Wittgenstein and the end of Philosophy

[Q-Source]

If I had to choose one philosopher that has contributed more to elevate the role of philosophy then I would have to choose Wittgenstein.

By rejecting the traditional conception that philosophy was supposed to provide answers to universal questions such as what is the nature of reality?, does God exist?, what is the self?, Wittgenstein opened a new perspective of what philosophy was meant to be. Philosophy is a tool used to disentangle language games when different areas of knowledge try to give a unique answer to the same problem.

As an example, it is pointless to attempt to use a metalanguage when discussing the nature of consciousness because there is not a metalanguage in the first place . The only thing we have are different language games, so a neurologyst, a materialist and an idealist will apply their own language game to explain the same problem. Problems arise because all attempt to impose their own language game on the others and it is the role of philosophy to delimit the use of language.

My point is that it is probably that we will never find an answer that will satisfy everybody because the use of language is absolutely relevant, howeveer this shouldn't imply that different language games (to ours) are wrong. So it is absolutely useless to diminish the arguments of an immaterialist regarding consciousness or other issue because a materialist is using a complete different set of concepts.
Does this complicate our problems?

Q-S

[Keneke]

Quote:

Philosophy is a tool used to disentangle language games when different areas of knowledge try to give a unique answer to the same problem.

Quote:

So it is absolutely useless to diminish the arguments of an immaterialist regarding consciousness or other issue because a materialist is using a complete different set of concepts.

edit: It seems that Wittgenstein pines for a standard.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Keneke
edit: It seems that Wittgenstein pines for a standard.

Not in "Philosophical Investigations" he doesn't. WIttgenstein published two great works, one when he was in his early twenties and one after he was dead. In the Tractatus, which can be blamed for Logical Positivism, he pines for a standard. But the mature Wittgenstein knew that this approach was inherently flawed. There is no absolute standard. There are only different language games designed by different people for different purposes, and reality is not constructed in such a way as to limit the nature of the language games that can be usefully empoyed to describe it.

[Keneke]

I don't think the desire for a standard is immature at all, but perhaps the expectation that you will find one is.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff


There are only different language games designed by different people for different purposes, and reality is not constructed in such a way as to limit the nature of the language games that can be usefully empoyed to describe it.

Wittgestein provided a wonderful explanation of why philosophical confusions arise, but in practice it seems impossible to delimit the language games.

On the other hand, I wonder if this has given some people the excuse to justify the validity of their arguments over others just because they think that other areas of knowledge lack proper definitions of terms and concepts.

Q

[ceptimus]

I just wanted to show off my current sig line in this thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source

On the other hand, I wonder if this has given some people the excuse to justify the validity of their arguments over others just because they think that other areas of knowledge lack proper definitions of terms and concepts.

We all have our blind spots. We all have a tendency to point to the splinters in the eyes of others, oblivious to the concrete railway sleeper embedded in our own.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Quote:

Geoff said:
There are only different language games designed by different people for different purposes, and reality is not constructed in such a way as to limit the nature of the language games that can be usefully empoyed to describe it.

This is an excellent statement, although I would remove the word "usefully."

Anyone up for a language game of "Next Muddled Metaphysic"?

~~ Paul

[Keneke]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff


We all have our blind spots. We all have a tendency to point to the splinters in the eyes of others, oblivious to the concrete railway sleeper embedded in our own.

I don't think that's a totally accurate description. The scientific community takes all these people of a like mind and tries to incorporate all of knowledge together. Even amongst the sciences, there are different "languages". However, almost every supernatural agency there is (religion, psychics, etc) is explainable through scientific study. A woo-woo's rejection of axiomatic knowledge does not equate to Wittgenstein's lament, but only shows that they ignore what they cannot understand.

By contrast, science will never stop growing and asking questions, even going so far and attempting to explain woo-woo's phenomenae in a way that they can understand. For example: Pareidola as an explanation for the Nun Bun.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Keneke

I don't think that's a totally accurate description. The scientific community takes all these people of a like mind and tries to incorporate all of knowledge together.

Not from the point of view of philosophy it doesn't. Science is limited by its own assumptions, which have been discussed at length at this site. These assumptions include the existence of external reality and the belief that reality behaves the same for everyone. These are required assumptions, because without them science cannot operate. But the moment scientists start confusing their assumptions with absolute truth then the railway sleeper in the eye becomes apparent. Science demands objectivity but human beings are stranded in a subjective realm. Because of this it CANNOT incorporate all knowledge together because some knowledge is neccesarily subjective. Wittgenstein understood this.

Quote:

Even amongst the sciences, there are different "languages".

They share certain assumptions.

Quote:

However, almost every supernatural agency there is (religion, psychics, etc) is explainable through scientific study.

Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.

Quote:

A woo-woo's rejection of axiomatic knowledge does not equate to Wittgenstein's lament, but only shows that they ignore what they cannot understand.

My point throughout this thread has been that everybody has a tendency to ignore what they do not understand. If you think that does not include scientists then you do not understand the limitations of science.

Quote:

By contrast, science will never stop growing and asking questions...

There are some categories of question which science is inherently incapable of answering. An example : What does RED look like to you. Do you think science can answer this question? If you do, then you are ascribing to science the ability to answer necessarily subjective questions. This it CANNOT do.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Quote:

Geoff said:
Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.

Say what?

http://kenstange.com/drmiro/IAEA2000Paper.doc

http://www.colour-affects.co.uk/history.html

http://www.qmethod.org/News/august_18_2003.htm

http://www.music.upm.edu.my/MusTech/Yeoh.htm

Note that if something was "purely subjective," no two people could talk about it at all.

~~ Paul

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


Note that if something was "purely subjective," no two people could talk about it at all.

~~ Paul

Even if Science studies subjectives areas of knowledge it does not mean that those areas will become objective. Scientists recognise their own limitations:

Quote:

Music is too subjective in nature to have just one answer. In my opinion, there should be a balance on how far scientific approaches can go in music. Music is after all very much a personal choice and taste. It is a form of expression and although scientists may prove that a certain way of performing is aesthetically more beautiful, they should always bear in mind that every performer is different. http://www.music.upm.edu.my/MusTech/Yeoh.htm

This is just one example taken from your links.
There is no language in Science that will EVER explain why some people find some forms of expression more beautiful and enjoyable than others. These limitations in the use of language is what makes impossible for Science to ever provide a full objective description of what makes something aesthetically beautiful.

Q-S

[Peskanov]

Hello Geoff, nice to see you again here;

Quote:

here are some categories of question which science is inherently incapable of answering. An example : What does RED look like to you. Do you think science can answer this question?

IMO the problem is not of science, but of language. When you ask this, one can only reply using words; but you don't want a description about seeing red.
In other words, you are not requesting a rationale, but requesting a transference of experience instead!
No human language can answer this request, no matter scientific, philosphic or religious.

Let's guess science can isolate the brain signals that constitute seeing red, so you can experience it using the proper mechanism.
This transference of information from one system to another would serve this request, and it can be argued that it would be done in a language (the machine's one), but certainly not in a human one.

[UndercoverElephant]

Belem,

Exactly.

There has been a tendency within some areas, notably extremist scientific skepticism, to take one half of Wittgensteins philosophy (his rejection of metaphysics) and ignore the other half (his dictate that every form of knowledge is restricted and "made relative" by the limitations of its own language game). In other words some people seek/claim to reject metaphysics, yet at the same time they attempt to elevate science to the point where it is the arbiter of absolute truth. Wittgenstein would have considered this inconsistent. The "language game" of science is just as much a "language game" as any other, and it is not immune to the problems inherent in all the others. If you try to elevate science to "arbiter of objective truth" then you are making implied metaphysical claims of precisely the sort Wittgenstein was trying to avoid. If you are going to reject metaphysics then to be consistent you must reject ALL metaphysics, not just the metaphysics you do not happen to like.

The claim that science could somehow provide "objective" knowledge about something as obviously subjective as the appreciation of music rather nicely demonstrates the problem I am talking about.

Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peskanov
[b]Hello Geoff, nice to see you again here;

IMO the problem is not of science, but of language. When you ask this, one can only reply using words; but you don't want a description about seeing red.
In other words, you are not requesting a rationale, but requesting a transference of experience instead!
No human language can answer this request, no matter scientific, philosphic or religious.

Hi Peskanov. Yes I am in total agreement with this. All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.

Quote:

Let's guess science can isolate the brain signals that constitute seeing red, so you can experience it using the proper mechanism.
This transference of information from one system to another would serve this request, and it can be argued that it would be done in a language (the machine's one), but certainly not in a human one.

Even if you could replicate the brain signals, you still cannot be sure that the associated subjective experience is identical in all persons.

Geoff.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
[b]In other words some people seek/claim to reject metaphysics, yet at the same time they attempt to elevate science to the point where it is the arbiter of absolute truth.

Yes, this happens. But it usually happens not among scientists but materialists. Just like the above example.

Quote:

If you try to elevate science to "arbiter of objective truth" then you are making implied metaphysical claims of precisely the sort Wittgenstein was trying to avoid. If you are going to reject metaphysics then to be consistent you must reject ALL metaphysics, not just the metaphysics you do not happen to like.

This goes in the other way as well. If there are not ultimate truths because there is no a metalanguage that can reconcile all interpretations, then there cannot be an absolute truth about the nature of reality. I doubt that people are willing to reject all metaphysics when trying to interpret what they see around.

I might be wrong but the problem arises because scientific claims are usually valid independently of your metaphysical frame of reference. Everything else is subject to how TLOP work.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source

Yes, this happens. But it usually happens not among scientists but materialists. Just like the above example.

"We reject metaphysics! Except materialism, because that isn't metaphysics!"

Quote:

This goes in the other way as well. If there are not ultimate truths because there is no a metalanguage that can reconcile all interpretations, then there cannot be an absolute truth about the nature of reality. I doubt that people are willing to reject all metaphysics when trying to interpret what they see around.

Well they should either reject ALL metaphysics, OR they should be prepared to defend their own metaphysics, OR they should leave philosophy to philosophers.

Quote:

I might be wrong but the problem arises because scientific claims are usually valid independently of your metaphysical frame of reference. Everything else is subject to how TLOP work. [/b]

Not sure I follow this. Scientific claims are valid within their own frame of reference. They are not valid as absolute truths. The meaning of your last sentence about TLOP escapes me.

[Keneke]

Back from the warm weekend! Sorry for the slow reply.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not from the point of view of philosophy it doesn't. Science is limited by its own assumptions, which have been discussed at length at this site. These assumptions include the existence of external reality and the belief that reality behaves the same for everyone.

Yet science's assumptions are among the smallest of any "language". It is the most believable thing out there. (Why am I always coming back to this point in every thread? Leap the gap, leap the gap, I'm like a broken record. I'm beginning to get in a rut.)

Quote:

But the moment scientists start confusing their assumptions with absolute truth then the railway sleeper in the eye becomes apparent.

The basis of science requires that it adds new "words" to the "language" as our world expands. Even subjectivity is studied in psychology. True, IF scientists turn theory into law, then it can be restrictive, but science is more fluid than just about any legitimate "language". Note the amount of knowledge we have learned in the past 100 years: through science, our intellectual base of knowledge grows exponentially, because it is willing to take what it learns and add it in. It's kind of like Christians adopting Yule, except without calling it Christmas.

Quote:

Because of this it CANNOT incorporate all knowledge together because some knowledge is neccesarily subjective.

Like what?

Quote:

Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.

I believe Paul has already addressed this.

Quote:

My point throughout this thread has been that everybody has a tendency to ignore what they do not understand.

What does science ignore? Its assumptions are always at hand, ready to be overthrown at a moment's notice (moment = time for paradigm shift to take place)

Quote:

There is no language in Science that will EVER explain why some people find some forms of expression more beautiful and enjoyable than others.

Quote:

The claim that science could somehow provide "objective" knowledge about something as obviously subjective as the appreciation of music rather nicely demonstrates the problem I am talking about.

Firing synapses. Dopamine levels and its effect on brain function. Language and behavior based on these changes. It's not something science knows completely about, but we have the groundwork, and may come to completely understand it in time. You are assuming that because it is unknown, it is unknowable.

Quote:

If you try to elevate science to "arbiter of objective truth" then you are making implied metaphysical claims of precisely the sort Wittgenstein was trying to avoid.

There's a small, but important difference between making science "arbiter of objective truth" and using science as arbiter because it's the best guess we have. Like I said before, ANY assumption science makes can be changed. If something comes along that is more "true", science adopts it.

Quote:

All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.

Another assumption which I cannot totally agree with. This Wittgenstein position is laced with "always" and "never" statements, which immediately lead it to suspicion.

Quote:

Even if you could replicate the brain signals, you still cannot be sure that the associated subjective experience is identical in all persons.

How do you know? I've already explained what I think science could do, given the computing skill; based upon previous advances in science, it seems quite likely. Perhaps differences in people's reactions to art is mapped out. Perhaps these differences in brain activity are mapped out and discovered why they are different. Maybe this entire subject will be in a textbook in 50 years. Are you saying this is impossible? I'm not saying it is 100% probable, but it is possible.

Quote:

Yes, this happens. But it usually happens not among scientists but materialists.

Yes, I think this may the problem. People are taking the worldview created by scientists and offering it as immutable law. It's the best guess we have, though. I am materialistic, to be sure, but it is science (with a healthy dose of skepticism) that is the real Holy Grail here.

Your average Joe is going to cling to whatever paradigm the lords of the earth give them. It's fairly easy to counter any set view of the world, because we don't have the answers yet. But to say that the answers are forever unknowable...that's a mighty big assumption.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Keneke

I'll start at the end of your post.

Quote:

Your average Joe is going to cling to whatever paradigm the lords of the earth give them.

Well, this isn't "average Joe" territory we are discussing. This is a thread about Wittgenstein and the end of philosophy.

Quote:

It's fairly easy to counter any set view of the world, because we don't have the answers yet. But to say that the answers are forever unknowable...that's a mighty big assumption.

I think Wittgenstein was in the business of avoiding assumptions. Specifically he was concerned about avoiding assumptions we do not even realise we have made because those assumptions are not explicit but built in to the language we choose to use.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not from the point of view of philosophy it doesn't. Science is limited by its own assumptions, which have been discussed at length at this site. These assumptions include the existence of external reality and the belief that reality behaves the same for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet science's assumptions are among the smallest of any "language". It is the most believable thing out there.

That is in itself a very personalised way of looking at things. The problem is that you have chosen to place very little significance on those things which science assumes. You believe they are safe and reasonable assumptions which are of no major significance. Many people might well agree with you. But many others may point at these assumptions made by science and see them as major obstacles to a proper understanding of the nature of reality - and those people would have a perfect right to make those claims. An idealist might very well argue that the primacy of conciousness is the most believable thing out there. You wouldn't agree. We all have a tendency to believe our own assumptions are "the right ones" and other peoples are "the wrong ones". Wittgensteins position is that ALL the different languages have their own place and their own relevance, and from the point of view of philosophy his view on this is not really open to being challenged. That was the point of this thread. After Wittgenstein, philosophy has been reduced to an analysis of language.

Quote:

The basis of science requires that it adds new "words" to the "language" as our world expands. Even subjectivity is studied in psychology. True, IF scientists turn theory into law, then it can be restrictive, but science is more fluid than just about any legitimate "language". Note the amount of knowledge we have learned in the past 100 years: through science, our intellectual base of knowledge grows exponentially, because it is willing to take what it learns and add it in.

This is all true. It is also irrelevant because it matters not how many new theories and new words science invents, they are all still part of the same materialistic language game of science - the language game remains the same language game with the same limitations and assumptions. The fact that it is an evolving language rather than a static one does not change the basic limitations.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of this it CANNOT incorporate all knowledge together because some knowledge is neccesarily subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like what?

Like what red looks like to me, to take the textbook example.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science cannot study anything which is purely subjective. Science cannot, for example, study art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe Paul has already addressed this.

I'd prefer if you answered yourself. I'm not sure Paul has addressed this at all.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point throughout this thread has been that everybody has a tendency to ignore what they do not understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does science ignore? Its assumptions are always at hand, ready to be overthrown at a moment's notice (moment = time for paradigm shift to take place)

Science ignores anything it can't define according to its own lagnuage system. The textbook example, again, is qualia. Science cannot meaningfully define qualia - within the materialistic language game science is dependent upon there is simply no place for things which are, by definition, immaterial. This has led some people to claim that the word "qualia" is itself meaningless. But this isn't actually true. Within many other sorts of language games - other ways of interpreting the world - the word "qualia" has a very clear and distinct meaning and the people who use it have not the slightest difficulty in establishing what it means and how to use it. It is simply not possible to "overthrow" the current scientific paradigm and replace it with another one where the word "qualia" is actually useful, because in order for "qualia" to mean something the assumptions required for science to operate must be altered. Thus science has limitations, thus science is forced to ignore certain things and thus no scientific paradigm shift can fix the problem. All of which translates into : science is not the absolute arbiter of truth, and neither is anything else.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim that science could somehow provide "objective" knowledge about something as obviously subjective as the appreciation of music rather nicely demonstrates the problem I am talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firing synapses.......

I don't understand why you can't see the problem. I claimed that science cannot meaningfully discuss the subjective appreciation of music. In an attempt to demonstrate I am wrong you have responded with "firing synapses". "firing synapses" is a phrase belonging to the language game of physics. But if you think that it tells anyone anything at all about the subjective appreciation of music, then your own life must be a musical wasteland. Discussing the subjective appreciation of music can only be done using emotive metaphors like "The climax of Beethovens symphony thundered over me like an enormous pacific wave crashing over my head.....". "Firing synapses" is just innappropriate and meaningless outside of physics and materialistic biology.

Quote:

Dopamine levels and its effect on brain function. Language and behavior based on these changes. It's not something science knows completely about, but we have the groundwork, and may come to completely understand it in time.

Science doesn't know about it at all. It does not "have the groundwork". It has it's own groundwork which is very useful indeed within the realm which it is designed for, but absolutely useless within the realm you are trying to discuss.

Quote:

You are assuming that because it is unknown, it is unknowable.

I am not "assuming" anything. Wittgensteins theories of language are not based upon assumptions. How could they be? Their whole point is to expose the assumptions inherent elsewhere!

Quote:

There's a small, but important difference between making science "arbiter of objective truth" and using science as arbiter because it's the best guess we have. Like I said before, ANY assumption science makes can be changed. If something comes along that is more "true", science adopts it.

No, this is wrong. It does not matter how much you may choose to believe in the non-existance of a mind-independent reality, science cannot and must not adopt this assumption. If it did adopt this assumption then it would stop being science, and that doesn't actually serve the best interests of anybody.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All human language games are limited and no human language game can accomplish a transference of direct subjective experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another assumption which I cannot totally agree with. This Wittgenstein position is laced with "always" and "never" statements, which immediately lead it to suspicion.

You mean like your own previous statement that "Like I said before, ANY assumption science makes can be changed."

ANY assumption?

I think not.

Quote:

How do you know? I've already explained what I think science could do, given the computing skill; based upon previous advances in science, it seems quite likely. Perhaps differences in people's reactions to art is mapped out. Perhaps these differences in brain activity.......

Can't you see that you are trapped right now by the language game you are trying to use? You are trying to make a case that science can deal with internal, subjective things like the appreciation of art, but your strategy for doing so is to claim that at some point in future there can be a materialistic way to discuss these things. You are trying to claim that "everything which exists" or "everything which can be discussed" can be reduced to physics. Wittgensteins contribution to philosophy included a clear warning that this sort of "language game confusion" does nothing but lead people astray.

Quote:

.....are mapped out and discovered why they are different. Maybe this entire subject will be in a textbook in 50 years. Are you saying this is impossible? I'm not saying it is 100% probable, but it is possible.

I'm saying it is impossible. It doesn't matter if you travel to the year 3004. There will still be no way to incorporate the word "qualia" into the language game of physics. You can argue that there are no such thing as qualia if you like, as Dennett does, but you cannot argue that qualia are material things, because this is linguistically illogical.

"There is nothing left for philosophy to do but the analysis of language."

Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Quote:

I am materialistic, to be sure, but it is science (with a healthy dose of skepticism) that is the real Holy Grail here.

Argghh!

You have actually said it! The one thing I am trying to discourage above all others is the elevation of science to the status of a pseudo-religion, and here you are describing science as "the holy grail". Personally, I have no "Holy Grail". Why do you want one? There is no Holy Grail. None.

Geoff.

[Keneke]

Sigh. You have not convinced me one iota (and I assume vice versa), and are starting to repeat yourself, as am I. But, I suppose for the sake of discussion, I will continue...

Quote:

I think Wittgenstein was in the business of avoiding assumptions.

...except for his biggest assumption that there is no reconciliation between "languages", nor can one language adequately express another. We English-speaking folks might have to write a book about "that certain something", while the French say, "Je ne sais quoit", but the meaning is the same. The French are merely more efficient in that regard. ('bout the only thing they are efficient at...)

Quote:

Specifically he was concerned about avoiding assumptions we do not even realise we have made because those assumptions are not explicit but built in to the language we choose to use.

And quite a noble cause that is. However, knowing those limitations is the first step to overcoming them. You assume they are impossible to overcome. Maybe 100 years of research can explain why you said, ""The climax of Beethovens symphony thundered over me like an enormous pacific wave crashing over my head.....", and is extremely unefficient and taxing, but the possibility is there. I am not saying that it certainly exists, but you seem to believe that it cannot exist.

Quote:

You believe they are safe and reasonable assumptions which are of no major significance.

Yet even they can be overturned. What in science is immutable? You tell me, cause I certainly don't know.

Quote:

An idealist might very well argue that the primacy of conciousness is the most believable thing out there. You wouldn't agree.

The paradigm might shift if a field of study, based upon the primacy of consciousness, were formed and it made more sense than science. Does it? Will it ever? Can't say. Please don't put words in my mouth; I said science is the best guess. If something better comes along, so be it. Or even the assumption that you must have only one framework! Does a mix of science and X work better for the world than science alone?

Quote:

Wittgensteins position is that ALL the different languages have their own place and their own relevance, and from the point of view of philosophy his view on this is not really open to being challenged.

I suppose, but don't use this vague sentence to support your extended theories. Science has its place and relevance, and music appreciation has its place and relevance. This does NOT assume that the two "languages" are "untranslatable". I posit that they might be, in time. Not that they definitely are, but that it may be possible. You, however, are positing the absolute negative. I don't think we'll be able to fully answer that question in our lifetime.

Quote:

the language game remains the same language game with the same limitations and assumptions.

The fact that there are limits is your assumption. It's easier to explain music in terms of feeling, and we cognize what the words mean when we say them. Incredibly more efficient. But like the French/English analogy mentioned before, not completely untranslatable.

Quote:

The fact that it is an evolving language rather than a static one does not change the basic limitations.

Limitations /= impossiblities.

Quote:

All of which translates into : science is not the absolute arbiter of truth, and neither is anything else.

Did I say it was?

Quote:

I don't understand why you can't see the problem.

I see it fine. There are things science can't explain, and Wittgenstein posits that they can NEVER be explained by any one language. Is that a fair derivation of his theory?

Quote:

But if you think that it tells anyone anything at all about the subjective appreciation of music, then your own life must be a musical wasteland.

That was merely a starting point of describing how music affects the brain. I don't have time to educate you. Go Google studies on the subject if you need help.

And for the record, I was a professional musician. Music is in my soul. However, I believe it may be possible to write a dissertation about how it affects me, using scientific language to explain every nuance of the feeling inside of me. You say that it is not possible. Note that I am not saying it absolutely is possible. I tend to avoid absolute statements.

Quote:

"Firing synapses" is just innappropriate and meaningless outside of physics and materialistic biology.

I agree with the inappropriate statement. This doesn't strengthen your point though. The fact that we SHOULD have all these languages (for brevity's sake) does not mean that they are forever separated.

Quote:

I am not "assuming" anything. Wittgensteins theories of language are not based upon assumptions. How could they be? Their whole point is to expose the assumptions inherent elsewhere!

Then, based on that theory, wouldn't even Wittgenstein's theory itself have unknown assumptions embedded in it? Like the fact that languages are not translatable.

Quote:

No, this is wrong. It does not matter how much you may choose to believe in the non-existance of a mind-independent reality, science cannot and must not adopt this assumption. If it did adopt this assumption then it would stop being science, and that doesn't actually serve the best interests of anybody.

Are you saying that a mind-independent reality would never be adopted by science, even if it was proven?

Quote:

You are trying to claim that "everything which exists" or "everything which can be discussed" can be reduced to physics.

Actually, "reduced" is not the word for it. It becomes incredibly complex to explain emotion through science. But it can be done. It's being done in your human brain right now: raw data is flooding from one portion of your brain to the next, causing your body to react. I can't see what a picture is by looking at the hexadecimal code of a JPG file, but I know that the lovely picture it creates is nothing but lines of code.

Quote:

I'm saying it is impossible. It doesn't matter if you travel to the year 3004. There will still be no way to incorporate the word "qualia" into the language game of physics.

Physics is not the whole of science.

Quote:

You have actually said it! The one thing I am trying to discourage above all others is the elevation of science to the status of a pseudo-religion, and here you are describing science as "the holy grail".

I'm sorry, does my analogy confuse you? Do you think that my terminology means I semi-worship science? Uh, no. Your whole post has cast me in the light of a science-worshipper of some sort. Do not confuse my stubborness for blind faith. I am fully aware of what Wittgenstein was trying to say. I understand the desire to use different languages. But when he says languages are not reconcilable, I say don't create a philosophical Babylon. I don't want true objectivity, as you seem to think I do. But I do favor one language over the others. It's not even my native language.

Quote:

Personally, I have no "Holy Grail". Why do you want one? There is no Holy Grail. None.

I take this to mean there are no absolutes, right? And you say that "languages" are "absolutely" untranslatable?

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by Keneke

I suppose, but don't use this vague sentence to support your extended theories. Science has its place and relevance, and music appreciation has its place and relevance. This does NOT assume that the two "languages" are "untranslatable".

The attempt to "translate" one language game into the language game of science -which means to get a unique logical picture of reality- was the mistake Wittgenstein made in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Many years later he recognised such error and wrote the Philosophical Investigations, there he shows that there is no a unique logical language (apart from mathematics) that can give us a general description of reality.
Instead, we have different language games that are independent from each other. Confusions and philosophical problems arise when people try to explain -with a determine language game- concepts that belong to a different language.

Quote:

I posit that they might be, in time. Not that they definitely are, but that it may be possible. You, however, are positing the absolute negative. I don't think we'll be able to fully answer that question in our lifetime.

This means you don't understand that there are limitations in the language of Science that have nothing to do with its inability/ability to study human beings. Mind is immaterial and science only deals with concepts related to the material-tangible world.
The role of philosophy is to clarify what kind of language people are using. The description of reality that you have makes sense to you, but it does not make sense to an idealist and viceversa.

Q-S

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Keneke.

I will try to avoid pointless repetitions. I was once vehemently anti-Wittgenstein because I believed he had killed philosophy. Perhaps W. is an acquired taste, I don't know.

Quote:

...except for his biggest assumption that there is no reconciliation between "languages", nor can one language adequately express another.....

I have no choice but to repeat the "qualia" example. There is no reconciliation possible here for a very simple reason :

1) Science can only operate within the assumption that only physical things exist.
2) Qualia are defined to be non-physical.

No advances in science can fix the clash between (1) and (2). If you want to "reconcile" these things you have to change the definition of one or the other. You either have to find a way for science to recognise the existence of non-physical things, or you have to change the definition of qualia so they are no longer non-physical. There are no other options, and both the above options are unnacceptable. So no "assumption" is involved because it is linguistically demonstrable and we are arguing about LANGUAGES. I just demonstrated it. I did not need to "assume" anything. All I needed to do was quote the definitions of the words. There can be no such thing as a "physical non-physical thing"!

Your example of English and French does not provide a solution to the above problem, because English and French are not "language games" at all. They are languages. Language-games exist as subsets of languages.

Quote:

Yet even they can be overturned. What in science is immutable? You tell me, cause I certainly don't know.

I already told you. Science MUST assume external realism and naturalism. These things are not open for debate. If you lose the assumption that external reality behaves independently of the observation of it, or that it follows the same set of natural laws at all times, then it can no longer function as science! It would have become pseudo-science and presumably this is the very last thing anybody who cares about science would want to do to it! Some things in science are indeed "immutable".

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An idealist might very well argue that the primacy of conciousness is the most believable thing out there. You wouldn't agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The paradigm might shift if a field of study, based upon the primacy of consciousness, were formed and it made more sense than science. Does it? Will it ever? Can't say.

What does "made more sense" mean?

Made more sense to who? And in what context? Anti-realism and Supernaturalism makes sense only to anti-realists and supernaturalists. It will never "make more sense" for science to adopt supernaturalism.

Quote:

Please don't put words in my mouth; I said science is the best guess.

Your best guess. Or are you trying to impose it on everybody else?

Quote:

Or even the assumption that you must have only one framework! Does a mix of science and X work better for the world than science alone?

I certainly never made any such assumption. Use as many frameworks as you like.

"There is nothing about the basic structure of reality that limits the number of language games that can usefully be employed to describe it."

(Richard Rorty)

It isn't me who is trying to restrict us to one framework only! People who are "scientistic" do this. Biblical literalists do this. I am a Post-Modernist for heavens sake! Use as many frameworks as you like, just don't mix them up arbitrarily and claim to be making any sense!

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wittgensteins position is that ALL the different languages have their own place and their own relevance, and from the point of view of philosophy his view on this is not really open to being challenged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose, but don't use this vague sentence to support your extended theories.

What extended theories? It's been a long time since I posted any theoretical metaphysics here, and when I did do so it was at a time when I had failed to understand the relevance of Wittgenstein. It would not do it now.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand why you can't see the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see it fine. There are things science can't explain, and Wittgenstein posits that they can NEVER be explained by any one language. Is that a fair derivation of his theory?

Wittgenstein certainly warned against scientism. Q-Source has said in this thread that there is no such thing as a "one true meta-language". So yes, Wittgenstein would have said that there is no one language that can accurately encompass all of the others. Additionally it should be pointed out that since there is no way to think without language there is no way to stand outside of language and compare it to reality for the purposes of establishing that language corresponds to truth - thus there is no way to claim that anything described in language is "truth" - everything is linguistically relative.

Quote:

That was merely a starting point of describing how music affects the brain. I don't have time to educate you. Go Google studies on the subject if you need help.

I did not ask you about "how music affects the brain." You are still stuck in the same innappropriate language-game, and now you have started with the ad-homs which is always a sign that somebody is running out of arguments. I do not need your "education" thankyou very much. If I want to learn about philosophy this is about the last place I would come.

I too am a musician, BTW, and a scientist.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is wrong. It does not matter how much you may choose to believe in the non-existance of a mind-independent reality, science cannot and must not adopt this assumption. If it did adopt this assumption then it would stop being science, and that doesn't actually serve the best interests of anybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying that a mind-independent reality would never be adopted by science, even if it was proven?

I am saying that if somebody in philosophy proved that there was NO external (mind-independent) reality that science COULD NOT adopt this assumption any more than Christianity could adopt the assumption that God doesn't exist! Some things just do not belong together. Atheism doesn't belong in Christianity and anti-realism doesn't belong in science, however much Lifegazer wants it to.

Quote:

I am fully aware of what Wittgenstein was trying to say. I understand the desire to use different languages. But when he says languages are not reconcilable, I say don't create a philosophical Babylon. I don't want true objectivity, as you seem to think I do. But I do favor one language over the others. It's not even my native language.

Fine. You are free to favour science. But you need to recognise where science can't go. The alternative is to allow idiots like Lifegazer to try to use philosophical proofs against the existence of an external reality, mixed with science, to create pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. I say again that this helps NOBODY. Not even Lifegazer, judging by his evident mental state.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I have no "Holy Grail". Why do you want one? There is no Holy Grail. None.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take this to mean there are no absolutes, right? And you say that "languages" are "absolutely" untranslatable?

No one true metalanguage. No one true philosophy. No one true religion. No one best way of describing the world.

Geoff.

edit :

It occurs to me that you are trying to use my assertion that "There is no absolute truth" to counter with "Then it's not absolutely true that there is no absolute truth."

If so, my response is :

[Keneke]

And round and round we go. You're repeating, and so am I. I'll stop here, then. Good debate. ::Shakes your hand::

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Science MUST assume external realism and naturalism. These things are not open for debate.

These things aren't open to debate with you, perhaps. But there is no absolute truth in this statement.

It's a myth that science has to be conducted from the viewpoint of observing an external reality. Science is merely concerned with existential behaviour/order, as it looks within the fishbowl of perceived existence.
Science is shown to be the observation of internally perceived/sensed behaviour/order. This order - these laws between things - does exist, even within our own awareness!!
Science is the study of the order amongst the inner-sensations, even though you and science fail to recognise this.
No assumption of an external realm is required to do science!! The behaviour/order perceived within existence is still there to be examined, regardless.
Indeed, such an assumption is shown to be incorrect: science ponders the internal realm of the mind's perceived order.

I object to your asserted statement. And in the process, I probably do much harm to W's claims.

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

These things aren't open to debate with you, perhaps. But there is no absolute truth in this statement.

It's a myth that science has to be conducted from the viewpoint of observing an external reality. Science is merely concerned with existential behaviour/order, as it looks within the fishbowl of perceived existence.
Science is shown to be the observation of internally perceived/sensed behaviour/order. This order - these laws between things - does exist, even within our own awareness!!
Science is the study of the order amongst the inner-sensations, even though you and science fail to recognise this.
No assumption of an external realm is required to do science!! The behaviour/order perceived within existence is still there to be examined, regardless.
Indeed, such an assumption is shown to be incorrect: science ponders the internal realm of the mind's perceived order.

I already presented an argument that within the framework of your philosophy, the reality that we perceive is external to our sense of awareness, making it external reality. Since you find it perfectly ok to cut and paste your arguments into unrelated discussions, why not:

It would apear that in your reality, god is compartmentalized into multiple senses of self. The primary god sense of self provides preceptions to its lifegazer sense of self. In this, you are viewing a world beyond your perceptions, are you not?

You already said that we are having the dream fed though us. The process you spoke of with the mind opening the blueprint to the page we are perceiving, and feeding us that perception. So even if our consciousness is part of the mind, our part of the consciousness and awareness is not generating the dream. So that would make it a reality external to our awareness.

You said all of reality is just inner-sensations, its all contained within our mind. If so, the lifegazer I see walking down the street is not really lifegazer, its just the zombie lifegazer. The real lifegazer is off with his own reality within his own inner-sensations. So whatever I do to the zombie lifegazer, within my own reality of inner-sensations, won't effect the actual lifegazer, just as it would in any other dream of mine.

Quote:

I object to your asserted statement. And in the process, I probably do much harm to W's claims.

ya, right, your philosophy couldn't hurt a fly.

[slimshady2357]

Quote:

originally posted by Geoff
I am saying that if somebody in philosophy proved that there was NO external (mind-independent) reality that science COULD NOT adopt this assumption any more than Christianity could adopt the assumption that God doesn't exist!

Quote:

Science MUST assume external realism and naturalism. These things are not open for debate.

You and Interesting Ian agree on a lot of things, I wonder if he would agree with those statements? From things he has said in the past, I doubt it.

Ian?

Adam

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
It would apear that in your reality, god is compartmentalized into multiple senses of self. The primary god sense of self provides preceptions to its lifegazer sense of self. In this, you are viewing a world beyond your perceptions, are you not?

By what sense can the mind be external to its sensations? This would say, also, that the sensations are external to the mind.
The mind is indivisible Russ. It exists and things (perceptions, even of identity) exist abstractly, within that mind.

Quote:

You already said that we are having the dream fed though us. The process you spoke of with the mind opening the blueprint to the page we are perceiving, and feeding us that perception. So even if our consciousness is part of the mind, our part of the consciousness and awareness is not generating the dream. So that would make it a reality external to our awareness.

My philosophy reduces existence to 'God'. That's it. And everything internal to God - God's perceptions - are just abstract things.

Quote:

You said all of reality is just inner-sensations, its all contained within our mind. If so, the lifegazer I see walking down the street is not really lifegazer, its just the zombie lifegazer. The real lifegazer is off

There is no real lifegazer. There is no real Russ. Just perceptions of you know who.

You've derailed the thread Russ. The post I made challenged this:-
1) Science can only operate within the assumption that only physical things exist.
2) Qualia are defined to be non-physical.

Actually, it challenged the first one. But upon second glance I see that the second one needs qualification too:-
Though qualia are indeed non-physical, they are the foundation of physical description (knowledge of things). Hence, qualia are actually defined to be physical, ironically (and incorrectly, of course), even though they are abstract/intangible experiences of the mind.

Science thinks it is objective because it understands existential order (to a large degree). But it will not concede to the fact that it (science) is the study of the mind's internal qualia... and the order thereof. Thus science is an internal practise - not dealing with any supposed external realm - and not needing one to function, either.

Science is in dire need of a revolution... and so is philosophy.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

These things aren't open to debate with you, perhaps. But their is no absolute truth in this statement.

No, Lifegazer. THESE THINGS ARE NOT OPEN TO DEBATE. PERIOD.

I realise that there is no hope whatsover that a person who knows absolutely bugger all about philosophy could understand Wittgenstein, but against my better judgement I will answer your post.

Quote:

It's a myth that science has to be conducted from the viewpoint of observing an external reality. Science is merely concerned with existential behaviour/order, as it looks within the fishbowl of perceived existence.

Wrong as usual. If you drop the assumption of an shared, consistent EXTERNAL reality then you have no hope of ever being able to accurately replicate anybodies results about anything at all, because there is no shared OBJECT for you to study. You've got no guarantee that my reality behaves the same as yours does. Philosophy can deal with anti-realism, but only a total ignoramous would try to claim that anti-realism could ever be scientific.

Quote:

Science is shown to be.......

And so the foundationless illogical ************ starts spewing forth from the mouth of the biggest idiot ever to have lived. "Science is SHOWN to be....?"

SHOWN?

I haven't even read the rest of the f***ing sentence yet and know it is complete b***ocks because you are already starting off with a claim you have SHOWN something when all you have done is make one of your normal unfounded illogical assertions.

Quote:

....the observation of internally perceived/sensed behaviour/order.

That is not what science is. That is what you have ASSERTED science is. As I and many others have repeatedly told you, you cannot just go around making blind assertions and claim them to be facts.

Quote:

This order - these laws between things - [b]does exist, even within our own awareness!!

Whoopie Doo, ****-wallower. You have managed to catch up with Berkeley! Any idea about all of the philosophical arguments that went after him? Not a sausage. But then of course, you don't have to have read all the arguments that followed Berkeley, because you are the greatest thinker ever to have lived! So great, in fact, that it wasn't neccesary for you to learn about the philosophical errors of those who went before you and were refuted by those who came after themselves. Oh no, you just magically got straight to the answer without making any of the same errors.

Any chance you might answer those nine questions I asked you, penis-brain?

Quote:

Science is the study of the order amongst the inner-sensations, even though you and science fail to recognise this.

Science is a method. That method does not work if one gets rid of the assumptions that there is an external reality which behaves the same for everybody. PHILOSOPHERS do not need to make these assumptions. SCIENTISTS do, but then you wouldn't know science from your own toilet mess.

Quote:

Indeed, such an assumption is shown to be incorrect: science ponders the internal realm of the mind's perceived order.

Meaningless gibberish.

Quote:

I object to your asserted statement.

I couldn't give a flying fanny what you object to. You have no credibility whatsoever. I asked you the same set of nine questions nearly TWENTY TIMES. At the end of it you offered one half of an answer to the first one and were subsequently SLAUGHTERED by several people because it was so obvious that your "reasoning" was about as watertight as sieve. Eventually you offered to answer the questions only if you were entitled to James Randis million. You did not explain why you deserved a million dollars for telling us what carnivores would eat in a world where there is no killing.

Quote:

And in the process, I probably do much harm to W's claims.

You are about as far from being to harm Wittgensteins philosophy as my neighbours yorkshire terrier is from being able to lay a punch on Mike Tyson. It can yap it's head off alright - it thinks it is a big boy, but is it actually likely to do any real harm?

[lifegazer]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, Lifegazer. THESE THINGS ARE NOT OPEN TO DEBATE. PERIOD.

Sorry Geoffrey, but if I catch you brainwashing the readers with incorrect assumptions, I'm going to "debate" such nonsense, as I see it, whether you like it or not.
EVERY PHILOSOPHY ON EARTH IS OPEN TO DEBATE.

Quote:

Wrong as usual. If you drop the assumption of an shared, consistent EXTERNAL reality then you have no hope of ever being able to accurately replicate anybodies results about anything at all, because there is no shared OBJECT for you to study. You've got no guarantee that my reality behaves the same as yours does. Philosophy can deal with anti-realism, but only a total ignoramous would try to claim that anti-realism could ever be scientific.

There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.

Quote:

And so the foundationless illogical ************ starts spewing forth from the mouth of the biggest idiot ever to have lived. "Science is SHOWN to be....?"

SHOWN?

I haven't even read the rest of the f***ing sentence yet and know it is complete b***ocks because you are already starting off with a claim you have SHOWN something when all you have done is make one of your normal unfounded illogical assertions.

Science... studys the order of qualia... hence science is the study of order existing within the mind. Science does not study external (to the mind) events. Fact. Your rational limitations are being well exposed here Geoffrey squire. And cut down on the language okay. It discredits you.

Quote:

That is not what science is. That is what you have ASSERTED science is. As I and many others have repeatedly told you, you cannot just go around making blind assertions and claim them to be facts.

I give reasons for my philosophy. Try thinking about them.

Quote:

Whoopie Doo, ****-wallower. You have managed to catch up with Berkeley! Any idea about all of the philosophical arguments that went after him? Not a sausage. But then of course, you don't have to have read all the arguments that followed Berkeley, because you are the greatest thinker ever to have lived! So great, in fact, that it wasn't neccesary for you to learn about the philosophical errors of those who went before you and were refuted by those who came after themselves. Oh no, you just magically got straight to the answer without making any of the same errors.

Spare me the party political broadcast and address the issues. I challenged your assertions with credible reason.
Furthermore, these assertions seem to be a basis for your agreement with Mr. W. So it's not looking too good for him either, at this point.

Quote:

Any chance you might answer those nine questions I asked you, penis-brain?

Maybe. But if you want to talk about 'heaven' then you have to accept that those living within it will know their true ancestry. The laws of physics mean jack in heaven. Unless you understand this, such a discussion is pointless.

Quote:

Science is a method. That method does not work if one gets rid of the assumptions that there is an external reality which behaves the same for everybody. PHILOSOPHERS do not need to make these assumptions. SCIENTISTS do, but then you wouldn't know science from your own toilet mess.

We all share the same internal realm. Science still functions. Notions of an external realm do expire. Everyone's a winner.

[Upchurch]

I've edited the last two posts for language. Let's watch the swear words, m'kay?

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady2357


You and Interesting Ian agree on a lot of things, I wonder if he would agree with those statements? From things he has said in the past, I doubt it.

Ian?

Adam

I myself might have argued differently in the past. Times change and sometimes peoples philosophy changes with it. For a start I would now say that there is a difference between what I may choose to believe privately about the absolute nature of reality, and what I would choose to speak about in public about the absolute nature of reality. In private, you can have various direct experiences and things like intuition feeding into your personal philosophy, but these things are no use to anyone-else. In public, you must be able to defend your philosophy on EVERY level. That includes things like morality, ethics and standards of personal behaviour. To take an extreme but VERY pertinent example - if you are going to claim divinity for yourself (like Lifegazer does) then you'd better make sure you BEHAVE like a divine being, and not like a jumped-up arrogant ignorant fool, otherwise you risk being far more offensive towards God than any atheist. Saying "I do not believe in God" is one thing. Saying "I am God" and then behaving like a total w****r is bad news.

These days I am more concerned about what will actually make a difference to society, rather than esoteric arguments about the nature of reality. I am not Ian and Ian is not me.

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer

Quote:

Sorry Geoffrey, but if I catch you brainwashing the readers with incorrect assumptions, I'm going to "debate" such nonsense, as I see it, whether you like it or not.

You do not even know the meaning of the word "debate". For you, "debate" means making all sorts of criticisms of other peoples positions but making NO ATTEMPT to answer criticisms of your own. That is not "debate". That is lecturing and preaching when you have not earned the right to lecture or preach.

Quote:

EVERY PHILOSOPHY ON EARTH IS OPEN TO DEBATE.

Does that include YOURS?

If so, any chance of an answer to my questions?

No, I didn't think so.

"Debate" is a two-way process. In your case this does not happen because you NEVER answer any of the questions which people throw at you. As a result, NOBODY takes anything you say seriously.

Quote:

There's no reason whatsoever why we cannot be sharing the same internal realm. So that puts that objection to sleep.

What?

"Sharing the same internal realm?"

Wow! The idiocy reaches new levels!

Listen, nappy-boy, IF YOU WERE SHARING MY INTERNAL REALM THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO READ MY THOUGHTS. You can't.

Quote:

Science... studys the order of qualia...

SCIENCE cannot even DEFINE "qualia" you moron.

Please give us a SCIENTIFIC definition of qualia. That means you have to define it terms of other unambigious and uncontraverisal scientific terms.

Quote:

hence science is the study of order existing within the mind. Science does not study external (to the mind) events. Fact. Your rational limitations are being well exposed here Geoffrey squire. And cut down on the language okay. It discredits you.

You have NO credibility, nappy boy.

Answer my nine questions. Wanna reminder of what they were?

Quote:

Furthermore, these assertions seem to be a basis for your agreement with Mr. W. So it's not looking too good for him either, at this point.

I'm sure he is quaking in his grave.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any chance you might answer those nine questions I asked you, penis-brain?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe. But if you want to talk about 'heaven' then you have to accept that those living within it will know their true ancestry. The laws of physics mean jack in heaven. Unless you understand this, such a discussion is pointless.

I never asked you about the laws of PHYSICS. I asked you about the laws of LOGIC. Understand the difference?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. DO NOT GIVE EXCUSES ABOUT WHY YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THEM. JUST ANSWER THEM.

Quote:

We all share the same internal realm.

No we do not. You cannot read my thoughts. I cannot read yours. Therefore we DO NOT share the same internal realm. You are talking out of your backside, as usual.

Quote:

Science still functions. Notions of an external realm do expire. Everyone's a winner.

Everyones a winner except you. You are a loser.

[UndercoverElephant]

The original questions you can't answer :

In your paradise, do carnivores still eat other animals?
Update : Partial answer : "There will be no killing."

In your paradise, do animals still die?

Does being eaten involve suffering?

Does starvation involve suffering?

Or is a world without suffering a logical impossibility?


The second set of questions, based upon your inability to answer the originals :

Can I assume that you are now ready to admit your "childish imagination" (your words) of a paradise where there is no suffering is in fact illogical and impossible as well as being a childish fantasy?

If so, can you please explain why anybody who thinks critically (like skeptics choose to) should join you in your childish fantasies?

Do you think the world would be a better place if all the skeptics adopted your childish fantasy?

Don't you think your own development might be helped by growing out of your childish fantasies and learning to reason like a rational adult?

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady2357


You and Interesting Ian agree on a lot of things, I wonder if he would agree with those statements? From things he has said in the past, I doubt it.

If we agree "Naturalism is a metaphysical theory which holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast machine or organism, devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires", who could dispute science requiring it as necessary?

"That External (objective) Reality exist" is also necessary, and is strictly implied by a rational denial of solipsism, imo.

[slimshady2357]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am not Ian and Ian is not me.

First off, I don't think you are Ian, nor have I ever thought that!

I merely thought it would be interesting to see why you two, who agree on quite a bit, would disagree here.

Quote:

These days I am more concerned about what will actually make a difference to society, rather than esoteric arguments about the nature of reality.

Interesting, I seem to remember quite a few people here saying words very much like that to you in the old days. Strange world, eh?

Anyway, in particular, I have seen Ian argue that science does not need to assume an external reality.

Perhaps he will come by and speak about it. Perhaps I will start a new thread if necessary

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk


"That External (objective) Reality exist" is also necessary

As I mentioned, it is this part that Ian disagrees with. But perhaps it is only due to terminology.

When Geoff said 'external realism' I took him to mean scientific realism, as in "the quarks are really 'out there' ". You seem to be saying that " 'the quarks are really 'out there' " could mean that in an idealistic way, in that they are still "mind dependent".

It's the 'realism' part I would suspect Ian would disagree with.

Like I said, I think it could be terminology. But I also think it would be an interesting discussion.

Adam

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady2357

I merely thought it would be interesting to see why you two, who agree on quite a bit, would disagree here.

Well I am not sure I am particularly interested in having that debate here. I would be much more interested in having it over at philosophyforums.com.

Quote:

Interesting, I seem to remember quite a few people here saying words very much like that to you in the old days. Strange world, eh?

It is a strange world, yes. There was a part of me that made the same mistake that Lifegazer makes, although he is considerably worse than I ever was. He thinks that if everybody believed they "are God" that the world would instantly change and we would find ourselves in some sort of paradise. This is of course abject nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that Lifegazer himself experiences nothing but conflict and misery everywhere he goes.

It wasn't only Wittgenstein that I did not understand (at all) at the time. More importantly I did not understand the relevance of Karl Marx. If Lifegazer actually knew anything about human nature, philosophy, politics or logic he would realise that standing between his navel-gazing idealistic dreaming and the hard reality we live in is a man called Karl Marx who actually tried to devise the philosophical underpinnings of a world where "All is one". In reality, I suspect that Lifegazer has never even heard of Marx.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady2357

As I mentioned, it is this part that Ian disagrees with. But perhaps it is only due to terminology.

When Geoff said 'external realism' I took him to mean scientific realism, as in "the quarks are really 'out there' ". You seem to be saying that " 'the quarks are really 'out there' " could mean that in an idealistic way, in that they are still "mind dependent".

What matters (for science) is that quarks do quark-things and they are not being influenced by the person observing them. Think of it like this : What if two people are observing a single quark simultaneously? If we lose the assumption that the behaviour of the quark is mind-independent then whose mind is influencing the quark? It rapidly turns into a mess.

You could make an argument that idealism is true, but that the observed world behaves precisely as if materialism were true. In this case, you can still do science but what is the relevance of your theory? What is the difference between living in a world where materialism is true and living in a world where idealism is true but the world is functionally identical to one where materialism is true? As soon as your idealism makes a real difference to the way the material world behaves, then it starts devaluing the usefulness of science because you cannot be sure WHY what is happening is happening. If your idealism makes no difference to the way the material world behaves then you can do science, but your theory is irrelevant (to the skeptical scientist at least - it might be relevant to you personally). What matters HERE is what is relevant from the POV of a skeptic or a scientist, this being a skeptic site.

Lifegazer would claim that the "mere knowledge" that idealism is true will transform the world, but he himself provides ample evidence to the contrary. Can you imagine a world full of Lifegazers?

[slimshady2357]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff

What matters (for science) is that quarks do quark-things and they are not being influenced by the person observing them. Think of it like this : What if two people are observing a single quark simultaneously? If we lose the assumption that the behaviour of the quark is mind-independent then whose mind is influencing the quark? It rapidly turns into a mess.

You could make an argument that idealism is true, but that the observed world behaves precisely as if materialism were true. In this case, you can still do science but what is the relevance of your theory? What is the difference between living in a world where materialism is true and living in a world where idealism is true but the world is functionally identical to one where materialism is true? As soon as your idealism makes a real difference to the way the material world behaves, then it starts devaluing the usefulness of science. If your idealism makes no difference to the way the material world behaves then you can do science, but your theory is irrelevant.

Lifegazer would claim that the "mere knowledge" that idealism is true will transform the world, but he himself provides ample evidence to the contrary. Can you imagine a world full of Lifegazers?

First off, I agree with most of what you said and I'm thinking even more now that there is going to be little to no disagreement after all

Second, that paragraph in bold!

Come on, even you must find it ironic to be typing those words! I doubt I could count on my fingers and toes the number of times someone from here said basically the same thing to you in the past on this very board. It's nice to see you come around I think Stimpy must have asked you for the pragmatic reason to believe in Idealism about a hundred times himself

Like I said, the world is a strange place

I think you could have learned some good philosophy here Geoff, you just didn't want to listen then. And to be fair, very few people wanted to listen to you either and they could have learned much too. Sadly, it's all too the norm around here.

Anyway, I'm off for now, always nice to chat

Adam

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by slimshady2357

I doubt I could count on my fingers and toes the number of times someone from here said basically the same thing to you in the past on this very board. It's nice to see you come around.

I was looking elsewhere at the time, rather like LG is now. I already said earlier in the thread that we all have a tendency to see the faults in other peoples arguments but be blind to the faults in our own. However, LG has taken this to a new level.

Quote:

Like I said, the world is a strange place.

Believe me, I think it is much stranger than you do.

Quote:

I think you could have learned some good philosophy here Geoff, you just didn't want to listen then. And to be fair, very few people wanted to listen to you either and they could have learned much too. Sadly, it's all too the norm around here.

This is a bad place to do philosophy. And maybe that is an even greater irony, because it was in fact me myself who originally asked for a philosophy forum to be put here, back in the very first week this forum opened.

Funny old world.

Geoff.