I agree we can't image the different senses, but can't we imagine that they might have an entirely different dimensionality to inhabit? In a sense as 'off limits' to us as noumena. — Tom Storm
Indeed. One gets the feeling that at some point we just have to use inadequate terms to give an impression of what is meant because there simply isn't the vocabulary or conceptual framework to explore it. We are stuck with 'us' to speak of 'them'... — Tom Storm
Evidence of what? Evidence for the claim that the world outside our heads is not what we experience? Well, it's really not to the point. But since you asked, the world "outside" of one's head, how is it that is actually get into the head? I'm saying it doesn't because there is no way to even conceive of this. Therein lies the evidence: one way of justifying a denial that P to be true, to show that P is nonsense. — Astrophel
Keep in mind that if your belief that the world is what you see rests with "things working" then your claim would rest with pragmatics. Then you would have to show how pragmatics reveals the way the world is. That is, if S knows P, and to know is to be able to use for some purpose, then knowing is mere pragmatics, but what one knows IS the pragmatics and not the world
Generally science takes a stronger view than this, affirming the nitro's independent existence apart from the pragmatics we experience. But this, again has to be explained. I think it nonsense. — Astrophel
I can understand this. But a pragmatist like yourself should have an epistemology, just so your claims can be useful philosophically. Reread the things you object to, and consider the simple thesis that philosophy's pursuit of truth is REALLY an affective endeavor. So looking for truth as a propositional affair that only looks to facts is going to lead only to other facts and these the same. It is not about a quest for information about meaning. It never has been. This is the historical error that has made philosophy so intractable.
It has historically been the purview of religion to deal with value/aesthetics/ethics (the same thing in essence), and philosophy has been about analytic arguments at the basic level. I hold that philosophy IS the only authentic religion. — Astrophel
Not just a form of cognition, but cognition itself. After all, how do you know modus ponens is right? How do you know objects can move themselves? The world of our understanding rests entirely on intuition.
Talk about brains: perhaps hard to see this, but brains are supposed to generate experience, and thereby give a reductive account of what experience "really" is. This is what I infer from your thoughts. but how is it one knows the brain is there to be this generative source? Why, it is through the phenomenon of the brain which the brain generates.
You DO see the issue here, yes? — Astrophel
If knowledge is without meaning then how are you writing this and expecting others to communicate? How do you even know there are others to communicate with?
I think it's as I said before, you're kinda searching for something similar to Descartes except he had to invent god to get out of his funk. But life doesn't work like that, nothing can be definitively known beyond all doubt, it just doesn't exist. Still total certainty was always a myth anyway and we never needed it before. — Darkneos
See above: How do you know objects cannot move themselves? — Astrophel
Indeed, his part looks somewhat confusing. My saying "this is wrong" ddid not refer to your definition but to the rejection of mine, which you rejected with a "No, no". And I also said that "your definition is acceptable too."To me, this is a bit confusing, Alkis Piskas. I doubt we disagree, in the end. — Astrophel
But I just did! I said that the expression "I think that" can be replaced by "I believe that", which indicates a simple belief, not a "justified" or "true" one.Pls explain how "the words "justified" and "true" are incompatible with "I think." — Astrophel
But I explained that too, and I gave you an example. Besides, saying "something that is true cancels it being possible" is almost the same thing. This what "incompatible" means: impossible to exist together, simultanesously and in harmony, without conflict.[Re "'True' and 'possible' are incompatible"]Only if you think something that is true cancels it being possible — Astrophel
No, this is not what I'm saying at all. Saying "not possible" (negative) changes the whole logical structure. I said that if something is said to be true "it cannot be also possible". Please read back what I said.It is true that I had chicken for dinner. Are you saying it is therefore not possible that I had chicken form dinner? — Astrophel
The cow has been grazing for years, say, and it looks up a sees what memory informs her to be 'good eating over there" but not conceptualized, obviously. She moves over there. To me, this bears the mark of reason's conditional proposition. — Astrophel
In the world, what authorizes logic, so to speak, is some kind of a posteriori presence…. — Astrophel
metaphysics needs to be conceived as an essential part of our existence — Astrophel
….this presence itself stands beyond classification. I hold that presence is metaphysics… — Astrophel
It is wrong to think of rationality in terms of the abstract "authoritative" logic it produces — Astrophel
Logic is actually "of a piece" with affectivity, and the open ended nature of this is not the impossibility and foolishness of reason grasping beyond its means, but a desire that seeks consummation. — Astrophel
The idea here was that when reason is set upon something to "understand" it, it tends to produce something of its own abstract utility, a conclusion qua conclusion, which is simply a logical function. — Astrophel
Do I have that right? — Janus
The pain perhaps not, but is this any more convincing of a material reality than Dr Johnson attempting to refute Berkeley by kicking a stone? — Tom Storm
does this not suggest that the laws of physics are a reflection of how we process reality, not reality as it is in itself (the ineffable noumena). And does it follow from this that hypothetical sophisticated aliens who do not utilize human cognition might have developed an entirely different and efficacious alternative to our physics? — Tom Storm
Not really. As to not to the point you don't really seem to have one but that's neither here nor there. Also it doesn't really "get into your head" so much as you are able to experience and act in it if you are conscious and active. It's actually really easy to conceive of it but you are making this hard than it needs to be IMO. — Darkneos
Science itself is a form of pragmaticism to a degree. It's focus is on testable and observable phenomenon and then it tries to generate explanations about what's going on. Granted it won't ever be complete but it's efficacy so far seems good to me.
As far as anyone knows it does reveal the way the world is given what it has done so far. — Darkneos
Philosophy's pursuit might be rooted in emotion but I fail to see how that changes anything. From where I stand no claim is useful philosophically because, in my experience, you can argue anything about anything and end up nowhere. If your claim can't apply to reality or affect my life in any capacity then it's kinda worthless. Otherwise we're just naval gazing, which is fine if it's just you. I also think you're just being deliberately obtuse as you aren't making yourself clear nor are you getting to any point from what I see. — Darkneos
Incorrect, the world of our understanding doesn't rest on intuition, not even close. We simply take a few things as a given and work from there. I already explained that intuition isn't good as science shows the universe doesn't work according to it. If anything I'd wager it resets on experimentation, we try things and see what works.
I know objects can move themselves if I see they have a way to propel themselves without the need of some outside force to move them.
There is no reductive account of what experience "really is" it's simply experience. Neurons and signals and all that stuff firing and processing sensory data. We know the brain does this as we have a ton of evidence to back it, and so far nothing to the contrary. Your last part is just nonsense. The brain is just there, the phenomenon doesn't generate it.
There is no issue here you just want there to be one.
Again, this all just reads like someone who wants reality to be something other than it actually is. — Darkneos
But I just did! I said that the expression "I think that" can be replaced by "I believe that", which indicates a simple belief, not a "justified" or "true" one. — Alkis Piskas
But I explained that too, and I gave you an example. Besides, saying "something that is true cancels it being possible" is almost the same thing. This what "incompatible" means: impossible to exist together, simultanesously and in harmony, without conflict. — Alkis Piskas
No, this is not what I'm saying at all. Saying "not possible" (negative) changes the whole logical structure. I said that if something is said to be true "it cannot be also possible". Please read back what I said.
I have the impression that what we are doing is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. And this can go ad infinitum.
I don't consider this as a constructive, fruitful or even meaningful discussion ... — Alkis Piskas
Well, this just says you haven't a clue. A bit like the Christian who insists through Jesus redemption arrives, but when asked how defers to faith.
If knowledge is justified true belief, and I am sure it is just this, and you believe "ability to experience" yields a justification, then show this. It is NOT that I am denying that we do have knowledge of the world AT ALL! It is rather that when you take this question seriously, you are forced to reconstrue everything everything you believe vis a vis basic questions. — Astrophel
Anyone, that is, who does not think about serious philosophy. If scientists never tried to understand the fossil record, we would not at all have a concept in place about geologic eras and their subcategories. This is what happens when one chooses not to think. — Astrophel
No Darneos; you have it all wrong. This is because you haven't "read" your way into the discussion about the structure of consciousness. It is the only way into a philosophy of existence.
You should at least be curious as to the epistemic relation between a brain and a world. I mean, to have no analytic inquiry about this at all behind you, yet to come out swinging as you do....curious, and then some. — Astrophel
Causality is apodictic. Try imagining its contradiction.
The brain: but there is the brain and there is fence post. How does this work, exactly, or even vaguely, such that the former knows the latter. You take a philosopher like Quine, one of my favorites because he was an explicit naturalist in the Deweyan tradition, yet so revered in analytic philosophy, and you find nothing but frustration when it comes to accounting for how it is that causality, which he takes as foundational in explaining the world, produces meaning; and this has to be taken as priority: when you THINK at all, you are not IN meaning, but ARE meaning.
But such questions that apply to this kind of thinking have to begin with curiosity. One has to be motivated by seeing the deficit in human understanding at the basic level. If you don't see this, you really have no motivation, and end up in the back of the class sleeping.
Question: why take this class at all? — Astrophel
Great question. I suspect (as weird as it sounds) that Kant was saying that Newtonian physics is built in to the automatic human interpretation of otherwise obscure Reality (something actually beyond time and space.) It is only in the frozenness or unchangeability of the Form of our cognition that Newton escapes Hume ( and later Popper.) — plaque flag
As I listen to music I "know" implicitly the many contexts that are there
— Astrophel
I think I know what it is to know.
— Astrophel
Why is it, and what does it mean, that know is given two significations here? What do the scare quotes in the one but missing from the other, indicate? — Mww
If you can't imagine a simple belief without justification, meaning that a belief is always justified, then why the distinction "justified belief"? It has no meaning. It's just a pleonasm.I can't imagine a simple belief without justification — Astrophel
Exactly. So knowledge is different than just a belief. Which is what I have been telling youKnowledge is supposed to take belief to a notch higher — Astrophel
Where does this come from? It's a question out of the blue. How people come to know things is a whole new chapter.The issue that haunts the whole affair is, "How do you know?" — Astrophel
I gave you a simple example. Maybe two. I can't do more than that.Yes, but I am having trouble understanding this cancelation. — Astrophel
I don't think that the fault is yours. So no need to apologise. It's quite a common phenomenon, when there's a clasj between two different views that an impasse is created and/or a discussion gets stagnated.Well then, I'll assume the fault is mine. Apologies. — Astrophel
I have "taken this question seriously" but what it come down to is all I have is experience and experimentation through experience. If that's not good enough then it sounds like a you problem. You say you're not denying knowledge o the world at all but honestly your posts say otherwise. — Darkneos
Understanding the fossil record has nothing to do with philosophy bud, that's all science. Dating techniques, looking at positions in the rock layers, stuff like that. Again you're just making this harder than it needs to be. "serious philosophy" just sounds like you stroking your own ego. — Darkneos
The "Structure of consciousness", at this point I'm really starting to have major doubts about you (as if the primordial origin wasn't enough). The only philosophy of existence that is worth a damn IMO is ethics or how to live. As to the relation of the brain and the world, brain constructs a best guess of reality based on the input of the senses, that's what the evidence shows. — Darkneos
Stuff like the Evil Demon, simulation, etc are nice games to play but they are useless to think about because they don't impact your life. — Darkneos
You're not really curious about this stuff, I think you're just looking to appear "smart" by asking "the big questions". I used to be like that. But after much experience I realized that a lot of the "important questions" of philosophy didn't really matter that much. — Darkneos
Again this just sounds like more ego stroking, I asked a while ago what the point is to any of this and you haven't given anything. You're all over the place, writing more than you need to, and deliberately being unclear in your communications (other posters are able to do it but you choose not to). This just sounds to me like you want to be special or unique for wrestling with such things. — Darkneos
I wouldn't say causality produces meaning, we do. It's actually a feature of our brains, we are meaning making machines. It's called pareidolia, it's how you can see a smiley face as a face even though it ain't really a face.
Not really sure what you mean by IN meaning or ARE meaning, it's just meaning. But then again heaven forbid you make yourself clear or explain yourself. My guess is that you are IN meaning when you think, you aren't meaning. — Darkneos
I mean it is obvious to everyone that we are limited in our ability to understand and know things around us. That all we will ever get is a close enough or good enough understanding of things, because you don't know what you don't know. I find it odd that someone so versed in philosophy doesn't understand that there are some problems that have no solution. Like the problem of solipsism, there is no way to get outside of your perspective so whether there is a world outside or not you'll never know and there's nothing you can do about it. Or Descartes about what can be known for certain, and you can't truly know if you're being deceived or not. There is a great degree of faith that comes with living after all.
And most people seem to do just fine knowing there won't be total certainty, because life goes on.
Curiosity is fine and all that but it does have to have a goal in mind and at times you have to be able to recognize when you simply can't. So far people have asked you what the point of all this is and as far as anyone can tell there doesn't seem to be one. It just goes in circles. — Darkneos
No, you miss the point: knowledge of anything requires inquiry into that thing. You don't inquire philosophically, therefore you don't understand its issues.
It is not about ego. It is about basic reading. You need to do this, then your anxieties on this will disappear. — Astrophel
Yes, ethics. But how to live depends not simply on setting up a system for personal behavior: such a system needs a grounding in the understanding. Christians have a system, time honored and useful. But it comes with a metaphysics that is confused and dangerous. Philosophy is the tool to discover where things go wrong and how they might be reviewed and revised.
You likely have similar problems in the basic justifications of how to live, and I say this because you seem to be admitting that such a review is useless. Fundamentalists of all stripes think just like this, embracing foolishness, then reifying it in the public consensus. — Astrophel
They certainly do impact your life if you want to understand things beyond what "people say". Descartes' evil demon is just to demonstrate a point, like Schrodinger's cat. Not just a game, but an illustrative game. — Astrophel
It is an important distinction: to be IN an environment implies that this environment is somehow outside or apart from one. I am saying, onw is not IN an environment like this in discussing experiential structure: Rather, one IS the the very structure one analyzes. It is a turning toward one's own existence for discovery, for, after all, the issue here is the relation between ME an that fence post, so what I AM and the distinctions that descriptively rise up when I try to make sense of something like "I experience a fence post" call for a sharp division between us. But is there such a thing? Does the traditional analysis of S knows P make any sense at all when it comes to identifying and releasing P from the justificatory conditions of believing P?
THIS is a very big question to philosophy. The fence post is "over there", granted; but my knowing is over here, on my side of the epistemic fence. What can possibly account for this? A fascinating question. — Astrophel
Heidegger believes that truth is "made" but the engagement of pursuing truth is an openness that has extraordinary VALUE, and I emphasize this because in this value is the true foundation of human cognition, which is one way to put what I have been arguing. The circle is hermeneutics. The disclosure within this is momentous. This is my position. Observe the value/aesthetic/ethical dimension of our existence, and do not simply register this as a premise, but realize this is "the place" inquiry truly seeks!
A very strong philosophical position. I am saying that Truth is really an endeavor of affectivity. We divide knowledge into categorical parts to pragmatically address our essentially problematic confrontation with the world, but this has led to the current illusion that truth is statistical, logical, rational, while affect is altogether unwelcome in describing truth (indeed, emotion has historically been willfully ignored). This is patently wrong.
As to certainty: this is not nonsense. But only if you are interested. — Astrophel
But why should our cognition's form be fixed ? — plaque flag
About the aliens: How would Kant understand our understanding of their physics ? Would it necessarily be counterintuitive or false for us ? Despite its effectiveness ? — plaque flag
Interesting. What do you have in mind - evolution or deliberate transformation? — Tom Storm
In my sketch here I am imagining that we (Kant and us) would not be able to assess the effectiveness of the physics on the basis that we have no frame of reference for it. This is just one of those preposterous hypotheticals which is of limited application. — Tom Storm
Kant said a lot of things but that doesn't make them right. Classical physics was just a model that works at the macro level of things but fails when it gets to the Quantum Physics. It's a "good enough" method for day to day but not for understanding reality, at least according to the physicists I've talked to. — Darkneos
Yes, that sounds right. I don't want to pick on Kant too much, because for his time he was a great genius. According to Popper and others, Newton was just a towering figure. Instruments were not precise enough to find fault with his physics. It was if the source code for the matrix had been discovered, a great triumph for species. Small wonder that Kant wanted to secure this treasure against Hume from being falsifiable. Synthetic apriori truth is tall order indeed. — plaque flag
Synthetic apriori truth is tall order indeed. — plaque flag
Given human history yes it is very possible to deny that is bad. — Darkneos
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.