|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21913278 - 07/08/15 02:31 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Okay, can you somehow elaborate how you mean that verificationism is a "mixture of subjective and objective reasoning"? I don't know what this means.
Also what is objective reasoning as your own position? Is that logic? And what, as opposed to this is empirical subjective reasoning?
Sorry, but I don't understand how you are using these terms.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?
Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago. All communication was wireless back then.
Regardless, this line of reasoning is never sound. Something was crazy back then, and it became true... Now today my ideas are called crazy, they must be true! Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
#21914174 - 07/08/15 09:41 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.
If I can find and reference a lamer argument, what do I win?
--------------------
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
One-way ticket to Iran.
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie] 1
#21914365 - 07/08/15 10:27 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?
Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago. All communication was wireless back then.
Regardless, this line of reasoning is never sound. Something was crazy back then, and it became true... Now today my ideas are called crazy, they must be true! Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.
That's not at all what I meant. My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible. Is this really such an irrational suggestion? Such a reality has been playing out pretty much continuously throughout the development of science and technology for a long time. One obvious example would be the better sci-fi writers. They're considered nuts when their books come out, and fifty or seventy-five years later they're visionaries. Same phenomenon.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible. Is this really such an irrational suggestion?
I don't know about irrational. I think its wrong. I think its parroted by mystics and conspiracy theorists ad nauseum. New technology that will be manifested through scientific and engineering breakthroughs has probably already been dreamed of and is probably already considered possible.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:Such a reality has been playing out pretty much continuously throughout the development of science and technology for a long time. One obvious example would be the better sci-fi writers. They're considered nuts when their books come out, and fifty or seventy-five years later they're visionaries. Same phenomenon.
Which sci-fi writer was considered a nut? And more importantly, by whom was he considered a nut? Both Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were well regarded in their time. Arthur C. Clarke predicted satellite communication, but that is a no brainier. William Gibson's work was seen as seminal as well as both predicting and inspiring the future. This is what these famous sci-fi writers did, they both predicted and inspired the future. There is a little bit of a self fulfilling prophecy in there.
I don't think the phenomenon you are claiming is common place and readily apparent exists or is relevant.
This is indeed exactly what I thought you meant, you are arguing for the "they laughed at Galileo" argument.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
#21916133 - 07/08/15 05:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?
Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago. All communication was wireless back then.
Regardless, this line of reasoning is never sound. Something was crazy back then, and it became true... Now today my ideas are called crazy, they must be true! Its the most tired and sad argument the mystic has.
Who has suggested this logic? I am not wondering so much because I think you guys won't hash it out, but more in general.
Just as it could be hoped that we could move away from enframing straw man arguments, critique could be made of the burden of a positive suggestion that there is a general table of logic to the universe, where this suggestion is seemingly so immanently possible to make.
To what has actually been said, why extrapolate so much from what people "often" say? This is clearly the suggestion of imagination, and actually not what anyone has actually said in an instance. Indeed one could point out there is no principium contradictionis from the beginning of this thread that begins on the same note. Rather, imagined dialogues seem to be projected and enframed to impress the same thing; that as opposed to "nonsense" as if by principle, there was some overall consistency in what anyone else is saying.
It's the pariah, right? Suppose that the faith projected here is actually in opposite values, if not plainly resentment.
Being able to make empirical inductions according to some conservative logic is something of potential value of course, but it just doesn't seem to happen in such a generalized way. For instance, while there is some semblance of a logic to empirical research, or our understanding of the universe - namely as the sciences stand - over all, the vicissitudes of a history of science seem to indicate that the universe or our understanding of it has not moved according to any overall, or general logic, but more significantly in undermining fundamental conceptuality. This is clear as day, and it is what people are talking about being "constructive" about.
What I would suggest, is that instead of making issue of things being relative, or being angry about this, it could be possible to recognize that there is some burden to suggesting logical reasoning in a positive sense, rather than just as a happenstance convenience. Is it so much to say logic suggested should be found in actual arguments, for instance? Ask Orgone conclusion. If insinuating a universal table of logic, where puppets dance upon does not clearly betray a dogmatic conception of the universe, then perhaps the dogma of logical analysis could be described as something like mistaking the finger that is pointed at the moon. Maybe nothing can indicate this, but surely, symbolic significance has its boundary and cusp.
We can follow the way data has been gathered as the logic that trails behind science, and aligning to this could be useful, yet overlapping this (not merely relativism) is another tendency that can be observed under the same face value distinction that could be considered weighted. Logic may not necessarily be suggested in the way of "textbook" reasoning in order to consider actual propositions (such as practical foregoing empirical propositions) or in other words, according to truth or falsity, but as a hypothetical or imagined consideration of what it is "reasonable" or "sensible" to think and what is "nonsense" or a "pseudo-propositions" as opposed to this. The suggestion of logic is not necessarily practical in that sense, but just a manner of indicating what is inside and outside a "universe" of thought.
At this point, it may be worth asking, can this be fundamentally justified? Is the mystic who is said to project from imagination, necessarily as banal as he or she must be to justify making these distinctions? Or is a mystic, or anyone with improbable thoughts possibly just someone who has an impression of things, who may go beyond the cusp of reasonable thoughts?
In any case, a relativist's or mystic's point aside, this discussion of sense and nonsense, or proposition and pseudo-proposition as the generality of logic, is clearly a different kind of discussion than the consideration of truth and falsity per se, of actual propositions, as the value of logic. Clearly in some sense the value of logic (truth value) must be appealed to sometimes to justify the notion of getting everything contained in to analytical conception of things. In other words, by containing thought, the idea is to have everyone thinking about truth and falsity, and thinking sensibly, or according to sense. But does this really happen, and is it worth the candle?
It is significant to follow these economies of distinctions, because frankly, some skepticism of human nature could be found going "both ways". Logicians would clearly be burdened quite a bit by dogma for instance, if by tendency, or "often" they suggested looking away from actual or potential value of truth, in order to look to these dialogical consistencies of enframing a universal logos according to science. Granted, this is probably not something one can point to, (as say a psychological issue) but it's definitely a possibility. But clearly in some cases, if not all, logical boundaries are really just some prejudices in the mind being projected.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible. Is this really such an irrational suggestion?
Quote:
DieCommie said: I don't know about irrational. I think its wrong. I think its parroted by mystics and conspiracy theorists ad nauseum. New technology that will be manifested through scientific and engineering breakthroughs has probably already been dreamed of and is probably already considered possible.
The dichotomies and oppositional dialogue between rationalism (idealism) and empiricism could be seen as a convenient and banal vestige of American culture, to void the distinction between rationalism and irrationality, and namely the actual void or formlessness groundlessness, and boundarylessness, we may find in life.
Sure, the american conception of scientific truth above all seems to suggest there is some natural or ideal reason for empirical truth to be leveled as an imperative shared correspondence, as logic or rationality (consolidating the opposition). Is this necessarily, or as the categorical imperative suggests, because this correspondence of truth is a reflection of nature? And does it take a conspiracy thinker to point out the obvious? The intelligibility is in banality itself.
As a matter of pure engineering, it is necessary that everyone should be thinking exactly the same. This could be "logically" or "rationally" (and indeed according to many physical parameters at the same time) for some ideal like launching a rocket into the stratosphere, rather than speculating about any other possibilities. In fact, if someone were thinking about possibilities beyond statistic probability, they would likely cause something to go wrong. Oh, no. That's just "wrong". Just the same, an assembly line technological production for consumer society, puts any notion of creative thought soundly in the hands of some technophilic engineer like Steve Jobs, and subordinates itself. This is the value of analytic thinking, that is supposed as some kind of general virtue or universal phenomenon, and laughingly, as something individualistic, or having to do with natural philosophy.
In the end, it is unconscious what people appeal to by the insinuations of a "general" logic of the universe. These blinders could be critiqued as enframing, not only for the narrowness of the attempt at marginalizing discourses, or propping up some petty personal motivation, but as pointed out, because banality never fails to level to the same thing as common denomination.
Still, this does not suggest that conservative leveling to logical thinking in its actual instances is necessarily banal, it is just what "often" or "typically" happens, when precisely those economies of what often or typically should be found in opposition, are appealed to.
Edited by Kurt (07/10/15 07:38 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
#21916220 - 07/08/15 06:15 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Objective truth is something that is really true, it corresponds with reality, and can in principle be verified by others. Subjective truth, on the other hand, may be true for you but not for me, and cannot be verified by another. “Dogs have four legs” is an objective truth, but “I like dogs” is subjective.
Verificationism is simply another theory of linguistic meaning. Verificationism claims to only use the 5 senses that humans have, in doing so this creates subjective reasoning because we would only use our 5 human senses. Using technology we can see the light spectrum radio waves and various other senses not detectable to human senses. We are able to expand our senses greatly in order to make objective claims.
Vertificationism was constructed in a time when we did not have the technology to expand our senses, we do now.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (07/08/15 10:43 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
#21916389 - 07/08/15 06:58 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
First of all your comment:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Do you have any idea how mystical wireless communication was two hundred years ago?
Oh please.... wired communication wasn't even invented two hundred years ago. All communication was wireless back then.
is ridiculous, considering it was obvious that I mean wireless electronic communication. And if you took a time machine back two hundred years it would be indistinguishable from magic.
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: My point is that things will manifest through science, more than likely, that are: A. not even dreamed of yet and B. currently considered impossible. Is this really such an irrational suggestion?
I don't know about irrational. I think its wrong. I think its parroted by mystics and conspiracy theorists ad nauseum. New technology that will be manifested through scientific and engineering breakthroughs has probably already been dreamed of and is probably already considered possible.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:Such a reality has been playing out pretty much continuously throughout the development of science and technology for a long time. One obvious example would be the better sci-fi writers. They're considered nuts when their books come out, and fifty or seventy-five years later they're visionaries. Same phenomenon.
Which sci-fi writer was considered a nut? And more importantly, by whom was he considered a nut? Both Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were well regarded in their time. Arthur C. Clarke predicted satellite communication, but that is a no brainier. William Gibson's work was seen as seminal as well as both predicting and inspiring the future. This is what these famous sci-fi writers did, they both predicted and inspired the future. There is a little bit of a self fulfilling prophecy in there.
I don't think the phenomenon you are claiming is common place and readily apparent exists or is relevant.
This is indeed exactly what I thought you meant, you are arguing for the "they laughed at Galileo" argument.
You mention Arthur C. Clarke. I like his three laws:
They are:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (italics mine)
How about Philip K. Dick? What about alchemy? Parallel universes? I could go on. Our ideas about thermonuclear fusion seem respectable. So do the various hypotheses about the multiverse.
These were explicitly mystical notions.
(I would bet at this point that you might say the multiverse is still unproven and implausible, but to that I would say that it is legitimately in the scientific conversation, as it has been converged upon by several different approaches. It can no longer be seen as wild, baseless speculation).
The fact is that there are historical instances of mystical or quasi-mystical notions becoming objective and theoretical-technological later on.
"Intelligence evolves when the occult and magical become the objective-scientific." --Timothy Leary
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
.
Edited by DieCommie (11/12/16 11:15 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie] 1
#21916550 - 07/08/15 07:29 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If someone from 200 years ago came to the present they would certainly think wireless communication was magic and mystical as they would have no prior understanding of its mechanisms.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21916566 - 07/08/15 07:33 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Well, they would be wrong (as the mystic usually is).
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie] 1
#21916579 - 07/08/15 07:35 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Well, all right, you have your perspective and I have mine. All I can do at this point is leave it for other readers to decide who has made better points than whom. Your posts have been typical.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
#21916582 - 07/08/15 07:36 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Well, they would be wrong (as the mystic usually is).
The whole point Sudly was making is that what is considered mystical isn't necessarily. As I have been making. I think you missed it...
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Well, all right, you have your perspective and I have mine.
And never the twain shall meet, aye?
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Your posts have been typical.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing... Its nice to throw a little dig in there at the end.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
#21916605 - 07/08/15 07:41 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Put 'er there, old chap.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DieCommie]
#21916724 - 07/08/15 08:09 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Well yeah.. they would be wrong. They would not know how it works and would presume it was god/magic/miracle etc.
The point here as has been made by DividedQuantum is that science can explain and has explained what so many mystics throughout history and the present claim to be miracles/magic.
People used to think that thunder was created by a god, that rain was created by a god and sadly still believe that we were created by a god.
There may be things that we do not completely understand yet but that doesn't mean mysticism is the reasoning behind the unknown. In time, as has been done numerous times before, science will understand what we do not.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21917241 - 07/08/15 10:03 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Sudly I think that is pretty reasonable.
Who rings out the idols, and with what intent? Perhaps I could do some invoking myself of the quintessential empiricist David Hume.
Quote:
We fancy, that were we brought on a sudden into this world, we could at first have inferred that one billiard ball would communicate motion to another upon impulse, and that we needed not to have waited for the event, in order to pronounce with certainty concerning it. Such is the influence of custom, that, where it is strongest, it not only covers our natural ignorance but even conceals itself, and seems not to take place, merely because it is found in the highest degree. - Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Hume seems to suggest that the a priori, or otherwise convenient prescription or prediction is questionable.
What people have been suggesting in this thread, as I take it, is the question if it is within a certain context, discretely "possible" predict reality on empirical basis. My question in response, would be if this could be suggested in any manner of empirical principle.
Keeping in mind that the question of empirically principled research does not seem to be safely found in what has been ideally gathered and recorded a posteriori, but (pretty essentially) in raising a question pertaining to what is progressively gathered as data about the world through history, it seems like there is still wiggle room in general.
Indeed looking to Hume's forewarning; it is of the insinuation of custom: Is Hume's own description an analogy for ontological conception of "atoms in a void"? Is it perhaps a conditional, pragmatic distinction being made? In any case the fist part of the statement says it is generally important to recognize this inherent conditionality of empirical correspondence. I think the forewarning indicates an empiricist would need to not only be able to question, but to question openly, and so a somewhat locked in, and contrived manner of pointing fingers isn't going to help things.
The manner in which this thread was predicated was by the whim of imagination and the projection of a dialogue with a mystic. There is no proposition, or instance of an instantiated logic in that sense, and what we talk about is only enframed this way. We'd might as well say Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly. Now if Hume's pale and stiff white man analogy speaks to anything, (it is an analogy, by the way, not a description of fundamental causes, or reality and that should pretty much be enough said) maybe it's that pool is a game, and its not just because it has rules that it is going to be played more or less fairly.
If that seems reasonable, maybe it would be possible to look this, to people's dreamed dialogue, and play it out. What could be said? Here is what I think:
There are clean shots in pool, but anyone's also got to admit, however effective a player; in a game of pool, a break is a break, the result of which is found "in trial" as empeiros. No matter how much strategy and logic you put around the break, you can't really change the meaning of what it is, and if you have changed the meaning from that, well then what you are doing can't practically speaking be described as a "trial" at that point, and there is no game.
I'd say you've gotta expect that little bedbug of chaos pans out in empeiros, especially over a wide period of time, like in history of its research. It's what makes the game a game. The mystic, as much as he or she is invoked, even in the "twilight of the idols" sits there with a big buddha smile.
Perhaps questioning rational authorities, will one day be questioning the finger pointed at the moon even? If the thread can begin in an imagined idea of a mystic, maybe resolution could be in that...
Quote:
Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, a veritable butterfly, enjoying itself to the full of its bent, and not knowing it was Chuang Chou. Suddenly I awoke, and came to myself, the veritable Chuang Chou. Now I do not know whether it was then I dreamt I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man. Between me and the butterfly there must be a difference. This is an instance of transformation.
Edited by Kurt (07/09/15 11:41 AM)
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt] 1
#21917532 - 07/08/15 11:42 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Kurt, I have been enjoying your refreshingly well thought out intelligent posts. Not sure if I'm. 100% onboard with everything you've posted but I understand and relate to your concepts, I simply question everything that I know nothing of. As you put it to truly analyze you must something is to unloosen it. To do this without constructs of preconception or determined language is a truly rough path to find through the jungle of culture. Hume's analogy of the billiard game begs to see things as a toddler would. With an inquisitive mind and and no preconception of what it is. The billiard game then looses the preconcieved notion that people will play by the rules or even acknowledge that rules exist or need to exist. The balls, table, pockets and stick simply are. We can then take this loose idea of the physical constructs and analyze it to determine that a stick can collide with a ball and a ball can collide with another ball and so on. This determines the physical limitation of the items and objectifies them. But the question of what are these objects for? What is their purpose? Is there a purpose? The balls fit in the pockets but is that a coincidence or inference? These are the subjective points that science can infer but not consistently answer alone because the physical description alone does not make up the all of reality.
At least my stab at understanding.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
wangel
Stranger

Registered: 07/07/15
Posts: 63
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
#21922522 - 07/09/15 11:05 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
No, I don't get it. Look up Burden of Proof and The Null Hypothesis.
|
|