You are criticizing 13th century science and philosophy on the basis of 21st century physics. I don't see how that accomplishes anything substantive.

I do. In this view, how would you account for what happens when the brain is unplugged, housed in a new body, and "wakes up"? — hypericin

I don't see how that is relevant to what we're discussing.

Not sure what you're getting at? — hypericin

Sad to say, I can't remember what my point was.

Tao is just the old word for consciousness.

Once you realize that consciousness is different from the mind, and that consciousness is the substrate of all evidence/experience/reality. — hope

As you can see from my comments in this thread, that's not how I see it.

the farthest edges of your mind is "mysticism" and the farthest edges of your senses is "spiritual" — hope

As the previous posts in this thread indicate, there is more to it than that.

When I said not real I meant Tao Te Ching. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I understood that.

But then, aren't both statements 1) "the unnamed world is identified as 'non-being'" and 2) "the world does not exist until it is named" implied by Wittgenstein's statement? — Alkis Piskas

I agree. That was why I brought it up.

Then we put aside what is hard to conceive, acknowledge the argument at hand, and admit: once the room is vacated of perceptual presence, the matter turns to metaphysics. — Constance

One of T Clark's four Noble Truths is that metaphysical statements are not true or false, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. Most people don't see it that way. They think we have to choose just one way of seeing things all day, every day, forever. That means you have to throw something away to see things in a new way.

for we are in phenomenology's world now, and things are not grounded at all. In my view one has to yield to this conclusion: our finitude is really eternity. "Truth" is really eternal.
Very controversial, of course. I would only go into it if you are disposed to to do so. — Constance

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd be happy to take it further if you'd like. It's your thread, so we can do whatever you want. I will probably be gone for several hours soon.

One cannot say anything to oneself when one has not developed the ability to think. the word "I" has to be modelled, contextualized, assimilated, and so on.
No mystery when you put it like this, in a very familiar way of referring to things. But assume, if you like, that there is such a dialog going on inside the infant's head. Toe? How does this term, this recognition "KNOW" that digital extension? It takes in the sensation of the presence which is done in TIme: first there is the sensation, THEN there is the, oh my; what is this? This association between speech and phenomenon is what is in question. — Constance

I agree. That's why I put "thinking" in quotes. I was being a little cute, but It makes sense to me that babies that age are working with their parents to create a world, with and without language I guess, that includes inside and outside.

That is the difference between brain-in-a-skull and brain-in-a-vat. BiaS can still count on its perceptual machinery being functions on reality of some sort: given the output of these functions, things about the input can be deduced. But with BiaV that link is severed completely: perception tells us nothing about reality whatsoever, where reality is the world beyond the vat. — hypericin

But...but.... Oh, wait, you resolved this conflict yourself?

(you can argue that they tell you about persistent constructs in the simulation program which is feeding your brain, and that these constructs for all intents and purposes is your reality, etc) — hypericin

Do you find that unsatisfactory? I don't.

This may seem innocuous enough, but then, consider: when you leave a room, and take all possible experience generating faculties with you, what is left behind is by no means a room, or anything else you think of. Most find such thinking impossible. — Constance

Whether or not what we've left behind is a room is another, or rather the same, metaphysical question. People may find it "impossible" because it's hard to see beyond language. As long as "room" is hanging around, it's hard to conceive that the room itself may not be.

What does this mean if not agreement, and what gives itself to agreement better than the immediacy of what is directly apprehended. — Constance

Let us now say the sun is best defined as a phenomenological aggregate of predicatively formed affairs (Husserl) which are witnessed, at the very basic level, as phenomena, — Constance

Witnessing and apprehending are not immediate or at the very basic level. They are up the ladder of mental processing from the place where objective reality is encountered. Unless there is something more basic, which makes sense to me.

how opaque or transparent is the brain as a receiver of the object as it is, unmodified, undistorted; how epistemically transparent of opaque is this brain? — Constance

Not at all transparent, but how is that different from a brain in a skull-vat rather than a glass-vat?

he big mystery is this: outside?? Talk about an outside implies one has the means to affirm what is not inside. — Constance

The idea of outside vs. inside always makes me think of this:



I imagine a baby "thinking" to itself as it holds it toes - "Hey, when I hold these things, I can feel something. Hey...wait a minute - I think they are part of me." So, anyway, I guess that means we learn inside from outside the same way we learn everything else. Why is that a mystery? It seems plausible to me.

And I think it would be safe to surmise that the same is true of most people. — Apollodorus

Most people have not been shown, or told, about quantum mechanics, number theory, or diesel engine repair either. That doesn't mean they are mysterious.

Thanks you for your response. This is certainly quite an interesting. But maybe from a point of view that is not so real for most of us (in the West). — Alkis Piskas

Less familiar? Sure. Less real? No. I just wanted to point out that the idea of language limiting our worlds is not uncommon.

well-known, clear-cut, and non-mysterious — Apollodorus

Just because something is not well known does not mean it is mysterious.

Additionally, when people do have knowledge, it is not direct, personal knowledge, it is second-hand knowledge acquired from scientists. Scientists themselves have no direct knowledge of scientific facts but learn about them from other scientists, etc. Plus, they may have no knowledge of things that are outside their particular discipline or field, and so on. — Apollodorus

Most of what we know about everything we know because we've been told or shown by others.

We don't even know who it is that knows or thinks that they know. — Apollodorus

There is an established discipline of cognitive psychology and science which works on issues of perception, emotion, consciousness, and other aspects of mind from a scientific viewpoint. The phenomena they study and theories they develop are not mysterious or outside the limits of mainstream science.

OK, but it doesn't mean that it is not part of the "world" of the one who experiences it! — Alkis Piskas

I don't know Wittgenstein, but that's never kept me from throwing in my <$0.02 worth. There is a sense in which the world does not exist until it is named. This is examined in the Tao Te Ching. The unnamed world is identified as "non-being," while the named world is called "being." I think this is a useful way of seeing things, but it certainly isn't the only way. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with what Wittgenstein was talking about.

I can't judge the accuracy of your translation, but it is very graceful. As for your poll question - In my view, values are human, not universal. Is that what you mean by "derivative of order(s)?"

On the simple level of a physical reduction, we most certainly already are a brain in a vat; I mean actually, for the vat in question is a human skull and there we are "wired up" to receive the world. — Constance

It seems to me that a big difference, maybe the most important one, is that we are not just wired up to the "world." We are also wired up to ourselves. Interoception, our sense of our body, is an integral part of our awareness and consciousness.

Such a concept is meant to challenge our basic thinking about knowing the world, for brains in vats are, to the events actually surrounding the brain, epistemically opaque. Nothing can be know about that room where the brain sits envatted given that knowledge is simply given through wires and programming. — Constance

Not sure what "epistemically opaque" means. How is that different from our brains?

No matter how you slice it up theoretically, you will never explain the essential epistemic connection to make "out there" come "in here". — Constance

This doesn't seem right to me. What's the big mystery about getting stuff from out there in here? We are wired to the outside. Signals come down the wires. Our nervous and other systems process the signals. That processing is called "the mind." We send signals back.

How does one ever affirm a "true objective reality" is has not encountered such a thing to even talk about? this becomes an entirely metaphysical affair, — Constance

I agree with this. The idea of objective reality can be really useful, but it's not true. Or false for that matter. That's how metaphysics works.

When it comes to things like consciousness, how it operates, and how it produces cognition, perception, experience, etc. it is all guess work. — Apollodorus

This is not correct. It's not guess work at all. There's just a lot we don't know yet. Not the same thing. Because, you know, science.

However, people tend to use it to disparage any religious belief they disagree with, — Sam26

Using language incorrectly out of laziness or ignorance or for emphasis, makes our language less powerful and less clear. There are plenty of good ways to express your disdain for religion without messing things up. It makes you look lazy and ignorant.

You've raised a lot of good points. Let's start out with an overview. The way of thinking I'm describing in my posts on this thread is not the only way of seeing things. It's a way that I find effective in helping me understand the way the world works. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I've found this helpful and maybe you should try it out to see if you like it. And you don't even have to choose. You can think of it either way or both ways. Or maybe my way of seeing things doesn't work for you.

Isnt the painting itself an interpretation, and always a slightly different one every time we return to it, the same way that a novel or a poem means exactly how one interprets it at any given time — Joshs

Regarding your quote , of course when we hear the first notes of a song we notice the physical instruments -and other such surface details. — Joshs

Interpretation means "the action of explaining the meaning of something." As I've said, I don't think music and art mean anything. No, I don't think visual art tells a story. As the quote I provided says "the music meant nothing at all but what it was." That means all the music, not just the first few notes.

Now about poems and novels - I'm going to punt on that. There is a sense where they don't mean anything in the same sense that art and music don't, but I'm not interested in defending that position right now.

Music is a language that particularly well suited to convey these shifts in feeling from moment to moment. That does not mean that it is content free. — Joshs

I haven't thought about this before - do only things that mean something count as content? Is music content free? I'll have to think about that.

As long as we are conscious we are construing our world moment to moment on the basis of how the next event is similar and different with respect to the previous. This is the basis of all language. As we perform this construing moment to moment , we perceive each event both in terms of it’s unique content and its affective relation to what went before it , how it either carries forward or changes a previous mood , a feeling disposition, a motivational attitude , the way in which events matter to us. — Joshs

I'm going beyond my level of expertise, but I think you're right - we are constructing and reconstructing our world on a continuing basis. I don't see that as primarily a linguistic process.

Can you now see the protective effects on our vulnerable population by unmasking our healthy vaccinated population? — Roger Gregoire

The mechanism you describe seems very, very unlikely to me. I certainly won't accept it without evidence.

The evidence for masks is lacking, but not so for the vaccines. — Hanover

I agree. I'm not really interested in the effectiveness of wearing masks. I wear them when I'm told and don't when I'm not like all good subjects of our corporate overlords. My typical response to someone who objects to wearing masks when it is recommended by public health authorities is very logical - Just shut up and put on the mask, asshole.

@Roger Gregoire went a step further in his argument then typical mask deniers. He claims that, if vaccinated people don't wear masks, it will actually remove a significant portion of the virus from the air, thus helping protect the unprotected. That was the argument I was responding to.

Be rational. Don't adhere to the irrational game of "let the rare exceptions dictate the general rule". This only results in more harm than good. — Roger Gregoire

That this kind of bullshit is one of the reasons why serious debate is next to impossible. Laymen weighing in with a superficial understanding of the science and no references or citations to back up their outlandish claims. — Isaac

Not once in your emotional rant did you refute my logic. -- can you? -- can you find a logical flaw in my words (other than just saying they are wrong)? — Roger Gregoire

I'm with Isaac on this one. It strikes me as extremely unlikely that a significant proportion of the viral load in the atmosphere would be removed by the lungs of people not wearing masks. I looked, but couldn't find evidence either way on the web. My conclusion - the scenario described in Roger Gregoire's post is unsupported unless he can provide evidence. This isn't a matter of "logic." It's a matter of fact. As far as I can see, RG has his facts wrong.

Oh, Ok. Then I'll address my remarks to Joshs; "convey" implies that something moved from here to there, so one might be tempted to ask what it is that was moved, and set that out in words. But nothing - no thing - was moved. — Banno

Convey (from web) - Make (an idea, impression, or feeling) known or understandable to someone.

Second definition.

Display might be a better choice. — Banno

I was using Joshs' language. I think "convey" and "display" are both fine.

I'll agree with this, but add that it is by way of a definition of meaning. Music and visual arts can can of course still be profound. There is a strong sense in which setting out the meaning of a piece is detracting from it. — Banno

Yes, I guess it comes down to what we think "means" means. In everyday language, "meaning" is often used to mean significance. That's not what we're talking about. So, yes, the best music and art is profound, even if it doesn't mean anything.

But don’t the components of a painting tell a story? — Joshs

I've used this long quote about four times in the past month. Now I have to do it again. This is a quote from "October Light," by John Gardner. A French horn player describing what he hears when he listens to a composition. I've hidden the text to keep the post short.



Emphasis mine. Art is the same as music. It means nothing at all but what it is.

I could describe in words da Vinci’s last supper, or show the painting. Could the words used to describe the scene ever convey more than the visual image? — Joshs

No. The painting will always convey more. More importantly, what the painting conveys is different from what any interpretation provides.

Sorry. There just wasn’t a trigger in your comments sufficient to inspire me to engage with them. I did explain myself, which I considered to be enough, so..... — Mww

I don't mind that you didn't want to respond. I was using your response as an example of the pitfalls of depending on language unselfconsciously.

Is the sharing of a perceptual image or a sound recording also the telling of a story? — Joshs

I think language is fundamentally different from other modes of expression. I got in a discussion with my physical therapist the other day. He plays jazz saxophone. I asked him if music means anything. He hadn't thought about that before. My position is that music, and visual arts, don't mean anything. Meaning comes with words.

What we do by naming, using words, is telling stories.
— T Clark

Perhaps, but far and away too close to empirical anthropology, and very far from epistemological metaphysics. I have very little interest in the former, and great interest in the latter. I want to know how the method by which naming occurs, not so much the post hoc employment of it. The former makes necessary I understand myself, which I control, but the latter only makes possible another understands me, which I cannot. — Mww

I was thinking about this some more. It struck me that your response to my post is a good example of what I was trying to describe. Because of one word I used, "stories," you dismissed the rest of my thoughts as "empirical anthropology," rather than engaging with them. I wonder if I had just written "One of the things stories words do is apply human values to the world" you would have been willing to pay attention to what I wrote.

To save you some time, Isaac thinks intelligent life is extremely rare and that we are the only ones at least in our group of galaxies. — Maximum7

Based on very circumstantial evidence (and my own unjustified intuition), I'm betting on life being common and intelligence not being extremely rare. Here's some "evidence."

• Life started on Earth just about as soon as the environment cooled down enough for complex molecules to form.
• As we start to understand how life began, it seems the processes involved may be explainable without the need for vastly improbable or exotic phenomena.
• It appears that complex nervous systems have evolved independently at least twice in the history of life in organisms very far apart on the evolutionary scale - vertebrates, including humans, and invertebrates, including mollusks.

So, does that prove anything. No, but it does allow me to say what I want with at least a veneer of justification. I bet we find life on Mars or one of the planetary moons. Maybe I just hope we do. If we do, that will change everything.

The second option, also worth seriously considering, is Ernst Mayer's view. He points out that in the only planet we know of that contains life in this universe, intelligence seems to be a lethal mutation. Look around, most of the species that survive and thrive are single cell organisms. — Manuel

if of course we develop at such a pace and do not bomb ourselves back into the Stone Age, for which there is no guarantee. — Art Stoic Spirit

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that one of the reasons we haven't met alien civilizations is that whenever one reaches a certain level of technological advancement it destroys itself.

It is surely the mark of intelligence to rush about the Galaxy exploring, invading, and exploiting everyone everywhere, and generally interfering and demonstrating the superiority of ones' civilisation. If one just minds one's own business, one might be mistaken for a dumb dolphin or something. — unenlightened

I'm not sure what a highly advanced alien civilization might do, but I agree that assuming they would behave like us is not justified.

Yea but the sage acts by doing nothing. — frank

Good point! Then again, no one ever accused me of being a sage.

PRIDE and UNITY. Extreme capitalism (with no reigns) has made Americans numb to a sense of community! It’s “I got mine fuck you”! Hitler was wrong, but you gotta admit he made his people UNITED and PROUD! We just gotta use that magic in the right way. — Trey

An oversimplification by an order of magnitude or so, but I agree that corporate capitalism is the, or at least one of the, primary villains.

A little advice - "Hitler was wrong, but...," is never the right start to a comment if you expect to be taken seriously.

Aw, geez Frank. Now I have to get off my ass and continue this discussion.

And yes, naming changes things in a sense, absolutely.
— Manuel

How so? — Mww

What we do by naming, using words, is tell stories. We are telling stories about the world. One of the things stories do is apply human values to the world. Forgive me now while I vastly oversimplify. We talk about apples because apples are important as sources of food. We name snakes because they are dangerous. We separate green out of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation because sometimes in the world things which reflect light in that range of wavelengths are important to us. We didn't name other wavelengths because they didn't influence our lives, or we didn't know they did. Now we talk about radio waves because somewhere along the line, they became important.

Names, words, say "Pay attention here. This is important."

There's no way to directly share X experience with another person. — Manuel

I'm stepping on thin ice, so forgive me if I retract this right away - There are ways of sharing experience other than using names and words. That's what art and music do. Physical and emotional intimacy. Now, stepping out even further on thinner ice - maybe that's what showing someone how to do something does, e.g. teaching someone how to ride a bike.

Apples are separate from the rest of everything else after they are named. “Apple” represents the separation. — Mww

I'm ok with this.

Not before. After. Objects are already things, therefore not by becoming things, but by becoming phenomena. Phenomena precede naming. — Mww

But this has me scratching my head. How can an apple be a thing if it has not been separated from the rest of everything else.

Apple is merely a word that represents some real physical object with certain empirical properties; that object, that thing, before it is given to human perception, just is in the world, just whatever it is, just whatever that happens to be. And no more than that can be said about it. — Mww

How can a thing be a thing or an object before it is separated from everything else? The Tao does not contain or include apples. It's just the Tao, which is the name we use for that which can not be named.