Your claims treat experience as a thing that exists somewhere within the human body — NOS4A2
To be fair to various postmodernists, it is not all conceptions of truth that are suspect, but truth as a human relation to context-independent , intrinsic facts. — Joshs
within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential-for example, socio-political-institutional-but even beyond these determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable, it should be possible to invoke rules of competence, criteria of discussion and of consensus, good faith, lucidity, rigor, criticism, and pedagogy — Joshs
If postmodernism is presented as just skepticism, there would be no reason to have standards of truth. — Jackson
Skepticism says there’s a real world external to our conceptions but we have no way of verifying the fidelity of our conceptions with that reality.
Postmodern authors say that we are always directly in touch with reality in the form of changing contextual webs of relations in which we participate. Within these webs there can be relative stability of intelligibility and ‘truth’. — Joshs
Why would an unstable (perhaps new, vibrant, but immature) interpretative context not be a better one to invoke the rules of? — Isaac
Because by its nature an unstable interpretive context has no consistent ‘ rules’. — Joshs
A new , immature context is internally inconsistent, shifting, confused — Joshs
A new , immature context is internally inconsistent, shifting, confused
— Joshs
Uh huh. What would be the problem with applying rules from such a system (as and when they arise)? — Isaac
If there is multiple minds, then isn't it necessary that there is something which separates one mind from another? — Metaphysician Undercover
Once these rules arise the context would no long be new and immature. It would have morphed into the sort of discursive system that Derrida is talking about
where norms of discourse are intelligible.
— Joshs
So the moment there's a discernable rule it's wise to apply it? — Isaac
There are two possibilities : either p exists before being experienced or p exists after (at the moment of) being experienced. If after (i.e., the experiencing mind must be present for existence), then solipsism. — Real Gone Cat
No. Just a thing that exists. It doesn't matter where it is. the network analysis is the same, it's based on data flows, not location. The estimation of hidden states by nodes inside a Markov Blanket excluding those states is just a mathematical expression. It's irrelevant where anything is in the physical world.
Then I will say again that your PoMo blade does not have a grip, that it cuts the hand the wields it as much as that against which it is wielded. — Banno
Empiricism rejects the reality of number on the basis that numbers don't exist within the time-space framework — Wayfarer
↪Joshs Your point, again, eludes me. What is the "constructionism" in your quote - it is introduced without explanation. — Banno
Then I will say again that your PoMo blade does not have a grip, that it cuts the hand the wields it as much as that against which it is wielded.
— Banno
It protects all wielding hands, by inviting coordination among indefinite multiplicities of would-be sword wielders . Let me rearrange your thought a bit with the help of Ken Gergen: — Joshs
Idealism doesn't hold that some statement p is true only if it is believed or known to be true. Idealism holds that only minds and mental phenomena exist. It's a position regarding the substance-nature of the world, not about truth. — Michael
Your extreme idealist must conclude that because it is not part of experience, what you will do tomorrow does not (yet) exist. It is not either true nor false.The non-existence of an external material world doesn't entail that all counterfactuals are knowable and that all mathematical theories are provable. Taking an extreme form of idealism as an example, even if only my mind and my experiences exist, I don't know what I'm going to experience tomorrow. — Michael
Empiricism rejects the reality of number on the basis that numbers don't exist within the time-space framework
— Wayfarer
That's not right, of course. — Banno
Scientists tend to be empiricists; they imagine the universe to be made up of things we can touch and taste and so on; things we can learn about through observation and experiment. The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous: It sounds embarrassingly like the way religious believers talk about God, and God was banished from respectable scientific discourse a long time ago.
Platonism, as mathematician Brian Davies has put it, “has more in common with mystical religions than it does with modern science.” The fear is that if mathematicians give Plato an inch, he’ll take a mile. If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them, then why not ethical problems, or even religious questions? Why bother with empiricism at all? — What is Math?
And again the question arises, what is it you mean when you say that numbers are real? Real as opposed to what? — Banno
Mathematical objects are in many ways unlike ordinary physical objects such as trees and cars. We learn about ordinary objects, at least in part, by using our senses. It is not obvious that we learn about mathematical objects this way. ...Some philosophers, called "rationalists", claim that we have a special, non-sensory capacity for understanding mathematical truths, a rational insight arising from pure thought. But, the rationalist’s claims appear incompatible with an understanding of human beings as physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies. ...The indispensability argument in the philosophy of mathematics is an attempt to justify our mathematical beliefs about abstract objects, while avoiding any appeal to rational insight. — The Indispensability Argument in Philosophy of Mathematics
Yet idealism holds as a minimal position that reality is mind-dependent. Reality is of course what is said by true sentences. — Banno
Idealism refers to the process by the mind generates or constructs the totality of your understanding, including the subconscious, unconscious and parasympathetic processes that give rise to your conscious awareness. — Wayfarer
But money is real, as are mortgages and property. Yet all are conventions. — Banno
And we are back to the still unanswered question: constructed from what? — Banno
That’s the point. Banno is arguing that if idealism is the case then everything is known (even referring to us as being omniscient). I’m explaining that this isn’t the case. Even if idealism is true I still don’t know what tomorrow will bring. — Michael
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.