Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24063726 -

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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24063748 -

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 (02/04/17 12:25 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24064008 -

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. :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24064016 -

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24065000 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24065058 -

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 :tongue2:


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24065330 -

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 :tongue2:


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 05:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24065367 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24065369 -

Break It On Down



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24065387 -

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24066073 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24066507 -

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 04:21 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24067148 -

...

Edited by Kurt (02/05/17 03:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24067306 -

It seems to me what you are referring to as "explicit" in the sciences is just objectivity.

You make it weird and authoritarian yourself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24068795 -



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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24068854 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24068883 -

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.


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

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

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Academic Philosophy youbreakyoubuy 666 9 12/09/09 08:47 AM
by Cracka_X
* epistemology and entity contact
( 1 2 all )		 machineelf368 3,848 32 10/11/25 11:55 AM
by mescalopiate
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,168 3 05/03/04 10:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Philosophy: Who needs it?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 4,294 24 05/27/08 08:51 AM
by zouden
* What have we achieved through philosophy?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 shivas.wisdom 4,936 64 01/23/10 02:02 PM
by Freedom
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 8,600 72 02/16/06 09:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* My Philosophy Paper mushiemountain 1,434 7 04/17/07 07:34 PM
by mushiemountain
* Philosophy of Letting Go is Letting Go of Philosophy
( 1 2 3 all )		 Chronic7 3,818 44 11/21/09 08:18 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
1,745 topic views. 0 members, 14 guests and 40 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 15 queries.