But essentially I'm thinking about the feeling you get when you know you "get" something but aren't sure how to articulate what exactly you "get". — darthbarracuda
But essentially I'm thinking about the feeling you get when you know you "get" something but aren't sure how to articulate what exactly you "get" — Darth
That's Peircean abduction — apokrisis
lol, I don't mean this as a dig ( liked the post) but if you wanted to capture apo in two quotes, couldn't do better than this — csalisbury
It feels like a state of completion, like something is "sinking in" and which compels you to investigate further. As if there would be something wrong with not investigating further.
I'm not knocking your theory, at least not here. I'm genuinely interested in - if a little uneasy with - your approach. I'm still browsing the philosophical market and probably will be for some time yet. But don't you see the joke? — csalisbury
Each step, as noise and signal start to be divided in the brain, has to feed back either positively or negatively as a "test" for the germinating concept. As an attempt at symmetry breaking, it either finds that it works and so runs to self-justifying completion, or it stalls and dies, quickly forgotten. — apokrisis
And it can be explained neurologically in terms of symmetry breaking. Answers form in the mind as we organise a field of uncertainty. The brain starts to suppress some possibilities as "noise", focus attention on other possibilities as "signal". If it is working - the symmetry does want to break itself in that direction - then rapid feedback drives both kinds of action. What counts as noise, and thus what counts as signal, become ever more strongly felt to us as we "tune into" the best inference to an explanation. — apokrisis
It's too perfect
I'm not knocking your theory, at least not here. I'm genuinely interested in - if a little uneasy with - your approach. I'm still browsing the philosophical market and probably will be for some time yet. But don't you see the joke? — csalisbury
I had no idea you'd published. I'd be interested in checking out your book(s). — csalisbury
There is, in other words, a kind of mutual propelling of the idea in which articulating the thought makes or fabulates the very thought which is there as a hazy seed to begin with. Recall also that the etymology of the word 'articulate' comes from the Latin arthron, or 'joint', referring back to the language of woodmaking, with it's cognates relating to the conjoining or uniting two pieces of wood. — StreetlightX
To identify with a philosopher is to identify with the way in which they parse out the field of intelligibility, the ways in which they say 'this belongs to this category, and that, to another'. This is what accounts for the fact that the understanding in question is, as you've put it, 'pre-reflexive': it is operative at the level of the 'problem', the organizing principles of intelligibility, and not at the level of 'answers'. — StreetlightX
Does anyone else experience "philosophical" thinking oftentimes as similar to that of having a word on the tip of one's tongue? — darthbarracuda
A warning here - don't get all 'mystical' about it - stick with reality. You can imagine things, but know that it is most likely sheer make-believe. You can spend time, money, and energy testing them, if you think they are worth further investigation. but don't go playing the IS GAME - where you claim your speculations are correct without tests and verifications (unless your purpose is deception and fleecing people out of their money, like a celebrity guru). — Numi Who
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.