Is the transcendence of metaphors and fairytails an impossible point at infinity? — lll

Now that's a great question in our beloved tradition. The sound already makes my head turn and ears direct! I wonder what's the answer.

There is no opposition; science and metaphysics are first-order "apples" and second-order "fruit". — 180 Proof

I thought so too; metaphysics and science are just different stages of philosophy/science depending on where one starts.

To paraphrase Witty: they try to say things that, at most, cannot be said; such "meta-physics" are nonsense. — 180 Proof

Indeed, if one considers the fact that metaphysical theories/concepts have to be created/invented from scratch with no readily available reference points that can be used to grasp the import of these theories/concepts, it is a veritable private language (incomprehensible to you and to others both). Nonsense!

What can we speculate about without talking nonsense? To my mind, only ways of interpreting nature – mapmaking maps of the territory – without using "supernatural" (i.e. ontologically transcendent / impossible world) predicates. — 180 Proof

Yup, William of Occam (Novacula Occami: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate); :kiss: (keep it simple, stupid). Why complexify? Shouldn't we simplify?

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. — TLP, prop. 7

Whatever it is that you're selling, I'm buying. :up:

Basically, metaphysics consists in conceptual speculations to the exclusion (as much as conceivable ~ Aristotle) of occult babytalk, glossolalia or mystagogy. — 180 Proof

:lol: :up:

Science is, of course, only one way of interpreting nature which, though not without its problems and limitations, is the most probative, effective, reliable interpretive tool of nature we natural beings have developed so far. — 180 Proof

Of course. But it's the less probative, effectively effective, reliable, and most destructive, disruptive, and misleading vìew of nature we have developed so far, assigning way too much sex-appeal to white-coated representatives of the scientific church and their grey-suited, freshly-tied, programmed talking representatives in power positions, while over evaluating the IQ.

, lil D-Ker, be careful not too drown out here ... — 180 Proof

I'll lil will always be there to save your ass from going down under. There is always hope. Even for you, 180booze.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. — 180 Proof

S^_x#@a@Af@!!Gnarf#÷÷=/%dwart%^^%^!!!!

I falsified Witty Genestone! How bout that?

I am by nature a passive person. But as I get older, I get ornerier. I used to let the opposition push me around. But now I am more likely to fight back, not with volume, but with persistence. — Gnomon

Welcome to the club.

It's a novel approach to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, which addresses the question of how dumb Matter can produce Mind. — Gnomon

Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no such thing as "matter"? This is where Berkeley guided us, and Berkeley has been far more influential to modern physics then most people would imagine. The whole field of "process philosophy", which allows the substance of physical reality to be rendered as mathematical equations, instead of as matter, in a fundamental platonic realism, is derived from the annihilation of "matter".

The reason why we can annihilate matter in this way, is that it is simply an idea, it's conceptual. The concept was proposed as a stand in, to represent the aspect of reality which appeared as unintelligible to us, this was temporal continuity. So if we decide that there is nothing real, nothing physical which comprises temporal continuity in the universe, (as in the moon does not exist if no one is looking at it) then we decide that there is no such thing as matter, and we throw the concept out the window, matter is effectively annihilated.

The problem though, is that temporal continuity, though it is fundamentally unintelligible to us, has vast support through empirical evidence. So when we annihilate matter, as process philosophy does, we are left with a huge hole in our understanding of empirical evidence. This is why Whitehead turned to God, and some rather strange conceptual notions, to support the relationship between one moment in time (a foundational event), and the next. You'll also see that Peirce runs into a similar problem in supporting the reality of infinitesimals, when the empirically observed continuum, is assumed to be composed of infinitesimals.

So the issue is that "matter" is a faulty concept as Berkeley demonstrated. As such, our understanding of reality might be better off if we reject it altogether. However, "matter" was very significant, because it represented a very real part of the universe, but one which we did not understand, so we just gave it that name to represent it. If we reject the concept outright, then that vast part of reality which we do not understand, bites us very hard, because it produces a huge whole in our models. Physicists apply all sorts of complex mathematical equations to disguise this hole, and hide it from us. But metaphysicians have no problem to point out the hole. So the physicalists tend to be very defensive toward the metaphysicians for pointing to these failings of physics, being in denial.

OK, perhaps. But will one of them speak up? — lll

There's an entire thread about this currently active:

The Unequivocal Triumph Of Neuroscience - On Consciousness — Deleted User

Although I did not pay close attention to this thread, I did notice that you participated in it.

Also, I guess you might put me in as "one of them." As I see it, the mechanisms that produce mental phenomena are purely biological/neurological. That's not the same as saying that mental processes are nothing but biological/neurological phenomena. There are metaphysical and scientific reasons to recognize that mental processes are different from biological processes. This is discussed in another recent thread:

Reductionism and the Hierarchy of Scale — T Clark

Didn't know there was an anti-metaphysics brigade, but it seems inevitable, from a yin-yang point of view that is. . . .
So, science is enemy #1 for metaphysics. — Agent Smith

Oh yes. There's nothing new about the antagonistic split between reductive Reason & holistic Faith. It goes back, at least, to the Protestant Reformation. However, the "enlightenment" intellectual movement, of the 17th & 18th centuries, was not originally anti-metaphysics, but merely anti-dogma. Early church-educated scientists, using evidence & reason, concluded that the official cosmology of the Catholic Church was wrong on specific technical topics. Ironically, the geocentric cosmology of Christian Theologians was inherited from pagan Greeks & Romans (among others). But as soon as that doctrine was formally adopted as revealed Truth, it became incontrovertible dogma.

Certain features of the Earth-centric cosmology, while useful for theological purposes, upon closer inspection, turned-out to be unsuitable for mathematical calculations. But, by definition, doctrinal Faith cannot be wrong. So, what was originally an internal protestant movement -- defying church authority in favor of personal reasoning, and focused on minor scriptural exegesis -- was later expanded to defend against contradictory scientific interpretations. So, it was a three-way split : 1.Sacred Catholic, 2.Pious Protestant, and 3.Secular Science & Philosophy. My own heresy falls into the third slot.

Eventually, freethinking intellectuals turned against, not just scriptural squabbles, but Scholastic Metaphysics in general. A quarantine of material Physics from spiritual Metaphysics gradually became the doctrine of pragmatic Science. Although Physics & Metaphysics had been inter-twined in Philosophy since Aristotle, a divorce became inevitable during the Protestant & Scientific revolutions. So, Metaphysics (the science of ideas), despite its philosophical & intellectual origins, was then deemed not just anti-intellectual ("stupid idiots"), but also anti-science ("faith-based").

Sadly, that Matter/Mind partition of intellectual investigation continues to this day. So, the once esteemed label of "Metaphysics", has come to signify "Anti-Physics" and "Anti-Science". Which is why, even modern mind-researchers who focus on non-physical aspects of reality (e.g. Psychology), are careful to avoid the use of a tainted term in their work. Unfortunately, even Philosophers, who do not claim to do physical science, must also avoid any appearance of dabbling in "irrational" Metaphysics, for fear of being attacked by "the ghost-hunting brigade".

As a philosophical Skeptic myself, I don't mind their justified suspicion of rampant Pseudo-science and re-interpreted Theology. But, the unwarranted Cynicism makes the emergence of a new information-based Paradigm of secular Science difficult. Since Information Science is primarily concerned with topics such as Origin of Life, and Emergence of Consciousness, it begins to trespass across that cease-fire line drawn between Mind & Matter, by such scientists as Steven Jay Gould, which he labeled "non-overlapping magisteria". And those of us, who are interested in non-physical (e.g. mental) phenomena get caught in the crossfire. Keep your head down. :cool:


Non-Overlapping Magisteria :
that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Note -- the expanding domain of 21st century Information Theory from computers to minds has over-lapped into the no-go zone, and is being fired-upon by both sides of the powder-keg cease-fire zone.

reductive Reason — Gnomon

You mean bone-headed, dismissive reason.

Also, I guess you might put me in as "one of them." As I see it, the mechanisms that produce mental phenomena are purely biological/neurological. — T Clark

That's my leaning. Of course I expect the science to keep advancing.

That's not the same as saying that mental processes are nothing but biological/neurological phenomena. There are metaphysical and scientific reasons to recognize that mental processes are different from biological processes. — T Clark

Precisely. Add also practical reasons.

.

Yup, William of Occam (Novacula Occami: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate); :kiss: (keep it simple, stupid). Why complexify? Shouldn't we simplify? — Agent Smith

I agree: simplicity is good. But why? Seems that economy is involved. One might mention esthetics, but perhaps this boils down to economics. A practical animal needs tools that offer bang for the buck. Consider also the brain size of a tiger. It's probably tuned pretty well.

assigning way too much sex-appeal to white-coated representatives of the scientific church and their grey-suited, freshly-tied, programmed talking representatives in power positions — EugeneW

Feyerabendian fire, friend. I'm not so much to the left on this issue, but I can understand the concern. Specialization is troubling, and no one can see it whole, the vast machine we've built.

Now that's a great question in our beloved tradition. The sound already makes my head turn and ears direct! I wonder what's the answer. — EugeneW

My current position is no. Even the bone machine of math is a pile of analogies. It seems that we can only incorporate the new mostly in terms of the old.

Far from being a subset associated with problem solving—a tiny "Delaware on the map of cognition"—or a special variety of reasoning, analogy is the main event, Hofstadter asserted during an evening lecture Feb. 6 and during a discussion the following afternoon at the Humanities Center.

source

I think this is why careful, disciplined meta-cognition is indispensible for sound reasoning. — 180 Proof

Agreed. The worst cages are perhaps those with invisible bars.

I wouldn't be a Spinozist (immanentist) if I thought otherwise. This is why I allude to Sisyphus' 'endless task'... — 180 Proof

Thanks for the clarification. Endless indeed. And it seems that we must fight fire with fire, replacing obsolete metaphors with those which have not quite yet become so.

Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no such thing as "matter"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Good question. The next would be whether "mind" should be taken for granted.

On one side noumena or ur-stuff. On another side qualia or languageless thought. Problematic poles of an otherwise practical continuum.

Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no such thing as "matter"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I've never considered the possibility that there no such thing as "facts".

Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern. — Gnomon

A 'mental image' is problematically private. The usual grammar suggests that anyone's only 'seen' their own. The absurdity of taking such 'images' and 'qualia' as foundational, when pointed out, is usually misunderstood as a denial of their existence as opposed to their suitability for the role foisted upon them (grounding meaning and/or functioning as a primordial Dreamgoo from which an 'intersubjective' world is constructed.)

In my view, it'd be easier to make your point by emphasizing the difference between sentences and neocortexes.

But, the unwarranted Cynicism makes the emergence of a new information-based Paradigm of secular Science difficult. — Gnomon

So skeptical cynics are the true enemies of scientific progress? One funeral at a time, right?

simplicity is good. But why? — lll

Off the top of my head...

1. There's only so much that our brains can handle.

2. The map can't be an exact replica of the territory.

1. There's only so much that our brains can handle. — Agent Smith

Economics, I'd say. (I don't just money, but practical constraints and tradeoffs.)

The map can't be an exact replica of the territory. — Agent Smith

Because it'd be useless, right? It'd be just as easy to stare at the world. The point is oversimplification. Abstraction is subtractive, it seems to me. Ignore the right things, right?

The map can't be an exact replica of the territory. — Agent Smith

Unless the map is the territory.

Economics, I'd say. (I don't just money, but practical constraints and tradeoffs.) — lll

Yes, economy, I must agree.

Because it'd be useless, right? — lll

Not useless, but (too) complex/complicated/unwieldy.

It'd be just as easy to stare at the world. — lll

I wonder if that's what we should be doing.

oversimplification — lll

Do you have an instance of oversimplification?

Abstraction is subtractive — lll

Nice! Reductive would be a better word, but subtractive is good enough (for government work).

Ignore the right things, right? — lll

:clap: Bravo!

Unless the map is the territory. — EugeneW

How so?

If the territory itself is the map then the map is an exact replica of the territory.

I've never considered the possibility that there no such thing as "facts". — 180 Proof

and yet:

Broadly, I'm a pragmatist (re: meaning, inquiry-research & truth) and a naturalist (re: explanation, description, interpretation / evaluation) in the service of an absurdist (i.e. neither "idealist" nor "nihilist") project — 180 Proof

Surely if your project were really absurd, then every purported "fact" could be called into question. :chin:

If the territory itself is the map then the map is an exact replica of the territory. — EugeneW

Ocean in a teacup.

Ocean in a teacup — Agent Smith

I have to contemplate that one!

Only where there are compelling grounds am I "skeptical". Absurdism, as Zapffe / Camus propose, denotes epoché of 'fundamental meanings' (idealism) and 'ultimate meaninglessness' (nihilism), not of facts per se.

Ocean in a teacup
— Agent Smith

I have to contemplate that one! — EugeneW

Suppose I bought a map of Ocean in a Teacup. I plan a trip to cross that ocean by boat. How stupid I feel upon arriving at Teacup. My boat doesn't fit.

Good question. The next would be whether "mind" should be taken for granted. — lll

Mind must be taken for granted, if you're going to do any philosophy. Otherwise you incapacitate your ability to do philosophy. This is why logic must be given priority over the sense information derived from empirical observation, because we know that the senses can mislead us. That's what Plato showed us, and the example of geocentric cosmology referred to by Gnomon above, is a very good one.

Well, I've never considered the possibility that there no such thing as "facts". — 180 Proof

Why not? That would be a good starting point for a healthy skepticism. You ought to try it, because if you do, this will demonstrate to you how deceptively the word "fact" is often used by the sophists around us. Apply good old fashioned Platonic dialectics, and see if you can determine what it means to be a "fact". Is it a "fact" because you say it is? Is it a "fact" because I say it is? Is it a "fact" because we agree that it is? Is a "fact" something independent? If the latter, how is this compatible with the idea that the world is continually changing, and time is relative? If "facts" are independent, then each "fact" must have an infinite number of possible correct interpretations, depending one one's spatial-temporal perspective. Then what good is the assumption of "facts"?

Only where there are compelling grounds am I "skeptical". — 180 Proof