rabbit out of a material hat — Pneumenon

We don't need to prove that ideas exist. Everything we do and think is testament not only to their existence but also their efficacy. I just finished Deacon's Incomplete Nature, which is an excellent framework for re-integrating the fundamental aspects of intentionality across the entire physical spectrum through morphodynamics and teleodynamics.

The Merry Men and Other Tales and Fables
by Robert Louis Stevenson

Collingwood and the reform of metaphysics;: A study in the philosophy of mind
by Lionel Rubinoff

The latter was a bookstore find. It's an impressive tome, with such provocative chapters as "The Essay as a response to logical positivism" and "Metaphysics as a dialectical history of errors."

Since I won't be finishing those this year, here's my 2023 reading summary, grouped by fiction/non-fiction and author

Non-Fiction

Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought by George Lakoff
The Birth of Tragedy: from the Spirit of Music by Friedrich Nietzsche
Feuerbach: The Roots of Socialist Philosophy by Friedrich Engels
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century by Howard Bloom
1848: Year of Revolution by Mike Rapport
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere by Jurgen Habermas
Spinoza: Practical Philosophy by Gilles Deleuze
Kant's Critical Philosophy: The Doctrine of the Faculties by Gilles Deleuze
The Adventures of Transcendental Philosophy: Karl-Otto Apel by Eduardo Mendieta
Theory of Society, Volume 1 (Cultural Memory in the Present) by Niklas Luhmann
Theory of Society, Volume 2 (Cultural Memory in the Present) by Niklas Luhmann
The Golden Bough by James George Frazer
Oration on the Dignity of Man by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1: Language by Ernst Cassirer
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 2: Mythical Thought by Ernst Cassirer
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 3: Phenomenology of Cognition by Ernst Cassirer
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Volume 4: The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms by Ernst Cassirer
Ontology: Laying the Foundations by Nicolai Hartmann
The poverty of historicism by Karl Popper
Suicide: A Study in Sociology by Emile Durkheim
Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies by Noam Chomsky
Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel
Essays in Experimental Logic by John Dewey
Pragmatism by William James
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy by Wing-Tsit Chan
Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter by Terrence W. Deacon

Fiction

Swann's Way (In Search of Lost Time, #1) by Marcel Proust
Within a Budding Grove (In Search of Lost Time, #2) by Marcel Proust
The Guermantes Way (In Search of Lost Time, #3) by Marcel Proust
Sodom and Gomorrah (In Search of Lost Time, #4) by Marcel Proust
The Captive & The Fugitive (In Search of Lost Time, #5) by Marcel Proust
Time Regained (In Search of Lost Time, #6) by Marcel Proust
A Princess of Mars (Barsoom, #1) by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Gods of Mars (Barsoom #2) by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Warlord of Mars (Barsoom, #3) by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Triplanetary (Lensman, #1) by E.E. "Doc" Smith
First Lensman (Lensman, #2) by E.E. "Doc" Smith
Galactic Patrol (Lensman, #3) by E.E. "Doc" Smith
Sentimental Education by Gustave Flaubert
Barnaby Rudge by Charles Dickens
The Trumpet-Major by Thomas Hardy
The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio
Nova by Samuel R. Delany
Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson
Catriona by Robert Louis Stevenson
Island nights entertainments by Robert Louis Stevenson
The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket by Edgar Allan Poe
H.P. Lovecraft: The Complete Fiction by H.P. Lovecraft
Intentions by Oscar Wilde

I think that there is accuracy in mechanistic realms, and there is honesty in the realm of the conscious. Perhaps the word truth carries more weight than it can actually bear.

Can't why I say something still be true or false, I'm just determined to say what I say? I realize this was a month ago so I understand if you don't recall what you were thinking about this topic. — NotAristotle

Like your making a false statement is deterministically produced? But do you mean this in the sense that you are mistaken, so your statement is a reflection of inaccurate or incomplete knowledge? Because in that sense, probably every factual statement is materially incomplete in some way. So falsity is just a degree of truth. Or if you meant that your intention to deceive is deterministically produced? That would be a straight up self-contradiction, as soon as you introduce the concept of intention you introduce a break in the claim of universal determinism. Otherwise you're just begging the question when you assume (prove) there is no intentionality. In which case, the universe (determinism) doesn't deceive, it just produces incomplete truths. Free conscious intentionality is the only conceptually consistent basis for "falsity" in any meaningfully strong sense. Seems to me.

Dictionaries are one kind of effort at providing a framework of and standard for understanding. Surely that is necessary? Even if the definitions are incomplete, they can serve to mediate disagreements of meaning. And if some definitions are misleading or circular, this may often be due to tendencies of thought (biases) that will simply utilize the same faulty reasoning generating its own meanings. Whatever flaws are attributed to the assembly of a public lexicon can affect the assembly of a personal lexicon.

I'll say that, if by no other means, then via acquaintance with there so being different ontologies out there — javra

There are different ontological theories; there is one ontological subject and object of study, which is existence. Having different ontological hypotheses doesn't alter the nature of the real.

What is possibility? It is "possible" that string theory is true, e.g. that it aligns with reality. It is possible that a rolled dice will come up six. Which only means that, in the actual unfolding of actual events someone rolls the dice and it comes up six. It doesn't mean that there actually are alternate realities in which every case of every event is realized. Ex hypothesi, if these alternate realities exist, they are mutually exclusive, in which case, they represent metaphysically exclusive cases. So there is still only one overriding metaphysics, that which governs each exclusive modal set. That spirals off into an infinite set of infinite universes, which is absurd. The whole nature of the universe, as quantum physics explores, is to consume these possibilities. Information decoheres from a state of superpositions to realized specific configurations which are "preferred" and which, qua pointer states, correlate with specific physical properties.

That’s a slightly different question. — Michael

It seems like it is directly entailed by the fact the OP attempts to bridge multiple domains. By the parameters of the OP, the nature of the metaphysical, the physical, and the logical are being cross-connected. It is essentially an inter-theoretic question.

It is metaphysically possible for intelligent life to not exist. — Michael

It is a metaphysical fact that intelligent life does exist. What you are calling a "metaphysical possibility" is in fact just a "possibility," and the exact metaphysical status of possibility is surely exactly what is in question.

Your point sound confused in the methodology. Hypothesises are the methods for the scientific enquiries. Metaphysics and Logic do not adopt hypothesis as their methodology. — Corvus

I don't understand what this rebuttal says? If nothing exists, then nothing exists. This would include logic. A fortiori....

From the perspective of what is known to exist, however, logic can be characterized as order, versus disorder. And while order does exist, so does disorder, and the tendency to disorder. Disorder is not "logical" (by its very nature) but it does exist. The metaphysically really subsumes the logical.

But logically speaking, if there was nothing existing at all, then Metaphysics wouldn't exist either. Logically it is possible, but from Metaphysical point of view, it is impossible. — Corvus

It is possible to make the hypothetical claim that nothing exists. But you are doing this from the standpoint of existence. i.e. your hypothetical-logical claim of non-existence exists. You cannot hypothesize away existence just by averring the hegemony of logic. The claim is existentially-bound.

if I were to draw up a diagram, metaphysics would be the circle encompassing the physical and the logical. — Joshs

Me too. Logic must be metaphysically possible.

Intentions
by Oscar Wilde

You are my example. — 180 Proof

I'm flattered.

Asking universal human questions, which is philosophy (in my view), is mostly irrelevant unless you DO something with it. Otherwise it’s more hobbyism. — Mikie

Couldn't agree more. Stoicism, Pragmatism, Experimentalism. To me, these are essential. It's all about application.

Can you provide examples?

Are you parodying yourself now? It is the definition of scientific experimentation to control variables.

Good one. :up:

Good experimental design requires clearly defined objectives andcontrol of the major sources of variation.

The design of experiments is an example of decision analysis where the decision is to select the optimal experimental settings, d, under the control of the investigator in some design space of options

Experimental design is a scientific approach to data collection and measurement. The concept focuses on creating an intervention in a controlled environment

For what it's worth, In my opinion, as a Computer scientist and educator, when it comes to individual scientific projects, I think this is correct. But in the broadest sense of the scientific approach, science is the study of 'everything.' I suppose that is also almost a given, that needs little comment. — universeness

Sure, there is "observational science." But that is essentially just observation. Experimental science is far more typical, far more paradigmatic of what is meant by science, historically and now. And for experimental science, my observations are valid.

The fact that some of the greatest minds in history can have been completely mistaken about basic scientific concepts doesn't in any way detract from the cogency of their thought. Odds are no one on this forum has got everything "quite right." In fact, the more complex your argument, the more likely there are to be errors in the details, statistically speaking. "It's raining and Julie's hair is wet" is statistically less likely to be true than "It's raining" because those two events may not be correlated. But human nature is to interpret the more complex apparent truth as more reliable.

Bottom line, it's not just about what is said but also about how it is presented. Thoughtfulness has value.

The fact that we are involved in a "discussion" proves that consciousness exists. If you dispute that, well then, your "disputation" doesn't exist since it exemplifies a conscious function.

You don't have to beg the question of whether it is possible to ask questions.

Jeremy England's theory of "dissipative-driven adaptation" is interesting step toward explaining abiogenesis, but probably still a bit of a hunch at the moment. — Nils Loc

I just encountered this idea in Deacon's Incomplete Nature. Fascinating. And a propos the OP. In order to maximize the entropy gradient, organized structures form (viz. Benard cells in fluid thermodynamics).

When you think about it, the universe is essentially the presentation of the counterbalance of forces in relative parity. Otherwise stars would just be explosions. Or black holes. Which ultimately they are I guess.

Wow.

You:
Does scientific experimentation involve abstracting and limiting variables from natural contexts

ChatGPT
Yes, scientific experimentation often involves abstracting and limiting variables from natural contexts in order to isolate and control the factors being studied. This process is known as experimental control and is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. By manipulating and controlling variables, scientists aim to establish cause-and-effect relationships and draw reliable conclusions from their experiments.


It's so fundamental to the essence of science that it barely even warrants comment. Scientists study the effects that they are able to cause. In essence, science studies the practical causal powers of the human mind doing science.

Just an observation - It may be the case that the remainder of your defence of 180Proof is correct - but he comes across condescending, affected and incapable (im gathering, unwilling is the truth of it) to engage with many arguments he doesn't like. — AmadeusD

Yes, like when I suggest that science operates by selective limitations and abstraction, and he asks me for an example? It's what science is, and it's a well-known criticism - we murder to dissect. Very disingenuous.

Please clarify. Examples would be helpful. — 180 Proof

It's the entire basis of the scientific method. You toss out what isn't relevant to an hypothesis in order to be able to accurately reproduce results. Except that the universe doesn't really operate in this kind of compartmentalized way at all. So science isn't really studying the universe so much as it is studying...itself.

I reread some James a few weeks back. The thing about focusing on "big" ideas and philosophical themes versus complete texts is that you can miss a lot of detail and nuance. James is definitely a nuanced author.

:up:

It's always best to be candid about one's own limits. Science is a process of selective limitation. It has a lot to say, but it also leaves a lot unsaid - or at least it ought to.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Say that someone says that they have life-altering insights through meditation or spiritual philosophy. How could that be demonstrated to a disinterested third party? There are large-scale studies of the effects of meditation practice carried out by Universities and the like. That is an arduous process involving surveys, questionnaires, and the gathering of data about large numbers of subjects. That is 'empirical data'. What this or that person says about their state of awareness or changed state of being which they attribute to meditation or nondualism is not empirically verifiable. I'm not saying, on that account, that it's not true or doesn't represent a profound insight. But it's not empirically measurable. — Wayfarer

Or as I have often suggested, there may be phenomena associated with life-processes whose feedback is long term and complex (read, "karma"), which, as real as they are, may not be measurable in any trivial sense. We need to always bear in mind that science functions explicitly by reductive abstraction. We murder to dissect. Sure, it frequently works. But the more complex the phenomenon, the less so.

I think that the underlying theme is that of going beyond conventional parameters, which can appear bizarre and even horrifying, but is not necessarily so. The prose gets a bit purple a times, but it works. I'm a certified Lovecraftian now. The "dream within a dream" story (The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath) is brilliant.

I'm 90% through the complete works of H.P. Lovecraft. He has a singular perspective on the emptiness of the scientifically real. This excerpt is from "The Silver Key" which I just finished reading this morning.

Well-meaning philosophers had taught him to look into the logical relations of things, and analyse the processes which shaped his thoughts and fancies. Wonder had gone away, and he had forgotten that all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one above the other. Custom had dinned into his ears a superstitious reverence for that which tangibly and physically exists, and had made him secretly ashamed to dwell in visions. Wise men told him his simple fancies were inane and childish, and he believed it because he could see that they might easily be so. What he failed to recall was that the deeds of reality are just as inane and childish, and even more absurd because their actors persist in fancying them full of meaning and purpose as the blind cosmos grinds aimlessly on from nothing to something and from something back to nothing again, neither heeding nor knowing the wishes or existence of the minds that flicker for a second now and then in the darkness.
They had chained him down to things that are, and had then explained the workings of those things till mystery had gone out of the world. When he complained, and longed to escape into twilight realms where magic moulded all the little vivid fragments and prized associations of his mind into vistas of breathless expectancy and unquenchable delight, they turned him instead toward the new-found prodigies of science, bidding him find wonder in the atom’s vortex and mystery in the sky’s dimensions. And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation.

I think that, given the ethical poverty of the physical sciences combined with the urgent need for social and ethical wisdom in their application, philosophy is probably due for a resurgence and revitalization, perhaps similar to the reinvention of painting that you mention.