↪wonderer1 Why are you pretending not to understand? — apokrisis

Why are you asking a loaded question?

I'm not pretending I don't understand. I simply don't tend to see things in such black and white terms as it seems you advocate. In fact, if I recognised that I was thinking in such black and white terms I would hope that I would seriously consider the possibility that I was looking at things much too simplistically.

Why not then just say what you mean rather than ask dumb questions and expect me to take them seriously.

On your actual argument, the simple reply is think more carefully about what I said. Black and white are useful to the degree they bound all the possibilities that constitute grey.

As absolute values connected by a reciprocal relation, they would in fact make all shades of grey measurable as specified mixtures.

So science is founded on this analytical move. It is how the dynamics of nature can be measured in terms of precisely articulated theories.

This is how we “map language and reason onto the world”!

I don't have a wonderful alternative, but I'm not comfortable with this sort of "reality is whatever we agree it is." I get the impulse, and I think there's a kernel of truth there, but I also think that kind of formulation is probably incoherent. — Srap Tasmaner

Seems like a rather fatalistic view to think we can't know anything about reality independent of agreement with other people. Not to mention a little silly in light of the history of humans learning things, that we can to some degree look back and see.

Why not then just say what you mean rather than ask dumb questions and expect me to take them seriously.

On your actual argument, the simple reply is think more carefully about what I said. Black and white are useful to the degree they bound all the possibilities that constitute grey.

As absolute values connected by a reciprocal relation, they would in fact make all shades of grey measurable as specified mixtures.

So science is founded on this analytical move. It is how the dynamics of nature can be measured in terms of precisely articulated theories.

This is how we “map language and reason onto the world”! — apokrisis

My question was about you and your beliefs. I haven't been participating on this forum long, so I'm not sure why you would expect me to know your perspective in detail.

I have, however, learned somewhat about your perspective in the time I've been reading the forum with regularity. What I have learned led me to the question about how black and white your thinking is.

And sonny, I don't think that you are in much of a position to try to teach me about "how the dynamics of nature can be measured". I've been heavily involved in the design of hardware, firmware, and software of a device that NIST and other national metrology institutes pass back and forth in order to compare the primary reference standards of different nations against each other. Just to give you a chance to avoid making yourself look silly. I'll bet you really really hate that.

I think Janus summed it up pretty well. The phenomenological perspective is NOT concerned with existence it is concerned with ‘experience’ only.

If we are talking about mapping out the world, with language or vice versa, then doing away with the ‘world’ (bracketing it out) allows us to examine the mechanisms/items/aspects/‘moments’ (for want of a better term) of conscious experience.

Seems like a rather fatalistic view to think we can't know anything about reality independent of agreement with other people. Not to mention a little silly in light of the history of humans learning things, that we can to some degree look back and see. — wonderer1

How about the idea that our individual hypotheses designed to anticipate events are validated or invalidated by the way those events transpire, with the catch being that the events we compare our hypotheses with are themselves derived from our constructions? In other words, truth and falsity are relative to our constructed schemes, not some scheme-independent reality.

Thanks.

How about the idea that our individual hypotheses designed to anticipate events are validated or invalidated by the way those events transpire, with the catch being that the events we compare our hypotheses with are themselves derived from our constructions? — Joshs

That sounds like denying there is a territory being mapped by our minds/brains, and to me it would seem a little silly to believe there is no territory being mapped, and yet also believe that you are something other than a figment of my imagination.

:up: Fair enough.

Ever run across the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis? Also known as linguistic relativity, it proposes that the language we speak influences the way we think and perceive the world around us. It suggests that language shapes our thoughts, cognition, and even our cultural worldview. The hypothesis is named after the linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, who developed these ideas in the early 20th century.

There are two versions: the strong (linguistic determinism) and the weak version (linguistic relativity).

The strong version posits that language determines thought entirely and that we can only perceive and understand things that we have words for in our language. In other words, without specific words or linguistic structures for certain concepts, those concepts cannot be fully grasped or expressed by speakers of that language.

The weak version more modestly suggests that language influences thought and cognition but doesn't entirely determine it. It acknowledges that language plays a significant role in shaping our perceptions and understanding of the world, but also recognizes the influence of other factors such as culture, social context, and individual experiences. More here.

I don't have a wonderful alternative, but I'm not comfortable with this sort of "reality is whatever we agree it is." I get the impulse, and I think there's a kernel of truth there, but I also think that kind of formulation is probably incoherent. — Srap Tasmaner

Fair enough. I'll just add, in case of any misundertsnding, that I don't think it is due to convention that we agree as to what is real, even though the agreement itself is a matter of convention. I'm not sure if that will ease your mind and soften your view, but there it is.

I haven't said we can't know anything about reality, I have said that the only reality we can be sure of knowing anything about is the human-shaped reality of our common experience.

The strong version posits that language determines thought entirely and that we can only perceive and understand things that we have words for in our language. In other words, without specific words or linguistic structures for certain concepts, those concepts cannot be fully grasped or expressed by speakers of that language. — Wayfarer

That sounds ridiculous to the extreme. There are instances of people without language that are able to form thoughts, plan ahead and act out. Animals also exhibit this behaviour.

Feral children, if too far gone, are unable to grasp some aspects of language simply because they have not developed in a world like ours and so struggle to understand things like tables and chairs because they are creatures of forests, mountains and hills. If switched around we would fail to appreciate a number of their subtle behaviours in the wild because we are not wild animals.

A set world view (cosmological view) dictates the items we communicate and to suggest that it can or could be the other way around appears utterly preposterous to me given what I know about humans. I do understand that some people struggle to think in anything but words. Some people even state they cannot conjure up mental images.

To be generous here I guess it is possible for some people that struggle to conjure up mental pictures to fall further towards the belief that language is needed to create concepts. Also, it depends a lot on how ‘language’ is being defined. Such definitions used by some can leave gaps in their explanations. Wittgenstein’s use of language was one such instance where premise is the conclusion … that is not to say that his exploration is not fascinating though!

Ever run across the Saphir-Whorf hypothesis? Also known as linguistic relativity, — Wayfarer

Thanks, I have, but I didn't know this name or source. Is this not Wittgenstein's understanding too, as in, “The limit of my language is the limit of my world."

There are instances of people without language that are able to form thoughts, plan ahead and act out. — I like sushi

How would you know? Any examples you could mention? Do you mean, deaf-mute people?

We’re either talking about the world or we’re talking about ourselves. As soon as we come to believe both are of the same reality we have no choice but to speak of reality.

I've been heavily involved in the design of hardware, firmware, and software of a device that NIST and other national metrology institutes pass back and forth in order to compare the primary reference standards of different nations against each other. — wonderer1

Life is sweet. My position is Peircean semiosis and pragmatism. Peirce, among other things, was the founder of serious US metrology.

So all credit to your “heavy involvement” in instrument manufacturing. But…. :kiss:

As soon as we come to believe both are of the same reality we have no choice but to speak of reality. — NOS4A2

Sure. There's just no way to prove they're "of the same reality.". People just do it without any evidence or sturdy reasoning. That is worth pondering.

How about the idea that our individual hypotheses designed to anticipate events are validated or invalidated by the way those events transpire, with the catch being that the events we compare our hypotheses with are themselves derived from our constructions?
— Joshs

That sounds like denying there is a territory being mapped by our minds/brains, and to me it would seem a little silly to believe there is no territory being mapped, and yet also believe that you are something other than a figment of my imagination — wonderer1

It is denying that knowing is direct correspondence , representing or mirroring between knower and world. Scientific and other forms of knowing, far from being the epistemological representing of a reality independent of the knower, is the evolving construction of a niche. We are worldmakers rather than world-mirrorers, whose constructions are performances that pragmatically intervene in the world that we co-invent , changing it in ways that then talk back to us in a language responsive to how we have formulated our questions. This discursive account accords with the postmodern philosophy of science that Joseph Rouse espouses:

“…the "objects" to which our performances must be held accountable are not something outside discursive practice itself. Discursive practice cannot be understood as an intralinguistic structure or activity that then somehow "reaches out" to incorporate or accord to objects. The relevant "objects" are the ends at issue and at stake within the practice itself. "The practice itself," however, already incorporates the material circumstances in and through which it is enacted. Practices are forms of discursive and practical niche construction in which organism and environment are formed and reformed together through an ongoing, mutually intra-active reconfiguration.”

Sure. There's just no way to prove they're "of the same reality.". People just do it without any evidence or sturdy reasoning. That is worth pondering.

There is plenty of evidence. It’s just that some people refuse to believe their lying eyes.

There is plenty of evidence. It’s just that some people refuse to believe their lying eyes. — NOS4A2

You're dreaming. Prove me wrong.

The weak version more modestly suggests that language influences thought and cognition but doesn't entirely determine it. It acknowledges that language plays a significant role in shaping our perceptions and understanding of the world, but also recognizes the influence of other factors such as culture, social context, and individual experiences — Wayfarer

If instead of defining language narrowly in terms of formal verbal concepts, we understand its basis in construing , and define construing as an ordinally organized system of discriminations we make on the basis of similarity and difference, then we can include basic perception along with conceptual thought as language-based. Then instead of claiming that it is only verbal langauge that shapes our understanding, we can recognize that the functionally integrated system of construals that acts to channel our ways of anticipating events is what shapes our expectations, and those of other animals , and that what verbal language adds is merely a more complex and condensed field of discriminations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

You're dreaming. Prove me wrong.

I’m awake.

That sounds like denying there is a territory being mapped by our minds/brains — wonderer1

Right. There is no territory being mapped by our brains. There’s no “out there” that begins where our skin and eyes end. There are things happening, there are sensations present, and a whole lot of interpreting. Most of which is completely unconscious and transparent.

Throw out the subject/object and correspondence stuff and you start getting closer to what’s “real,” in my view.

I’m awake. — NOS4A2

All you can do is assert it. You have no proof.

You have no proof. — frank

I have no proof that you just posted that. But evidently you did.

I have no proof that you just posted that. But evidently you did. — unenlightened

One assumes someone posted it. Maybe it was Floyd.

All you can do is assert it. You have no proof.

Give me your number. I can call you and you can confirm whether I’m awake or dreaming.

Give me your number. I can call you and you can confirm whether I’m awake or dreaming. — NOS4A2

We're aiming for the philosophical 17th Century. Somehow we keep missing it. :blush: