|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24049612 - 01/29/17 05:10 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
You want me to simplify things, but I am telling 'stories of science' and using scientific language. Quote:
Quote:
Planes fly on explicit expectations, minds dive on implicit perceptions.
Yeah, this idea of meaning is a poetic or literary device, not science.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24049666 - 01/29/17 05:32 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24049769 - 01/29/17 06:12 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Yeah, you want everyone to discuss your preferred neologisms.
What I am saying is that in a sense based and factual world; the actual situations and states of the world that scientists speak of there just are not explicit or implicit "meanings", or anything particularly based on how we perceive and process cognition.
I don't doubt there are some interesting relationships, but it seems to me your focus in cognitions essentially confuses your epistemology, and vice versa. Those definitions of knowledge don't seem to help clarify things.
Maybe if you can learn to speak in terms of these definitions, rather than looking to define them, defining words in a conjectural way, what you are talking about could work for you. Don't mistake the finger that points to the moon.
Edited by Kurt (01/29/17 06:22 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24049905 - 01/29/17 06:54 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: Yeah, you want everyone to discuss your preferred neologisms.
Explanations of explicit and implicit knowledge have been around for some time now.
Quote:
Implicit Knowledge can be defined simply as knowledge that is not explicit. http://www.knowledge-management-cafe.com/implicit-knowledge
Quote:
Kurt said: What I am saying is that in a sense based and factual world; the actual situations and states of the world that scientists speak of there just are not explicit or implicit "meanings", or anything particularly based on how we perceive and process cognition.
The actual situations and state of the world that scientists speak of are explicit.
Quote:
Kurt said: I don't doubt there are some interesting relationships, but it seems to me your focus in cognitions essentially confuses your epistemology, and vice versa. Those definitions of knowledge don't seem to help clarify things.
On epistomology, I think positivism is the way to go.
Quote:
Kurt said: Maybe if you can learn to speak in terms of these definitions, rather than looking to define them, defining words in a conjectural way, what you are talking about could work for you. Don't mistake the finger that points to the moon.
Is anything you disagree with conjecture? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kellyanne-conway-sean-spicer-alternative-facts-lies-press-briefing-donald-trump-administration-a7540441.html
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24050031 - 01/29/17 07:44 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
At least you are consistent in your inconsistency.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24050124 - 01/29/17 08:11 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
I think you're a bit of an idealist.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24050255 - 01/29/17 09:09 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
What is my idealism; a case that someone on the internet that criticized you?
Let's stick to actual arguments. You are trying to introduce youe neologisms into this discussion: What you call "implicit and explicit knowledge". I called bullshit. You get offended, and respond. Here is the argument again.
Meanings - explicit or implicit - do not exist in situations in the world, if we do half decent epistemology. Idealism and your issue with it, as some kind of basis of meaning, is out of the picture. Knowledge itself does not have meaning, one way or another; it is just knowing what is the case.
Quote:
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins
I call this idealistic sentimentalism. Are the planets orbiting the sun "pitiless or indifferent" to me? Is an earthquake pitiless or indifferent? So why is the lion that eats the lamb, pitiless or indifferent. Sickness and disease, if you experience it, is not pitying or indifferent. It is the world.
To foster knowledge is to understand what it is to stop telling these pithy reactive morals, from one side or another. The world and what is the case does not have meaning in this sort of way you and Richard Dawkins cling to, because it is not lacking meaning either, as contrary to this. It is empty of human constructed distinctions. Mixing human avenues of meaning with how we try to understand the universe is a bad idea. This goes the same for everyone.
Why don't you try to explain your system of explicit and implicit knowledge, rather than quoting the internet and just pointing your finger and "defining" these concepts? You can make your presentation here and I won't say anything. Let the argument stand, and speak for itself, if that is what you really intend.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24050320 - 01/29/17 09:32 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
I think your idealism is a sense of spirituality not based explicitly on the interactions of the human nervous system and the natural environment.
I could explicitly slap a hoe, or I could implicitly curse at her.
Implicit and explicit knowledge are not my neologisms, do you think I invented the words or what?
You can't call bullshit on the actual definition of a word, that is rather inline with what neologism is.
Quote:
neologism: the coining or use of new words.
Quote:
Kurt said: I call this idealistic sentimentalism. Are the planets orbiting the sun "pitiless or indifferent" to me? Is an earthquake pitiless or indifferent? So why is the lion that eats the lamb, pitiless or indifferent. Sickness and disease, if you experience it, is not pitying or indifferent. It is the world.
Injustice is natural Sickness and disease are indifferent to your suffering, as is nature to the suffering of the life it supports.
Quote:
Kurt said: The world and what is the case does not have meaning in this sort of way you and Richard Dawkins cling to
It is a purpose, not a meaning that I cling to.
In this diagram we can see the human nervous system and its 2 main branches that are the Central Nervous System and the Peripheral Nervous System.

For the brain to get data from the environment it first needs to receive electrical impulses from a source of contact/stimuli.

You can feel these electrical impulses as sensations throughout your body and the Peripheral Nervous System because it has nociceptors to send electrical impulses.
What makes the Peripheral Nervous System different from the Central Nervous System is that the CNS does not have nociceptors, this means the brain and spinal cord do not have nociceptors and do not feel pain.
Quote:
The brain, indeed, cannot feel pain, as it lacks pain receptors (nociceptors). However, what you feel when you have a headache is not your brain hurting -- there are plenty of other areas in your head and neck that do have nociceptors which can perceive pain, and they literally cause the headaches.
As I see it, because the PNS does have nociceptors and can experience sensations as it interacts with its environment, it is having explicit experiences.
The CNS does not have pain receptors but it is responsible for our visualisations through the processes of mental synthesis in the neocortex. Since the CNS does not experience sensations but is capable of conceptualising visualisations I think that is what makes it the foundation of implicit perceptions.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/29/17 11:22 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24050352 - 01/29/17 09:47 PM (7 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I think you're idealism is a sense of spirituality not based explicitly on the interactions of the human nervous system and the natural environment.
I could explicitly slap a hoe, or I could implicitly curse at her.
You sound like a real charmer yourself.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24050426 - 01/29/17 10:21 PM (7 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
You sound more like an idealist than I previously thought.
For me I suppose this suffices.

I would have liked to hope things were different and that I could trust more freely, but the atomic number of carbon is 6, and that's just how it is.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24050443 - 01/29/17 10:32 PM (7 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
Thanks for sharing.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24051661 - 01/30/17 12:48 PM (7 years, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
I applaud both of you
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: BlueCoyote]
#24052675 - 01/30/17 07:24 PM (7 years, 2 hours ago) |
|
|
Talking with Sudly is always entertaining. Its like bobbing for apples.
Here's one, what is "implicit knowledge"?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24052869 - 01/30/17 08:35 PM (7 years, 1 hour ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Explicit knowledge is knowledge that the knower can make explicit by means of a verbal statement: ‘Someone has explicit knowledge of something if a statement of it can be elicited from him by suitable enquiry or prompting’ (Dummett 1991). Implicit knowledge can then be defined simply as knowledge that is not explicit. On this construal, implicit knowledge corresponds roughly to what Polanyi (1967) calls ‘tacit knowing’: ‘we can know more than we can tell’.
http://www.mkdavies.net/Martin_Davies/Papers_files/KnowledgeExpImpTacit.pdf
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24053299 - 01/30/17 11:30 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Okay sudly you can have your "implicit knowledge".
The reason no one can understand what the fuck you are saying is because you are so misunderstood.
Or keep telling yourself that. 
peace out.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24053313 - 01/30/17 11:36 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: How does anyone differentiate whether "implicit knowledge" really is the case of someone "knowing more than she can tell", as rather than someone pretending to have more knowledge than she is able to argue and demonstrate?
I mean, whenever you are wrong it seems like you could just say your community of discourse doesn't understand your "implicit knowledge", which could just be your idiosyncracies, or idiomatic conceptual way of speaking. It doesn't mean you know something.
Quote:
‘we can know more than we can tell’.
A man can tell a woman he likes her dress, inside his mind he can think otherwise.
Self honesty is probably the first step.
If you think thoughts are feelings then that's your business but I think there is a duality to the experience of the human mind which is well explained by the terms explicit and implicit.
Quote:
Explicit knowledge = The atomic number of carbon is 6. Implicit knowledge = I think the atomic number of carbon is 7.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kris Nohh
Stranger


Registered: 01/30/17
Posts: 5
Loc: Linnriik Tallinn
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24053384 - 01/31/17 12:24 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I'll just leave this here.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kris Nohh]
#24053399 - 01/31/17 12:44 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kris Nohh said: I'll just leave this here. 
Welcome to the shroomery but..
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kris Nohh
Stranger


Registered: 01/30/17
Posts: 5
Loc: Linnriik Tallinn
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24053407 - 01/31/17 12:50 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the greet How about this: "Everything I say here is a lie -- bullshit, in other words -- because anything that you put in words is not experience, is not the experiment. It's a representation -- a misrepresentation." Will add this to my signature, because there's plenty more of where that came from 
-------------------- Ask me anything. http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro http://search.lores.eu/evaluate.htm "A critical mind, that's your only weapon inside the dark forests of bogus knowledge you will have to cross again and again, your critical mind... never ever allow it to get dull." "Everything I say here is a lie -- bullshit, in other words -- because anything that you put in words is not experience, is not the experiment. It's a representation -- a misrepresentation."
Edited by Kris Nohh (01/31/17 12:55 AM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kris Nohh]
#24053411 - 01/31/17 12:58 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I once broke my knuckle and it was a painful experience.
If you think that's a misrepresentation of experience go ahead but I do not know what the purpose or point of that link you shared was. So far you kinda remind me of less gone MJCS (you'll find his posts in the science forum).
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|