|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt] 1
#24059374 - 02/02/17 06:10 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
Edited by LunarEclipse (02/02/17 06:15 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
The gist.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24061167 - 02/02/17 08:11 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Tacit(implicit) knowledge in my own words is knowledge we perceive to have that can be false.
While codified(explicit) knowledge is true in nature regardless of tacit knowledge. E.g. The atomic number of carbon is 6.
-------------------- 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]
#24061479 - 02/02/17 10:24 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It is obvious those are not your words or thoughts.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24061552 - 02/02/17 11:04 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Pardon?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
The Blind Ass
Bodhi



Registered: 08/16/16
Posts: 26,658
Loc: The Primordial Mind
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly] 1
#24061560 - 02/02/17 11:11 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Stymied!
-------------------- Give me Liberty caps -or- give me Death caps
Edited by The Blind Ass (02/02/17 11:14 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24061804 - 02/03/17 02:14 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Look, you copy and pasted this concept you found on the internet (other peoples' ideas, essentially) into this thread. It is not your idea, and how you are using this concept, "tacit knowledge", is mostly thoughtless and inconsistent with the discourse you borrowed it from. This generally seems to be a problem with most of your arguments Sudly.
...
Edited by Kurt (02/03/17 02:49 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24061811 - 02/03/17 02:23 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Tacit(implicit) knowledge in my own words is knowledge we perceive to have that can be false.
While codified(explicit) knowledge is true in nature regardless of tacit knowledge. E.g. The atomic number of carbon is 6.
This is just wrong. The general possibility of expressed arguments and their evaluation is contingency. This is common parlance in the discussion Dummett is coming from. You could probably start there.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24061821 - 02/03/17 02:34 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Pardon?

David Schwimmer. What?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24062028 - 02/03/17 06:30 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: It is not your idea
Duh, it's explicit knowledge.. Just because I know about gravity doesn't make it my idea, and same goes for tacit/codified knowledge.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (02/03/17 07:03 AM)
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24062057 - 02/03/17 06:52 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Kurt said: It is not your idea
No durr, it's explicit knowledge.. Just because I know about gravity doesn't make it my idea, and same goes for tacit/codified knowledge.
Durr is not a word, so no durr is not possible. And really, what do you truly know about gravity?
What goes up?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
Duh* 'No durr' is an Aussie way of saying it.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24062096 - 02/03/17 07:19 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Duh* 'No durr' is an Aussie way of saying it.
Oui.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24062341 - 02/03/17 10:08 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I guess, everyone builds his own linguistic [{edit:} -ally well] def(/s)i(/g)ned philosophical cage somehow...
Edited by BlueCoyote (02/03/17 11:36 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24062586 - 02/03/17 12:21 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
When you say a mental perception is "implicit", what does this even mean? How is perception implicit?
Quote:
Implicit: 1. implied though not plainly expressed
By "implicit" are you saying everyone understands something, in a given case? That is what the word implicit means. It means something is commonly understood, and disclosed in a given sphere of interpretation.
To say something is implicit is to say there is a contained sphere of meaning in the world. I would guess that is what you mean. But what it says or claims (in a proposition my perception of the world is implicit), is also a general statement. Do you understand? It is how you use the word that counts not just the semantic meaning.
The problem is that the contents of perceptions, are not generally understood. There is nothing implicitly meaningful and commonly understood about the content of perception which you have.
Let me volunteer this. If you said those mental contents were subjective, this would make more sense in the way you are speaking. This would still mean that perception is contained in some sphere of qualified meaning, in the world, without assuming or claiming in a generality that everyone implicitly understands something, or that something is implicitly understood or meaningful in this. The word subjective works while to say something is implicit in your perception is offhinge. It begs the question - "to whom are these meanings implied"?
I'd venture that rather than pushing a metaphysical position, what you really mean is that perception is subjective. Come down to earth. Subjective perceptions are not something you can expect everyone to understand in any implied meaning or worldview. Just the opposite.
In a similar way:
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Kurt said: It is not your idea
Duh, it's explicit knowledge.. Just because I know about gravity doesn't make it my idea, and same goes for tacit/codified knowledge.
Quote:
Explicit 1. stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt:
What is explicit about the empirical or physical world though? The world does not disclose itself in some single narrative. We express contingent arguments about the world, which we evaluate as being objective. Try to see the difference. There is no interpretive, explicit meaning that is disclosive in generic objectivity. There is no voice saying what is, or predicating the object itself. There is just the natural domain, paradigm, or conceptual framework, which the object is found in. Rather than describing this narrative, maybe what you mean is there is an objective and openly contingent conjecture about the world.
Sudly in short, I think you are using these words implicit and explicit wrongly. What you are intending in your assumptions is too broad for actual epistemelogical discussion, (the way we talk about knowledge). You should stop trying to establish these narratives or stories for the pursuit of knowledge. That is not how it works. The expression of knowledge is in what is the case, and the contingency of expressed propositions in conjecture, not a narrative that is disclosive of meaning, or an interpretation of that. The conceptual paradigms of the sciences are not spheres of meanings, that are either explicit or implicit.
Get off the soapbox pedestal. "Subjective" and "objective" fits our conjectures - implicit and explicit meaning does not.
Edited by Kurt (02/03/17 03:40 PM)
|
sprinkles
otd president


Registered: 10/13/12
Posts: 21,527
Loc: washington state
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
|
Lunar Eclipse...
This user is not accepting private messages.
Please use your back button to return to the previous page.
ugh
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24062788 - 02/03/17 02:15 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe to put this issue with language in terms of discussion, you can explain and justify why you describe subjective perceptions as "implicit", or explain and justify why you call objectivity in the sciences "explicit".
For you to from some point of view think a meaning is to be found in the world (explicitly or implicitly) doesn't mean it is there, to common conjecture. It seems like you are just trying to force particular philosophical/metaphysical ideals into the way we talk about the world.
There is no implied or explicit meaning to the world in any general manner of speaking.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24063094 - 02/03/17 04:40 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: By "implicit" are you saying everyone understands something, in a given case?
By implicit I'm saying the individual understands something in a given case.
Quote:
Kurt said: What is explicit about the empirical or physical world though?
The atomic number of carbon is 6, and that's just how it is, and it will remain as 6 regardless of what we as individuals think.
Quote:
Kurt said: There is no implied or explicit meaning to the world in any general manner of speaking.
To me the meaning of life is that knowledge is power, and what's meaningful to me is my own value.
As said by Sam Harris.
Quote:
All we can do is appeal to scientific values, the value of understanding the world, the value of evidence, the value of logical consistency.
I get that we all have our own ways of finding happiness and I respect the right to freedom of speech. I think that on a foundational level though, it comes down to either a Copenhagen or Bohmian interpretation of the double slit experiment, and I think that I have simply chosen a different interpretation than you.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (02/03/17 09:07 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24063475 - 02/03/17 07:20 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Kurt said: By "implicit" are you saying everyone understands something, in a given case?
By implicit I'm saying the individual understands something in a given case.
When you respond in isolated sentences you do not understand or respond to the question. I was not asking if an individual can be described as understanding something implicit. I was asking what you are claiming in a general argument or proposition, when you say "perception is implicit".
Pay attention to the logic of discussion. Your way of pointing to a conceptual meaning is different than the logical and contingent uses in dialogue. Do you understand? What I am talking about is how you use the word implicit in a general proposition not just its conceptual meaning.
There is no implied meaning to the world, and there is no explicit meaning either; in a general proposition. This is what is wrong with what you are saying. You are just loading discussion with philosophical assumptions in a derivative way.
Quote:
Quote:
Kurt said: What is explicit about the empirical or physical world though?
The atomic number of carbon is 6, and that's just how it is, and it will remain as 6 regardless of what we as individuals think.
What is the case in scientific discussion, objective in a particular domain or regime of discussion. To say that your argument is objective would make sense. It means that upon observations, a carbon atom has been found to have six protons in its nucleus. You can describe this statement is explicit, (as any declaratory statement is), but what is actually significant to science, is it is an observation and argument or proposition in conjecture, not mere assertion. Saying an argument is explicit, just says a sentence is non-figurative, literal and declaratory in tone.
The pronouncements of science are not avenues for broad declarations, or narrative, over and above objectivity. There is no voice from the clouds, disclosing meaning, saying things are explicitly so (or implicitly so). Objectivity in scientific conjecture is generic and removed from imputation of such meanings. What you are doing, is just aping objectivity, turning scientific discussion, into a politicized narrative to "interpret" according to social values. So you find it to be more or less literally, in authority... It is a kind of fundamentalism. What is wrong with just calling a scientific fact objective? Why do you need a dogma over and above is to say science is "explicit", in some vague way, in disclosing some philosophical/metaphysical assumption or social movement associated with science? Nothing is explicit in itself, and the best we can do is find an objectivity that is empty of imputed meanings one way or another.
Quote:
To me the meaning of life is that knowledge is power, and what's meaningful to me is my own value.
As said by Sam Harris.
Quote:
All we can do is appeal to scientific values, the value of understanding the world, the value of evidence, the value of logical consistency.
I get that we all have our own ways of finding happiness and I respect the right to freedom of speech. I think that on a foundational level though, it comes down to either a Copenhagen or Bohmian interpretation of the double slit experiment, and I think that I have simply chosen a different interpretation to you.
I would say our difference here is not interpretive. We do not need to interpret how the epistemology of science works, but this is what we are talking about. I think we just need to have it straight. Science is not a narrative to be interpreted. There is no disembodied declaratory or passive voice. It is ideologically neutral, in the classical sense of objectivity. It is in what is the case, and the contingency of arguments.
If you can get that far, you can also see how contingency of discourse is open, and theoretical upon its basis. You can see how we do interpret our concepts and paradigms, and invent and change the world in essentiallt human ways (rather than merely observe and discover) in the pragmatic science. But this is only possible on firm footing, recognizing the neutral empirical objects, and objectivity, of scientific method which doesn't depart from this. It is true in a sense, that any knowledge we have, is pragmatic (dispositions of power) to us, in some way. But we also just observe, whether it is in understanding a philosophy of science, or going to university and getting scientific training and becoming a scientist.
I think you should drop the attitude, and posture, the aggressive ideological attitudes on the "value" of science, as something over and above neutrality. It is nkt convincing anyone. Science does not need a grand narrative, and doesn't seem to work that way, in my opinion.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24063678 - 02/03/17 09:09 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: I was asking what you are claiming in a general argument or proposition, when you say "perception is implicit".
I'm trying to simplify my point of view and what I'm saying is that I think thoughts occur in the mind/Brain and Nervous System.
Quote:
Kurt said: Your way of pointing to a conceptual meaning is different than the logical and contingent uses in dialogue.
Only if it's in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation, because by the Bohmian interpretation the idea is that a particle always has a definite position whether or not we are aware of it.
Quote:
Kurt said: There is no implied meaning to the world, and there is no explicit meaning either; in a general proposition.
I agree that we decide what is meaningful in our own lives but I do think there is a purpose to it all, and I find it's value in the existence of life and all it's molecular complexities, for me it's something I think is beautiful and it's something I can appreciate.
Quote:
Kurt said: What is explicit about the empirical or physical world though?
Quote:
It means that upon observations, a carbon atom has been found to have six protons in its nucleus. You can describe this statement as explicit.
Quote:
Sudly said: I get that we all have our own ways of finding happiness and I respect the right to freedom of speech. I think that on a foundational level though, it comes down to either a Copenhagen or Bohmian interpretation of the double slit experiment, and I think that I have simply chosen a different interpretation than you.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|