There is a point at which some folk fail to see the process 9/10+9/100+9/1000... become the very same as 1 — Banno

Yeah, it approaches 1, but it never quite does become 1, though, does it?

Fair enough, although you make it sound as if Wittgenstein wanted to invite as many contradictions as possible. If there are contradictions to be discovered in mathematics, I just don't see how their discovery could do anything to change. or motivate a change, in the current working practice of structural engineering calculation. But I have to admit that I'm no mathematician by any stretch.

One way of formulating the hard problem is to ask: if we had a complete, canonical, objective, physicalist account of the natural world, including all the physical facts of the brain and the organism, would it conceptually or logically entail the subjective facts of consciousness? If this account would not entail these facts, then consciousness must be an additional, non-natural property of the world. — Joshs

Thanks for providing these quotes Josh. For the sake of simplicity I'll just address the parts that seem salient to me one at a time.

If we had "a complete, canonical, objective, physicalist account of the natural world" would that not be a subjective fact of consciousness? Or would you say it is an objective fact of consciousness? I see a problem with the 'subjective' or the 'objective' there; why not just ask whether it would entail the facts of consciousness. If it were compete then I would say it would, it would have to in order to count as complete.

It's not clear what Thompson has in mind with "the subjective facts of consciousness", and it's also not clear why they should be referred to as subjective rather than objective.

The difference between this enactivist model and physicalism is that the latter creates commonality by correspondence with a presumed already existent reality. — Joshs

I get that the world of objects perceived in common is a relational, interactive world. But I don't think the commonality of the different organisms cognitive :machinery' is enough to explain the fact that we all, animals and people see the same objects in the same locations. Beyond all the perceptions of the world I think we have every reason to believe there is a world that is perceived; that is what it is regardless of how it is perceived and would be there just as it is (as it is, not as it is perceived, mind) in the absence of any percipients. We have every reason to believe that because it is the best explanation for a shared world; in fact it is the only explanation apart from some form of idealism; some notion that all minds are somehow conjoined or that there is a universal mind we all partake in..

OK, thanks; I guess I misunderstood.

OK, what you said you thought I meant is correct, but as for the proof, my math is not very sophisticated, so I'll have to take your word for it.

So, if the proof is a proof, then it seems that we do have an inconsistency, and my argument that it has no bearing on structural engineering would stand.

(Note that when I say we have an inconsistency I just mean that the intuition that .9999 does not equal 1 is inconsistent with any proof that the two are equal).

:up:

Yes, I saw that myself when I realized that 0.333333333 is no more equal to one third than 0.9999999 is equal to 1, so I deleted it, probably while you were responding to my unedited post.

Your proof from convergence seems no different though, since 0.999999 can converge infinitely with 1 out ever reaching it, just as 0.33333 converges infinitely on one third, which seems to be exactly the point against the argument I deleted.

And yet that could happen if they thought that the max compressive resistance of their concrete is say A, but also 2*A, and also 329*A. If we allow contradictions free reign in mathematics, everything follows. — Olivier5

And yet I can't see that there could be, on account of there being some inconsistencies or paradoxes in certain areas of math, any reason for them to say such kinds of things.

One can agree that in very general terms higher animals perceive pretty much the same persistent features of the environment as we do without having to then conclude that there is such a thing as a ‘physical’, organism -independent basis for this commonality. Analytic philosophers fou sit necessary to jettison the ‘myth of the given’ , the idea that we directly perceive the stuff of the world unmediated by our own schemes . Phenomology didn’t deny that we perceive an ‘out there’. They only denied that the ‘out there’ come packages as physical stuff. Enactivists say that each organism co-creates its environment in relation to its needs , goals and aims as an ongoing environmental
process. So each specie’s world is in some sens u inquest to its own functional goals. — Joshs

If there were no "physical organism-independent basis for this commonality" then what would explain the commonality? A universal mind? The rejection of the myth of the given is not a rejection of perception independent invariances, but a rejection of the idea that the way different percipients apprehend those invariances is completely independent of their various cognitive faculties.

"What is the Myth of the Given?
Wilfrid Sellars, who is responsible for the label, notoriously neglects to explain in
general terms what he means by it. As he remarks, the idea of givenness for knowledge,
givenness to a knowing subject, can be innocuous.
1 So how does it become pernicious?
Here is a suggestion: Givenness in the sense of the Myth would be an availability for
cognition to subjects whose getting what is supposedly Given to them does not draw on
capacities required for the sort of cognition in question.
If that is what Givenness would be, it is straightforward that it must be mythical.
Having something Given to one would be being given something for knowledge without
needing to have capacities that would be necessary for one to be able to get to know it.
And that is incoherent".

From here: file:///C:/Users/dynam/AppData/Local/Temp/mcdowell-Avoiding-the-Myth-of-the-Given1.pdf

Estado Unidos. — frank

Sorry for being pedantic, but it's Los Estados Unidos. otherwise it'd be el estado unido: the united state or. in other words, consciousness. :wink:

I have Carpet Pythons on my property. They get into my chook tractor and wait in the nesting compartment for rats. They can only get in because spaces in the steel mesh are large enough. The snakes obviously see the chook tractor where I see it, and are obviously constrained by its temporally persistent physical characteristics. I've never seen a python in there that would obviously be too big to squeeze through the gaps in the mesh.

Also it's not true that dogs can't recognize the act of pointing; in fact they are, if I remember correctly, the only animals that can. They may not read facial expressions, but they certainly respond to differently to different vocal tones.

It beats me why people want to deny that there is a physical environment that we share with others, as well as with other kinds of physical entities, who perceive pretty much the same persistent features of the environment as we do.

You say some ridiculous things sometimes! Do you deny that it seems obvious that there are temporally persistent objects? Is the door always where you expect it to be or somewhere else? Your front steps? Your driveway? Your car? Do you sometimes argue with your wife because you see the car in the driveway and she sees it in the street? When you open the door for the dog and say "In" does he sometimes try to jump into a car that you can't see?

How the fuck would we all function in the world if there were no persistent objects?

Well, sure if structural engineers started entering random numbers into their equations there those equations would not yield workable results.

What animals ( and humans) ‘sense’ , once we have removed all the higher level constructions that make phenomena appear for us as self-persisting things in a geometric space-time, is a constantly changing, chaotic flux of impressions. Out of this steaming flux we discern regularities and correlations, not just in the changes happening in our environment, but in the relation between these changes and the movements of our body. An ‘object’ is the product of all these correlations and regularities. Most of what we see at any moment ina spatial object is provided by our own expectations based on previous experience with something similar. We mostly construct the object from memory and anticipation. So the idea of spatial objects is an idealization based on actual experience which is contingent and relative.
It is not a fact that objects persist in time , it is a presupposition, and one which is necessary in order for there to be naturalistic empirical science and mathematical calculation. — Joshs

It seems obvious there are temporally persistent stable objects both for us and animals. My dog sees his food bowl where I see it. I see him going to it. I see no reason to doubt that animals see the same things in the same locations as we do. The dogs use the steps just as I do. The cat climbs the tree. The bird sits on the branch. You don't observe animals trying to climb steps or trees or perch on branches that don't appear to be there to us. When I throw the ball for my dog he can obviously see the ball, he tracks it as it flies through the air and usually manages to be within a meter or two of it when it hits the ground.

I didn’t mean like a universal purpose that you may come up with that seems to make sense within that experience, I meant the actual nature of such “profound” experiences being able to be had in the first place, do you think it says anything, or is it just a feature of consciousness in a way? (that’s what i meant by removed from the actual substance of the experience) — Ignance

I'm not sure what your question is. Are you asking whether our ability to have such experiences points to the existence of a spiritual realm or something like that? It's easy to imagine that they do, and probably humans have always imagined such things. Does that make those kinds of things we (necessarily vaguely) imagine anything more than things imagined? How could we ever know?

The math involved in structural engineering have changed overtime. If in one of these changes, them engineers postulated that anything mathematical is both true and false at the same time, as Wittgenstein was effectively (though unwittingly) suggesting, they might have ended building quite a few failed bridges. — Olivier5

There is none of that kind of postulation in calculus, even though from the start the modeling of movement in calculus is fictive in the sense that it is not really movement, but a static equation. All the math involved in structural engineering requires is that it works; that it can effectively model things like tensive and compressive forces and the hardness, strength and flexibility of construction materials.

The interesting thing is that materiality is already ‘conceptual’ through and through in that the very notion of an empirical object is a complex perceptual construction , an idealization. Furthermore , it is this idealizing abstraction at the heart of our ideas of the spatial object that makes the mathematical
possible. They are parasitic on and presuppose each other. — Joshs

I don't agree with this; I think 'materiality' as a concept is obviously (by definition) conceptual. But material things are sensed, even animals find themselves in an environment comprised of material entities which, judging from their behavior, they must see much as we do (although obviously they don't conceive of them as material entities).

Yes, but none of that actually says anything about what it could mean for something conceptual to exist independently of the human mind. The odd thing is that it seems intuitively easy to imagine physical stuff have an existence independently of the human mind, but anti-realists and idealists deny that and yet want to grant independent existence to the very things we cannot intuitively imagine to have such an existence.

The question is, what kind of existence conceptual information has. — Wayfarer

What kind of existence does a material object have? A material existence. What kind of existence does conceptual information have? A conceptual existence. This is all just a matter of words as I see it.

The more I think about it, the less sense that kind of question seems to have.

So, if you want to deny that having a conceptual existence is a material function, then what kind of existence do you imagine conceptual information as having?

People are NOT turned away from work when they have the flu … perhaps they should be tbh because I think that is wrong. I don’t see a measured approach now that we are more knowledgable about Covid. — I like sushi

I think this is a good point; the same should apply to flu and any other potentially lethal infectious disease as applies to covid.

:up: Keep rollin' that boulder...

Why not if you don’t mind sharing? Healthy skepticism? Unreliably replicable? Since humans are able to have these “profound” experiences, do you think that says anything or holds any merit about human nature/purpose, removed from the actual substance of the experience itself? — Ignance

I draw no conclusions from altered states, however profound they may seem, because I see no reason to. As for "purpose", I suppose the attractive nature of such states could lead me to seek them again. I certainly wouldn't want to infer any general human purpose on account of them, if that was what you were alluding to. What I've said is probably inadequate, but I hope it answers your question.

:up: Mostly, although I don't think anyone understands the consequences fully, because to do that would be to know the future.

If the math involved in structural engineering has worked for a hundred plus years, it seems very implausible to think it would suddenly cease working because we had found some contradictions in it that we previously had not known were there.

Granted, we'll have a shot only if we try. But prospects are not good. — Manuel

I used to think that. And I agree the prospects do not look that great. But the future is unknown, and the more positive the general attitude is towards dealing with an existential threat is, the better the outcome will be. And better remains better even if the outcome might be bad from our present standpoint. If everyone just gave up and said "we're fucked", then we would be truly fucked.

Maybe my language was sloppy. It doesn't mean nobody knows. But it also doesn't mean somebody does. How would we know? — Tom Storm

If we can't possibly know whether there is someone who knows or not what relevance could it have to us anyway? If there were someone who knows, how could she demonstrate her knowledge such that everyone would be able to see that in fact she does know? If they were able to see that she did know then they would also know. If that were possible it would have already happened, and we would all know, I imagine.

That we know things couched in cultural terms is a given.

The issue is the dichotomy as proposed by you, namely, "know thyself" vs. "know thyself better".
The latter is about someone else assuming authority over you.

As in, I may know myself, but a psychologist claims to know me better; Christians, too, claim to know me better, and so on. — baker

No dichotomy! I didn't intend anything like you think I did. I said that we can know ourselves better with the added benefit of science. That doesn't obviate the need for self-examination. I wasn't referring to the question of others knowing me at all.

I have also heard of unvaccinated people who identify as a person who is vaccinated — Merkwurdichliebe


They would have to provide proof to avoid being fired. — frank

He is being jokingly cynical; taking a shot at those who, for example, identify as another gender, or as aboriginal although they are only one sixteenth or whatever. No one ever asks such people to prove it, because to do so is seen as racist.

No. It stopped being harmless the moment the patent holder of the vaccine officially published its side effects, ranging from mild to deblitating to fatal. — baker

Statistically speaking it is harmless to almost everyone. Common medications like ibuprofen, statins, PPIs, the contraceptive pill, etc, etc all harm some people. Some people are even allergic to the point of fatality to some foods that are harmless to most people.

Yes, I suppose degree of danger is a judgement call. In any case the pragmatic situation will be that those who refuse the vaccine will have to, whether we think it right or wrong, bear the consequences. That's life, I guess...

And what army of what country is that? — tim wood

You're implying that those who won't accept the vaccine won't be able to quit military service? You may be right, but they may be dishonorably discharged instead, which could be thought to amount to the same thing/

If your personal position is based on antisocial thinking then you can expect some marginalization: In fact you are marginalizing yourself on account of some sense of entitlement. It comes down to expecting others to do the necessary heavy lifting, to take the necessary risk, however minimal that risk might be, it still amounts to a shirking of social responsibility, as I see it.

because the situation is not as extreme as when the virus first arose — I like sushi

The situation is not as extreme largely on account of vaccination. Also people may be taking covid more seriously. This is a new situation and we learn as we go along. What possible justification could there be for saying that someone who accepts the official data regarding deaths and hospitalization from both covid and the vaccine is brainwashed? What other reliable source can there be? If there were no reliable source, then all bets would be off, and we would be truly fucked. But we have no good reason to believe that is so.

You have to wear the required uniform, follow strict orders and put up with things that many people would or could, not to be in the military. To take a harmless jab is nothing compared to the everyday rigours of service. You can still opt out if you want to.

Yes, but MondoR has been brainwashed by propaganda. Stupidity bears its own costs. Juts like with the law: ignorance being no excuse.

That is provisionally mandatory: you can leave the army if you don't like it.

No one is being forced, so there is no change of contract. I don't understand your other sentence.

The 'subject' is forcing people to take medication in the terms I am arguing. — I like sushi

And yet no one is being forced; so you are arguing against a strawman.

The good argument is that it is demanding people do something with their bodies (medical) without a say in the matter. Do you not see how this is dangerous? — I like sushi

That's an alarmist "slippery slope" argument; it has no rational bite. People are not being asked to do anything remotely dangerous.