Moderator: Only_Humean
Guide wrote:Human meaning is nomological in the sense that whatever one encounters already seems to be something; i.e., to have meaning (to be intelligible).
Guide wrote:In the extreme case one encounters a thing that is only there so far as it is available to be examined under the rubric "What is it?".
Guide wrote:Since the human being never encounters anything that is not already there for them in the way described above, this too is true of time. Time is always what is already as what came from "what has been", and what is already as what "is not yet". Time is always a stage-like development. The formal or empty structure of time accounts in advance for each detail, i.e., birth-youth-maturity-old age-death, seed-sprouting plant-green sapling-tree-old tree-desiccation and return to the earth, or, the cycles of the moon, day and night, etc. Time is prefigured as teleological.
Guide wrote:Ergo, physics, practiced by living beings, is always teleological (in great contradistinction to what one always hears in the marketplace and from physicists who set themselves up as ideologists and public mouthpieces). It is not teleological only as a formal rule or idealized abstraction: ergo only as Science as an Idea abstracted from the lives of the humans who do the game called science.
“Your thoughts are interesting enough to me, however I can not say that I entirely agree with everything that you are saying. It seems to me that you are trying to wrap everything up into a nice neat package forgetting that reality from the point of view of a human being is not so neat.”
“Meaning is derived from reality(more precisely is built into reality) and is often perceived with some error.”
“That is right although we tend to ask the same question of an animal(as an example) that we have never seen before knowing that it is at least an animal - we will ask what something is even when we partially know the answer ahead of time.”
“Adjusting our perception to constantly be at the effect however is nearly impossible as we travel through the moments from "what has been" toward what "is not yet". What "is not yet" is still inevitable and not completely impossible to perceive and yet difficult to predict with absolute certainty.”
“1) Science takes a practical approach not a perfect approach. 2) It seems to me that physics as it currently stands is not always teleological.”
"Formal argument is unfathomable here, but if doesent mean it has to be completely eliminated."
Guide wrote:"Formal argument is unfathomable here, but if doesent mean it has to be completely eliminated."
No. It is all perfectly compatible with the laws of thought. As is, indeed, absolutely everything.
You have a difficulty which you don't own, which is that one is unable to say where one does not understand, and where the thing said is beyond understanding.
"Formal argument is unfathomable here, but if doesent mean it has to be completely eliminated."
No. It is all perfectly compatible with the laws of thought. As is, indeed, absolutely everything.
You have a difficulty which you don't own, which is that one is unable to say where one does not understand, and where the thing said is beyond understanding.
The laws of thought? What are they?
The a-priori synthetic? Effects of Universals as they interact with sets and boundaries?
Of so or something like it, then ok. But if nothing of the Sort, then there can be no laws, except transitional ones.
That does bring in time as You brought it into the argument (essentially) and all consequentiality, related to intentionality.
Guide wrote:"Formal argument is unfathomable here, but if doesent mean it has to be completely eliminated."
No. It is all perfectly compatible with the laws of thought. As is, indeed, absolutely everything.
You have a difficulty which you don't own, which is that one is unable to say where one does not understand, and where the thing said is beyond understanding.
The laws of thought? What are they?
The a-priori synthetic? Effects of Universals as they interact with sets and boundaries?
Of so or something like it, then ok. But if nothing of the Sort, then there can be no laws, except transitional ones.
That does bring in time as You brought it into the argument (essentially) and all consequentiality, related to intentionality.
One can’t get to the subject matter of Kant without discussion… even if only with oneself, such is the means...
That, "Laws of Thought", is the traditional name for (what one presumes you to know already) identity, contradiction and excluded middle, stemming from Aristotle. With Leibniz one begins to include sufficient reason, which, correspondingly (to its relative youth, so to say) is less widely accepted as genuine.
The subject matter is: rules of discussion. This, as one may know, is already called “logic” is Aristotle, in connection with the syllogistic logic, but if one thinks of Plato’s dialogues one can see the ground from which it rises as “guard” against misunderstanding. However, the Praetorian guard turned against the empopers: meaning: one must watch over one’s guards closely to see that they don’t become the enemy one was guarding against.
“I see no contradiction here, leaving Aristotle out was not a mistake, but an assumptive guess as to the implication of succeeding forms tantamount to expressing the same.”
“The ground would not serve well metaphysically , because if that were case, language would precede logic.”
“Simply, Leibnitz's sufficient reason based on an a-priori apprehension may in general become useful as categorically synthesized, but modern science , with its need for more than sufficient approximations, it does not suffice.”
“It is not that of the two one is right and the other is wrong, but the question swirls around sufficiency of what reasonable is.(here they are grappling with dualism)” said in another way:
That the obvious then becomes an argument over semantic meanings, as a sensible outcome.
Guide wrote:"merit"
Of course, one must see that "merit" is a so-called value judgment. Ergo, "Why Science?".
Guide wrote:“I see no contradiction here, leaving Aristotle out was not a mistake, but an assumptive guess as to the implication of succeeding forms tantamount to expressing the same.”
I’m not sure I conceive your meaning rightly. Does this refer to something you did just now, or the philosophers of the past?“The ground would not serve well metaphysically , because if that were case, language would precede logic.”
Not sure what “logic” means here. If logic names rules for speaking, for logos, that’s hard to understand. For instance, in ordinary life, if someone says, I was downtown yesterday, and then they say, I was at home all day yesterday, if their home is not downtown one suspects a rat. From that arises the loose daily sense of contradiction which is almost the same as a lie. This kind of “logic” is already in Socrates, but not distinctly legislated as First Philosophy (as in Aristotle).“Simply, Leibnitz's sufficient reason based on an a-priori apprehension may in general become useful as categorically synthesized, but modern science , with its need for more than sufficient approximations, it does not suffice.”
“It is not that of the two one is right and the other is wrong, but the question swirls around sufficiency of what reasonable is.(here they are grappling with dualism)” said in another way:
It’s a different standard. Feynman says the rigour of physics is the amount of decimal point one can get in a measurement. However, when one says, why is their water on the ground?, it is because the house was sprayed in the house, this is not lacking in “rigour”. It is measured by a different standard of rigour: that of vague daily dealings.That the obvious then becomes an argument over semantic meanings, as a sensible outcome.
You sound like (dirty!) old man Searle...
The question about what should be rather than how it happens can’t be kept to. I.e., one asks how does it happen: how, e.g., a stone displaces liquid in a container. Pure description which can only remain so in the mind, as numbers. No one ever lived in math, or, put another way: No one ever had math for a first language. One asks, what is describing? There is an ostensive meaning, one points to the describer as what can be pictured. What is the mere description. Why do humans have already the possibility of the power to know what is said when one speaks of describing. Being extends that powerful realm. It is not semantic nor what one points to. In other words, that split can’t hold up. It swirls about being.
Since phenomenology really took off around that time, logic obviously preceded it, and phenomena qua. interpretation was bracketed at a logical point in time. Prior to that linear and parallel logic was mostly used consequently , teleologically for the most part.
“Hume-Kant controversy”
“#2 I absolutely agree with Feynman , that is no contest, my own comments would add nothing.”
Guide wrote:Human meaning is nomological in the sense that whatever one encounters already seems to be something; i.e., to have meaning (to be intelligible). In the extreme case one encounters a thing that is only there so far as it is available to be examined under the rubric "What is it?".
Guide wrote:"How can you ask what the thing you've encountered is, if thing you encountered is part of the same thing that is you?
There are no "things", but arbitrary aspects of the whole."
The group believes that one spontaneously separates a diverse number of things, for instance, each of these words, and the words form the background, and so the "How can you ask " becomes possible only because one does do that.
"So it's illusion then. But you were asking about actuality."
Guide wrote:The group says:"So it's illusion then. But you were asking about actuality."
How, wonders the group, does "actuality" come to mean anything? The group knows of ostensive definitions, i.e., pointing at things one can see.
And, on the other hand, of making shit up, i.e., concepts. Surely "actuality", here, is the latter.
As something that happens in the mind, concepts are part of the illusion, are they not?
The group is perplexed.
Perhaps this "actuality" is a name for the illusion as a whole, though, one can not point to the whole, which is a kind of ideal.
Guide wrote:The group says:
"So it's illusion then. But you were asking about actuality."
The things pointed to are not things, but arbitrary delineations forming a pattern with meaning specific to and codependent with the observer, like the words against the background. The words are not separate from the background, but codependent with the background since neither could exist without the other. We couldn't have a background without a contrast to manifest the blankness and conversely there could be no words without the background. Divisional boundaries do not separate, but join in a continuity.
The only reason there are words at all is there are eyes to see them. Words don't exist in "actuality" because there are no eyes to see them nor a brain to give them meaning. Actuality is probably just a bubbling soup of "whatever" and you make what you make out of the randomness.
Why is a pattern, a pattern? If you dump some toothpicks and spot a pattern, is that a special event? The pattern isn't inherently meaningful, but the meaning requires an observer.
And, on the other hand, of making shit up, i.e., concepts. Surely "actuality", here, is the latter.
No division between a thing (concept) and anything else.
As something that happens in the mind, concepts are part of the illusion, are they not?
What is the mind?
If there are no separate things, then the brain is continuous with everything else. Your mind is in your head and your head is in your mind.
The group is perplexed.
Otherwise it wouldn't be life
Right, part of the whole cannot point to the whole. There is no objectivity because all observation is in the eyes of the beholder.
Guide wrote:The group says, patter is a pattern. The word is, patterns one can point to are, and so are oak trees, with their dear leaves bunched at the far edge of the branches, growing dirty green with age.
The group says, how can the group deny objectivity without knowing what it is denying through that thing existing for the group? What is objectivity claiming?
“Objectivity is an observerless observation. If there is an observer, then it's subjectivity and not objectivity.”
“If you are separate from the universe, then how can you observe it?
If you are part of the universe, then how can you observe it?”
“Guide wrote:The group says, patter is a pattern. The word is, patterns one can point to are, and so are oak trees, with their dear leaves bunched at the far edge of the branches, growing dirty green with age.
Dirty green only exists as a pattern because the sun exists as a pattern. They relate to each other and neither one is an objective pattern with inherent meaningfulness.
A tree has branches only because there is an atmosphere. Branches have no meaning without an atmosphere.”
Branches have no meaning without an atmosphere.”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]