You say “only within which [a point of view] any statement about what is real or what exists is meaningful”, and I can equally say that only within a community of speakers is any such statement meaningful, and further, only within such a community does your observer even exist. — Jamal
I like the stressing of the choice to begin with the inner.a presumed gulf between inner and outer and the choice to begin with the former. — Jamal
What I was alluding to was something a little different: that we encounter number on account of pattern, difference, similarity and repetition, all of which are inherent in perception. — Janus
Right, I'd say the meanings of words are not "anchored" in anything other than the fact that individuals associate them (as sounds or marks) with items they have experienced. — Janus
I think the later Wittgenstein is pretty close to the early Heidegger. Lee Braver's Groundless Grounds makes a case for this — plaque flag
We can study words and other gestures, as if we were aliens, and learn to predict actions that follow such words, and so on. — plaque flag
In my view, the coming triumph of these bots (their eerie facility with language) will force us to question what meaning is in a way that only a few weird philosophers have managed to do so far. — plaque flag
Ah. I might call that abstraction or the methodical ignoring of differences that make no difference. — plaque flag
But what if we are hardware 'designed' by evolution to do roughly the same thing ? These things can reason. They can outperform humans on important tests. It's starting to look like humans are superstitious about their own nature. As far as I can tell, it boils down to the problem of the meaning of being, the problem of the being of meaning, the problem of the thereness of 'qualia'. And I claim we don't have a grip on it. Don't and maybe can't say what we mean. That special something that sets us apart is requiring a more and more negative theology. We are the shadows cast by tomorrow's synthetic divinity ?they don't really understand what words mean, they are just programmed to be able to put coherent sentences together, a facility which relies on their being able to mimic grammatical structure based on statistical data showing how certain questions elicit certain kinds of responses. — Janus
If we didn't know a language and found ourselves stuck among its speakers with no one to teach us, we might have to learn that way. — Janus
Speak for yourself — Wayfarer
You mean, the reality that exists in the absence of any observers, right?
— Wayfarer
I mean the reality that the observers are part of and that is bigger than them. — Jamal
As you imply, what hurts us is real for that reason. — plaque flag
There you go again. We’re not talking about the location of a system, but only the location of a faculty within it. — Mww
Using your parlance, the reality of any judgement just is that judgement. Even basic understanding grants judgement to be merely a conclusion of some kind, which immediately presupposes that which makes it possible. So not all that is necessary is the reality of a conclusion, which wouldn’t even occur without its antecedents. Besides, we don’t care about the reality of judgements, insofar as we cannot possibly escape them. What we care about, is their validity, which cannot be determined by the judgement itself. — Mww
Odds are I’m going to regret this, but it might be helpful to know what you think judgement is. — Mww
The idea that science give a view from everywhere is wrong. The scientific view is from anywhere. — Banno
As the issue at hand is the role of the observer in the construction of reality, then the assertion of a reality that is 'bigger than the observers' begs the question - it assumes what needs to be shown. — Wayfarer
(that's more or less straight out of Schopenhauer) — Wayfarer
We’re not talking about the location of a system, but only the location of a faculty within it.
— Mww
Now "the system" refers to something physical, the material body, so you've restricted us to a materialist premise by saying that this faculty must be within the system. — Metaphysician Undercover
This excludes the possibility that the faculty is related to the system, as cause to effect. — Metaphysician Undercover
we can consider the effects of a judgement, and we might consider the causes of a judgement. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover
You say, that a judgement presupposes "that which makes it possible". By using the word "possible", this does not necessarily refer to the cause of the judgement, but more like the physical conditions which allow for a judgement to occur. — Metaphysician Undercover
Would you agree, that as well as "that which makes it possible", there must also be an actual cause, that which makes the judgement actual, and this we could call the agent in the judgement? — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you think that we do not care about the reality of judgements? — Metaphysician Undercover
If sensation is simply a determinist cause/effect relation, then there is no mistake in sensation, it simply is what it is. But that's what I see as clearly wrong, because it leaves the human being without free will, and completely determined. Then judgement is not real. — Metaphysician Undercover
it might be helpful to know what you think judgement is.
— Mww
That's what I'm working on bringing out. It seems you might already regret being involved in this. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry if I was bringing "coals to Newcastle". I wasn't sure that the American football idiom would have the same meaning for those who are not allowed to touch the ball with their hands. :joke:Telling an Australian how to punt? :lol:
In the post in which this discussion started, you claimed that one could accept idealism and realism simultaneously, that this was an acceptable paradox, analogous to other supposed paradoxes. — Banno
As the issue at hand is the role of the observer in the construction of reality, then the assertion of a reality that is 'bigger than the observers' begs the question - it assumes what needs to be shown. — Wayfarer
we can be fairly confident that bots don't have any sense of meaning, which would mean they don't really understand what words mean — Janus
Anyway….editorializing aside…..I’ve posited some boundaries/limitations on it, but I’m going to wait til you work on bringing out what you think it is, before going further. I’m sure you’ll bring along your own necessary presuppositions in support, cuz you’re gonna need ‘em. — Mww
Another unwarranted deductive inference. Excepting perception, no concept used thus far in this dialectic can be associated with a material system. In fact, I stated for the record I’m working with abstract conceptual analysis, which makes explicit an isolated metaphysical system. — Mww
In a closed physical system, it is the material that is necessary cause for metaphysical effect. But in the metaphysical system itself, any faculty contained in it is necessarily related to, but may not be caused by, some other faculty in that same system, re: cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical inconsistency. — Mww
Not in so many words, no. Given a purely logical metaphysical system, the consequence of judgement is determined by its antecedents. Cause/effect doesn’t say enough, and there is an argument, perhaps too obscure for this particular discussion, that because cause/effect is a category and the categories are only applicable to empirical conditions, cause/effect does not apply to purely logical systems, which are concerned merely with rational form without regard for empirical content. — Mww
No. The agent is not in the judgement, the agent is of the judgement, although you might get away with agency is in the judgement. Judgement relates to an agent, insofar as the one belongs to the other, but an agent does not relate to a judgement, insofar as the agent does not belong to the judgement. Judgement relates to agency as the one is only possible from the other, and agency relates to judgement as the one is necessary for the other. — Mww
As I said….they are inescapable. It is impossible that there be no judgement. Again, in accordance with the predicates of a particular speculative metaphysical system. Which of course, has absolutely NO WARRANT FOR BEING RIGHT. Logically coherent and internal consistent, yes; correct….not a chance.
Take a hint, fercrissakes!!!! — Mww
There is no mistake in sensation. Determinism from human sensory physiology grounded in natural law.
In a strictly representational cognitive system, on the other hand, in which the natural determinism of sensory apparatus, re: Plato’s “knowledge that”** or Russell’s “knowledge by acquaintance”, Kant’s “appearance”, is translated into purely logical explanations immediately upon loss of empirical explanatory knowledge, the loss of which occurs as soon as consciousness of the operations of the physiological system is lost, leaves the human being to fend for himself, but still legislated, not by natural law, but by logical law in the form of the LNC.
(**quotation marks here indicative of attribution to the respective author’s terminology, to nip that in the bud) — Mww
The loss of consciousness of operational conditions and therefore empirical knowledge in fact occurs, but only at the faculty of intuition, an altogether abstract conceptual device, which is the point where real physical objects become represented as mere phenomena. We are not the least bit conscious of this activity, however physiological it still is, re: peripheral nervous system constituency, hence can say nothing about it with respect to empirical knowledge. Even more importantly, without this conscious awareness, we can say nothing whatsoever about the effect the real object has on the subject himself, which in turn reflects on the absence of subjective agency, which in its turn, eliminates any form of judgement being present in the faculty of sensibility. — Mww
'Hurt' doesn't refer to immaterial pain here. I mean instead damage to our ability to thrive and replicate. — plaque flag
It's hard to see how a 'mind' (control module, tribal-individual software) will persist if it tends to ignore what is likely to harm it in this way. Patterns that don't tend to avoid harm (their destruction) and seek help (what they require) tend to vanish. — plaque flag
The problem though, is that what is real, and present to us, is the feeling of pain. — Metaphysician Undercover
Surviving and reproducing are two very different purposes. — Metaphysician Undercover
We all die and vanish, so that's not the issue. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do you not understand this? — Metaphysician Undercover
you make the inconsistent conclusion that there is no form of judgement present. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do you think that something could make a representation without some form of judgement as to how this will be done? — Metaphysician Undercover
Personally I reject the thesis that signs have private immaterial referents. — plaque flag
Instances of the pattern will only need to survive long enough to replicate. — plaque flag
And there it is. Right in front of you the whole time. I wasn’t going to use the word until you did, which sooner or later you must. No silver platters for you, though, nope, no way. Get there on your own, only way to the possible epiphanic moment. — Mww
Been telling you all along how I think judgement as you use it could NOT be done, which presupposes I think how it can. It could NOT be used as you’ve been suggesting because eventually it leads to methodological self-contradiction. — Mww
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.