|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Linguistic Philosophy
#24036072 - 01/24/17 01:44 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"Do not mistake the finger pointed at the moon" - Chinese Proverb
It seems to me that we commonly understand our language (both its origins and practices) to be based on the way we perceive, and by extention of that, how we know things.
Wittgenstein called this ostension (for reference), basically the way point to things in language. The first part of his Philosophical Investigation, is in deconstructing the idea that language in its origins, and practical use, is in ostension.
He quotes Augustine as demonstrating this picture of language:
Quote:
When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out. Their intention was shewn by their bodily movements, as it were the natural language of all peoples: the expression of the face, the play of the eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and the tone of voice which expresses our state of mind in seeking, having, rejecting, or avoiding something. Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gradually learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires."
Wittgenstein comments:
Quote:
These words, it seems to me, give us a particular picture of the essence of human language. It is this: the individual words in language name objects — sentences are combinations of such names.
In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.
Augustine does not speak of there being any difference betweenkinds of word. If you describe the learning of language in this way you are, I believe, thinking primarily of nouns like "table", "chair", "bread", and of people's names, and only secondarily of the names of certain actions and properties; and of the remaining kinds of word as something that will take care of itself.
Now think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked "five red apples". He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked "apples"; then he looks up the word "red" in a table and finds a colour sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers — I assume that he knows them by heart — up to the word "five" and for each number he takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out of the drawer. It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words.
"But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word 'red' and what he is to do with the word 'five'?" - Well, I assume that he acts as I have described. Explanations come to an end somewhere. "But what is the meaning of the word 'five'?" — No such thing was in question here, only how the word "five" is used.
I do not think Wittgenstein is being ironic when he assumes we think "explanations come to an end at some point" and that language is in "use", or on the other hand that he is just embracing the idea. As he continues, it becomes clear that his intent is to question this common picture of language.
He goes on to describe his method as philosophical therapy. So I guess; no room for pretense. If you do not have these problems, he doesn't assume that you have to follow an extensive construction and deconstruction of conceptuality, for instance, of ostension.
He is not proving a point, but emphasizing and loosening up presupposed paths of meaning we do not essentially, but somewhat accidentally follow through language, as the pathologies of over-conceptualization. Maybe one must encompass the problem, emphasize and practically become its symptoms and let them come to the surface and work out to some extent what the problem is. Of course it is better to not have the problem or a prejudiced mindset in the first place, but that is moot. From very early on Wittgenstein had taken an approach of dissolving philosophical problems however it works.
I think this can be important and maybe suggestive. Take ostension for example. To me it is clear that we rely on language, almost as much as and as effectively as perception in relation to the world. A picture of language can be that it is something like an instance of perception (pointing relation to a given object). Just as much, we can become conditioned to think that perception, is something that should be like language, and it should inform a concept, or a linguistic object, in a certain paradigm. That is the real philosophical question... How much does language affect perception? How much is perception conditioned for you?
It is said by many, in preference, that philosophy is analytic; in an analysis of conceptual language. We look for conceptual analyses that implicitly inform our world, and we tend to try to look to the world as vessel for a concept or notion. The concept can be inflated in this. But to put it practically, how else can we navigate a modern scientific world?
Assume that science is said to be empirical, in a classical sense, and that would indicate it is based on perceptions and experiences. That is at any rate the main standard of the scientific practice, what we effectively assume, and the logic we evaluate the world according to. We interrogate perceptions and experiences of the world, whether they are encouched in language or not. We begin with the senses. We effectively assume that the paradigms we address in science are in sense experience, while their bases are actually or at least on some basis, in their theories, in perception.
We may find that modern science is to a great extent not just about confirming or falsifying an isolated perception, but understanding and dealing with projected conceptual paradigms through this same game too. For instance, when we question perceptions and experiences on an empirical basis, it seems to me we look to consider conceptual constructs, more than the case of literally falsifying hallucinations or delusions, the sorts of contents classically seated in perception. We look to theoretical language, and the framework in science in or in relation to our empirical basis.
To me it is difficult to understand the extent we/I should here look to language, and conceptual paradigms, as carrying our sense experiences, so far as we live in such a world. In what cases are the concepts and paradigms conceptually invented, and contrived, rather than discovered in relation to the world? Do we take this even as a question? Maybe not necessarily. Maybe an explanation of the world comes to a certain end, and we dwell in the use of concepts and language to a great degree here too?
I do not think we have much choice but to be able to learn to grapple with anxiety analysis (weird Freudian slip in my spell-check), and become literate in technical and conceptual language, however this world justifies its conceptual paradigms. My thought is it is just possible to distinguish our perceivings, and experiences from conceptuality. I do not think it is possible to understand the situation of a modern world, so I am not going to pick up any ethical question too much anyway. I think in a more personal way, it is just important to to stay in touch with the world, and so I end up in this "therapeutic" space, as Wittgenstein put it - questioning my conceptualism, and to some extent gesturing to some philosophy.
I believe it is possible to distinguish the "games" we play in language, from necessarily being perceivings, and in a similar way we can distinguish our experiences and perceivings from being conditioned by theoretical/linguistic concepts in this pattern. A philosophical approach of analysis, ἀνάλυσις, could indeed be "an unloosening".
Edited by Kurt (01/31/17 12:59 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24036251 - 01/24/17 02:50 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
This is just thoughts on Wittgenstein that I jotted down quick.
The quote is taken verbatim from the first section of his book Philosophical Investigations.
Any roundabout thoughts on Wittgenstein or philosophy of language?
PI can be found here
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24037478 - 01/24/17 10:40 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Wittgenstein's argument that language is synonymous with physical gesture, as you have presented it here, is incorrect in my opinion. Language is arbitrary, not concrete. The meaning of the word chair is decoupled from any actual object or gesture. This is why language is slippery and can mean many different things. Its really a kind of miracle that we understand each other at all.
For example, Imagine I pick up a chair, present it to you and say "chair" you will probably realise that the four legged wooden object is a chair. Then imagine I begin thrusting the chair in your face and screaming "chair,chair,chair" Now the word chair means something like "I'm gonna kill you with this chair."
This is born out in anthropology. A common greeting for strangers for PNG tribes is to raise a spear in the air, charge at you and scream. Its safe to say we would not interpret this a greeting, rather a threat, and to some degree it is a threat, but also a greeting.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Nice demonstration, I think I will take your point, about the blunt objects of language!
I think I understand your theoretical position... A semiotic system (of signs) is arbitrary in view language in general. That arbitrariness, for instance is what we encounter when we practically meet anyone from another culture who speaks another language we don't know, or vice versa. So that makes sense to me. Language systems are arbitrary as anthropological culture's as a whole are, in this sense...
I also would agree with you that communication in general is broader than language, and is largely in body language, and facial expression. So I hear, smiling, and approaching calmly and shaking hands is probably a pretty natural way for humans to communicate and greet too. Ever shake someones hands and it is like they give you a nip? Anyway, yeah, what you say is a good point about communication in general.
Maybe I can draw an analogy. Wittgenstein is not a post structuralist. He is not coming from the theoretical semiotic view, but more pragmatically. Still I think many people from your side of the stream find Wittgenstein's later philosophy and to be somewhat congenial.
Wittgenstein is not saying language just ostension, or that ostension is anything too concrete. That is Augustine's suggestion which he is questioning. Wittgstein is positively impressing and emphasizing an extent which when we tend to have an assumption that our language is something concrete to lean on, in general ways. When we "lean on language" as something there (I find these instances are very difficult to conceive and do not occur in a vacuum) we may tend to rely on this Augustinian picture of language. So naively, we might imagine that the first or "primative" speakers of our language gestured at an object, likely a noun, and made a sound, and the rest fell into place. Wittgenstein is impressing and admitting this picture of language. Why? It is not that this picture is true of language, but anyone would likely be ready to admit that practically speaking, language can be leaned on, taught, and generally surmised like this, from the ground up, so far as it is really in a practical use.
Granted this is conceiving things backwards; it is a backwards engineered view, and the assumption is what we need to question, in truth, according to Wittgenstein. He says, one can imagine asking "Is this an appropriate description". Well we might say yes, Augustine is being accurate. Even if it is true in a qualified sense, it works in so many ways to think of language this way. We know parents teach their children to talk, and to grapple with the world this way, pointing things out, even if the child is picking up so much else, other tan following pointed fingers. We call it teaching, but it is more a conditioning that occurs in living practical language paradigms. For instance, we know our epistemelogical discussions themselves, (in general, seemingly aside from language) are conditioned this way by language too. Things are pointed to and named. I read Wittgenstein as questioning and destructuring these assumptions which are embedded in language and the way we think.
I should have posted this next section, where it is more clear that Wittgenstein is questioning the primacy of ostension.
Quote:
2. That (Augustinean) philosophical concept of meaning has its place in a primitive idea of the way language functions. But one can also say that it is the idea of a language more primitive than ours. Let us imagine a language for which the description given by Augustine is right. The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words "block", "pillar","slab", "beam". A calls them out; — B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. Conceive this as a complete primitive language.
3. Augustine, we might say, does describe a system of communication; only not everything that we call language is this system. And one has to say this in many cases where the question arises "Is this anappropriate description or not?" The answer is: "Yes, it is appropriate, but only for this narrowly circumscribed region, not for the whole of what you were claiming to describe. "It is as if someone were to say: "A game consists in moving objects about on a surface according to certain rules..." and we replied: You seem to be thinking of board games, but there are others. You can make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to those games.
I think what Wittgenstein is saying is analagous to what you did. Just as communication as a whole is broader than language, a proposition might be that what language actually is in use, is broader than what we normally conceive of it as, as a static system or structure of representation.
Hope this is useful. Thanks for the response, thought this one was going to fall through. .
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24037649 - 01/25/17 01:01 AM (7 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
I think what he is saying is that sometimes we think we just learn something like a theoretical concept, and we do not often think of the backgound of implied practice and training, and culture and conditioning surrounding the theoretical idea we "pick up". I would say wittgenstein is on to something to say we can especialy see this in our language.
Quote:
4. Imagine a script in which the letters were used to stand forsounds, and also as signs of emphasis and punctuation. (A script can be conceived as a language for describing sound-patterns.) Now imagine someone interpreting that script as if there were simply correspondence of letters to sounds and as if the letters had not also completely different functions. Augustine's conception of language is like such an over-simple conception of the script.
5. If we look at the example in §i we may perhaps get an inkling how much this general notion of the meaning of a word surrounds the working of language with a haze which makes clear vision impossible. It disperses the fog to study the phenomena of language in primitive kinds of application in which one can command a clear view of the aim and functioning of the words. A child uses such primitive forms of language when it learns to talk. Here the teaching of language is not explanation, but training.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt] 1
#24037696 - 01/25/17 02:33 AM (7 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah I'm skeptical of the idea that we can get to the truth through language as language necessarily implies categorisation which denies what is left out. Hegel tried to include what is left out in language as way to get to the absolute, but it just comes out as more rambling. Wittgenstein seems more pragmatic from what I've seen, which is why I was surprised at the way you presented him in the your opening post. As you've said though, he wasn't making some simple claim about the truth of language. Isn't part of his philosophy that most philosophical problems are just a misuse of language? Like the question what is the meaning of life?" Doesn't he claim that this is simply a faulty question? I think I read that somewhere.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
What is Pragmatism?
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24039808 - 01/25/17 08:52 PM (7 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
What is life mannnn
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Existential bro.
I don't think you are going to get a meaning of existence-question out of Wittgenstein too easily. Maybe a question of what your theoretical, conceptual, and practical attitudes are though.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24040310 - 01/26/17 02:31 AM (7 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Nah bro, this is existential.
Yeah, I think your right.
Edited by blingbling (01/26/17 02:37 AM)
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: blingbling] 1
#24040369 - 01/26/17 04:01 AM (7 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
been a while since i read PI or engaged in any thought re phil of language..
anyway, yeah blingbling u are arguing against Augustine not Wittgenstein.. he would prob agree with ur points about greetings and call them kinds of games..
i dont really see W as putting forward any kind of positive theory of language (which he actually did in the Tractatus of his youth) but more trying to dissolve assumptions we make about language through various thought experiments (in a similar way to say Einstein describing relativity through trains)..
kurt - while i seem to agree with your musings on science as not being a 'simple empiricism' i dont quite connect how it relates to PI..
Quote:
To me it is difficult to understand the extent we/I should here look to language, and conceptual paradigms, as carrying our sense experiences, so far as we live in such a world. In what cases are the concepts and paradigms conceptually invented, and contrived, rather than discovered in relation to the world?
(note: the following is unrelated to PI)
i would think it is helpful to think of language and paradigms being there before you are. for example your rights as a human exist before you are born.
'rights', as well as other concepts like 'dinner' are not arbitrarily made up. they exist in a human society's material relation to 'the world' as you put it and itself.
the way society is organised in order to sustain itself (i.e. feed, shelter, clothe) and reproduce itself (literal reproduction, as well as replace power relations between people over generations) informs the conceptual language into which you are born.
social heirarchy and roles (parent-child, teacher-student, worker-employer, government-citizen etc) are one example of kinds of language games we play with each other which are not 'empirically discovered' in the way you might discover a new species. they are enforced.
nonetheless they are still very much grounded in the material reality of the greater organism of the society sustaining and reproducing itself...
now to come back to the original point, all that stuff is already there, you are born into it and your consciousness formed out of it. i would argue all your 'sense experience' is coloured by the language and society from whichyou are constructed.
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said: Nah bro, this is existential.
Yeah, I think your right.
That excellent video saved my night ! lol great
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: quinn]
#24041665 - 01/26/17 03:38 PM (7 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I had a response but on second thought I think these are more scratched notes than anything to present. Thanks for the responses!
Edited by Kurt (01/26/17 05:05 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt] 1
#24041741 - 01/26/17 04:10 PM (7 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24045369 - 01/27/17 10:41 PM (7 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
that is.. kinda cool.
it's almost like a web text adventure game.. just throw in some eerie background music a bit more plot and references to aliens/gods/other dimensions
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: quinn] 1
#24045388 - 01/27/17 10:55 PM (7 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
like..
Young Wittgenstein wakes up in a dark room. his head is throbbing, his fingers are covered with ink and he cant remember what he did last night..
the world is all that is the case he thinks
suddenly piercing light crashes across his vision. a semi translucent robot maid trundles in carrying a tray of assorted colourful objects.
'Good morning sir, Katrina says it would mean the world to her if you would do that thing..'
the world is the totality of facts not things thinks Young Witgenstein as he shoves a bright orange pill into his mouth and swallows..
etc
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: quinn] 1
#24045641 - 01/28/17 02:35 AM (7 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I want pick your own adventure philosophy
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24047354 - 01/28/17 07:43 PM (7 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
To me it is difficult to understand the extent we/I should here look to language, and conceptual paradigms, as carrying our sense experiences, so far as we live in such a world. In what cases are the concepts and paradigms conceptually invented, and contrived, rather than discovered in relation to the world? Do we take this even as a question? Maybe not necessarily. Maybe an explanation of the world comes to a certain end, and we dwell in the use of concepts to a great degree here too?
But we may find that modern science is to a great extent not just about confirming or falsifying an isolated perception, but understanding and dealing with projected conceptual paradigms through this same game. For instance, when we question perceptions and experiences on an empirical basis, it seems to me we look to conceptual constructs, more than the case of literally falsifying hallucinations or delusions, the sorts of contents classically seated in perception. We look to theoretical language, and the framework in science.
My thought is it is possible to distinguish our perceivings, and experiences from conceptuality. I do not think it is possible to understand the situation of a modern world, so I am not going to pick up any ethical question too much. I think in a more personal way, it is just important to to stay in touch with the world, and so I end up in this "therapeutic" space, of questioning my conceptualism, and to some extent gesturing to some philosophy.
The object of science is to be able to grasp the hypothetical as a theoretical fact.
To be able to distinguish our perceivings and experiences from 'conceptuality', I believe we need to be aware of the concepts of implicit and explicit.
- Implicit perceptions
- Explicit sense experiences
-------------------- 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]
#24048767 - 01/29/17 11:37 AM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
The "definition" of a scientific theory you have is fine enough to me Sudly. The terminology you invoke is questionable as always.
Instead of talking about "implicit perception and explicit sense experience" (which is essentially creating a divergence and convolution of discussions, one into epistemology, and one into cognition and consistently confused) I think you need talk about what you mean in a straight forward, and rigorous way; namely in terms of a sense based world you broadly speak to.
Consider the words "implicit" and "explicit". These terms are used to describe a literary context of meaning. Outside of our human based discussion though there is no such thing as implied or explicit meaning. Sure there is philosophy. But there is not an easily discussed, implied or explicit meaning "context" in epistemelogical discussions.
Put it this way. Science can be given a narrative. A hypothesis becoming a theory can be a story (or seeming constituence of a deductive inference) you want to tell people of or read about. How much do you describe scientific practice this way though, as a practice? Again, how much do you really describe a sense, as an actual sense? I think you never do.
To me you are essentially just telling stories about science, and using the language of science, with a persistent obstinance to more rigorous dialogue. Granted there always seems to be a greater need talk about the conceptual paradigms, and the language of science, but it seems to me you are not even practically engaging the world in an empirical way to begin with. Keep trying though.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24049551 - 01/29/17 04:46 PM (7 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Senses(e.g. touch) create nerve impulses that are sent to the brain and processed through cognitive processes into a perception of experience that we can remember in the future, later down the road we can conceptualise something new through mental synthesis to contrast our experiences to create a mental visualisation otherwise known as an 'implicit perception'.
You want me to simplify things, but I am telling 'stories of science' and using scientific language.
Quote:
Planes fly on explicit expectations, minds dive on implicit perceptions.
-------------------- 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]
#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: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
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, 1 day 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: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24050426 - 01/29/17 10:21 PM (7 years, 1 day 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, 1 day 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, 11 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, 5 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: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24052869 - 01/30/17 08:35 PM (7 years, 4 hours 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 (7 years, 1 hour 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: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24053313 - 01/30/17 11:36 PM (7 years, 1 hour 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 (7 years, 13 minutes ago) |
|
|
I'll just leave this here.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
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.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24053488 - 01/31/17 02:44 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Explicit knowledge = The atomic number of carbon is 6. Implicit knowledge = I think the atomic number of carbon is 7.
Why are you calling a false belief "knowledge"? I don't care why you justify it in your head or on the internet, this is bullshit.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24053525 - 01/31/17 03:48 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think we come to our knowledge through experience, but that the experience we have may be different.
-------------------- 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]
#24053544 - 01/31/17 04:26 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Dude quit dumping your narcissistic internet-memes here, and start following the rules of the forum. This is a debate forum. There is a burden of argument, particularly when you make knowledge claims.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24053552 - 01/31/17 04:49 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: Why are you calling a false belief "knowledge"? I don't care why you justify it in your head or on the internet, this is bullshit.
I was simply stating there are explicit tendencies and implicit perceptions.
Quote:
Kurt said: Dude quit dumping your narcissistic internet-memes here, and start following the rules of the forum. This is a debate forum. There is a burden of argument, particularly when you make knowledge claims.
They're explanatory memes..
If there's a burden of argument then perhaps you could add to it instead of simply calling bullshit on the things you disagree with or don't understand.
-------------------- 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]
#24057789 - 02/01/17 04:47 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You said there is such thing as "implicit knowledge".
You also said an example of implicit knowledge is a false statement, the case when you "think the atomic number of carbon is 7".
How do you justify your false belief as knowledge?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24057855 - 02/01/17 05:08 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Implicit knowledge is thinking you're right. Explicit knowledge is knowing you're right.
-------------------- 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]
#24057896 - 02/01/17 05:20 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That is clearly wrong, sudly.
Thinking you are right is not any sort of knowledge.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24057909 - 02/01/17 05:24 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Sometimes people get their facts wrong.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
xzylocybin
Stranger



Registered: 06/10/12
Posts: 2,304
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24057926 - 02/01/17 05:29 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I found your presentation on ostention to be ostentatious.
Thank you for your post my brain needed a little philosophic intellectualism after all this political bs I have been saturated in lately.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24057960 - 02/01/17 05:36 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Implicit knowledge is thinking you're right. Explicit knowledge is knowing you're right.
Quote:
Kurt said: That is clearly wrong, sudly.
Thinking you are right is not any sort of knowledge.
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Sometimes people get their facts wrong.
What is your point? Stick to expressed arguments.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24057969 - 02/01/17 05:39 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sometimes people get their facts wrong.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: xzylocybin]
#24058055 - 02/01/17 06:14 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You are going to have to express whatever logic you are suggesting or "implying". What's your point? I don't see one.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24058076 - 02/01/17 06:21 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If you still don't know the difference between the terms explicit and implicit then perhaps it can't be helped.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24058119 - 02/01/17 06:35 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Implicit knowledge is thinking you're right. Explicit knowledge is knowing you're right.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems ridiculous. Thinking one is right doesn't matter for shit, and knowing one is right is impossible. Even science doesn't "know it's right"; it builds models which most suitably match experiment.
It's nonsense.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
I think it's true that thinking one is right doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, but that we can know if something is right because explicit tendencies occur and are true irrelevant of individual thought.
Quote:
Explicit knowledge = The atomic number of carbon is 6. Implicit knowledge = I think the atomic number of carbon is 7.
Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but as I see it there is true knowledge(explicit) and opinion(implicit).
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24058193 - 02/01/17 06:57 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the question is whether a human can have a one to one correspondence with objective reality, and while most people would probably say that such a thing is impossible, I agree with you that it is possible. However, I fail to see the advantage in using the terminology you use. But whatever floats your boat.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
For me the terminology of explicit and implicit provides a simple explanation of the concept of dualism in reference to mind and body.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
sudly said: Implicit knowledge is thinking you're right. Explicit knowledge is knowing you're right.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems ridiculous. Thinking one is right doesn't matter for shit, and knowing one is right is impossible. Even science doesn't "know it's right"; it builds models which most suitably match experiment.
It's nonsense.
Thank you! Whether we can really know anything, or whether can look away from knowing, belief and conceptual structure will probably always be a philosophical question with different points of view.
But this shouldn't distract from the aggresive arguments he has made which can be brought to consideration. Sudly calling "thinking you are right" (eg. opinion, false beliefs etc) "knowledge" is wrong by any account. No need to qualify the statement in this case.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24058947 - 02/01/17 10:56 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: Sudly calling "thinking you are right" (eg. opinion, false beliefs etc) "knowledge" is wrong by any account. No need to qualify the statement in this case.
Since knowledge is information acquired through experience or education, it makes sense to me that some people are not as informed as others and that what they perceive as their knowledge can infact be false, hence why it can be called implicit knowledge.
If you don't like the word implicit, it's also known as tacit knowledge which may offer a better explanation/point of view.
Quote:
Tacit knowledge: Unwritten, unspoken, and hidden vast storehouse of knowledge held by practically every normal human being, based on his or her emotions, experiences, insights, intuition, observations and internalized information. Tacit knowledge is integral to the entirety of a person's consciousness, is acquired largely through association with other people, and requires joint or shared activities to be imparted from on to another. Like the submerged part of an iceberg it constitutes the bulk of what one knows, and forms the underlying framework that makes explicit knowledge possible.
-------------------- 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]
#24059247 - 02/02/17 02:56 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That is too general. You need to speak for yourself, in your own terms, rather than for people you politically advocate who are scientifically educated.
|
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: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
|
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: 10,812
|
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: 10,812
|
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.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24063726 - 02/03/17 09:27 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
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.
So what is "implicit" about that expressed argument?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24063748 - 02/03/17 09:34 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The wording of my previous response would be implicit as I came up with their placement, but the underlying argument they've made I think is explicit.
If you want to get into detail the expressed argument follows that the conductive activities of the human nervous system sustain our consciousness.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (02/03/17 10:25 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24064008 - 02/03/17 11:38 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I was not asking you to edify us on your view of consciousness.
When you say "perception is implicit" it begs a significant question of what this even means before we get to that at all. How is anything at all in the world "implicit", or "explicit", specifically in terms of a knowledge claim? This is what I was asking about.
It seems to me to be a fallacy. You have an appeal to authority that seems to seep in at almost every point of discussion. There is nothing generally implied or explicit in the world.
Implicit or explicit disclosures of meaning can be found only in an open interpretation of things. Only in interpretation, can we move from implied meanings to explicit meaning, or figuretive to literal. Epistemology or scientific discussion, on the other hand seems to be concerned with what is the case strictly in arguments, and conjectures. There is a difference that can be recognized, even as practically in life these spheres of discussion will seem to overlap.
Our manner of speaking and expressing arguments (our life in the scientific modern world) seems to be what differentiates our position in this, and these spheres of discourse follow suit. Where is epistemology situated in priority? There is no room for confusion on it. What is the case, in the world, is not "implied", or just "explicitly" stated in a declaratory narrative - it is argued in conjecture. Conjecture tends to be contingent and open. There are some people around here that get this.
I don't think you are doing anything related related to science Sudly, when you say things like perception is implicit, and experience is explicit. It seems to me that these statements which are directly denoting disclosure of meaning from some origin you are vaguely appealing to, suggest something in your disposition more like revealed religion or an appeal to a cult authority, rather than anything scientific.
I guess we will disagree here.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24064016 - 02/03/17 11:45 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sudly said: By the Bohmian interpretation the idea is that a particle always has a definite position whether or not we are aware of it.
I think it's got something to do with our personal beliefs system and the interpretation process we have as individuals; how we come to understand our own experiences.
As I've said before, I think we differ in that I have chosen to value the Bohmian interpretation over the Copenhagen interpretation.
-------------------- 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]
#24065000 - 02/04/17 11:57 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We don't differ on a particular theory of perceptual experience of objects. I am talking about doing decent epistemology, from the ground up.
Where we differ is in this. You begin with a theory and conjecture, and concept of what perceptual experience is, like what you posted above. You point to that, as "perceptual experience", and as perception as implicitly contained in a theoretical concept. You seem to me to completely overlook the actual epistemological basis, which you allude to in this way.
I think I understand what you are intending to "imply" pretty clearly now. The theory or concept you suggest is something that can be considered conceptually and structurally resembling positions people take in a natural way when they are doing epistemology, (discussing perceptions, conjectures, and the grounds of knowledge), which you allude to and sometimes claim grounds in.
The problem is that the open interpretation in your science, for instance, a discourse between Bohm and Copenhagen, is not just implying the conjecture of epistemology, which to the contrary is supposed to be, and is naturally open discourse. The openness of a possibility (contingency of perceptions and propositions about the) is prior to being a projected belief of one sort or another in epistemology. This openness is just the sciemtific discourse as such. Having a belief, and generally comporting yourself with a view and interpretation of the world, however technically justified on the work of scientists, is not the same thing as that.
You say I am Copenhagian, or that I am an idealist. What arguments have I made in this sense? To be completely honest, since I do mot hold these views, I think you just say things like that because I am being critical of you. You are making strawmen. I am not Copenhaganian, or Bohmian, just as I am not a realist or an idealist. I am not taking positions, in that game, where one thing by conceptual structure implies another thing. I think it is only possible to take those views surrounding epistemology in modern science, once you are honestly grounded in epistemology itself and work outwards. You begin with actual sense experiences of your own, and meet conjecture in honest terms, rather than attempt to imply or allude to something in concepts you identify with.
It reminds me of alot of big talkers around, often arguing with each other in ideological terms. Isn't there a problem when people take positions in science to inform their epistemology? You always hear about Deepok Chopra. Or is that fair game? Maybe it is fair game, I don't know, but this kind of talk is all over the place and comes from both ways and in different directions. There are cases that are arguably just as bad, like with Richard Dawkins, who just as well, as scientist, also appropriates science as too broad a narrative and concept which results in bad epistemology, essentially a kind of way of trying to trick people into identifying with a conception. However technically correct the view may be, this will always be bad epistemology. Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, but he is a piss poor epistemologist. That is just how it goes when people say absurd things.
What the Dawkinsesque thinker constantly misses, is it is possible in most cases to be neither one thing or another, not holding one world view or another, in one's beliefs, since they come down less to something we really hold in concepts, and more to our broad purview of experience, and contingent expression of arguments.
What is contingency? It can be narrowly defined as language is in use, rather than in conceptuality. Also, instead of having the "right beliefs", and constantly feeling one has to assert something, it is possible to just do decent epistemology, by being careful of what you outwardly assert, and what you do not. It is not necessary to project beliefs. To the prospect of science, this doesn't mean having the "right beliefs", or concepts; it means conceding preconceived ideas, beginning with your own perceptual experience, and meeting discussion, as a general practice. For some this will blossom into particular views of the natural world, for others it just means shedding beliefs and dwelling in an openness, without view.
Feel free to be a "Bhohmian", but I think you can understand as well, I do not take these oppositional positions you ascribe to me. If you can respect the true neutrality of science, then I will find that respectable myself.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24065058 - 02/04/17 12:40 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: is not just implying the conjecture of epistemology, which to the contrary is supposed to be, and is naturally open discourse.
Only in the case of not having a Bohmian interpretation seeing at it follows a particle always has a definite position whether or not we are aware of it.
My epistemology is based on Bohmian mechanics, yours I believe are based on the Copenhagen interpretation.
In the end we've all chosen to take on board and value one of two interpretations of the fundamental way reality works with a view on the results of the double slit experiment.
Personally I think Deepok Chopra is a bit of a joke in that he utilises sophistry.
Quote:
Kurt said: There are cases that are arguably just as bad, like with Richard Dawkins, who just as well, as scientist, also appropriates science as too broad a narrative and concept which results in bad epistemology, essentially a kind of way of trying to trick people into identifying with a conception.
I'm trying to understand that concern, but I do have reason to believe in what I call my explicit knowledge.
Quote:
Kurt said: Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, but he is a piss poor epistemologist. That is just how it goes when people say absurd things.
He's quite the accomplished author so I doubt your claim.
- Brief Candle in the Dark
- The Selfish Gene
- The Extended Phenotype
- The Blind Watchmaker
- River Out of Eden
- Climbing Mount Improbable
- Unweaving the Rainbow
- A Devil's Chaplain
- The Ancestor's Tale
- The God Delusion
- The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
Quote:
What is contingency?
I call it luck. I also think the Bohmian interpretation is reasonable and logically consistent. You don't have to change
-------------------- 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]
#24065330 - 02/04/17 03:04 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Kurt said: is not just implying the conjecture of epistemology, which to the contrary is supposed to be, and is naturally open discourse.
Only in the case of not having a Bohmian interpretation seeing at it follows a particle always has a definite position whether or not we are aware of it.
My epistemology is based on Bohmian mechanics, yours I believe are based on the Copenhagen interpretation.
How do you interpret what I said as "based on" some experiment and conjecture in a subject of particle physics? You are making that up. I did not make a Copenhagen/interpretive argument so you are going to have to be more clear. It may be consistent with a discourse you are thinking of, but I think the real issue here is you just constantly "argue" and associate backwardly from concepts you are fixated on.
Quote:
I'm trying to understand (your) concern, but I do have reason to believe in what I call my explicit knowledge.
You haven't clarified what anything being "explicit" means, in terms of an argument. You seem to be assuming that a declarative sounding tone is authoritative in itself. Something explicit seems to me to be rhetorical. Eg. "Explicit" means a statement that is "declaratory" rather than figuretive, or implied, or insinuated in rhetorical pursuasion in general. Making a declaration and aping science in a tone of voice, is not necessarily or sufficiently an argument.
Quote:
He's (Dawkins) quite the accomplished author so I doubt your claim. Brief Candle in the Dark The Selfish Gene The Extended Phenotype The Blind Watchmaker River Out of Eden Climbing Mount Improbable Unweaving the Rainbow A Devil's Chaplain The Ancestor's Tale The God Delusion The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
Yeah. Appeal to author/authority fallacy. Do I have to point these things out?
Quote:
Quote:
What is contingency?
I call it luck.
I also think the Bohmian interpretation is reasonable and logically consistent. You don't have to change 
You would say that. Reasoning in your head and projecting does not amount to much.
Anyway, I never argued against a Bohmian interpretation of the world or for a Copenhagen interpretation, and I don't see any argument that should really pursuade me of anything one way or another. You are just posturing. If you honestly mean these things, I would say you just seem to be arguing backwards from some discourse and conceptual attitude you are fixated on.
In a way, you are imposing quite a lot on the forum Sudly. Your charged rhetoric is. I would appreciate it if you quit misrepresenting things, like myself and other people as holding positions we don't. Learn to assert yourself and your "view" of the world appropriately for your own sake, and everyone else's too. It'd be nice if you had actual competitive arguments, rather than just ideology. You should try to pursuade, just not so superficially.
Edited by Kurt (02/04/17 03:34 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24065367 - 02/04/17 03:24 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Just quit trying to force something on people, Sudly. I am tired of this argument. You say you don't want to change people, but that is what you do aside from these words. I am saying this only from a meditative perspective, not as an argument. You have a forceful and bossy attitude that comes out here.
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24065369 - 02/04/17 03:25 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24065387 - 02/04/17 03:32 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps you still haven't understood, but I've done my part to explain it, I believe in explicit things.
Quote:
Kurt said: You haven't clarified what anything being "explicit" means, in terms of an argument.
And you say I'm the one making declarative statements? I have been stating explicit knowledge to the best of my knowledge.
Quote:
Kurt said: Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, but he is a piss poor epistemologist. That is just how it goes when people say absurd things.
I'm standing up for someone you've attempted to belittle, honestly, to even say this is silly.
As far as I've been able to tell from your arguments, they have not been in line with that of the term explicit so I find it hard to believe you are not an individual that places a sense of value in the essence of the Copenhagen interpretation, that something can be both a wave and a particle, that there can be contingency.
-------------------- 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]
#24066073 - 02/04/17 08:50 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I believe in explicit things.
This doesn't sound a little weird to you at all?
Explicit: Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt:
Once upon a time, there was a voice. It said, "I explain the explicit" - and you listen...
What I wonder, is what if you listen, but follow this story back, rather than march forward. What if you find this explainer behind this "explicit" world?
They say if you ever pass the buddha on the street kill him.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24066507 - 02/05/17 02:14 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It only sounds as weird to me as it does that an incense stick burns through the movement of electrons.
I like to thank the people that came before us, and the cumulative history of mankind's technological development.
I don't choose the explicit, I think that's the point.
I think life is more of an improbability.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (02/05/17 02:21 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24067148 - 02/05/17 10:50 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
...
Edited by Kurt (02/05/17 01:56 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
#24067306 - 02/05/17 11:47 AM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It seems to me what you are referring to as "explicit" in the sciences is just objectivity.
You make it weird and authoritarian yourself.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24068795 - 02/05/17 10:33 PM (6 years, 11 months 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]
#24068854 - 02/05/17 11:24 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Thought you were going to do the right thing and take the point.
Really, why are you still here?
"I believe in explicit things"
"I don't choose the explicit and that's the point"
Keep on taking it and trying to dish it out then Sudly. The world is less a cycle of bullying than you think though.
Science in the real world is not a rhetorical mode of its "explanation" and pointing at concepts at the front of the room. That's your compensation.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
#24068883 - 02/05/17 11:47 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Only a fool is sure of anything, a wise man keeps on guessing.
I guess I choose to believe in the right things.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|