Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

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)

Think For Yourself



--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Edited by LunarEclipse (02/02/17 06:15 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #24060234 - 02/02/17 01:38 PM (6 years, 11 months ago)

The gist.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleThe Blind Ass
Bodhi
I'm a teapot User Gallery


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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
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? :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
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. :facepalm:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (02/03/17 07:03 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

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. :facepalm:




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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #24062074 - 02/03/17 07:02 AM (6 years, 11 months ago)

Duh*
'No durr' is an Aussie way of saying it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
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. :facepalm:




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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesprinkles
otd president
Other User Gallery

Registered: 10/13/12
Posts: 21,527
Loc: washington state Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #24062637 - 02/03/17 12:42 PM (6 years, 11 months ago)

Lunar Eclipse...

This user is not accepting private messages.

Please use your back button to return to the previous page.


ugh


--------------------
welcome to my world http://www.shroomery.org/forums/postlist.php/Board/326


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
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.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Academic Philosophy youbreakyoubuy 643 12 12/09/09 06:47 AM
by Cracka_X
* epistemology and entity contact
( 1 2 all )
machineelf368 3,628 31 12/09/02 10:33 PM
by machineelf368
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,075 3 05/03/04 08:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Philosophy: Who needs it?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,880 24 05/27/08 06:51 AM
by zouden
* What have we achieved through philosophy?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
shivas.wisdom 4,809 64 01/23/10 12:02 PM
by Freedom
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 8,041 72 02/16/06 07:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* My Philosophy Paper mushiemountain 1,384 7 04/17/07 05:34 PM
by mushiemountain
* Philosophy of Letting Go is Letting Go of Philosophy
( 1 2 3 all )
Chronic7 3,778 48 11/21/09 06:18 AM
by shivas.wisdom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,672 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.