There is absolutely no empiricism in cognitive metaphysics, it being entirely a rational study under the auspices of logic alone.
— Mww
I disagree. What seems logical to you is an empirical finding from interoception. You find it logical that 2+2=4. That's not different than you finding the rocks are hard or roses smell sweet. — Isaac
But surely it is either given that it is ("if it seems to me to be bacon then it is bacon") or you accept that things can seem some way yet turn out to be another. — Isaac
“...I can think what I please, provided only I do not contradict myself....”
— Mww
So... is the thought that some thought is a contradictory thought subject to the same restrictions? — Isaac
We’ve been exposed to simple arithmetic since Day One, practically, so we don’t notice the fundamentals anymore. That 2+2=4 is a given, but it is merely the empirical proof, a euphemism for experience, that the logical inference “these things conjoined with those things makes a greater thing than either”. — Mww
Guy calls this thing a table. Some other guy comes along, miniaturizes him, takes him way down deep into the table, guy finds nothing but mostly empty space. Does he think his table isn’t what it seems? No, he does not, for he is no longer cognizing the table, but only that which occupies the space relative to himself, which quite obviously does not include his pre-conceived table. — Mww
the judgement arising from them does not conform to them, the judgement is contradictory. — Mww
“...I can think what I please, provided only I do not contradict myself....”
— Mww
So... is the thought that some thought is a contradictory thought subject to the same restrictions? — Isaac — Mww
Interoception. Interesting concept. I never heard of it. Care to elaborate? — Mww
Listen guy. Don't pigeon hole me or try to patronise me. — Protagoras
Listen
If your too anal and think I need to show proof of every bit of malevolence in historical matters then you keep believing the narratives dealt to you by the powers that be. — Protagoras
Listen
You stick to your comfortable post modernist narratives.
— Protagoras
Listen
As if I owe you a detailed spoon feeding of how to asses narratives. Do your own research and use your own brain not relying on academics to justify your every viewpoint — Protagoras
Listen
And the irony of ",conspiracy monger" when you read deleuze,Nietzsche,foucault et al and say there is a variety of perspectives. — Protagoras
Joshs
Your talk about vulnerable and alienation is just your defensiveness — Protagoras
Yes,the last point is interesting. We could have a good discussion. But if you want that,then talk in your own words,not just quoting others.
I like discourse with you on some level because you actually acknowledge intuition and a critique of enlightment "rationality",which is very rare on this forum. — Protagoras
When I say a critique of rationality I'm talking foucault level of saying science is just control. However,I don't go foucault level of subjectivity being constructed purely by culture etc,nor do I say religious experience is invalid. — Protagoras
If you are into those two thinkers why even bother with the vast majority of continental thinkers? The ideas of those two if refined with some freud are sufficient. — Protagoras
If you are into those two thinkers why even bother with the vast majority of continental thinkers? The ideas of those two if refined with some freud are sufficient.— Protagoras
I have always said the ultimate test of any philosophy is how well it serves as a psychotherapy. What can it tell us about ourselves and others that rival psychotherapies miss?
Would you say there are people whose superordinate system rather than triggering negative emotions when in new unknown experiences or territory "Focus" hard and actually thrive joyfully in spite of the unknown? — Protagoras
Now you see my beef with science and philosophy!? — Protagoras
For centuries these have left US out of the picture , as if our relation to experience was not necessary to the facts of the world
the judgement is contradictory.
— Mww
...which is a type of thought, no? — Isaac
Logial inference is still something one 'senses' and so empirical, — Isaac
It's the sense of one's internal states. — Isaac
Conceptions arise spontaneously from understanding in relation to phenomena, judgement is the unity of conceptions in relation to each other. — Mww
it isn’t that things don’t fit together, but rather, it is that we ourselves that have misfit them. — Mww
reason finds such cognition contradicts experience, re: “That ain’t like no dog I ever seen”. It is in judgement alone, with respect to a posteriori cognitions, that errors in our thinking occurs, and it is reason alone that discovers them, and is solely responsible for the possible correction of them. — Mww
I’ve been telling you of my system, but you haven’t reciprocated by telling me of yours. And while all this is a proper demonstration of Socratic dialectic, it is necessarily one-sided. Just letting you know it doesn’t have to be; you could always lay some psychological counterpoints on me. — Mww
I’m not so sure about that. It reeks of the Homunculus Argument, in that if one senses an inference it begs the question...from whence did the inference arise, if one merely senses that there has been one? On the other hand, if one senses an inference presupposes he is the source of it, begs the other question....why would he call it something he sensed, if it was he who created it? What one senses, is the conclusion the inference obtains, which may or may not be empirical. He does not ‘sense’ the act of logically inferring from which the conclusion is given. — Mww
one of the activities 'the system' is strongly suspected of doing is filtering and even, in some cases, completely changing, the sensations to match the expected model — Isaac
Can you hold contradictory judgements? — Isaac
Judgements are necessarily recalled post hoc (one doesn't re-judge every second)..... — Isaac
....so a judgement being 'in mind' is a phenomena, an interocepted state one discovers one has. — Isaac
Hence - what best translates from my system as your 'reason' is only ever something which gathers inferences about sensations, not makes them. The inferences it makes are those which unify the systems below it, to better predict what they are likely to deliver next. 2+2=4 is just such a model. — Isaac
At no point does your conscious, rational, system get access to the sensations from one's environment (nor from one's physiology). — Isaac
to have your conscious rational judgement, it can only be done by the meta-modelling consciousness systems, whose inputs are the activity logs of the other systems actually doing the inference modelling of sensations. — Isaac
Ain’t that the truth!! Some do it more than a others, the most prevalent, I would guess, being the long-ago story embellishment......“Damn thing was THIS big, I swear, then the line broke and he was gone!!!”....which relates to purely personal aesthetic judgements whereby the ego satisfies itself. More serious are occasions of rejecting empirical evidence in dispute with personal prejudice, which relates to discursive judgements whereby the ego finds its satisfaction from outside itself and maintains it at all costs. As Paul Simon says, “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, mmm, mmmm, mmmmmm”. — Mww
the simplest, easiest to recognize error in metaphysical cognitive systems, is the LNC. — Mww
we cannot have a cognition without its judgement, in accordance with the metaphysical system — Mww
When I think, “every good boy deserves favor”, am I referencing a judgement, or a cognition? — Mww
pure reason makes available “existence”, “possibility”, “necessity”, “causality”, “community”, and exactly seven other similar conceptions, as fundamental grounds for the possibility for the subsequent inferences a component makes on an input from an antecedent component. — Mww
My system agrees without equivocation. Remember I mentioned a few days ago we are not conscious of parts of the whole cognitive system. My conscious rational system is the part that thinks about the phenomena given from sensation, but never about the sensation itself. In effect, thinking has no access to sensibility, but is only conditioned by it. Such is the speculative representational system writ large — Mww
the methods be different, but the results the same. — Mww
Thanks for sticking around, valiantly scaling The Great Wall of Text, and especially for showing another point of view. — Mww
It's the main reason I keep engaging, I'm hoping one time I'll understand a little more about the thought processes here. — Isaac
I can model the pain as an activity in neural circuits. It's seems quite clearly like an object to me. — Isaac
Well, if you can't make the distinction between felt pain and the concept of pain, there’s really no point discussing it. — Wayfarer
It's not that you disagree with me, it's that what you're saying is not amenable to reason. I say 'the experience of pain and the knowledge of the physiology of pain are different'. If you say they're not different, how could any argument prevail? How could it ever be proven that 'an idea of pain' and 'a pain' are different things, to one prepared to deny it? — Wayfarer
Dennett asks us to turn our backs on what is glaringly obvious—that in consciousness we are immediately aware of real subjective experiences of color, flavor, sound, touch, etc. that cannot be fully described in neural terms even though they have a neural cause (or perhaps have neural as well as experiential aspects). And he asks us to do this because the reality of such phenomena is incompatible with the scientific materialism that in his view sets the outer bounds of reality. He is, in Aristotle’s words, “maintaining a thesis at all costs.”
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.