My theoretical framework

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Some quite unexpected facts (to the common people):

There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness. There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies. Consciousness is your world, the only one you know and will know, the only one that exists and will ever exists.

There is also nothing “internal” to consciousness. Feeling, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, language, etc. are also your world. Still, consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg (notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world).

Consciousness is made of phenomena, yet it is caused by the noumena. As we have seen, phenomena comprehends both the world and the ego, the external and the internal, the objective and the subjective.

The noumena is, whatever it is, outside the reach of consciousness. For convenience we can say that the noumena is physical, made of quarks, quantum states, strong and weak forces, and so on. But we must never forget that such concepts are oversimplifications that serve a purpose (they are like anchors that let us to make predictions) but are not “real entities in themselves”. Particles and waves are ways of describing the noumena, nothing else, and nothing more.

The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena, and every attempt to describe it will begin and finish in language. Different languages, different concepts and you might end with a different description. Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena, but not “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities. It is a map and the map is not and can’t be the territory.

[Piggy]

bunk

[AkuManiMani]

bunk

skunk!

[Piggy]

:faint: Thunk!

[D'rok]

Well...I'm glad you inserted quantum mechanics into your solipsism; I wouldn't have been able to take you seriously otherwise. :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Does this "theory" actually explain anything useful?

[Loss Leader]

Some quite unexpected facts (to the common people)



I'm not sure you entirely grasp the full meaning of the word "fact."

[Robin]

Bodhi Dharma Zen

Essentially you have just described the philosophy of science.

Comte and Mach (and Schick, Neurath, Carnap) are sitting up in their graves saying ‘well Duh!”.

Hawking says the same thing all the time. Ernst Mach pointed out that for science the noumena was simply a spurious concept.

And yes, Tricky, it is very useful.

[D'rok]

Does this "theory" actually explain anything useful?

Well...as computers and the telecommunications infrastructure that make up the internet are only non-existent objects rather than the noumenal language of quantum consciousness, clearly Bodhi's post doesn't exist nor does his theoretical framework.

In other words, this theory is quite useful in explaining that this theory is completely useless.

[D'rok]

Comte and Mach (and Schick, Neurath, Carnap) are sitting up in their graves saying ‘well Duh!”.

Comte says nothing of the sort. He is the granddaddy of positivism. You could not have mis-characterized him more thoroughly than by associating him with solipsism.

[Robin]

Comte says nothing of the sort. He is the granddaddy of positivism. You could not have mis-characterized him more thoroughly than by associating him with solipsism.
If you read the OP carefully it is not describing Solipsism, it is describing Positivism. A Solipsist would say the phenomenon was the noumenon.

Also he says "notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world"

[D'rok]

If you read the OP carefully it is not describing Solipsism, it is describing Positivism. A Solipsist would say the phenomenon was the noumenon.

Hello?

There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness.
The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena

[Piggy]

And this, my friends, is why philosophy is worth a fart in a collander.

We are about to descend into the battle of the isms.

It's the Judean People's Front v. the People's Front of Judea.

Well, blessed are the cheesemakers.

[Robin]

Hello?
Quote:
There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness.
Why would a Positivist (or indeed even a Materialist) say that there was an "external" material world “outside” your consciousness? That seems a dualist concept. Our consciousness is just a part of everything else
Quote:
The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena

And Comte would disagree with this – why????

[Robin]

And this, my friends, is why philosophy is worth a fart in a collander.

We are about to descend into the battle of the isms.

It's the Judean People's Front v. the People's Front of Judea.

Well, blessed are the cheesemakers.
On the contrary we have arrived at one of the most useful areas of philosophy outside of political philosophy.

[Piggy]

On the contrary we have arrived at one of the most useful areas of philosophy outside of political philosophy.

You must be joking.

What can all this jaw-flap possibly be useful for?

Except to help philosophers kill time, I mean?

I've been waiting for someone (anyone) to show me why philosophy isn't worthless. I'm still suspending judgment because I can't prove that all philosophy must be worthless.

But so far, no one's been able to show me any use for it at all, except in the way that, say, video games and masturbation are useful.

I mean, look at these posts. It's just a bunch of show me yours and I'll show you mine. Meanwhile, the real world churns on regardless.

We could chuck it all in the rubbish bin and be none the worse off.

[D'rok]

And this, my friends, is why philosophy is worth a fart in a collander.

We are about to descend into the battle of the isms.

It's the Judean People's Front v. the People's Front of Judea.

Well, blessed are the cheesemakers.

Well, I think I should point out first, Piggy, in all fairness, we are not, in fact, the how-valuable-is-philosophy committee. (dglas chairs that committee here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105986). However, I have been asked to read the following prepare statement on behalf of the movement. "We the People's Front of Navel-Gazing, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Piggy, on this, the occasion of your taunting. "

[D'rok]

On the contrary we have arrived at one of the most useful areas of philosophy outside of political philosophy.

I have a degree in political philosophy. It was useful in getting me into law school. That's about it. Sorry.

[Alric]

Post-modernism alert!!

Fire the objectivity cannons.

[Piggy]

I have been asked to read the following prepare statement on behalf of the movement. "We the People's Front of Navel-Gazing, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Piggy, on this, the occasion of your taunting. "

I am most grateful and most humbled.

In appreciation, please allow me to flourish the royal collander and fart in your general direction.

Now, fetch the cow!

<waves private parts at your aunties>

[Robin]

I have a degree in political philosophy. It was useful in getting me into law school. That's about it. Sorry.
So there is no difference, so far as you are concerned, between a modern democracy and a theocracy or dictatorship?

Do you think the modern democracy just happened by itself, with no philosophical underpinnings? What university did you go to (so that I can advise my kids to avoid it).

[Piggy]

I have a degree in political philosophy. It was useful in getting me into law school. That's about it. Sorry.

Well, there you are, then!

I sit corrected.

<Vanishes in a puff of logic>

[Robin]

Post-modernism alert!!
Comte post modern?
Fire the objectivity cannons.
Give me your best shot.

[D'rok]

Why would a Positivist (or indeed even a Materialist) say that there was an "external" material world “outside” your consciousness? That seems a dualist concept. Our consciousness is just a part of everything else

And Comte would disagree with this – why????

Meh. You are conflating the positivist assertion that all observable phenomena (including social phenomena in Comte's case) can be explained with a single unifying natural theory or "physics", with the solipsist assertion that all is mind.

[Robin]

You must be joking.

What can all this jaw-flap possibly be useful for?

Except to help philosophers kill time, I mean?

I've been waiting for someone (anyone) to show me why philosophy isn't worthless. I'm still suspending judgment because I can't prove that all philosophy must be worthless.
If you would just as soon live under a Theocracy than a democracy then philosophy is worthless. To you.

[Piggy]

If you would just as soon live under a Theocracy than a democracy then philosophy is worthless. To you.

Please don't assume that anything that can be tagged with a word ending -cracy is a philosophy.

Political systems are real-world, boots-on-the-ground phenomena.

Philosophy is the mumbo-jumbo that philosophers spin around such realities.

The Taliban has all sorts of philosophy and theology to justify what's essentially just brute force tyrrany. The philosophy is spin. The guns are real.

The reasons why theocracy is dangerous have nothing to do with any kind of philosophy, and everything to do with actual real-world events.

We could wipe all philosophy off the face of the earth and still have democracy. And you can describe democracy with no reference whatsoever to any philosophy.

[D'rok]

So there is no difference, so far as you are concerned, between a modern democracy and a theocracy or dictatorship?

Strawman

Do you think the modern democracy just happened by itself, with no philosophical underpinnings?
No. Why?

[Robin]

Meh. You are conflating the positivist assertion that all observable phenomena (including social phenomena in Comte's case) can be explained with a single unifying natural theory or "physics", with the solipsist assertion that all is mind.
No, I am clearly doing no such thing, clearly you are just showing a baffling unwillingness to read what I am saying (or what BDZ says).

Where does it say in the OP that "all is mind"? In fact BDZ goes out of his way to state that this is not what he is saying.

Notice you were unable to answer my question - why would Comte have a problem with the statement that that "The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena ".

This statement is quite the opposite of Solipsism which says the ultimate nature of the universe is the phenomena.

[Robin]

D'rok

I just had a thought. Your claim only makes sense if you were under the impression that "noumena" meant mind? What do you think noumena means?

[Robin]

Strawman


No. Why?
I am not sure what you mean. If political philosophy was influential in the creation of the modern democracy and the modern democracy has value, then surely political philosophy has value.

[D'rok]

We could wipe all philosophy off the face of the earth and still have democracy. And you can describe democracy with no reference whatsoever to any philosophy.

I think these are true statements in this sense:

Most of political philosophy is post-diction - i.e., it attempts to describe what already is and to confabulate reasons for the same. It is essentially harmless in that respect, and I quite enjoy it on those terms. It goes off of the rails when it pretends to be predictive or masquerades as actual wisdom. Clinging to ideas in the face of contradictory facts on the ground is a recipe for calamity, and is an occupational hazard amongst political theorists.

[Robin]

Please don't assume that anything that can be tagged with a word ending -cracy is a philosophy.

Political systems are real-world, boots-on-the-ground phenomena.

Philosophy is the mumbo-jumbo that philosophers spin around such realities.

The Taliban has all sorts of philosophy and theology to justify what's essentially just brute force tyrrany. The philosophy is spin. The guns are real.

The reasons why theocracy is dangerous have nothing to do with any kind of philosophy, and everything to do with actual real-world events.

We could wipe all philosophy off the face of the earth and still have democracy. And you can describe democracy with no reference whatsoever to any philosophy.
Are you saying that democracy just happened? That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?

[Robin]

I think these are true statements in this sense:

Most of political philosophy is post-diction - i.e., it attempts to describe what already is and to confabulate reasons for the same.
I would ask you the same as I asked Piggy. Do you think that democracy just happened? That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?

[D'rok]

D'rok

I just had a thought. Your claim only makes sense if you were under the impression that "noumena" meant mind? What do you think noumena means?

Magical mumbo-jumbo. The "thing-in-itself" that we can't quite grasp because of the limits of perception and the categories of understanding that we impose upon the world.

In other words, nonsense.

[D'rok]

No, I am clearly doing no such thing, clearly you are just showing a baffling unwillingness to read what I am saying (or what BDZ says).

Where does it say in the OP that "all is mind"? In fact BDZ goes out of his way to state that this is not what he is saying.

Notice you were unable to answer my question - why would Comte have a problem with the statement that that "The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena ".

This statement is quite the opposite of Solipsism which says the ultimate nature of the universe is the phenomena.

Sorry. My interest in this battle is waning. If you wish to declare victory, I have no objections.

[Piggy]

Are you saying that democracy just happened? That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?

I'm not saying that philosophy has no influence on what people do.

But so do religion, irrational fears, fads, feelings of racial superiority, misconceptions about history, and all sorts of other BS.

The fact that it influences human psychology and action does not mean that it is not total BS.

And yes, it is entirely possible for a group of people to decide "Hey, if we're going to live together, how about we agree to do what most folks think we should do when we have to act together and otherwise let folks do what they want" without having to invoke isms.

[PixyMisa]

I more-or-less agree with Robin here. What BDZ has just described is materialism, but expressed in the most confusing terms possible.

Your handy BDZ to Reality translation guide:

Noumena = real world.
Phenomena = thoughts.

So by this simple substitution, we get:

Consciousness is made of thoughts, yet it is caused by the real world.

Which is perfectly true.

ETA: Of course, his fourth paragraph contradicts the second, but we have to make allowances.

[Piggy]

That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?
By that definition, any notion anyone has about doing anything becomes a philosophy, in which case the word ceases to mean anything beyond "idea about what to do", which is a useless definition.

If I say, "Hey, let's get a pizza -- that'd be good", is that a philosophy?

[D'rok]

Do you think that democracy just happened?

Yes. Organically.

That nobody said "here, this is a good idea"?

Almost universally, philosophers said "democracy is a bad idea".

[Piggy]

Yes. Organically.

Thank you, D'rok. That was going to be my next point.

[Piggy]

Apes and monkeys form political systems, too. And they do so w/out philosophy.

But some humans have come to believe that the philosophy which is used to justify their actions is somehow indispensible to those actions.

[D'rok]

Notice you were unable to answer my question - why would Comte have a problem with the statement that that "The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena ".

Actually, I changed my mind; I'll answer this one.

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

This has really quickly descended into semantics. I get enough of that in the legal world. The only way that statement could jive with Comte is if you interpreted it as expressing the position that the noumena/phenomena dichotomy is false.

[Apathia]

Folks, this is not why the Bodhdharma went to China! :lol2:

[PixyMisa]

This has really quickly descended into semantics. I get enough of that in the legal world. The only way that statement could jive with Comte is if you interpreted it as expressing the position that the noumena/phenomena dichotomy is false.
So the question for BDZ is, is he a dualist, or is he a monist who has trouble expressing himself clearly?

[Robin]

Actually, I changed my mind; I'll answer this one.

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.
Nope. We have no knowledge of anything but Phaenomena; and our knowledge of phaenomena is relative, not absolute. We know not the essence, nor the real mode of production, of any fact, but only its relations to other facts in the way of succession or of similitude. These relations are constant; that is, always the same in the same circumstances. The constant resemblances which link phaenomena together, and the constant sequences which unite them as antecedent and consequent, are termed their laws. The laws of phaenomena are all we know respecting them. Their essential nature, and their ultimate causes, either efficient or final, are unknown and inscrutable to us

August Comte as quoted in John Stuart Mills "Auguste Comte and Positivism"
(My emphasis)

[Robin]

Yes. Organically.
Here is another opinion
The intellectual foundations of modern constitutional democracy were laid during the European Enlightenment, an 18th-century philosophic movement marked by its rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and its emphasis on rationalism. Two of its most influentual thinkers were English political philosopher John Locke and French jurist and political philosopher Montesquieu.

In 1690 Locke published his seminal Two Treatises of Government. His assertion that all legitimate government rests upon "the consent of the governed" profoundly altered discussions of political theory and promoted the development of democratic institutions.

With his assertion of natural law, Locke rebutted the claim that government, specifically monarchy, was an aspect of a divinely ordained chain of being. Natural law is identical with the law of God, Locke argued, and guarantees to all men basic rights, including the right to life, to certain liberties, and to own property and keep the fruits of one's labor. To secure these rights, Locke argued, men in civil society enter into a contract with their government. The citizen is bound to obey the law, while the government has the right to make laws and to defend the commonwealth from foreign injury -- all for the public good. Locke asserted that when any government becomes lawless and arbitrary, the citizen has the right to overthrow the regime and institute a new government.

Locke's theory of natural law inspired a generation of Enlightenment philosophers in Europe and the New World -- from Jean Jacques Rousseau in France to David Hume in Scotland, Immanuel Kant in Germany, and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in what became the United States. But his foremost successor was probably Montesquieu who, like Locke, believed in repubican government based on the consent of the governed, but not in democracy founded on majority rule. In The Spirit of Laws, published in 1748, Montesquieu advocated separating and balancing powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government as a means of guaranteeing the freedom of the individual. This doctrine also helped to form the philosophical basis for the U.S. Constitution, with its division of power among the presidency, the Congress, and the judiciary.

-- Jeanne S. Holden


and:
The French political theorist Montesquieu, through his masterpiece The Spirit of the Laws (1748), strongly influenced his younger contemporary Rousseau (see below Rousseau) and many of the American Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Encyclopedia Britannica

[D'rok]

Nope.

Oh God. I can't believe I'm engaging in the battle of citations. I already regret it.

Comte, as quoted by Comte, in a book by Comte, taken down off of my bookshelf by me:

"We have seen that the fundamental character of the positive philosophy is to consider all phenomena as subject to invariable natural laws. The exact discovery of these laws and their reduction to the least possible number constitute the goal of all our efforts; for we regard the search after what are called causes, whether first or final, as absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning." I suppose you'll interpret "absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning" as wiggle room for metaphysics - i.e. implying the existence of said meaningless things; they have to exist for them to be inaccessible right? I choose to interpret the plain language as written - which is in the spirit of the author. Things that absolutely cannot be perceived are imaginary.

[Robin]

So the question for BDZ is, is he a dualist, or is he a monist who has trouble expressing himself clearly?
Or more likely, like Comte, Mach and so on, is neither dualist nor monist. Both of these positions assert that we can know something about the noumena.

[D'rok]

Here is another opinion

and:

How's about paraphrasing Locke, Rousseau and the gang. I've read them; you don't need to quote them at me.

Social Contract theory is not Democracy per se. You conveniently left out Hobbes, whose Social Contract was decidedly undemocratic. You also forgot to mention that Rousseau's General Will is Absolute. Your best argument comes from Locke, and his liberalism was of the "I want to protect my private property from the Crown" variety.

Also, don't forget that democracy has a long, long tradition. I dare you to find me a significant Greek who is pro-democracy.

If we are pedantic enough to keep score, counting up the "yeas" and the "nays" will handily vindicate my claim. Political philosophers have historically been against democracy.

[Robin]

I suppose you'll interpret "absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning" as wiggle room for metaphysics - i.e. implying the existence of said meaningless things; they have to exist for them to be inaccessible right? I choose to interpret the plain language as written - which is in the spirit of the author. Things that absolutely cannot be perceived are imaginary.
Read your quote again. He said "for we regard the search after what are called causes, whether first or final, as absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning"

He is not saying that the causes of phenomena are non-existent, as you seem to be suggesting, that really would make him a solipsist.

Here again:
In the theological state, the human mind, seeking the essential nature of beings, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose) of all effects -- in short, absolute knowledge -- supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings.

In the metaphysical state, which is only a modification of the first, the mind supposes, instead of supernatural beings, abstract forces, veritable entities (that is, personified abstractions) inherent in all beings, and capable of producing all phenomena. What is called the explanation of phenomena is, in this stage, a mere reference of each to its proper entity.

In the final, the positive, state, the mind has given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origin and destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study of their laws -- that is, their invariable relations of succession and resemblance. Reasoning and observation, duly combined, are the means of this knowledge. What is now understood when we speak of an explanation of facts is simply the establishment of a connection between single phenomena and some general facts, the number of which continually diminishes with the progress of science.

Course of Positive Philosophy

[Piggy]

Folks, this is not why the Bodhdharma went to China!

He did it for the chicks.

[D'rok]

Read your quote again. He said "for we regard the search after what are called causes, whether first or final, as absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning"

He is not saying that the causes of phenomena are non-existent, as you seem to be suggesting, that really would make him a solipsist.

I suppose you'll interpret "absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning" as wiggle room for metaphysics - i.e. implying the existence of said meaningless things; they have to exist for them to be inaccessible right?

I do so enjoy when I successfully predict someone else's behaviour.

Here again:Yes. The progression from theological, to metaphysical, to positive philosophy. It is a progression. We grow up, metaphorically speaking, from the infancy of theology to the childhood of metaphysics to the adulthood of positivism. We leave the childish things behind when we reach adulthood. The other stages where necessary "training" in order to reach the positive philosophy.

Given all this, why would you want to attribute non-positivist metaphysical notions to Comte?

For the record, I think Comte's positivism is just as silly as the theories of metaphysicians and theologists. His "social physics" in particular is extremely naive.

Just curious...have you read these works that you are quoting at me?

[Robin]

Social Contract theory is not Democracy per se. You conveniently left out Hobbes, whose Social Contract was decidedly undemocratic.
So what? I am not saying that all philosophers were pro-democracy. It is like saying that the heliocentric model of the universe did not come from scientists because most scientists at the time were against it.
You also forgot to mention that Rousseau's General Will is Absolute.
And you will notice that a democracy inspired by a flawed philosophy struggled at first. Not only is philosophy important, the right philosophy is important
Also, don't forget that democracy has a long, long tradition. I dare you to find me a significant Greek who is pro-democracy.
And you will notice that there was a long gap between the demise of Greek democracy and the rise of modern democracy. You will argue, I suppose, that the timing, just after the rise of Enlightenment philosophies, was merely co-incidental.
If we are pedantic enough to keep score, counting up the "yeas" and the "nays" will handily vindicate my claim. Political philosophers have historically been against democracy.
A scorecard would be quite beside the point. If only some philosophies were influential in establishing the modern democracy and influencing its character then that would still establish the usefulness of philosophy.

[Robin]

I do so enjoy when I successfully predict someone else's behaviour.
You didn't. You just read what you wanted to hear into what I said. That is a silly and irritating habit. Please stop it.

So let me get this straight. You appear to be claiming that Comte claims the causes of phenomena are non-existent. Are you?
Yes. The progression from theological, to metaphysical, to positive philosophy. It is a progression. We grow up, metaphorically speaking, from the infancy of theology to the childhood of metaphysics to the adulthood of positivism. We leave the childish things behind when we reach adulthood. The other stages where necessary "training" in order to reach the positive philosophy.

Given all this, why would you want to attribute non-positivist metaphysical notions to Comte?
I am not. Remember that was your straw man which I have been at pains to explain to you is wrong.

Try not to confuse your misrepresentation with what I actually said.
Just curious...have you read these works that you are quoting at me?
Yes.

[D'rok]

A scorecard would be quite beside the point. If only some philosophies were influential in establishing the modern democracy and influencing its character then that would still establish the usefulness of philosophy.

Nope. Establishing that some philosophers wrote approvingly of democracy or quasi-democratic principles would only establish that some philosophers did exactly what I claimed earlier - i.e., post-diction of the world around them.

[Robin]

Nope. Establishing that some philosophers wrote approvingly of democracy or quasi-democratic principles would only establish that some philosophers did exactly what I claimed earlier - i.e., post-diction of the world around them.
Post-diction prior to the event? Psychic philosophers maybe?

[D'rok]

I'm going to bed. I leave the field to you. Victory is yours by forfeit. We have solved, in this little encounter, exactly as many of the fundamental questions of existence as the combined efforts of all of the philosophers, political or otherwise, in human history.

That is...precisely none of them.

(Unless you want to talk about natural philosophy - aka Science. But that's another thread).

Good night.

[D'rok]

Post-diction prior to the event? Psychic philosophers maybe?

Nope. Attempts to explain what happened and is in the process of happening. Often framed in a certain way with a prosaically political - i.e. beneficial to an interest - desired outcome in mind.

Adieu.

[PixyMisa]

Or more likely, like Comte, Mach and so on, is neither dualist nor monist. Both of these positions assert that we can know something about the noumena.
Sesquiists?

[Robin]

Sesquiists?
If I understand BDZ correctly he is expressing a more or less Positivist view. I don't think he is expressing a metaphysical view at all.

[PixyMisa]

Maybe. I'm not sure that is what he's saying.

But BDZ is being much more forthcoming than usual, so I'm willing to wait for clarification on this.

[Robin]

Maybe. I'm not sure that is what he's saying.

But BDZ is being much more forthcoming than usual, so I'm willing to wait for clarification on this.
The entire confusion appears to rest on second paragraph which sounds solipsistic or Idealistic. The rest of the post sounds Positivist.

BDZ, over to you.

[Robin]

Nope. Attempts to explain what happened and is in the process of happening. Often framed in a certain way with a prosaically political - i.e. beneficial to an interest - desired outcome in mind.

Adieu.

Lock, for example, died in 1704

Adieu.

[D'rok]

Lock, for example, died in 1704

Yup. And his Second Treatise was intimately intertwined with the politics of his day. Also, his State of Nature teaching was a confabulation (as was Hobbes', Rousseau's, Montesquieu's, etc) designed to refute Hobbes' and to promote Locke's own politics.

This statement of mine seems to have caused you the most kerfluffle:

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

I'm willing to rephrase in the interests of diplomacy and of sparing Piggy anymore tedium:

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is a silly subject and we might as well behave as if it is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

Any better for you?

[AkuManiMani]

:faint: Thunk!

:D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Just a brief THANK YOU ALL for now. I will get back with some comments but I sincerely appreciate the time you all took to read my ideas.

(lots of works right now) :)

[Ichneumonwasp]

Robin,

Sorry about this one, but democracy arose in ancient Athens as a result of infighting between various aristocrats. It did not spring from political philosophy. It evolved over a long period of time from kingship to tyranny to aristocracy to democracy through a series of steps that had more to do with local fights over power relations in Athens than anything else as far as we can tell. Cleisthenes' reforms weren't based in any political philosophy but rather in his fight for power. The same appears to be true for Pericles' later reforms -- all tied into the development of the Athenian navy.

Republican forms of government took a different course but also went through various stages of development.

In other words, I don't think you chose a good example. Or, perhaps, it should have been rephrased, since I think I know what you meant by it based on your later replies. Political philosophy was critical to the formation of the U.S. government.

Philosophy is still very useful -- including political philosophy -- since it is just a formalized mode of thinking. We engage in it all the time. We're doing so now.

[AkuManiMani]

Apes and monkeys form political systems, too. And they do so w/out philosophy.

From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/):
phi·los·o·phy /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fi-los-uh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -phies.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

Our primates relatives have simple philosophies [in the sense of definitions 5-6] that guide their social interactions -- tho, they may be incapable of seeing them as-such to modify them as readily as we humans can.

[Robin]

This statement of mine seems to have caused you the most kerfluffle:

...

I'm willing to rephrase in the interests of diplomacy and of sparing Piggy anymore tedium:

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is a silly subject and we might as well behave as if it is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

Any better for you?
Better? It is perfect. That is just how I understand Comte, and pretty much what I thought I had been saying all along.

And may I point out for Piggy's benefit, reading the Philosophy section of this forum is not, in fact, compulsory.

[Robin]

Robin,

Sorry about this one, but democracy arose in ancient Athens as a result of infighting between various aristocrats.
But I think that you have missed that I specified the modern democracy which was at the very least highly influenced by the Enlightenment philosophies of the time.
In other words, I don't think you chose a good example. Or, perhaps, it should have been rephrased, since I think I know what you meant by it based on your later replies. Political philosophy was critical to the formation of the U.S. government.
I am glad that somebody agrees that political philosophy was critical to the formation of the U.S government. The U.S. government critical in the rise of modern democracy, it showed a mostly skeptical world that the concept worked. Imagine if France had been the first modern democracy.

[Piggy]

Our primates relatives have simple philosophies [in the sense of definitions 5-6] that guide their social interactions -- tho, they may be incapable of seeing them as-such to modify them as readily as we humans can.

Well, if you're going to define it that broadly -- and as an outsider to the field I reckon I have no reason to object -- then I have to concede the point.

And, much as I hate to admit it, some of Robin's arguments regarding the critical role of political philosophy in the minds of specific persons at specific junctures in history are starting to grow on me, especially if I take your lens to it.

What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.

That said, I still believe that the larger perspective needs to be taken into account as well, such as the points made about the evolution of democratic systems in Athens.

[Robin]

What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.
I would have to agree. 99.999% of philosophy revolves around debating questions that don't have answers using language that would be inadequate if they did.

[PixyMisa]

I would have to agree. 99.999% of philosophy revolves around debating questions that don't have answers using language that would be inadequate if they did.
I think that figure is a little high.

But just a little. ;)

[D'rok]

I too have overstated the case that political philosophy has no influence. I do this partly for polemical reasons. We shouldn't forget the horrible and monstrous failures that can result from attempts to apply political theories to the real world. I'm talking about communism, fascism, national socialism, etc.

Also, I don't think it's entirely accurate to call America the first modern democracy. Parliamentary democracy has its roots in medieval England and grew organically over the centuries in that country.

The American experiment in republican self-government, however, is perhaps the most explicit example outside of the former U.S.S.R. of a conscious attempt to actualize political philosophical principles.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well...I'm glad you inserted quantum mechanics into your solipsism; I wouldn't have been able to take you seriously otherwise. :rolleyes:

So, in other words, you didn't understood. ;)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Does this "theory" actually explain anything useful?

It is a theoretical framework, not a theory. That said, yes, some of the implications can actually explain some things.

Now, your use of " ", I feel, was derogatory. If this is the case, why?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm not sure you entirely grasp the full meaning of the word "fact."

Really? Let's see. A fact, what actually is the case. Of what I said, which part is not the case?

[D'rok]

So, in other words, you didn't understood. ;)

Probably not. I'm still listening though. Want to try again?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

bunk

Classy, a good answer, you are really good demonstrating your intelligence in the forum.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Bodhi Dharma Zen

Essentially you have just described the philosophy of science.

Comte and Mach (and Schick, Neurath, Carnap) are sitting up in their graves saying ‘well Duh!”.

Hawking says the same thing all the time. Ernst Mach pointed out that for science the noumena was simply a spurious concept.

And yes, Tricky, it is very useful.

Thanks. Yes. Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see. I wrote it so it would appear as "typical" woo stuff so we could all spot, on the fly, who doesn't read and who read what she/he wants to read, instead of what is written.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Comte says nothing of the sort. He is the granddaddy of positivism. You could not have mis-characterized him more thoroughly than by associating him with solipsism.

Proving my point. Thanks.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If you read the OP carefully it is not describing Solipsism, it is describing Positivism. A Solipsist would say the phenomenon was the noumenon.

Also he says "notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world"

:) Exactly. Now, how good is some of our staff of resident "skeptics" if they are unable to simply read and understand a few sentences?

[D'rok]

Thanks. Yes. Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see. I wrote it so it would appear as "typical" woo stuff so we could all spot, on the fly, who doesn't read and who read what she/he wants to read, instead of what is written.

Would you like to try an honest restatement then? Perhaps leaving out tripe like this:

There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And this, my friends, is why philosophy is worth a fart in a collander.

No.

This is merely how you show your absolute ignorance.

Everything we think is a philosophy, as you read it. We happen to act based on certain beliefs; that the sun will come back tomorrow, that your car will start again, that the toothbrush is a solid object that serves a concrete function, and so on.

Those beliefs are simply concepts in your mind, you don't KNOW if tomorrow will be another day, you just ASSUME IT. This simply, everyday assumptions are a philosophy, so don't come to tell more nonsense.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I've been waiting for someone (anyone) to show me why philosophy isn't worthless.

How do you KNOW that what you are saying have MEANING?

What is this word: MEANING?

How is the language related to the world?

How come I can write a sign and you can understand it?

What, exactly, is an explanation?

This is philosophy (of language) and if you can't see its importance its ok. Philosophers do not need you at all.

[D'rok]

C'mon Socrates. Was there anything of substance in your OP? Quit gloating and spill the beans. Less woo-speak, more meat this time, if you please.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Would you like to try an honest restatement then? Perhaps leaving out tripe like this:

You haven't understand A THING.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

C'mon Socrates. Was there anything of substance in your OP? Quit gloating and spill the beans. Less woo-speak, more meat this time, if you please.

Where, exactly, is the woo part?

You can take your time.

[D'rok]

Where, exactly, is the woo part?

You can take your time.

Oh good grief. Nice knowing you.

[PixyMisa]

Thanks. Yes. Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see. I wrote it so it would appear as "typical" woo stuff so we could all spot, on the fly, who doesn't read and who read what she/he wants to read, instead of what is written.
Yes, including making your fourth paragraph contradict your second, thus reducing it to drivel. What did you expect? It's not our job to decode your cryptic utterances.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I more-or-less agree with Robin here. What BDZ has just described is materialism, but expressed in the most confusing terms possible.

Your handy BDZ to Reality translation guide:

Noumena = real world.
Phenomena = thoughts.

So by this simple substitution, we get:

Consciousness is made of thoughts, yet it is caused by the real world.

Which is perfectly true.

ETA: Of course, his fourth paragraph contradicts the second, but we have to make allowances.

Pixy, not true. Yes, materialism and my "ism" works with the same degree of confidence, but epistemologically and ontologically they are different.

What do you mean about the fourth paragraph? Care to explain where do you see the contradiction in more detail?

[AkuManiMani]

Well, if you're going to define it that broadly -- and as an outsider to the field I reckon I have no reason to object -- then I have to concede the point.

And, much as I hate to admit it, some of Robin's arguments regarding the critical role of political philosophy in the minds of specific persons at specific junctures in history are starting to grow on me, especially if I take your lens to it.

What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.

That said, I still believe that the larger perspective needs to be taken into account as well, such as the points made about the evolution of democratic systems in Athens.

Haha, I hear yah!

I used to be pretty frustrated with the field of philosophy for a while because -- to me -- it always seemed like it dealt with angels-on-pins arguments. Philosophy without any grounding is irrelevant.

On the same token, any field (especially scientific ones) without a robust grasp of philosophy is blind and will tend to stagnate.

There has to be a healthy balance for there to be any kind of fruitful intellectual pursuit.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Oh good grief. Nice knowing you.

You started it! ;)

[Piggy]

Classy, a good answer, you are really good demonstrating your intelligence in the forum.

I say what I mean.

And that's exactly what I meant.

Your OP is word salad.

[quixotecoyote]

I think what BDZ is saying is that in a philosophical sense, post-positivist introspections have some merit. In renouncing a materialistic interpretation of sensory phenomena, one an tap the inner senses of a personal nous and logos, combining the best of ancient philosophy with modern post-enlightenment traditions. In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists. Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

[Piggy]

Still, it is interesting to note, that at least in this forum, people in general tend to see what they want to see.

They have no choice when you present them with nothing more than a verbal Rorschach test.

[Piggy]

No.

This is merely how you show your absolute ignorance.

Everything we think is a philosophy, as you read it. We happen to act based on certain beliefs; that the sun will come back tomorrow, that your car will start again, that the toothbrush is a solid object that serves a concrete function, and so on.

Those beliefs are simply concepts in your mind, you don't KNOW if tomorrow will be another day, you just ASSUME IT. This simply, everyday assumptions are a philosophy, so don't come to tell more nonsense.

Save it for the dorm room bong party, ok?

Toothbrushes aren't concepts.

Confusing the idea of a thing for the thing itself is a sophomoric mistake.

[Piggy]

How do you KNOW that what you are saying have MEANING?

What is this word: MEANING?

How is the language related to the world?

How come I can write a sign and you can understand it?

What, exactly, is an explanation?

This is philosophy (of language) and if you can't see its importance its ok. Philosophers do not need you at all.

It is the clear mark of a charlatan to be always asking questions while making no effort to seek answers.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Or more likely, like Comte, Mach and so on, is neither dualist nor monist. Both of these positions assert that we can know something about the noumena.

Thanks for noticing it. I do believe that all we can know are (so to speak) patterns of brain activity, but not what is "out there". Now, we can (and) do hypothesis about it all the time, but, IMHO, it is important to never forget that our models are merely that, models, and that you are not sitting right now in front of any computer. Heck, even the you on you is nothing but certain patterns of that unknowable "stuff".

[D'rok]

I think what BDZ is saying is that in a philosophical sense, post-positivist introspections have some merit. In renouncing a materialistic interpretation of sensory phenomena, one an tap the inner senses of a personal nous and logos, combining the best of ancient philosophy with modern post-enlightenment traditions. In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists. Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

I think Alric nailed it:

Post-modernism alert!!

Fire the objectivity cannons.

[Piggy]

On the same token, any field (especially scientific ones) without a robust grasp of philosophy is blind and will tend to stagnate.

There has to be a healthy balance for there to be any kind of fruitful intellectual pursuit.

<Lumberg> Uh, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with ya there. </Lumberg>

One big reason I bailed out of academia was that I got tired of having my boots continually stuck in the mud of philosophy.

I went into public service, then into private sector, where what matters is results.

It is possible to abandon philosophy altogether and focus on results. It's a much better world to live in.

And don't even try to tell me that focusing on results is some kind of philosophy, b/c if you do that you're attempting to paint with so broad a brush that every activity we engage in becomes "philosophy" -- and when a word means everything, it means nothing, because it fails to distinguish anything from anything.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Maybe. I'm not sure that is what he's saying.

But BDZ is being much more forthcoming than usual, so I'm willing to wait for clarification on this.

I appreciate it. Thanks.

[Piggy]

I think what BDZ is saying is that in a philosophical sense, post-positivist introspections have some merit. In renouncing a materialistic interpretation of sensory phenomena, one an tap the inner senses of a personal nous and logos, combining the best of ancient philosophy with modern post-enlightenment traditions. In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists. Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The entire confusion appears to rest on second paragraph which sounds solipsistic or Idealistic. The rest of the post sounds Positivist.

BDZ, over to you.

For Pixy it is the fourth I think.

Lets see:

In the second one I state that what we see is not what is "there". But the tricky part is the "there". It denotes space, but this is a perception, and later a concept.

Now the fourth: Almost the same explanation, "internal" and "external" are mutually related concepts, and both exists in our mind. The same goes for every other opposite (objective, subjective, and so on).

These are perceptual and conceptual categories, and in this sense, belong to us more than "to the world" (the noumena).

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, not true. Yes, materialism and my "ism" works with the same degree of confidence, but epistemologically and ontologically they are different.
Then what is this difference? Stated clearly, please.

What do you mean about the fourth paragraph? Care to explain where do you see the contradiction in more detail?
Well, it's pretty blatant, but since you ask:

From the second paragraph:
There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness.

From the fourth and fifth paragraphs:
Consciousness is made of phenomena, yet it is caused by the noumena. ... The noumena is, whatever it is, outside the reach of consciousness. For convenience we can say that the noumena is physical, made of quarks, quantum states, strong and weak forces, and so on.
You say there isn't an external world, and then you say there is, and that it is the cause of consciousness.

As I said, if we translate your "phenomena" to thoughts and "noumena" to "the world", we have materialism. If this is an incorrect translation, then I apologise, but you deliberately obfuscated your post, so it's your fault if people misunderstand.

[Piggy]

For Pixy it is the fourth I think.

Lets see:

In the second one I state that what we see is not what is "there". But the tricky part is the "there". It denotes space, but this is a perception, and later a concept.

Now the fourth: Almost the same explanation, "internal" and "external" are mutually related concepts, and both exists in our mind. The same goes for every other opposite (objective, subjective, and so on).

These are perceptual and conceptual categories, and in this sense, belong to us more than "to the world" (the noumena).

If you choose to believe in demons, you will see them everwhere you look.

By the same token, if you choose not to cast your gaze beyond your own thought and words, but instead to fetishize them, then the entire universe will appear to you as nothing more than a mesh of ideas and words.

When you lose your fear of demons, you find that the world makes perfect sense without them, they become useless and redundant, and then they vanish.

When you move your gaze beyond your own thoughts and words, you find that the world persists, that it takes no care for the products of your mind... and never did.

[quixotecoyote]

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.

Ha! It is the sheltered philosopher who dares not question the assumption of shared perception. In fact, the oft trumpeted empiricism so commonly associated with positivism requires shared assumptions as its axiomatic bedrock. Without acknowledging the need for a standard basis of comparison, it is impossible to reach anything objectively. Thus the colorblind person conversing with one capable to observing the normal spectra of human perceptible wavelength must, by default, disprove the assumptions of empiricism and by extension unenlightened skepticism. Thus the asynchronism of brain-wave patterns, the logical extension of BDZ's post #99, delivers a withering barrage of subjectivity suppression fire against Alric's objectivity cannon. For if brain activity is observed to be markedly different in separate individuals in response to the same phenomena, then it verifies the precedence of noumena in the ontological hierarchy to the point of rendering any meaningful epistemology inaccessible. Only through an alternative praxis can an approximation of the natural world be attained. It is this new vision that BDZ casts before you. The progressive staging of perception to conceptualization replaces the flawed reliance of observation as a foundational heuristic.

[PixyMisa]

In the second one I state that what we see is not what is "there".
You do realise that we all know this? Under materialism, we assume that what we observe is what is. But we know that we cannot see identity, only behaviour, and seeing is itself a behaviour, a series of interactions.

Now the fourth: Almost the same explanation, "internal" and "external" are mutually related concepts, and both exists in our mind. The same goes for every other opposite (objective, subjective, and so on).
Yes, "internal" and "external" are concepts, are thoughts. That's no insight.

Internal and external are real, though, as you will find if you ever have them inverted.

These are perceptual and conceptual categories, and in this sense, belong to us more than "to the world" (the noumena).
The noumena possesses the ability to stop thought. This is of some significance. As I said elsewhere, dead philosophers do not argue.

[Robin]

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.
I think he of the eternal quixotic and fruitless search for klaxonic sustenance in the wilderness is perhaps having us on.

[AkuManiMani]

Where, exactly, is the woo part?

You can take your time.

Woo is, in the colloquial usage of this forum, any term or phenomenon which is poorly (or not at all) defined scientifically -- such as most of the mystical sounding terminology you used in your OP.

[AkuManiMani]

One big reason I bailed out of academia was that I got tired of having my boots continually stuck in the mud of philosophy.

I went into public service, then into private sector, where what matters is results.

It is possible to abandon philosophy altogether and focus on results. It's a much better world to live in.

And don't even try to tell me that focusing on results is some kind of philosophy, b/c if you do that you're attempting to paint with so broad a brush that every activity we engage in becomes "philosophy" -- and when a word means everything, it means nothing, because it fails to distinguish anything from anything.

I think I understand your perspective.

[Recently, I've been playing around with socionomics (http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home) and it sounds a lot like you would be a variant of the ESTJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ) personality type -- I swear sometimes the accuracy of this type system is scary.]

You just have a radically different cognitive style than the more metaphysically minded Bodhi Dharma Zen. You're two completely different cognitive animals who naturally seek out and function in different niches.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In this manner, we can say there is no such thing as galaxies and frogs and quarks and whatnot, only the semantic transference between perspective and observation. Only through such a transference can meaning be truly obtained, because it is within the transference rather than within an extant deification that any given object truly exists.

Agreed. The existence of something like a universe lies in here. In us. Out of us, the mere word lacks any meaning and the answer is rendered absurd.

Is the moon out there when we are not watching it?

It doesn't matter.

Translating these concepts into 'noumena' in reference to concepts beyond the scope of human consciousness may introduce confusion to those not yet ready to view reality through the appropriate paradigm. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate terminology, eh BDZ?

Nope. It is ok if some people can't see it. :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is the kind of verbiage produced by sheltered academics who never managed to outgrow the "Hey, you ever wonder if, like, what's green to me is green to you?" stage of late night sleepover talk.

Lets see, maybe your meds are in the drawer. I strongly suggest you take them and relax.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If you choose to believe in demons, you will see them everwhere you look.

By the same token, if you choose not to cast your gaze beyond your own thought and words, but instead to fetishize them, then the entire universe will appear to you as nothing more than a mesh of ideas and words.

For hating philosophy, you do lots of it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The noumena possesses the ability to stop thought. This is of some significance.

When the noumena stops it, there is silence.

[AkuManiMani]

Bodhi, you really gotta start using that multi-quote feature >_<

Edit: nevermind the double postings I made above >_>

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Bodhi, you really gotta start using that multi-quote feature >_<

Edit: nevermind the double postings I made above >_>

First time I notice it. Do I simply put quotes on several posts and can answer them in a single one? Or how does it works (no more to answer today in order to find out)

[AkuManiMani]

First time I notice it. Do I simply put quotes on several posts and can answer them in a single one? Or how does it works (no more to answer today in order to find out)

Basically tag each post you want to quote with the " icon and then click "Quote" for the last one -- seems to work for me.

[PixyMisa]

When the noumena stops it, there is silence.
Yes.

The point is, if the noumena (real world) causes thought, and the noumena can uncause it, then the noumena is what is. Pure materialism.

If you want to say naturalism, rather than materialism, then that's fine too.

[Phaedrus74]

Yes.

The point is, if the noumena (real world) causes thought, and the noumena can uncause it, then the noumena is what is. Pure materialism.

If you want to say naturalism, rather than materialism, then that's fine too.

Considering the fact that the theoretical framework proposed is a pretty good, albeit rough, summary of Kant transcendental idealism would be a more apropriate name.

Also quixotecoyote, don't forget that hermeneutics is in the end about things not words or concepts! "Being" is ontologically prior to "being-there"...

And finally, just because knowledge and inference start with perception does not warrant the conclusion that the connection between an event and the beliefs caused by that event are inherently unreliable. Error-prone?Maybe. Unreliable? No. There simply is no good reason to assume that the noumena that cause my perceptions at this moment are anything other than what I believe them to be, namely a desk, a bunch of paper and a computer monitor. It's a lot of fun to imagine otherwise, I enjoyed the Matrix a lot (though I enjoyed eXistenZ more), but in everyday life (also the everyday life of an academic philosopher) it's nearly always a waste of time. (Except when you're in a pub drinking a couple of beers...)

[Piggy]

Ha! It is the sheltered philosopher who dares not question the assumption of shared perception. In fact, the oft trumpeted empiricism so commonly associated with positivism requires shared assumptions as its axiomatic bedrock. Without acknowledging the need for a standard basis of comparison, it is impossible to reach anything objectively. Thus the colorblind person conversing with one capable to observing the normal spectra of human perceptible wavelength must, by default, disprove the assumptions of empiricism and by extension unenlightened skepticism. Thus the asynchronism of brain-wave patterns, the logical extension of BDZ's post #99, delivers a withering barrage of subjectivity suppression fire against Alric's objectivity cannon. For if brain activity is observed to be markedly different in separate individuals in response to the same phenomena, then it verifies the precedence of noumena in the ontological hierarchy to the point of rendering any meaningful epistemology inaccessible. Only through an alternative praxis can an approximation of the natural world be attained. It is this new vision that BDZ casts before you. The progressive staging of perception to conceptualization replaces the flawed reliance of observation as a foundational heuristic.

You want fries with that?

[D'rok]

Considering the fact that the theoretical framework proposed is a pretty good, albeit rough, summary of Kant transcendental idealism would be a more apropriate name.

Also quixotecoyote, don't forget that hermeneutics is in the end about things not words or concepts! "Being" is ontologically prior to "being-there"...

And finally, just because knowledge and inference start with perception does not warrant the conclusion that the connection between an event and the beliefs caused by that event are inherently unreliable. Error-prone?Maybe. Unreliable? No. There simply is no good reason to assume that the noumena that cause my perceptions at this moment are anything other than what I believe them to be, namely a desk, a bunch of paper and a computer monitor. It's a lot of fun to imagine otherwise, I enjoyed the Matrix a lot (though I enjoyed eXistenZ more), but in everyday life (also the everyday life of an academic philosopher) it's nearly always a waste of time. (Except when you're in a pub drinking a couple of beers...)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a1500730.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6323)
(non-sarcastic clapping)

[Piggy]

You just have a radically different cognitive style than the more metaphysically minded Bodhi Dharma Zen. You're two completely different cognitive animals who naturally seek out and function in different niches.

I think the difference may be that I spent 13 years in academia -- studying language, how it is used and misused, and how we process it... and reading more than anyone's fair share of academic bloviation, as well -- and I can smell verbal BS 3 counties away.

[Piggy]

I think he of the eternal quixotic and fruitless search for klaxonic sustenance in the wilderness is perhaps having us on.

Yes, I considered that, as well. If so, it's an excellent effort.

Nonetheless, my comment regarding the language itself stands, seeing as how, if it is a parody, it is one which is indistinguishable from the real article.

[Piggy]

Is the moon out there when we are not watching it?

It doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. It makes all the difference in the world.

Only someone lost in their own mental musings could make a statement like that.

[Phaedrus74]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a1500730.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6323)
(non-sarcastic clapping)

Thank you.

[D'rok]

I'm almost disappointed to find out that plain old-fashioned post-modernism is at the root of the OP. Hasn't the academic world left that mess behind yet?

quixotecoyote, weren't you amongst the sceptics, or at least the moderately cautious, in the big post-modernism thread from August?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90259

[PixyMisa]

I'm almost disappointed to find out that plain old-fashioned post-modernism is at the root of the OP. Hasn't the academic world left that mess behind yet?
I believe the infection is as yet uncontained.

[Phaedrus74]

I'm almost disappointed to find out that plain old-fashioned post-modernism is at the root of the OP. Hasn't the academic world left that mess behind yet?


Nah, still popular in certain disciplines (literary theory for instance).

In philosophy it depends on the area (Social and political philosophy: yes. Epistemology: no.) and the University where you study...

[D'rok]

Nah, still popular in certain disciplines (literary theory for instance).

In philosophy it depends on the area (Social and political philosophy: yes. Epistemology: no.) and the University where you study...

Encountering Heidegger, Derrida, and Lyotard sent me screaming from political philosophy and into law. (Hegel too...but he's not post-modern; Hegel just killed modernity and made post-modernity possible). (Law is making me scream too, but for different reasons).

[Phaedrus74]

Encountering Heidegger, Derrida, and Lyotard sent me screaming from political philosophy and into law. (Hegel too...but he's not post-modern; Hegel just killed modernity and made post-modernity possible). (Law is making me scream too, but for different reasons).

I personally didn't have any problems with Heidegger (apart from his politics that is). Derrida and Lyotard I didn't encounter enough to develop a like/dislike relation, but then again I specialized in epistemology and philosophy of language....

I did take a class in "Political Theologies" which I enjoyed a great deal, but this class was taught by the same guy that did the Heidegger class and he was generally level-headed and very knowledgable about other disciplines (guess I was lucky in that respect).

What I liked about some of the work associated with post-modernism (Foucault springs to mind) is that it really forced you to take a step back and evaluate your presuppositions. In that sense it can be 'therapeutical' (Rorty's term). But if you're sane to begin with it will probably just annoy the H%^^ out of you :D

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ha! It is the sheltered philosopher who dares not question the assumption of shared perception. In fact, the oft trumpeted empiricism so commonly associated with positivism requires shared assumptions as its axiomatic bedrock. Without acknowledging the need for a standard basis of comparison, it is impossible to reach anything objectively. Thus the colorblind person conversing with one capable to observing the normal spectra of human perceptible wavelength must, by default, disprove the assumptions of empiricism and by extension unenlightened skepticism. Thus the asynchronism of brain-wave patterns, the logical extension of BDZ's post #99, delivers a withering barrage of subjectivity suppression fire against Alric's objectivity cannon. For if brain activity is observed to be markedly different in separate individuals in response to the same phenomena, then it verifies the precedence of noumena in the ontological hierarchy to the point of rendering any meaningful epistemology inaccessible. Only through an alternative praxis can an approximation of the natural world be attained. It is this new vision that BDZ casts before you. The progressive staging of perception to conceptualization replaces the flawed reliance of observation as a foundational heuristic.

I've never nominated a post before, but this one deserves it. I love it, man. I don't know why I chose this over your first post, probably only because I was looking at it now. Good parody is never a waste.:)

[D'rok]

I've never nominated a post before, but this one deserves it. I love it, man. I don't know why I chose this over your first post, probably only because I was looking at it now. Good parody is never a waste.:)

So he was having us on then? I thought this seemed out of character, based on my limited exposure to coyote's other posts.

Well played.

ETA: I suppose the name "quixotecoyote" and the avatar should have clued me in earlier. Wile E. and quixotic indeed.

[Darat]

So he was having us on then? I thought this seemed out of character, based on my limited exposure to coyote's other posts.

Well played.

Parody in a sense but if you read what he is saying it all makes sense - it's just a rather very wordy way of saying it. The parody for me is that it is demonstrating that wordiness for its own sake, such as the opening post of this thread, is actually a hindrance to communication.

[Phaedrus74]

:wave1Parody in a sense but if you read what he is saying it all makes sense - it's just a rather very wordy way of saying it. The parody for me is that it is demonstrating that wordiness for its own sake, such as the opening post of this thread, is actually a hindrance to communication.

I <3 Language(abuse)

Everybody can use a post-modernism generator, it's the creation of a meaningful text whilst maintaining the semblance of non-sense that is hard.

:wave1

[Darat]

...snip...

Everybody can use a post-modernism generator, it's the creation of a meaningful text whilst maintaining the semblance of non-sense that is hard.

...snip...

So that explains why a degree in philosophy takes so long...... :duck:

[Phaedrus74]

So that explains why a degree in philosophy takes so long...... :duck:

You should have seen the looks when I told them my Master's Thesis would be no longer than 50 pages. They nearly kicked me out then and there :D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Toothbrushes aren't concepts.

Confusing the idea of a thing for the thing itself is a sophomoric mistake.

Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

Welcome to woo land! a fairy tale kingdom in which you can assume things without thinking. People like you would have never find out anything about atoms, nor would be pushed in to thinking if gravity was a force or a distortion of something else.

But don't feel that bad, this utterly naive POV of yours is shared by countless of millions. Now go play with the paste (as I guess thats the kind of thing you'll find interesting).

[Darat]

Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

...snip...

Yep and very easy to prove*


*For a definition of prove that actually makes any sense at all when used in English - of course if you want to hold that we can't "prove" anything, ever, at all - well I tell you what you invent a new word and when it's adopted for general use I'll start to use it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes.

The point is, if the noumena (real world) causes thought, and the noumena can uncause it, then the noumena is what is. Pure materialism.

If you want to say naturalism, rather than materialism, then that's fine too.

Naturalism is, IMO, the best, followed by Physicalism. But I believe it is important to choose any of them instead of Materialism. Why?

Materialism is an old term, it represents a very naive point of view, that things are things whether we see them or not. In this sense, and from this perspective, is mere woo, and so better terms should be the tool of choice for us skeptics.

In another thread, for example, I have argued that it is preferable to say that somebody is a psychopath, instead of "evil" for the same reasons.

A definition of Naturalism comes handy:

"The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Of course it matters. It makes all the difference in the world.

Exactly why?

[calebprime]

...

In another thread, for example, I have argued that it is preferable to say that somebody is a psychopath, instead of "evil" for the same reasons.

...

(somewhat off-topic, but...)

Can you name the thread? Or link the post?

My instinct is exactly the opposite, and I thought for a long time about this, and read the lit.

It's almost always better to say that someone acted in a manner we consider evil, and did so on many occasions.

Then we avoid the problem that the label "psychopath" really just means that, and that there is a substantial minority of people who do act like this.

The label would be more useful if it identified some cause or hidden feature of this evil behavior instead of being a loose term for anyone we don't trust or credit with humanity--as the somewhat jocular definition has it:

"A psychopath* is anyone you don't like"

*(or sociopath--Robert Hare observes a distinction but most users of the term don't)

[D'rok]

Bodhi: "There is no spoon"
Keanu: "Whoooaaahhh"

[AkuManiMani]

I think the difference may be that I spent 13 years in academia -- studying language, how it is used and misused, and how we process it... and reading more than anyone's fair share of academic bloviation, as well -- and I can smell verbal BS 3 counties away.

Heh, that would depend on whose listening. The conceptual disagreement between you and Bohdi is mosty based on semantics I would say. More than half of the descriptive words BDZ likes to use mean something completely different in his mind that it does yours. On top of that, from what I could see of the OP, it seems what BDZ trying to describe is an aspect of the Tao -- a concept that probably no one but persons of a mystical or philosophical mindset could even begin to approach.

Bodhi: "There is no spoon"
Keanu: "Whoooaaahhh"

ROFL@!!!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

(somewhat off-topic, but...)

Can you name the thread? Or link the post?

I believe it is easier if you go to my profile and choose "threads started by BDZ"

[calebprime]

I believe it is easier if you go to my profile and choose "threads started by BDZ"

thnx

eta: I tried clicking on your name to see your profile, but I didn't see anything about "threads started by BDZ"...

clues?

eta2: oops. see it. never mind...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

On top of that, from what I could see of the OP, it seems what BDZ trying to describe is an aspect of the Tao -- a concept that probably no one but persons of a mystical or philosophical mindset could even begin to approach.

As far as a religion is concerned, Taoism is certainly charming. TAO means, basically, two things. It is "a path" to walk life with and "the unknown" that gives shape and sense to the world and the ego.

I wonder how different things would have been if Rome would have been closer to china, and instead of adopting the religion of a small tribe would have imported something as elegant as Taoism.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

thnx

eta: I tried clicking on your name to see your profile, but I didn't see anything about "threads started by BDZ"...

clues?

Right there, but it says Bodhi Dharma Zen ;)

[the PC apeman]

nevermind

[calebprime]

Right there, but it says Bodhi Dharma Zen ;)

Yeah, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed. But I found it.

But now, I'm not sure what thread to go to--can you give me another clue?

Something about sociopaths?

[Faithkills]

Does this "theory" actually explain anything useful?

The most useful thing about his theory is that it undermines itself as a valid theory.

1) There is no real reality, therefore this theory about reality is inherently unbased.

2) Per his theory things are "Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena" and his theory can predict no phenomena, nor describe noumena, hence "invalid". Hoist on it's own petard.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yeah, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed. But I found it.

But now, I'm not sure what thread to go to--can you give me another clue?

Something about sociopaths?

Here you go: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105166

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The most useful thing about his theory is that it undermines itself as a valid theory.

1) There is no real reality, therefore this theory about reality is inherently unbased.

2) Per his theory things are "Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena" and his theory can predict no phenomena, nor describe noumena, hence "invalid". Hoist on it's own petard.


Another clown? :D

Where do I state "there is no real reality" (whatever that means BTW) and where did I said it was a theory?

[EHLO]

Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

Welcome to woo land! a fairy tale kingdom in which you can assume things without thinking. People like you would have never find out anything about atoms, nor would be pushed in to thinking if gravity was a force or a distortion of something else.

But don't feel that bad, this utterly naive POV of yours is shared by countless of millions. Now go play with the paste (as I guess thats the kind of thing you'll find interesting).

I don't follow this at all - have you ever tried walking around your bathroom with your eyes closed? How long before you slip on the soap and impale yourself on a toothbrush?

Furthermore, if I'm following your argument, all the grief in the world, all that stuff that fills our news screens each night - the displaced families, the hungry children, the raped, abused and maimed - I can just close my eyes and *poof* they don't exists and nor does their suffering? Is this the ultimate state of selfish ignorance that is "Bodhi"?

[Faithkills]

Another clown? :D

Where do I state "there is no real reality" (whatever that means BTW) and where did I said it was a theory?

What is "it" then? The title says theoretical framework. You're honestly going to assert that's contextually different than a theory? If it is then I would not be able to replace "theory" with "theoretical framework" and make the same point.

Yet I can.

"Per his theoretical framework things are "Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena" and his theory can predict no phenomena, nor describe noumena, hence "invalid". Hoist on it's own petard."

"The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena, and every attempt to describe it will begin and finish in language. Different languages, different concepts and you might end with a different description. Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena, but not “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities. It is a map and the map is not and can’t be the territory."

What does it predict then that we may assign validity or invalidity?

If nothing is "truer" or "more accurate" or "better outside" of it's predictive abilities what does that say about your assertions?

[Piggy]

Exactly why?

You will never know, as long as you continue to fetishize your own ideas.

[Piggy]

On top of that, from what I could see of the OP, it seems what BDZ trying to describe is an aspect of the Tao -- a concept that probably no one but persons of a mystical or philosophical mindset could even begin to approach.

I have to tell you, BDZ's self-obsessed bloviations have nothing to do with Tao.

I was a Taoist for 10 years, from age 16 to 26 (when I converted to Buddhism) as I've described in other threads on this forum.

If BDZ is describing the Tao, then P.T. Barnum was describing natural history.

Despite the fact that words and phrases in BDZ's post may be translated into plain-English common-sense notions, I think it's apt to apply the remarks of the brilliant Hugh Kenner after a particularly tortuous post-modern thesis defense: "Well, that was a whole lotta nothing."

[PixyMisa]

Naturalism is, IMO, the best, followed by Physicalism. But I believe it is important to choose any of them instead of Materialism. Why?
Why?

Materialism is an old term, it represents a very naive point of view, that things are things whether we see them or not. In this sense, and from this perspective, is mere woo, and so better terms should be the tool of choice for us skeptics.
Physicalism is materialism. Naturalism is materialist behaviourism.

And things are things whether we see them or not. If I hit you over the head with a bat, your perceptions and conceptions of the bat don't matter. Only the bat matters.

[quixotecoyote]

I still say it's cheating to check posting histories. :boxedin:

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Furthermore, if I'm following your argument, all the grief in the world, all that stuff that fills our news screens each night - the displaced families, the hungry children, the raped, abused and maimed - I can just close my eyes and *poof* they don't exists and nor does their suffering? Is this the ultimate state of selfish ignorance that is "Bodhi"?

Nope, you are NOT following. If anything I have changed the concepts from folk psychological ones to something less naive. Nothing else changes.

Sure, to a point, changing perspectives can make you see the world in a different matter, but thats irrelevant for the world.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You will never know, as long as you continue to fetishize your own ideas.

So, you don't know. Interesting. Its like talking to Eliza (AI). Are you capable of argumentations, or you can only complain. You continue to do philosophy for someone who hates it.

[Jeff Corey]

Late reply to #160
Less naive? Maybe, but still not materialism, which is the least naive that I know of.

[AkuManiMani]

I have to tell you, BDZ's self-obsessed bloviations have nothing to do with Tao.

I was a Taoist for 10 years, from age 16 to 26 (when I converted to Buddhism) as I've described in other threads on this forum.

If BDZ is describing the Tao, then P.T. Barnum was describing natural history.

Despite the fact that words and phrases in BDZ's post may be translated into plain-English common-sense notions, I think it's apt to apply the remarks of the brilliant Hugh Kenner after a particularly tortuous post-modern thesis defense: "Well, that was a whole lotta nothing."

LOL!!!

Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with you at this point -- that was just too damn funny to dispute xD

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have to tell you, BDZ's self-obsessed bloviations have nothing to do with Tao. I was a Taoist for 10 years, from age 16 to 26 (when I converted to Buddhism) as I've described in other threads on this forum.

:) I see, now you are also a great authority on Taoism. Guess nothing more interesting in your life than posting nonsense? Come on pig, throw an argument, even a weak one.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Less naive? Maybe, but still not materialism, which is the least naive that I know of.

Arrived late to the discussion? Materialism is used naively by millions, some even take it as complete, definitive and true, and you say thats the less naive thinking that you know?

[Piggy]

So, you don't know. Interesting. Its like talking to Eliza (AI). Are you capable of argumentations, or you can only complain. You continue to do philosophy for someone who hates it.

As everyone on this thread knows, I'm an ignorant redneck with no understanding of the English language and no clue how to formulate a rational argument.

Perhaps if I studied at your lotus feet, I could learn how to piece together a coherent, cogent thesis supported by irrefutable evidence and expressed in language as clear and invigorating as the waters of a mountain spring.

[PixyMisa]

Arrived late to the discussion? Materialism is used naively by millions, some even take it as complete, definitive and true, and you say thats the less naive thinking that you know?
Argumentum anti populum. (Lot's of people believe it, but lots of people are idiots, therefore it's false.)

Go back three spaces and miss a turn.

[Piggy]

Come on pig, throw an argument, even a weak one.

An argument about what? There are no arguments against nonsense. And despite your efforts to demonstrate otherwise, no arguments in its favor, either.

"Thursday is taller than C sharp major." Care to refute that?

There's a little tale about pearls and swine, my friend.

Tell you what... you pony up with a coherent idea, and I'll talk your ear off about it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

As everyone on this thread knows, I'm an ignorant redneck with no understanding of the English language and no clue how to formulate a rational argument.

Then it is confirmed. Now, if you see nothing of value here.. what makes you comeback? Its a rather interesting behavior.

[Piggy]

Now, if you see nothing of value here.. what makes you comeback?

Because, my brother, you keep feeding me peanuts.

And I just LOVE peanuts!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Argumentum anti populum. (Lot's of people believe it, but lots of people are idiots, therefore it's false.)

Go back three spaces and miss a turn.

Hmm. Lets see:

"Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter".

Blatantly false.

"Physicalism: The view that all that exists is ultimately physical"

Better, definitely.

"Naturalism: The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

Mostly agreed.

But you forgot to tell me what matters, this is, your opinion of mine:

BDZism (to put a name): a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules

[PixyMisa]

Hmm. Lets see:

"Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter".

Blatantly false.
In what way? (And materialism doesn't assert that anything can be explained; you're thinking of scientific naturalism. Materialism is just a statement of composition, exactly the same as physicalism.)

"Physicalism: The view that all that exists is ultimately physical"

Better, definitely.How is it better?

"Naturalism: The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

Mostly agreed.Note that this is just your incorrect statement of materialism reduced to behaviourist terms.

But you forgot to tell me what matters, this is, your opinion of mine:

BDZism (to put a name): a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rulesWhat? Was there supposed to be a question or a statement in there?

[JoeEllison]

Does this "theory" actually explain anything useful?

No.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Pixy,

Sometimes I realy think you are playing a game here. There are some physical things that are not material; forces, distortions, geometries, space-time, even the value of a coin.

I used standard, dictionary definitions so if you happen to believe that "physical" and material" are synonyms thats your wish. If you also happen to believe some assumptions, like the nature and ontological status of matter, to put an example, then that is your choice again.

But don't come to tell me that you can't understand what it is implied in my statement.

"A system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules."

Here the implications are that matter, geometries and the value of a coin are relational concepts that follow a set of rules. If such (semantic) rules can predict phenomena then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond this. They are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, the unknown.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No.

What a surprise! For the Nth time. IT IS NOT A THEORY.

[AkuManiMani]

In what way? (And materialism doesn't assert that anything can be explained; you're thinking of scientific naturalism. Materialism is just a statement of composition, exactly the same as physicalism.)

Materialism

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism.


Monism

Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie nature.

Basically the only thing that separates "materialism" from general monism is that it chooses matter as a starting frame of reference [for instance, in the Theory of Relativity energy is considered another form of "matter"]. I think we can all agree that western science is based off of this assumption -- without that assumption there would be no search for a "theory of everything".

Now, can you guys stop debating pass each other?

[JoeEllison]

What a surprise! For the Nth time. IT IS NOT A THEORY.

It isn't actually anything but hot air and ego on your part. For however many times as you like.

[Dancing David]

Some quite unexpected facts (to the common people):

There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness. There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies. Consciousness is your world, the only one you know and will know, the only one that exists and will ever exists.

There is also nothing “internal” to consciousness. Feeling, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, language, etc. are also your world. Still, consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg (notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world).

Consciousness is made of phenomena, yet it is caused by the noumena. As we have seen, phenomena comprehends both the world and the ego, the external and the internal, the objective and the subjective.

The noumena is, whatever it is, outside the reach of consciousness. For convenience we can say that the noumena is physical, made of quarks, quantum states, strong and weak forces, and so on. But we must never forget that such concepts are oversimplifications that serve a purpose (they are like anchors that let us to make predictions) but are not “real entities in themselves”. Particles and waves are ways of describing the noumena, nothing else, and nothing more.

The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena, and every attempt to describe it will begin and finish in language. Different languages, different concepts and you might end with a different description. Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena, but not “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities. It is a map and the map is not and can’t be the territory.
Hiya BDZ!
:)

All thoughts are equally true and false.

Some are just more valid than others.

I will have to read this thread backwards.

To quote Bugs Bunny:

"Whats all the hubub Bub?"

(I can't believe that this thread is five pages long.)

[Dancing David]

Pixy,

Sometimes I realy think you are playing a game here. There are some physical things that are not material; forces, distortions, geometries, space-time, even the value of a coin.

I used standard, dictionary definitions so if you happen to believe that "physical" and material" are synonyms thats your wish. If you also happen to believe some assumptions, like the nature and ontological status of matter, to put an example, then that is your choice again.

But don't come to tell me that you can't understand what it is implied in my statement.

"A system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules."

Here the implications are that matter, geometries and the value of a coin are relational concepts that follow a set of rules. If such (semantic) rules can predict phenomena then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond this. They are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, the unknown.


Sounds fair , yet i suppose we can discuss what then is knowledge.

It doesn't matter , either way. It could be spirits, it could be energy, it could be little monekys on scooters (well that would show up in partcile accelerators).

It doesn't matter what the ontology of the universe is.

Functional analysis is All We Have.

I am the zombie, they are the eggmen, ...

[Piggy]

All thoughts are equally true and false.

Some are just more valid than others.

<Snatches the Golden Baloney trophy from BDZ's arms, hands it to Dancing David>

[Dancing David]

Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

Welcome to woo land! a fairy tale kingdom in which you can assume things without thinking. People like you would have never find out anything about atoms, nor would be pushed in to thinking if gravity was a force or a distortion of something else.

But don't feel that bad, this utterly naive POV of yours is shared by countless of millions. Now go play with the paste (as I guess thats the kind of thing you'll find interesting).


I don't get this BDZ, i would assume that this is just the end of an argument.

The things in the bathroom sure appear to be there, regardless of the state of my eyes.

[Complexity]

BDZ - What a bunch of utter twaddle.

Read a good book, think a while, pet a cat, or make a really good omelet, but do something other than post this garbage.

[PixyMisa]

Pixy,

Sometimes I realy think you are playing a game here. There are some physical things that are not material; forces
Forces are conveyed by the gauge bosons: photons, the W and Z bosons, gluons, and the theoretical graviton. These are matter.

distortionsWhat are those?

geometriesShow me one of those.

space-timeIf space-time is not material, then it's not physical either. Space-time is not made out of matter; matter exists in space-time. Matter also changes the shape of space-time. But this doesn't change the nature of the material.

You are holding to a 16th-century view of the term "material". This isn't the 16th century, BDZ.

even the value of a coin.The value of a coin is a concept. It has no independent existence, but must be represented. The representation is material.

I used standard, dictionary definitions so if you happen to believe that "physical" and material" are synonyms thats your wish.No, I'm talking about what physicalism and materialism mean in philosophy. They are exactly the same ontological position.

But don't come to tell me that you can't understand what it is implied in my statement.

"A system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules."I didn't.

You said:

But you forgot to tell me what matters, this is, your opinion of mine:Which is gibberish.

Here the implications are that matter, geometries and the value of a coin are relational concepts that follow a set of rules.You are confusing two completely different categories of things.

If such (semantic) rules can predict phenomena then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond this.Yeah, and? That's why materialism is an assumption.

They are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, the unknown.In other words, they are explanations, in the only sense that can possibly matter.

[Dancing David]

I would have to agree. 99.999% of philosophy revolves around debating questions that don't have answers using language that would be inadequate if they did.


How are you using the word debate here?

;)

[Dancing David]

Well, if you're going to define it that broadly -- and as an outsider to the field I reckon I have no reason to object -- then I have to concede the point.

And, much as I hate to admit it, some of Robin's arguments regarding the critical role of political philosophy in the minds of specific persons at specific junctures in history are starting to grow on me, especially if I take your lens to it.

What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.

That said, I still believe that the larger perspective needs to be taken into account as well, such as the points made about the evolution of democratic systems in Athens.

I like this Piggy!, thus we have the metaphysical Crypts and Bloods squaring off for the turf war at Rock Candy Mountain.

[Dancing David]

Apes and monkeys form political systems, too. And they do so w/out philosophy.

But some humans have come to believe that the philosophy which is used to justify their actions is somehow indispensible to those actions.

:D
There is also the quote about chimps and collapsing wave functions.

[Dancing David]

By that definition, any notion anyone has about doing anything becomes a philosophy, in which case the word ceases to mean anything beyond "idea about what to do", which is a useless definition.

If I say, "Hey, let's get a pizza -- that'd be good", is that a philosophy?

I would say that philospohy is more the argument about where to get the pizza and what to have on it or even better, why is there pizza?

[Piggy]

I would say that philospohy is more the argument about where to get the pizza and what to have on it or even better, why is there pizza?

Not even "Why is there pizza?" is a philosophical question. It can -- and should -- be answered without reference to philosophy.

Philosophy is intellectual bondo, filling the gaps til we find the piece that really fits there.

[PixyMisa]

I would say that philospohy is more the argument about where to get the pizza
Pizza Cutters in Wahroonga. (http://www.pizzacutters.com.au/gourmet-pizza-delivery-wahroonga.html) If you don't live in their delivery area, it's time to move.

and what to have on it
There is no wrong choice.

Well, bananas and macadamia nuts is odd at first, but it grows on you.

or even better, why is there pizza?
There is pizza because there is hunger.

There is hunger so that we can eat pizza.

The causal loop is closed. :)

[Ichneumonwasp]

Philosophy is intellectual bondo, filling the gaps til we find the piece that really fits there.

That's really good. Of course, it is a lumper vs. splitter issue ultimtely since what we call science was formerly natural philosophy and lumpers want to keep the old name (or at least the idea), but that pretty much sums up the situation in a concise way. Intellectual bondo. I love it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sounds fair , yet i suppose we can discuss what then is knowledge.

It doesn't matter , either way. It could be spirits, it could be energy, it could be little monekys on scooters (well that would show up in partcile accelerators).

It doesn't matter what the ontology of the universe is.

Functional analysis is All We Have.

I am the zombie, they are the eggmen, ...

(didn't understood the last sentence) still, NICE! :D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't get this BDZ, i would assume that this is just the end of an argument.

The things in the bathroom sure appear to be there, regardless of the state of my eyes.

Sure they appear to be there. But the appearance is the result of several processes, it is a construct (not a re-construction). What is "really there" is different to what we see.

[Ichneumonwasp]

(didn't understood the last sentence)

Reference to a Beatles song, "I am the Walrus"

And if you were wondering, the walrus was Paul.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yeah, and? That's why materialism is an assumption.

Nice. Now, since you reckon this (you have just conceded that you assume materialism is true), why are you so attached to the word, emotional reasons maybe? Let's see more deeply what exactly you have admitted.

"I (Pixy), admit that I have taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof, that materialism is real".

Now we can take the next step. Jumping from assuming an old world-view is true to realizing it is only a description, useful to predict some phenomena but useless to ascribe any plausible ontological status to its constituents.

[Dancing David]

<Snatches the Golden Baloney trophy from BDZ's arms, hands it to Dancing David>

Thanks Piggy!

I will give it to our local homeless shelter.

All thoughst are equally true and equally false. Some have greater validity than others, IE they can be used to predict the behavior of things.

We can discuss how perceptions are manufactured wholesale from the sensations if you like. You are aware I am assuming that your brain makes up most of our experiential reality. I am not saying that reality is made up, I am a hard knock materialist. Just that perceptions are manufactured wholesale.

Politics and philosophy are good examples of thoughts that are equally true and equally false.

And I know chew ain't new readneck. Ise from the heart land, you are much too erudite.

[Mister Agenda]

Nice. Now, since you reckon this (you have just conceded that you assume materialism is true), why are you so attached to the word, emotional reasons maybe? Let's see more deeply what exactly you have admitted.

"I (Pixy), admit that I have taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof, that materialism is real".

Now we can take the next step. Jumping from assuming an old world-view is true to realizing it is only a description, useful to predict some phenomena but useless to ascribe any plausible ontological status to its constituents.

Pixy has identified materialism as an assumption or premise, not a conclusion. Are you actually playing with yourself at the thought of Pixy saying those words to you? 'Cause it SOUNDS like you are. I'm just sayin'. :rolleyes:

[PixyMisa]

Nice. Now, since you reckon this (you have just conceded that you assume materialism is true), why are you so attached to the word, emotional reasons maybe?
I'm not. I'm just pointing out your fallacies.

Let's see more deeply what exactly you have admitted.BDZ, if you actually bothered to read what people write, you would have seen any number of such statements, including in my own posts, going back years.

"I (Pixy), admit that I have taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof, that materialism is real".That's what "assumption" means.

Now we can take the next step. Jumping from assuming an old world-view is true to realizing it is only a description, useful to predict some phenomena but useless to ascribe any plausible ontological status to its constituents.You just aren't even trying at this point.

Materialist behaviourism, i.e. naturalism, ignores the ontology and just presents a statement about behaviour. However, since behaviour is all we can ever know, there is in fact no difference at all between this and materialism.

Materialism, naturalism, physicalism. All the same, in every way that matters, in every way that can matter. I don't care which one you choose. I do care if you try to claim that one of them is wrong.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In other words.

"I Know you are right BDZ, but I deliberately choose to use the plain old word "materialism" anyway."

Got it. :)

Materialist behaviourism, i.e. naturalism, ignores the ontology and just presents a statement about behaviour. However, since behaviour is all we can ever know, there is in fact no difference at all between this and materialism.

You have, slowly, and without making lots of noise, changed your POV (and I'm glad about it). You have not beeing ignoring ontology Pixy, but shouting as loud as you could that "everything is made of matter". That, dear Pixy, is an ontological commitment.

So, yes you have been defending plain old materialism... and now, surprisingly, you say that all we can ever know its its behavior? Well, of course! now your are sounding like me!

[PixyMisa]

In other words.

"I Know you are right BDZ, but I deliberately choose to use the plain old word "materialism" anyway."
What are you right about?

You have, slowly, and without making lots of noise, changed your POV (and I'm glad about it).
I haven't changed my position one whit. You just aren't paying attention; you'd rather play "gotcha" with strawmen.

You have not beeing ignoring ontology Pixy, but shouting as loud as you could that "everything is made of matter". That, dear Pixy, is an ontological commitment.
Read what I said, BDZ. For once. Naturalism does not say what things are made of, and hence is not an ontological position. But since we cannot know, only assume, what things are made of, it is equivalent to materialism in every way that signifies.

So, yes you have been defending plain old materialism... and now, surprisingly, you say that all we can ever know its its behavior?
That is what I have been saying all along. Yes, I am a materialist. Yes, all we can know is behaviour. No, there is no contradiction.

Materialism is an assumption.

Physicalism is an assumption.

Naturalism is an assumption.

And all are equivalent.

Your position, once translated into a logically consistent form, is an assumption - and again, equivalent to materialism.

Well, of course! now your are sounding like me!
Without the smugness, incessant petty insults, and general incoherence, I assume?

[Piggy]

All thoughst are equally true and equally false. Some have greater validity than others, IE they can be used to predict the behavior of things.

Oh, baloney. That's just a ploy to avoid having to deal with truth and falsehood.

I remember, a few years ago, I had a dream that I'd bought a new car. I woke up and for a few minutes still thought I had a new car. That thought was false. After a while, I realized, no, I still have the same old car. That thought was true.

There are no 2 ways about that.

We can discuss how perceptions are manufactured wholesale from the sensations if you like.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? I have no idea what the phrase "perceptions... manufactured wholesale from... sensations" might refer to. I really don't.

You are aware I am assuming that your brain makes up most of our experiential reality.

Didn't your daddy ever talk to you about assuming?

Bottom line here, although we are undeniably prone to certain (evolutionarily advantageous) delusions, no species could reasonably be expected to survive if its perceptions did not, by and large, correspond pretty neatly to external phenomena.

Sure, there is no "flavor of bananas" or "sound of a buzzsaw" anywhere out there in the world. But so what? The fact is, in the healthy brain, there's a damn good correspondence b/t those experiences and very real phenomena in the physical world.


I am not saying that reality is made up, I am a hard knock materialist. Just that perceptions are manufactured wholesale.

You're going to have to find a better term than "wholesale" b/c to me this refers to certain features of capitalist economy, and I have no clue how you might be using this term in reference to perception.

Politics and philosophy are good examples of thoughts that are equally true and equally false.

Huh? By that, do you mean that politics and philosophy are BS?

And I know chew ain't new readneck. Ise from the heart land, you are much too erudite.

Actually, I'm a milltown kid. Yeah, I have an education, but I'm still a collard-eating boy from red clay Georgia. Always will be.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Without the smugness, incessant petty insults, I assume?

So, Pixy, have you seen yourself in the mirror lately? I'm usually calm, but can't stand people who act, well, exactly like you described.

Have you checked how you answer to most woos in the forum? One thing is to try to educate them, I have nothing against that, but your attitude (that I have replicated with you and others who behave like that) its not a nice one.

So, treating you like you treat others is not pleasant to you.

;)

Peace from now on. Just remember this.

[Dancing David]

Oh, baloney. That's just a ploy to avoid having to deal with truth and falsehood.

Not really, it is a consequence of functional defintions. In this case I assume that you are using true to mean a thought that acurately predicts the behavior of reality. And I am certainly cool with that defintion, I just like to annoy people by pointing out that all thoughts are equally true and equally false it is only by application to the behavior of a reffered to object that they find truth/validity.

I remember, a few years ago, I had a dream that I'd bought a new car. I woke up and for a few minutes still thought I had a new car. That thought was false. After a while, I realized, no, I still have the same old car. That thought was true.

Okay, so you are using the functional defintion. Lots of people don't so I just try to rattle them by saying that all thioughts are false or all thoughts are true.


There are no 2 ways about that.

As far as validity or truth, sure. But then there is that whole area of things people assume to be true, without ever examining what they hold to be true. The thread on subjectivity and science is full of that.




What in the world is that supposed to mean? I have no idea what the phrase "perceptions... manufactured wholesale from... sensations" might refer to. I really don't.

It means that parts of your world are just made up by your brain and created by the brain from limited data.

Obvious examples are the blind spot in the visual field of a single eyeball, or the color of a sunset, less obvious is the nature of memory or complex abstractions like "Upper Blomboskians are lazy", "All liberals hate the USA".

Things like that, they are part and parcel of the way the brain works as it searches for and creates patterns. I believe that the world exists, which is why I advise some people (in the subjectivity and science thread) to not walk into trees.




Didn't your daddy ever talk to you about assuming?

he said to wash my hands before eating after making an assumption!


Bottom line here, although we are undeniably prone to certain (evolutionarily advantageous) delusions, no species could reasonably be expected to survive if its perceptions did not, by and large, correspond pretty neatly to external phenomena.

Oh sure, taht is true, it is just there is a much wider margin of validity when it comes to abstract concept and certain perceptions like memories. You can really upset people by telling them that consciousness does not exist. they want for this high level abstraction to be the truth and don't really thgink about it. there is no ghost in the machine, or at least it is superfluous.


Sure, there is no "flavor of bananas" or "sound of a buzzsaw" anywhere out there in the world. But so what? The fact is, in the healthy brain, there's a damn good correspondence b/t those experiences and very real phenomena in the physical world.


I say that a lot, and all the time, which is why I mentioned phototropins to BDZ in the other thread.





You're going to have to find a better term than "wholesale" b/c to me this refers to certain features of capitalist economy, and I have no clue how you might be using this term in reference to perception.

I mean wholesale, like as made "in a bunch and in large quantaties", your colors are generated from sensations in less that 15% of the visual field.

memeories are likely to be much worse.
(Or better).



Huh? By that, do you mean that politics and philosophy are BS?

I mean people see things that they think are true and never examine.




Actually, I'm a milltown kid. Yeah, I have an education, but I'm still a collard-eating boy from red clay Georgia. Always will be.

Yum, I can't say I favor collards but I sure like mustard greens.

Got that red dirt in your heart, eh. I think the term redneck is just overused. Course most people round here think I grew up in a 'city' of 30,000

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It means that parts of your world are just made up by your brain and created by the brain from limited data.

Exactly. The visual system is one of the best known, and that it is more easily understood (experientially) as we are, primarily, visual animals. But the same goes for other senses, and then the union of all the types of information in a single construct.

A table is a surface with certain tactile textures, it is an obstruction of sound, and so on. Something in the brain then unites all those different things in a single, unifying concept, that we call "table".

Oh, and there are no tables without us.

[AkuManiMani]

Bodhi, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you just said that all knowledge, sensations, "facts", and thoughts are tentative and that there is only one immutable truth concerning reality:

The universe is an elegant madness that none can fully fathom. :p

Oh, and Piggy: All scientific understandings, theories, and knowledge are built upon the shifting sands of semantics, ontology, and philosophy. Just because consciously delving into those realms leaves you with a nauseating sense of vertigo and frustration doesn't make them irrelevant or meaningless. They are the foundations of all thought -- including your own.

[Piggy]

Oh, and Piggy: All scientific understandings, theories, and knowledge are built upon the shifting sands of semantics, ontology, and philosophy. Just because consciously delving into those realms leaves you with a nauseating sense of vertigo and frustration doesn't make them irrelevant or meaningless. They are the foundations of all thought -- including your own.

I find that to be false. I see no basis for it.

The fact is, as we progress, we do learn.

When I was in the English Dept it was still fashionable to propose that science and history are merely two types of discourse among many others, none of which is priveleged.

This is demonstrably untrue.

The fact that you and I are having this discussion in the way we're having it is proof of that.

[Piggy]

Just because consciously delving into those realms leaves you with a nauseating sense of vertigo and frustration doesn't make them irrelevant or meaningless.

The nausea and frustration come from sitting in a room listening to otherwise intelligent people spout the most transparent BS.

Sure, you can get the same feeling if you take your own feet off the ground and your eyes off the real world and allow yourself to be caught up in their spinning dances of self-referential claptrap.

But that's your own fault.

[Piggy]

It means that parts of your world are just made up by your brain and created by the brain from limited data.

True. Also mundane.


You can really upset people by telling them that consciousness does not exist.

You can also make a damn fool of yourself b/c obviously consciousness does exist. Just because it's not quite (or at all) what we've thought it was for milennia doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

And you see, it's this sloppiness of thought and phrasing that puts a burr in my boot.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And you see, it's this sloppiness of thought and phrasing that puts a burr in my boot.

And yet, you keep uttering blah blah blah again and again, and again, and again. You complain, you whine you babble your little rants. We all know that. What else? Can you elaborate a fairly intelligent arguments? counter arguments? Anything interesting at all?

For example, you claim that philosophical arguments are absurd, yet you have been unable to utter even ONE single argumentation on the why and/or the how. Lets state clear that if it is your OPINION then it is fine, but why on earth should anybody in the world trust your opinions?

You want the world to dance at your rants? Because, no matter how loud you complain... the world couldn't care less.

[Piggy]

Can you elaborate a fairly intelligent arguments? counter arguments?

About what? As I've said before, there are no intelligent arguments either for or against nonsense. All that can be done is to reveal it as nonsense.

For example, you claim that philosophical arguments are absurd, yet you have been unable to utter even ONE single argumentation on the why and/or the how. Lets state clear that if it is your OPINION then it is fine, but why on earth should anybody in the world trust your opinions?

I don't imagine that anyone does trust my opinions.

But all you have to do to refute me is to pony up with some philosophy that has some practical value. Why is that so hard?

no matter how loud you complain... the world couldn't care less.

At last, something we agree on.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Oh, and Piggy: All scientific understandings, theories, and knowledge are built upon the shifting sands of semantics, ontology, and philosophy. Just because consciously delving into those realms leaves you with a nauseating sense of vertigo and frustration doesn't make them irrelevant or meaningless. They are the foundations of all thought -- including your own.

Of course. Philosophy is more than building up arguments above undefined terminology. Specially since last century philosophy is more about how we can make sense of language than thinking abstract ideas.

Piggy is trapped in this feeling that religion and philosophy are the same, and while is true that some old philosophers used to discuss about religious terms (good, evil, angels and souls) modern philosophy has MANY branches, some of them even necessary for keep science on the right track.

On the other hand, other than by his ignorance in this respect, piggy can be a funny character. If you are sleeping for example. :D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The universe is an elegant madness that none can fully fathom. :p

hehe sometimes, maybe, we take it to seriously!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But all you have to do to refute me is to pony up with some philosophy that has some practical value. Why is that so hard?

So, do I need to do your homework for you? I have pointed out analytical philosophy

"A philosophical school of the 20th century whose central methodology is the analysis of concepts or language."

The goal of this school is to end with unintelligible and useless babbling as the how many angels fit in... (you know it, because you have used it) and understand, exactly, what kind of thing is meaning and how it is implied in our everyday use of language.

How about philosophy of science?

"The investigation of questions that arise from reflection upon science and scientific practice. Such questions include: what distinguishes the methods of science? Is there a clear demarcation between sciences and other disciplines, and where do we place such enquiries as history, economics, or sociology? Are scientific theories probable, or more in the nature of provisional conjectures? Can they be verified, or falsified? What distinguishes good from bad explanation?"

You can't have science unless you know what you are asking, unless you have a theoretical framework that is self consistent and follow concrete rules.

So there you go, two examples of good philosophy. So, stop the crying! ;)

[gnorville]

I used to think the same thing when I was about 16. Then I observed the phenomenon of frustration brought on by the noumenon of school, work etc. It seemed that everyone else's theoretical framework was having quite an effect on me. I've been trying to get even ever since.

[AkuManiMani]

I find that to be false. I see no basis for it.

The fact is, as we progress, we do learn.

When I was in the English Dept it was still fashionable to propose that science and history are merely two types of discourse among many others, none of which is priveleged.

This is demonstrably untrue.

The fact that you and I are having this discussion in the way we're having it is proof of that.

My point was that our learning is limited by our basic assumptions within language and philosophy. Ofcourse we gain more knowledge as time goes on but our ability to articulate and examine the basic underpinnings of our assumptions, thought, and language are absolutely vital to that process. Its what separates human beings from chimps and what allows us to even HAVE an evolving scientific framework.

The nausea and frustration come from sitting in a room listening to otherwise intelligent people spout the most transparent BS.

Sure, you can get the same feeling if you take your own feet off the ground and your eyes off the real world and allow yourself to be caught up in their spinning dances of self-referential claptrap.

But that's your own fault.

What you are referring to are wanna-be philosophers who suck at philosophy. I find them annoying as well.

Like I said earlier, philosophy without empirical grounding DOES become irrelevant self-referential crap. Its also equally true that if a scientist that is unable to step back and examine his basic conceptual foundations hes nothing more than a technician that follows the insights of others who can. Hes like the chimp that follows the rules of being a chimp without any deep understanding of those rules.

[Piggy]

On the other hand, other than by his ignorance in this respect, piggy can be a funny character.

I'll certainly concede the point that I'm ignorant of philosophy.

I keep waiting to be shown its value. The closest I've come so far are Gould's comments on scientific philosophy in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory".

When I was in high school, a teacher talked me into an independent study in philsophy. I read the classic philosophers, St. Augustine, Pascal, the German guy whose name I can't spell, and dozens more on up to today.

What I wanted to do was to point out how what they were saying was, in every case, either (1) obvious, (2) nonsensical, or (3) demonstrably incorrect. That's what I found.

My teacher wanted me to gain an understanding of the progression of thought, but I really didn't care about that. Studying the history of error wasn't of interest to me then.

As an undergrad I took a philosophy course and again found that all the arguments we studied fell into the same 3 categories. I chalked philosophy up as a waste of time, and nothing has come down the pike so far to give me any reason to change my mind.

Science, on the other hand, was worth the time one put into it.

So that's my background.

Ignorant, yes. But for me to decide that it's worth my time to get un-ignorant, I'm going to have to have a glimmer of hope. So far, I see none.

[AkuManiMani]

I'll certainly concede the point that I'm ignorant of philosophy.

I keep waiting to be shown its value. The closest I've come so far are Gould's comments on scientific philosophy in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory".

Your view that practicing philosophy is useless is, itself, a philosophy. "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" is an examination of the epistemology underpinning the theory of evolution.

Everyone has a philosophy but the practice of philosophy is putting those views and assumptions under logical scrutiny. Its much like mathematics except instead of dealing with quantitative entities like numbers it deals in the qualitative realm of thought and concept.

[Ichneumonwasp]

What I wanted to do was to point out how what they were saying was, in every case, either (1) obvious, (2) nonsensical, or (3) demonstrably incorrect. That's what I found.




Yes, but before they said it, did category 1 exist? It seems so obvious now that it is a part of our everyday life. What the German guy said was not so obvious at the time for a lot of people and there are many who will still not accept his criticisms of Christianity.

When it comes to metaphysics, the Greeks did it all before Plato and he screwed up the course of western philosophy thereafter. Most of the past 2000 years of it has been a bit of a waste of time, except that it has served to uncover bad arguments. That has been the main benefit of it. Perhaps our views are skewed by the astoundingly fast pace of improvement in science, which uncovers the slow pace of philosophy?

Or as Huxley said of natural selection (supposedly) -- how stupid not to have thought of that myself.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You can also make a damn fool of yourself b/c obviously consciousness does exist. Just because it's not quite (or at all) what we've thought it was for milennia doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

And you see, it's this sloppiness of thought and phrasing that puts a burr in my boot.

And like every argument about God, it all depends on one's definition of consciousness. I think David was agreeing with what you say -- that consciousness is not what people think it is.

[Piggy]

And like every argument about God, it all depends on one's definition of consciousness. I think David was agreeing with what you say -- that consciousness is not what people think it is.

I think he is, too. This is another thing that bothers me about philosophy -- it induces speech impediments.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think he is, too. Whis is another thing that bothers me about philosophy -- it induces speech impediments.

Gotta agree with ya there. Most philosophical arguments when fully analyzed are just arguments over how we use language. But you already know that, so I think I'll stop blathering now.:o

[Piggy]

I hear what y'all are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is, I find that I can do just fine by tossing the entire notion of philosophy right out the window.

The claim that "everyone must have a philosophy" is all well and good, and you can certainly define philosophy that way and have no problem.

But in my book, a word which means everything means nothing.

For me, all philosophy is dispensible, the very notion is dispensible. And the philosophy threads on this forum, and elsewhere, haven't yet given me good reason to change my mind.

So I do without and so far no snags. Things work or they don't. Ideas stack up to experience and evidence or they don't.

Now, you can slap a philosophical label on that if you like. But at the end of the day, we could refrain from manufacturing those labels and get on with things and be none the worse off.

What y'all might refer to as a necessary philosophical framework is the same actual thing to me, but without the label. And when all's said and done, if we can dispense with it, why not dispense with it?

There are some things which, if you ignore them, they do go away.

I think this little bit from the Pythons (http://youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM) sums it up nicely.

[AkuManiMani]

I hear what y'all are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is, I find that I can do just fine by tossing the entire notion of philosophy right out the window.

The claim that "everyone must have a philosophy" is all well and good, and you can certainly define philosophy that way and have no problem.

But in my book, a word which means everything means nothing.

For me, all philosophy is dispensible, the very notion is dispensible. And the philosophy threads on this forum, and elsewhere, haven't yet given me good reason to change my mind.

So I do without and so far no snags. Things work or they don't. Ideas stack up to experience and evidence or they don't.

Now, you can slap a philosophical label on that if you like. But at the end of the day, we could refrain from manufacturing those labels and get on with things and be none the worse off.

What y'all might refer to as a necessary philosophical framework is the same actual thing to me, but without the label. And when all's said and done, if we can dispense with it, why not dispense with it?

There are some things which, if you ignore them, they do go away.

I think this little bit from the Pythons (http://youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM) sums it up nicely.

ESTJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ), man :p

[Dancing David]

I think he is, too. This is another thing that bothers me about philosophy -- it induces speech impediments.


I said what i meant, consciousness is the process of the brain, when people describe it as some seperate entity they are wrong. Might as well point to the picture on a TV screen and say it is conscious.

It can make a great behavioral label, but when people go on about consciousness as the pinnacle of creation or irreducible qualia, well, then I say things like consciousness is like calling a car fast.

[Dancing David]

Gotta agree with ya there. Most philosophical arguments when fully analyzed are just arguments over how we use language. But you already know that, so I think I'll stop blathering now.:o

As are about seventy percent of the discussions on the JREF. About defintitions that is.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I hear what y'all are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the thing is, I find that I can do just fine by tossing the entire notion of philosophy right out the window.

The claim that "everyone must have a philosophy" is all well and good, and you can certainly define philosophy that way and have no problem.

But in my book, a word which means everything means nothing.

For me, all philosophy is dispensible, the very notion is dispensible. And the philosophy threads on this forum, and elsewhere, haven't yet given me good reason to change my mind.

So I do without and so far no snags. Things work or they don't. Ideas stack up to experience and evidence or they don't.

Now, you can slap a philosophical label on that if you like. But at the end of the day, we could refrain from manufacturing those labels and get on with things and be none the worse off.

What y'all might refer to as a necessary philosophical framework is the same actual thing to me, but without the label. And when all's said and done, if we can dispense with it, why not dispense with it?

There are some things which, if you ignore them, they do go away.

I think this little bit from the Pythons (http://youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM) sums it up nicely.

Yep. But, I think, part of the reason you hold it in such contempt it because you are so damn good at it. Reasoning, that is, which is what most of us call Philosophy.

Now, individual philosophies -- so much farting in the wind.

[Piggy]

ESTJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTJ), man :p

Except I'm off the charts on the "I" side. I'm about as extroverted as a mole.

[Piggy]

I said what i meant, consciousness is the process of the brain, when people describe it as some seperate entity they are wrong. Might as well point to the picture on a TV screen and say it is conscious.

It can make a great behavioral label, but when people go on about consciousness as the pinnacle of creation or irreducible qualia, well, then I say things like consciousness is like calling a car fast.

In some cases you did, in other cases you didn't.

What you're saying above is not the same thing you said earlier regarding consciousness, for example.

Saying that something ain't what people think it is is not the same thing as saying it ain't.

We agree on some points and disagree on others, but it took a while to cut thru the verbiage.

I'm reminded of Feynman, who used to tell his students to put the chalk down, turn their back to the board, and explain the significance of the proof in plain English.

A worthwhile exercise.

[Piggy]

Yep. But, I think, part of the reason you hold it in such contempt it because you are so damn good at it. Reasoning, that is, which is what most of us call Philosophy.

Hmmm.... I hadn't thought of it that way.

It helps, of course, that you put it in terms that stroke my ego. :D

I tend to be hyper-rational, I know that. Maybe I just have a hard time seeing beyond what is obvious to me.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, being surrounded by a bunch of goons who don't really understand deconstruction and think it means something more than "If I approach this text with different assumptions I'll get a slightly different reading" would drive me crazy too. In fact it did in college. So, I think I have a good idea where you are coming from. Probably the only reason I'm willing to give it more of a chance is because I've been away from that type of academics longer than you.

[Piggy]

Well, being surrounded by a bunch of goons who don't really understand deconstruction and think it means something more than "If I approach this text with different assumptions I'll get a slightly different reading" would drive me crazy too. In fact it did in college. So, I think I have a good idea where you are coming from. Probably the only reason I'm willing to give it more of a chance is because I've been away from that type of academics longer than you.

So tell me, how long have you been sober?

"My name is Piggy, and I've been non-academic for 8 years."

;)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Its also equally true that if a scientist that is unable to step back and examine his basic conceptual foundations hes nothing more than a technician that follows the insights of others who can. Hes like the chimp that follows the rules of being a chimp without any deep understanding of those rules.

Agreed. Understanding our underlying assumptions can help us to deal better with any kind of facts we find. Such assumptions are always implicit in our theoretical frameworks, and without philosophy, science would be lost.

Imagine, a set of tools in the hand of someone who is unable to even know what are they for.

[Darat]

As are about seventy percent of the discussions on the JREF. About defintitions that is.

How are you defining "discussions"?









































;)

[Piggy]

Agreed. Understanding our underlying assumptions can help us to deal better with any kind of facts we find. Such assumptions are always implicit in our theoretical frameworks, and without philosophy, science would be lost.

Imagine, a set of tools in the hand of someone who is unable to even know what are they for.

The scientist's toolkit:

Observe the phenomenon

Ask why it might be so.

Think of a way to test your idea why it might be so.

Test it.

Have other folks critique your test.

Test it again.

Have other folks test it again.

Write down what happened.

Ask if your results match your expectations.

Ask yourself if the results show that you were wrong, that you were right, or if you still don't know.

"Look, Ma! No philosophy!"

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Look, Ma! No philosophy!"

Pure philosophy my friend, but you are simply either naive, or obtuse. Just how many assumptions you have there?

WAKE UP, stop the nonsense.

[Piggy]

Pure philosophy my friend, but you are simply either naive, or obtuse. Just how many assumptions you have there?

WAKE UP, stop the nonsense.

It's the former, naive. Naivete is not always a bad thing. It often helps to cut thru the BS. Some of my best students were the ones capable of naive readings of texts (provided they also had done the reading, studied the background, used their dictionaries, etc.).

No assumptions are needed to see that this process works, once you try it.

One only needs assumptions if one is not very good at rejecting obviously flawed alternatives.

[brodski]

The scientist's toolkit:

Observe the phenomenon

[Ask why it might be so.

Think of a way to test your idea why it might be so.

Test it.

Have other folks critique your test.

Test it again.

Have other folks test it again.

Write down what happened.

Ask if your results match your expectations.

Ask yourself if the results show that you were wrong, that you were right, or if you still don't know.

"Look, Ma! No philosophy!"

I've bolded all the parts which are philosophical in nature, plenty there.
That fact that the philosophical debates around those points have had adequate (but not complete) answers provided for them for a long time, does not meed that philosophy is not necessary, and is really doesn't mean that philosophy is not involved.

[Piggy]

I've bolded all the parts which are philosophical in nature, plenty there.
That fact that the philosophical debates around those points have had adequate (but not complete) answers provided for them for a long time, does not meed that philosophy is not necessary, and is really doesn't mean that philosophy is not involved.

Well certainly if y'all want to call that philosophy, I'm not going to argue with you. It's your discipline, after all.

And certainly we can't trace the history of thought and ignore philosophy (or religion, for that matter).

So I got no problem there.

The thing is, much as some of y'all seem loathe to admit it, it is possible to follow practical common-sense, focus on results, do what works and what corresponds with what's known and observed, and get along just fine while completely ignoring any and all references to philosophy.

If y'all want to use that label, you'll get no argument from me.

I just prefer to go ahead and kick the ball.

And when one can, in fact, ignore the entire notion of philosophy and do just fine and get proper results and tell fact from fiction... it should give pause to those who would claim that philosophy is indispensible.

[Piggy]

I think it comes down to this for me.

I find that philosophy is a game I do not need to play.

I can ignore it and be no worse off, not in any way hindered in anything I should choose to do or explore -- with the single exception of studying philosophy itself.

The same can not be said for science, law, and history, for example. If I am ignorant of these, I have real problems in my life, and obstacles in my way.

That, to me, is the difference.

If y'all say, well, there are philosophical underpinnings to all of those, far be it from me to say you're wrong, as far as you define philosophy.

Based on all this, tho, I'm left to conclude that philosphy is superfluous. And although it has been an activity of our species for ages, who's to say if it has been a help or a hindrance? Would we have eventually hit on the right path to, say, science without it? Probably so.

[volatile]

I dunno about that, Piggy. I think it's perfectly possible to live your life ignorant of science (and indeed, many people do). People don't need to know how or why the world works the way it does in order to live within it. I'm sure most people with satnavs in their cars don't understand the importance of the equations of general relativity that allow them to function, but the science is obviously still important.

That doesn't mean science is useless, or superfluous, in a more general sense, does it? I mean, there are plenty of scientific theories that have zero effect on my daily life (and I love science and am generally fairly well informed), but they're not "superfluous".

As brodski pointed out, the practical work of philosophy effects you and the world you live in as much as science does. The long traditions of philosophy of science, ethics, logic and the philosophy of law, and the work being done by philosophers in those same disciplines today, have direct influence on your life. It might not be overt, but it is no more superfluous than the science that invisibly allows your GPS to work, for example.

[Darat]

...snip...

The thing is, much as some of y'all seem loathe to admit it, it is possible to follow practical common-sense, focus on results, do what works and what corresponds with what's known and observed, and get along just fine while completely ignoring any and all references to philosophy.


...snip...

Yeah but if you do that the philosophers will whip out the label "pragmatist" quicker than you can say "I'd have gotten away with it as well if it wasn't for you pesky philosophers!"

[brodski]

I think it comes down to this for me.

I find that philosophy is a game I do not need to play.

I can ignore it and be no worse off, not in any way hindered in anything I should choose to do or explore -- with the single exception of studying philosophy itself.

The same can not be said for science, law, and history, for example. If I am ignorant of these, I have real problems in my life, and obstacles in my way. actually, for many people the same can be said for science and history, my computer works whether I understand the underlying science or technology or not. The tools of science work whether I understand the philosophy behind them or not.


Would we have eventually hit on the right path to, say, science without it? Probably so. You can make exactly[i] the same argument can be made about whether we would have hit upon the same technological progress without science.

Science is an [i]application of philosophy.

[Darat]

actually, for many people the same can be said for science and history, my computer works whether I understand the underlying science or technology or not. The tools of science work whether I understand the philosophy behind them or not.

You can make [i]exactly[i] the same argument can be made about whether we would have hit upon the same technological progress without science.

Science is an application of philosophy.

I'm a fence-sitter on this at the moment. I can see the point Piggy is making and I can see the point the big Ps are making.

But something about your last sentence doesn't quite ring true to me:

"Science is an application of philosophy."

Is that true? Whilst I agree you can study science (as an application) with the tools of philosophy and even describe it in philosophical terms I don't see how that means you can draw the conclusion that it is an application of philosophy.

[Piggy]

I dunno about that, Piggy. I think it's perfectly possible to live your life ignorant of science (and indeed, many people do).

Oh, sure. Agreed.

But what I'm saying is that, short of studying philosophy itself, I can pursue any activity I want and ignore philosophy and have no problems.

Not so with law, science, and history.

As brodski pointed out, the practical work of philosophy effects you and the world you live in as much as science does. The long traditions of philosophy of science, ethics, logic and the philosophy of law, and the work being done by philosophers in those same disciplines today, have direct influence on your life.

Oh, indeed it does. No argument here. Same for religion.

[Piggy]

Yeah but if you do that the philosophers will whip out the label "pragmatist" quicker than you can say "I'd have gotten away with it as well if it wasn't for you pesky philosophers!"

:D

Yeah, I know.

And I have no problem with that. If they want to slice and dice the world in that way and use their own labels to discuss various ways of looking at the world, fine by me.

But I can't get on board when it's claimed, by various means, that because they have that label, I must therefore be engaged in philosophy.

Kindof smacks of the "atheism is another religon" argument -- tho I don't think it actually goes that far.

[Piggy]

Science is an application of philosophy.

I guarantee you that I could take a small child and teach him how to view the world scientifically and use the scientific method on a purely "see, this does that" basis with no reference to any philosophy whatsoever.

All hands-on, all common sense, all with the perceptive and analytical abilities that come hard-wired into us.

So it's just not possible for me to see how it could be an application of philosophy.

If he were to ask, "Why not just believe what I'm told?" or "Why not accept what's in the Bible?" or "How come we can't stop after one test?" I can answer these questions, yet again, with practical, reality-based answers and no reference to philo at all.

[brodski]

I guarantee you that I could take a small child and teach him how to view the world scientifically and use the scientific method on a purely "see, this does that" basis with no reference to any philosophy whatsoever.


i could teach a kid how to build an engine without reference to science (OK I couldn't, but if I knew how to build an engine... ;) )Just because philosophy is not explicitly referenced in day to day science doesn't mean that there is no philosophical basis underpinning any scientific enquiry or application, just like science is not explicitly referenced in the day to day aplication of technology.

[Piggy]

i could teach a kid how to build an engine without reference to science

But could you teach him engineering, not just how to build an engine, without reference to science?

[brodski]

But could you teach him engineering, not just how to build an engine, without reference to science?

yes. It would be a different kind of engineering, but then it would also be a different kind of science if you were forced to strip all philosophy from it.
Would you, for instance, cover the topic of falsifiability? Or the fallibility of our senses? Or the need, even desirability of replication? How would you justify your stance on these topics withough engaging in philosophy?

Would you cover why just saying that something is "common sense" is a poor method of judging the truth or otherwise of a statement? ;)

[Piggy]

yes. It would be a different kind of engineering, but then it would also be a different kind of science if you were forced to strip all philosophy from it.

Point taken.

Still not fully in agreement, but you do have a point there.

[Piggy]

Would you cover why just saying that something is "common sense" is a poor method of judging the truth or otherwise of a statement? ;)

You bet.