I'm all over. — Rich

"Rich tried to get himself together, but alas, discovered that he was spread too far all over everything, a fat bug smear on the windshield.

Perhaps in the next reincarnation, he will be incredibly unspreadable and will be able to keep himself together under all sorts of conditions."

Whoops, I forgot. You are just a Bitter Crank. Sorry. Do you suppose every one just spends their life being a Bitter Crank? I spent my life learning about what I (all of me) can do.

You can "rule" whatever you want, in any way you want, so what? Or why should anyone pay any attention? Ruling doesn't make something so. — tim wood

Are you that hard of understanding? It is the way I've ruled reality in that I'm defending. So yes, you could rule it in "any old way" and so what. But I am talking about a particular way. And you need to focus your response on that.

What have you got against the something, that I'm calling reality? — tim wood

That you are calling it reality is the point. Others (idealists) would call it experience. I am arguing the third epistemic position of pragmatism which steps back to speak explicitly of a modelling relation.

One of the critical points that emerges from pragmatism is the realisation that it is a useful thing - not a problem - that the reality of our experience is never the thing in itself. That is why a model works - by not being the thing itself.

But so far you have shown a tin ear to these epistemology 101 points.

The point between us is simply, and irreducibly, that I say there's something that corresponds to the tree, and you say there is not. If this isn't your position. maybe best to clarify here.

That is, reality, yes or no. — tim wood

Why would I go in for your idiotic simplicities? You don't even seem to realise that you just talked about a correspondence relationship between an abstraction - this Platonic tree that is the "real exemplar" - and some discriminative act, the forming of a sensory impression guided by such a remembered notion.

So you are telling me you have a general idea of a tree, a particular image of a tree, and that there is also a "real tree". But you are failing to tell me how you know about this "real tree" apart from there being your experience of some idea-conforming state of impression.

As I quite reasonably point out, this ain't a problem when such a belief is understood to rely on particular characteristics of the said experience - such as its recalcitrant nature. But still, your beliefs about a tree are not the same as some imagined unemboddied God's eye view of existence. To the degree that you assert naive realism, you will always be wrong.

Since we're talking about reality here, a reminder is apropos that "handles" (Rich, Schopenhauer1, Bitter Crank, etc.) are just placeholders representing an account, and have no revealing connection to the person behind the account.

Actually, I'm not bitter and not a crank (well, you can call me one if you want). I hope no one spends their lives being a bitter crank, or bitter anything else. Hey, I'm all for maximizing self-realization and lifelong learning.

The topic at hand has been chewed over inconclusively for a long time, so if you find that there is no common agreement, well...

You brought up the enteric brain. Maybe the state of one's digestion sways the cerebral conclusion. Maybe it's the micro biome in the gut that determines how one looks at the relationship between brain/body/environment. Who knows what politics the fungi and bacteria down there struggle with.

That is, reality, yes or no.
— tim wood

Why would I go in for your idiotic simplicities? — apokrisis

I can't improve on your answer. Clearly no point in asking again.

What does "ultimate metaphysical status of the tree" mean? If you mean that there is something that corresponds to the tree and grounds our perceptions and knowledge of it, then we agree. If you mean that all that we can know about the tree is both conditioned and limited by our senses and whatever tests we can perform on the tree whether directly or indirectly, then we agree. If, however, you will not or cannot go so far as to affirm the reality of the tree - that it or whatever it is that corresponds to our perception of it is real - and thus argue that it is not the case that the tree is real and eo ipso there is no reality, then we do not agree at all. — tim wood

I do think that the tree is real, and that what we know about it is conditioned by what we are and what it is. When the question 'what is the tree, ultimately (metaphysically) speaking' is asked, we have reached the limits of language, because 'what it is' means only in regard to what is experienced. So, there is nothing determinate beyond our experience, but the Real is not exhausted by our experience.

OK, so by 'memory' you refer to both what is recalled and to what may be unconscious, but preserved as habit. The 'presence of the past' so to speak?

If interpretation doesn't go on in the brain, pray tell, where does it go on? — Bitter Crank

As I said already, I think it makes sense to speak of postulated brain activities being correlated with what we call, and experience as, interpreting (or interpretating?). Do we experience interpreting as going on in the brain? Perhaps in the head? Our hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and speaking are all experienced as functions of the face and head.

If you close your eyes and feel something with your hand; where do you experience the act of interpreting what it is that you are feeling. If you lie with your sexual partner and feel their entire body against yours where do you experience the feelings and the interpretations of the feelings associated with that? You don't even know, experientially and experimentally speaking that you even have a brain, unless you cut your head open and take a look.

OK, so by 'memory' you refer to both what is recalled and to what may be unconscious, but preserved as habit. The 'presence of the past' so to speak? — Janus

Yes.

Sounds like you might find Rupert Sheldrake's ideas interesting.

Yes, I've read Sheldrake together with Bergson (Sheldrake's inspiration), Bohm, and Stephen Robbins. All have very interesting insights.

I do think that the tree is real, and that what we know about it is conditioned by what we are and what it is. When the question 'what is the tree, ultimately (metaphysically) speaking' is asked, we have reached the limits of language, because 'what it is' means only in regard to what is experienced. So, there is nothing determinate beyond our experience, but the Real is not exhausted by our experience. — Janus

"But the real is not exhausted by our experience." I like that a lot!

May I edit slightly? Change "nothing determinate beyond our experience" to "nothing determinate in experience that is beyond experience."

About a real tree, you can argue, and I would agree, that there may be aspects of the tree that we do not experience. That, however, is not warrant to say the tree itself is indeterminate. Two problems with that: how would you know? and if it is in itself indeterminate, then how is our experience of it determinate?

I would still say the tree is determinate only in the sense that we can share our experiences of it.

I can say to you, for example: " look at the way the third branch from the ground curves up like a sickle" and you know exactly what I mean.

And we can measure and agree upon the arc of that curve. that is the kind of thing determination is; not anything purportedly "beyond experience", as far as I can see. i can't see how the idea of determination could have any sense outside the context of human experience.

i can't see how the idea of determination could have any sense outside the context of human experience. — Janus

This compounded by all the evidence that whatever is real and out there is continuously changing in some manner. Thus there is never a "state" but rather a form in flux that the mind can name and compare with other minds, and in doing so can agree on a name.

The analogy would be a hologram which is a unrecognizable wave form until a reconstructive wave is used to reveal some recognizable form (a tree). At this point, different minds will perceive it differently depending upon point of view. No two POVs (subjective memory) will be the same and none will have any resemblance to the source hologram wave structure but the POVs are approximately the same so that agreement can be formed and discussed.

The brain reconstructs but does not store. The mind transforms. Memory is formed in the field along with everything else and can also be reconstructed (recalled) but as with everything else, is such subject to change.

This compounded by all the evidence that whatever is real and out there is continuously changing in some manner. Thus there is never a "state" but rather a form in flux that the mind can name and compare with other minds, and in doing so can agree on a name. — Rich

If the mind could see the flux, it's doubtful it could consistently identify it, which seems necessary for survival. There is therefore not a premium placed on those intellects that can accurately observe reality in its most accurate form, but upon those intellects that can use the information they receive to increase their likelihood of survival. If I see the apple as a rigid, defined object and not as a swirling whirlwind of indistinguishable matter, I am better suited for the world. My point being: (1) I agree with you that reality as we observe it is reducible to what we can agree upon, and (2) there is no reason to believe that the data we have in our heads offers an accurate depiction of the world.

I am basically in agreement with you except for the emphasis on survival. While it is one aspect of the human experience, it is there to support the mind's continuous experimentation and learn learning process - or evolution. Evolution is thus not a by-product of survival but rather survival becomes one aspect of continuous evolution.

Pretty shitty though when all you see is apples when apples disappear, as they definitely will. Specialization brings dependency, and although the specialist will always be better adapted to any specific circumstance, and dominate the circumstance they become adapted to, the plastic one will in the long run be the one undefeated by changing circumstances, and less harmed by the flux.

Specialization is always a death sentence, and those specialist traits that allowed for the domination in that particular circumstance or environment will die with the environment, and be weeded out in the long run. Plasticity is the ground of evolution though, and is precisely what allows for survival, and the transcending of particular circumstances and environments in the first place.

There is much you can do to become happy and well adjusted to the times, but adversity will hit you harder, and the more you specialize, the faster you'll become obsolete.

There is much you can do to become happy and well adjusted to the times, but adversity will hit you harder, and the more you specialize, the faster you'll become obsolete. — Wosret

The less you adapt, the faster you will become obsolete. If I specialize in finding apples and that leads to me becoming stronger, faster, meaner, and tougher, my ilk and I will outcompete and destroy all you generalists who are able to find the occasional apple, the occasional orange, and so forth. Then one day all the apples run out and those fuckers who had figured out how to also specialize in finding kiwis will begin to dominate. Their sun will rise and mine will set and the eternal cycle will continue.

It is true that occasionally a man so dominate, so complete, so able in accomplishing all tasks will come along. Such a man will see so many risings and fallings of the sun and will never so much as catch the slightest scent of defeat. Yep, I think you know who I'm talking about.

I don't think that you quite grasp the concept... it isn't that one diversifies against a few different particular options, it's that one is willing to try new and different things all the time. Take risks, be stupid, and risk failure.

That is the great thing about fluid intelligence. It's general. People like to say that everyone is good at something, no one is good at everything, but this isn't actually so. Only in practice are people better at this or that than someone with a higher fluid intelligence, as they put overwhelmingly more time into it, but all things being equal, the one with the fluid intelligence is better at everything, as they would improve more quickly, learn it faster, find easier ways to do it.

And you're talking about me, of course. Me.

Only in practice are people better at this or that than someone with a higher fluid intelligence, as they put overwhelmingly more time into it, but all things being equal, the one with the fluid intelligence is better at everything, as they would improve more quickly, learn it faster, find easier ways to do it. — Wosret

You're just saying the smarter guy is always going to prevail. Given two people, one with a highly refined skill set and the other who's just really bright and able to work on the fly and figure things out as he goes, it will be the second who is far safer from obsolescence. I'd just say that if truly "all things being equal" regarding everything, including intelligence, it will be the person who works hardest and specializes who will prevail. That is, if we both have the same fluid intelligence, I'm going to outperform you because you're lazy. But, yeah, if I'm a dumb ass who works real hard and you're a lazy wiz kid, I'll probably lose every time to you and be really pissed off at the unfairness of it all, so I'll take your lunch money and slam your head into the locker.

Take that bitch.

Conscientiousness is the second greatest trait indicator of success behind intelligence, being about half as effective. Life genuinely is unfair, as I would have to work significantly less in order to attain the same goal. I also won't waste my time on goals that don't matter, or avenues that won't work.

Fluid intelligence is highly related to physicality, as it begins to rapidly decay in your twenties, unless you maintain a good physical discipline. I began half-assed and half-brained, and have climbed myself out, through hard work, because the world actually is just, and being a fantastic human being brings all of the spiritual rewards, and my super-human intelligence. So now I compete with the half-assed, half-brained, and attain great unbinding, awakening, balance, and da center more and more each day. Rather than losing it, I'm aging in reverse. Nothing is denied to me, whereas I'm like staring directly into the abyss itself, so is my depth.

Every time I feel depressed, I just move really fast, as confidence and movement speed are directly correlated.

Anyway, I win. Richer in cultural and spiritual capital, and grasp the highest level concepts humanity has to offer me. I'm sure you have a spiral stair case or something though.

If I see the apple as a rigid, defined object and not as a swirling whirlwind of indistinguishable matter, I am better suited for the world. My point being: (1) I agree with you that reality as we observe it is reducible to what we can agree upon, and (2) there is no reason to believe that the data we have in our heads offers an accurate depiction of the world. — Hanover

This is the way to look at it. It is the rational argument as to why our experience of reality would be functionally limited, not the thing in itself.

And also that very way of looking at it says there has to be a reality for us to be having our pragmatically simplified view. So it is an argument for indirect realism and not solipsistic idealism.

Another way to phrase it is that we are attempting to look through the flux - the blooming, buzzing, confusion - to see the Platonic forms. The tree, the apple, the whatever substantial entity we claim to apprehend, is ourselves viewing our ideas having managed to filter away all the clutter and detail that seems to stand in the way of a sharp act of object recognition.

So we can apprehend the buzzing confusion. But always we are striving to go beyond the unexamined reality of a sensory flux to arrive in a modelled realm of just us and our Platonically sharp objects of perception.

I'd agree with all you say regarding your superiority but for your sunken beady myopic eyes, capable of seeing nothing but the twisted florescent prisms through your burnt retinas.

But for that.

It's good for you to stare at the sun for at least an hour a day, optimally five hours a day. No pain no sunken beady burnt retinas.