What is the Role of Ontology in Epistemic Differences and Entity Connections?

[selfAdjoint]

May I just ask one question, Mentat? When you say you are observing the computer, is there the tacit assumption that whatever necessary neurophysical processing necessary to support the observation is happening and is not problematical?

 

[Tournesol]

My point is that "image" makes it appear as though there is something more than the computer to observe. I am observing a computer. If there were an image of that computer, and I were observing that instead, then we would simply be begging the question of how I observe ITFP.

Indeed. We need a word for the way an external object is observed that does not
suggest that some mental item stands as a proxy for the external object and is
observed instead of it. How about "quale" ?

 

[Fliption]

You are far from "figuring me out". I suggest reading Sextus Empiricus, for starters.

Skepticism doesn't mean selectively skeptical.

I have a very good feel for your approach and agenda. It comes with age

They are not appropriate for philosophy or anything else (at least, that is the position I'm defending...currently). That they are used in philosophy is another matter completely, which I have addressed in "Wrong Turns".

They are indeed appropriate. If they were not then we would not be talking about them. People don't use the word Neuron. Only those pesky neurologists insist on using such words. Yet all people have neurons. How is this any different from what you're claiming?

You missed the point. This term only has special meaning in philosophy because of the history of the discipline (philosophy of mind), which has taken horribly bad turns ever since Descartes tried to establish incorrigibility.

I disagree. I cannot speak for anyone else but I use the term because it has meaning to me.

No, I'm calling it a computer...you are missing the point in the same manner as AKG.

No. I thought you were claiming that you are seeing a computer and not an image. But you don't deny that "seeing" is due to a "process". Do you?

That's an arbitrary defining, and is quite distinct from the uses it typically has. Therefore you should defend the use of this term in this way.

It is not my usual meaning for the word. But I am having to do what I always have to do with you Mentat. I always have to re-define terms so that we can begin to have a conversation. If I do not do this, we never get beyond "what does "X" mean, what does "Y" mean?" because you take the unusual and frustrating approach of playing ignorant about the things that you wish to deny. So I have attempted a definition that I feel you will understand(or admit to understanding), as a starting point.

My point is that "image" makes it appear as though there is something more than the computer to observe. I am observing a computer. If there were an image of that computer, and I were observing that instead, then we would simply be begging the question of how I observe ITFP.

I do not understand why this is the case. I also find it very irrelevant and not worth 5 pages of discussion.

 

[Tournesol]

I was actually comparing a veridical perception of a horse with a dream of
a horse.

You. Are. Still. Quantizing.

No. I'm. Flippin'. Not.

Don't you see that that which we perceive (our "veridical perceptions of a horse") is an actual, physical, quantum entity? There is no "horseness" in the general surroundings, such that we cannot determine where the horse begins and ends in any meaningful way. Therefore, the horse is not a process, but a singular entity.

There has to be some commonality. If it isn't based on "quantisation"--so what ? Then
it is based on somethign else. Since I am not basing my arguments on "quantisastion",
I don't care.

To compare a "hallucination of a horse" or a "dream of a horse" with an actual, veritable, perceived horse is

I am not doing that; look at the quote at the top:-

"I was actually comparing a veridical perception of a horse with a dream of
a horse. "

You are not even gettign my words right.

There don't need to be to account for wrong reports, but my reports
don't just emerge from nowhere; they are reports of my experience.

And that is yet another report.

For you, maybe.

If you believe that there is something more to your beliefs than that which you reported than you should explain why you witheld that additional information. If, OTOH, you believe there is something ineffable about your experience, than that is yet another belief that requires explanation.

The simplest being that there actually is.

If there is, then you should be able to make your statements without constantly leading right back to "quantitative seems", and you have yet to do so. I know you don't ever actually say that that's where your reasoning leads, by I have reasoned on all your statements and that is indeed where they lead.

Nope, it's a straw-man based on inaccurate quotation.

 

[Mentat]

May I just ask one question, Mentat? When you say you are observing the computer, is there the tacit assumption that whatever necessary neurophysical processing necessary to support the observation is happening and is not problematical?

I should think so.

After all, the understanding of "sight" as an unproblematic neurophysical process (an understanding that seems quite commonly accepted by scientists in the related fields) would be taken a priori as part of the rules of this language-game (IOW, I assume people know what I mean by "see").

 

[Mentat]

Skepticism doesn't mean selectively skeptical.

It means that I will counter every point (or, at least, almost every point) that my opponent makes. If that is "selective", then so be it. Skeptics (at least, in the Pyrrhonean tradition) attain ataraxia by countering all statements. However, as per the social activity of "discussion", it would be quite unbecoming to debate with yourself as well .

I have a very good feel for your approach and agenda. It comes with age

No, arrogance comes with age. May I never grow old .

They are indeed appropriate. If they were not then we would not be talking about them.

Wrong. If there were a historical reason for our using empty terms, then we would indeed be using them, regardless of their "emptiness". Again, this is covered in the beginning posts of "Wrong Turns".

People don't use the word Neuron. Only those pesky neurologists insist on using such words. Yet all people have neurons. How is this any different from what you're claiming?

It is different because "neuron" is a term used to refer to something we've actually discovered. It is a term assigned a posteriori.

The history of the terms I'm attacking is thoroughly indicative of their being biased and created a priori with no reference to discovery.

I disagree. I cannot speak for anyone else but I use the term because it has meaning to me.

And it has meaning to you because you were raised in a society that has followed the historical path that I outline in "Wrong Turns".

No. I thought you were claiming that you are seeing a computer and not an image. But you don't deny that "seeing" is due to a "process". Do you?

See my response to selfAdjoint.

It is not my usual meaning for the word. But I am having to do what I always have to do with you Mentat. I always have to re-define terms so that we can begin to have a conversation. If I do not do this, we never get beyond "what does "X" mean, what does "Y" mean?" because you take the unusual and frustrating approach of playing ignorant about the things that you wish to deny. So I have attempted a definition that I feel you will understand(or admit to understanding), as a starting point.

I refer you to my new thread, dear Thrasymachus, and ask you to stop acting as though you have any idea about why I debate as I do (except as revealed to you by my own explicit statements).

I do not understand why this is the case. I also find it very irrelevant and not worth 5 pages of discussion.

You have never understood the infinite regress implicit in such claims (ever since our 15+ pages of argument with Zero and Royce). That doesn't mean that they don't exist. I have tried to explain it before, and realize that I am not qualified, as you still don't get it. Perhaps someone else will try.

 

[Mentat]

No. I'm. Flippin'. Not.

Ok, I'm sorry.

There has to be some commonality.

No there doesn't. Why should my computational processes look anything like a horse? And if they do, they shall look nothing like the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I can see those too. My computational apparatus are not going to mold themselves to look like the things they are perceiving, it wouldn't make sense.

I am not doing that; look at the quote at the top:-

"I was actually comparing a veridical perception of a horse with a dream of
a horse. "

You are not even gettign my words right.

I humbly beg your forgiveness...let met try again. The very reference to "a perception (veridical or otherwise ) of a horse" is just sloppy side-stepping. You are still quantizing the perception by relating it to that which is perceived (which is a quantum entity).

For you, maybe.

Well, I am the one to whom you're talking, aren't I? Who else would your reports be for?

The simplest being that there actually is.

Ok, but we still haven't explained why the experience is unreportable, or how you came to have an experience that you don't know enough about to report it. "How" and "why", in case you didn't know, are the important aspects of "explanations".

Nope, it's a straw-man based on inaccurate quotation.

I got a couple of words wrong, and I apologize. The reasoning still leads where it leads.

 

[Tournesol]

No there doesn't. Why should my computational processes look anything like a horse?

Wrong question, yet again.

I humbly beg your forgiveness...let met try again. The very reference to "a perception (veridical or otherwise ) of a horse" is just sloppy side-stepping. You are still quantizing the perception by relating it to that which is perceived (which is a quantum entity).

Nope.

Well, I am the one to whom you're talking, aren't I? Who else would your reports be for?

The other person is me. But then you don't really understand my report
AS a report if you don't regad it as a report OF something.

Ok, but we still haven't explained why the experience is unreportable, or how you came to have an experience that you don't know enough about to report it. "How" and "why", in case you didn't know, are the important aspects of "explanations".

There's nothing very mysterious there. The bandwith of speach is much narrower than what goes on inside the skull, so even for the most brutal
reductivist, much should go unreported.

 

[Mentat]

Wrong question, yet again.

Why? You are referring to an "impression" as being whatever effect the actual horse has on me. You are insisting that our "impressions" could be any such effect; neural or otherwise. So, since neural computation is my candidate for "impressions" (in your framework of what "impressions" are), I asked a perfectly reasonable question.

Again, you said that there must be some "commonality" between the "impression" and that which caused it (the "object"). So, what's wrong with my question?

Nope.

Wanna elaborate on that a little?

You are still relating the "impression" directly to the object of perception. In doing so (since the object of perception is complete, singular, and quantized) you quantize the specific "impression" that relates to that specific horse.

The other person is me. But then you don't really understand my report
AS a report if you don't regad it as a report OF something.

I understand it as a report, and that's all I understand it as.

There's nothing very mysterious there. The bandwith of speach is much narrower than what goes on inside the skull, so even for the most brutal
reductivist, much should go unreported.

This is just an assumption. How do you know that the bandwidth of speech is narrower than what goes on in our heads? For that matter, how do you know that conscious "experience" takes place in our heads? You make too many assumptions.

 

[Tournesol]

Again, you said that there must be some "commonality" between the "impression" and that which caused it (the "object").

No I didn't.

Wanna elaborate on that a little?

I. am. not. quantizing.

How do you know that the bandwidth of speech is narrower than what goes on in our heads?

It's a scientific fact. Speech has a badnwidth of about 4khz. The brain consists of 100,000,000,000 neurons working in parallel. Do the math.

 

[Mentat]

No I didn't.

There are about seven posts between this one and another (posted by you) that says otherwise.

I. am. not. quantizing.

Respond to my reasoning, please. This childishness has run its course, don't you think?

It's a scientific fact. Speech has a badnwidth of about 4khz. The brain consists of 100,000,000,000 neurons working in parallel. Do the math.

How the hell am I supposed to do the math on how 100,000,000,000 neurons relates to the possible frequencies of human speech? And why is it relevant? Are you implying that, if we could speak in all possible frequencies, we could speak intelligently about our brain states??

 

[Tournesol]

bandwidth in herz ~ baud rate in bits per second.

Assume that 1% of neurons are transmitting at 1bps -- both extremely conservative.

The resulting bandwidth is many orders of magnitude more than speech.

 

[selfAdjoint]

bandwidth in herz ~ baud rate in bits per second.

Assume that 1% of neurons are transmitting at 1bps -- both extremely conservative.

The resulting bandwidth is many orders of magnitude more than speech.

But that bandwidth has many other calls upon it, such as vision, no?

 

[Tournesol]

But that bandwidth has many other calls upon it, such as vision, no?

Quite. The point was that there is more going on (objectively or subjectively) in our heads than we can possibly report on.

 

[Mentat]

Quite. The point was that there is more going on (objectively or subjectively) in our heads than we can possibly report on.

Which preassumes that we can report on anything that is going on in our heads, whereas such reports could merely be concomitant with the goings-on that they relate to.

 

[Tournesol]

Anything that looks causal could be coincidental -- but where did that assumption ever get anybody ?

 

[Mentat]

Anything that looks causal could be coincidental -- but where did that assumption ever get anybody ?

Where did the causal assumption ever get anybody? Where is everybody trying to go?

I suggest reading David Hume.

 

[Tournesol]

Where did the causal assumption ever get anybody?

It got us Science.

 

[Mentat]

It got us Science.

Which is but one of many games.

Causality is not only unprovable, but it is also useless in many "games".

 

[Doctordick]

Well, I don't know whether you guys are going to welcome my comments or not but I can't resist. It appears that the discussion has settled down to "things are caused" as opposed to "things are coincidental". It seems to me that even the slightest thought on the subject would reveal that, if one is discussing reality. the actual fact of the question absolutely cannot be settled as neither position yields a result which can be checked. And don't think predicting events has the power to settle the issue; that position is unsupportable in any a careful analysis.

However, there is another issue related to the question where a little thought immediately settles the question and that goes directly to the question of science. An explanation, by its very nature, is the embodiment of causality. As soon as you suggest an explanation exists you have established the idea of using causality. Even the extreme case, "it's absolutely random", by saying it has no cause uses the concept of "cause": i.e., the "cause" of the observed result does not exist "in reality" and that is the cause of the observed results. What I am getting at, as confused as it may sound, is that "cause" is a functioning relationship in any explanation. Thus it is, if you are going to explain something, you can't do it without implementing "causality".

On the other hand, "causality" is not needed at all to understand reality. What happens is what happens and that is about all you can prove.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

Which is but one of many games.
Causality is not only unprovable, but it is also useless in many "games".

Ok, so you don't really believe in science or physicalism. You just
disbelieve in qualia and consciousness.

 

[Tournesol]

On the other hand, "causality" is not needed at all to understand reality. What happens is what happens and that is about all you can prove.

I can't see how you can have an "understanding" that doesn't embrace a lot of explaining. Without explanation, all you would have is a vast array of meaningless facts.

 

[Wilhelm]

I think it's silly to talk about causality not being necessary in some language games, when all language games are causal by themselves. I mean, in a language game you need to make one or more assertions before you can make another. Even logic has causality soaked into its bones! To advance an argument against causality is simply illogical.

Now someone may advance the idea that causality is a feature of our explanations rather than the of the explananda. Which is simply ridiculous, as if it were possible to know anything about anything other than what we can explain.

 

[Doctordick]

I can't see how you can have an "understanding" that doesn't embrace a lot of explaining. Without explanation, all you would have is a vast array of meaningless facts.

Just because you "can't see how" is no evidence that it is not possible. It's squat and you should think about it!

I think it's silly to talk about causality not being necessary in some language games, when all language games are causal by themselves. I mean, in a language game you need to make one or more assertions before you can make another. Even logic has causality soaked into its bones! To advance an argument against causality is simply illogical.

I hope you understand that I agree with you on that point.

Now someone may advance the idea that causality is a feature of our explanations rather than the of the explananda. Which is simply ridiculous, as if it were possible to know anything about anything other than what we can explain.

Now this is over the edge. Read what you just said! It is impossible to know anything that we can not explain?? I am afraid I know a lot of things I can't explain! On the other side of that coin is the fact that I am aware of a number of explanations for exactly the same events! Your comment shows every evidence of being pure un-thought-out squat .

Honestrosewater, I am beginning to love your suggestion. :!)

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Wilhelm]

Now this is over the edge. Read what you just said! It is impossible to know anything that we can not explain?? I am afraid I know a lot of things I can't explain!

I'm sorry, I explained myself poorly.

What I tried to say was that you can't possibly come up with an explanation that implies causality does not exist. I know you know many things which you cannot explain, but I'm hoping you'll agree with me that you cannot know that causality does not exist if you cannot explain why. Causality is a very strong intuitive notion, it takes a lot of theorizing to convince someone of the contrary, and that would be the most futile exercise one can possibly engage in.

It seems you agree with me about the role of causality in any explanation, yet fail to see the consequences. It's as if you're saying "the notion that you can understand an explanation in English is an illusion", which would be rather ludicrous, because it's false if I understand and meaningless if I don't. One can only agree with such a notion (some people actually do!) if no further thought is given.

 

[Doctordick]

Wilhelm, you are forgiven. (To error is human; to forgive is divine! ) And I further agree that I cannot prove that causality does not exist; however, I can certainly show that the evidence for causality in reality is non-existent.

Causality is a very strong intuitive notion, it takes a lot of theorizing to convince someone of the contrary, and that would be the most futile exercise one can possibly engage in.

Now that[/color] I am well aware of. I discovered something about twenty years ago and have found that no one is even interested in thinking about it. In fact, I would say the scientific community is extremely adamant on the issue. So adamant in fact that, to date, no competent scientist has even disdained to talk with me on the subject.

It's as if you're saying "the notion that you can understand an explanation in English is an illusion", which would be rather ludicrous, because it's false if I understand and meaningless if I don't.

There is another view only slightly askew of your position but so far from your paradigm that it would absolutely never occur to you. If you are interested, read my posts to "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" You might start with my final post, it being easy to find. If you have any arguments with what I am saying there, post some comments.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Fliption]

Sorry for my late response but I have not been able to log into this site for over a week.

It means that I will counter every point (or, at least, almost every point) that my opponent makes.

Yes, you are skeptical of your opponents. My point was that your skepticism does not enter into the process of determining who your opponents are. So I say you are selectively skeptical.

No, arrogance comes with age. May I never grow old .

I think age brings about a more well-rounded person. You think it brings about arrogance. Only one of us knows what age brings. The other one just thinks he does. Now that's arrogant

Wrong. If there were a historical reason for our using empty terms, then we would indeed be using them, regardless of their "emptiness". Again, this is covered in the beginning posts of "Wrong Turns".

There's that nasty habit of saying "wrong" in a philosophy forum. This is a philosophy forum, not a high school math team contest. I am open to learning about other views, including this language game view. But just stating the conclusions as if they are facts is not going to convince me of anything. That's what being a skeptic is all about.

The history of the terms I'm attacking is thoroughly indicative of their being biased and created a priori with no reference to discovery.

I disagree. The terms I use I use based on my own experience. A posteriori is empirical. The thing you don't like about it is that it isn't objective. This assumption that everything must be objective automatically assumes anything else cannot exists. This is why I say that you basically use the laws of physicalism to critque anti-physicalists claims. This just seems flawed to me. This isn't being skeptical at all.

And it has meaning to you because you were raised in a society that has followed the historical path that I outline in "Wrong Turns".

Only I know what meaning it has for me. As a reminder, you are working from a minority philsophical view; not a scientific fact.

I refer you to my new thread, dear Thrasymachus, and ask you to stop acting as though you have any idea about why I debate as I do (except as revealed to you by my own explicit statements).

I'm sorry. But I am completely justified in developing an opinion about you. After 40+ pages of participating in frustrating, simplistic word games and tactics that only seem to defend ONE view, I feel I have earned that right. But I will be glad to go on record there to.

 

[Tournesol]

Just because you "can't see how" is no evidence that it is not possible.

That was a polite way of asking you to justify your claim (that you can understand things without explanation/causation)

 

[Wilhelm]

I further agree that I cannot prove that causality does not exist; however, I can certainly show that the evidence for causality in reality is non-existent

This is nonsense. A thousand teatrises on the evidence against causality go down the drain when faced with simple empirical facts. Paper (and now computer screens) can take any rubbish.

There is another view only slightly askew of your position but so far from your paradigm that it would absolutely never occur to you.

I have read your posts but all I can say is that your view is not only far from my paradigm, it's also mistaken. As a matter of logic, no one can possibly conclude anything true starting from the premises you start.

It should be clear to anyone that dualism is a figment of our imagination, that reality is by definition a monistic entity, because also by definition there exists only one reality. Anyone who starts out with the notion that an explanation of reality is not part of reality itself is doomed to failure. The real challenge is to come up with an explanation that includes itself without ending up in infinite regression. I believe it's possible but I have never seen anyone do it.

 

[Mentat]

Ok, so you don't really believe in science or physicalism. You just
disbelieve in qualia and consciousness.

Belief is useless to me here. "Disbelief" is the belief that another opinion is wrong, and is thus also useless. I am defending the position I have chosen to defend, simply because I have chosen to defend it. I could turn out to be a Bible-thumpin', Jesus-lovin', fire-and-brimstone Christian and it would make no difference whatsoever to your inability to counter me successfully.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well Wilhelm, you've got a nice closed thought system that suits you, and in fact I agree with a lot of your conclusions. But "It's obvious" is not a logical argument. Dr. Johnson kicking the stone in reply to Berkeley was not doing philosophy. State your premises and draw your conclusions as tightly as you can, that's the way to do it.

 

[Mentat]

Sorry for my late response but I have not been able to log into this site for over a week.

I too have been scarce, of late.

Yes, you are skeptical of your opponents. My point was that your skepticism does not enter into the process of determining who your opponents are. So I say you are selectively skeptical.

You decide who my opponent is. The moment you make a claim you make yourself my opponent. I can either take up the challenge of countering it, or I can leave it alone entirely. Read "Mentat's Method" in the GD forum, Flip.

I think age brings about a more well-rounded person. You think it brings about arrogance. Only one of us knows what age brings. The other one just thinks he does. Now that's arrogant

First off, I only said that arrogance came with age because your previous post was arrogant, and you are old...it was an inference from the facts available to me. As it is, I usually admire older people (and indeed, admire you; if less on this particular thread than usual), since they have experiences and wisdom and (usually) a greater willingness to share them.

Also, if one starts out a circle, they cannot get any more round. That you presume to know how well-rounded I am is a further indication of your presumptiousness.

There's that nasty habit of saying "wrong" in a philosophy forum. This is a philosophy forum, not a high school math team contest. I am open to learning about other views, including this language game view. But just stating the conclusions as if they are facts is not going to convince me of anything. That's what being a skeptic is all about.

First of all, I really wish you wouldn't lecture me on skepticism (or anything else, if you can help it). I am willing to learn from you, but not as your "lesser", merely as one who does not yet know what you know. That's why I was reluctant to reveal my age until after I'd established a name for myself on the PFs. As it is, most other members have avoided the natural tendency to condescend to a younger person (either by virtue of having formed their opinions about me before I revealed my age, or by virtue of not being so opinionated). Please do the same.

As to my saying "wrong", that is simply because I had already told you where to find the answers to your questions, yet you persist in asking them here. You continue to make statements that have already been countered in another thread, and I continue to point you to that thread.

I disagree. The terms I use I use based on my own experience. A posteriori is empirical. The thing you don't like about it is that it isn't objective. This assumption that everything must be objective automatically assumes anything else cannot exists. This is why I say that you basically use the laws of physicalism to critque anti-physicalists claims. This just seems flawed to me. This isn't being skeptical at all.

But it's also not what I'm doing. I use the history of the terms (their etymology) to explain to you why your terms are not necessarily good ones. I use this historical approach to show you that these terms may be quite "empty", in that they don't refer to anything real, and I ask you to consider the argument from that same historical approach.

Only I know what meaning it has for me. As a reminder, you are working from a minority philsophical view; not a scientific fact.

What difference does that make?

I'm sorry. But I am completely justified in developing an opinion about you. After 40+ pages of participating in frustrating, simplistic word games and tactics that only seem to defend ONE view, I feel I have earned that right.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to post it here. And then you dare to tell me what a philosophy forum is for? You're the one who's using it to make personal comments in the hope of discrediting the opponent without ever having to address his argument.

 

[Wilhelm]

Well Wilhelm, you've got a nice closed thought system that suits you, and in fact I agree with a lot of your conclusions. But "It's obvious" is not a logical argument.

I'm not sure what you are referring to; I searched for "it's obvious" in my recent posts and couldn't find it. For one thing, I'm of the opinion that few things are obvious.

If you are referring to my position regarding causality, which I stated to Doctordick, then you should know full well that no one has ever been able to successfully defend causality from a philosophical perspective. I certainly won't be foolish enough to try.

Dr. Johnson kicking the stone in reply to Berkeley was not doing philosophy

Yet ironically Johnson's cynic gesture became far more famous than Berkeley's ideas. It does strike a chord with a lot of people.

The essential problem is that no one can be forced to understand something if they set their minds against it. That is true for each one of us, myself included, which is why I believe kicking a stone may be worth more than a million philosophical teatrises. Reality is the ultimate judge of our ideas, even for people who believe reality doesn't exist.

 

[Fliption]

I too have been scarce, of late.

I meant that I technically could not log in! My password expired and the process to reset it did not work!

You decide who my opponent is. The moment you make a claim you make yourself my opponent. I can either take up the challenge of countering it, or I can leave it alone entirely. Read "Mentat's Method" in the GD forum, Flip.

I am now pro Dennett. I have read his book "Consciousness explained" and believe he is accurate. This view requires fewer assumptions than the views of Chalmers and is therefore more appealing to me.

I suspect you'll be leaving this one alone.

Also, if one starts out a circle, they cannot get any more round. That you presume to know how well-rounded I am is a further indication of your presumptiousness.

I haven't said anything about your specific well-roundedness. You're putting words into my mouth. I would never make such a claim. If you ever take the time to take one of those professional personality test, I would be interested in the look on your face when you see how accurate the results are in seemingly unrelated areas from what the questions were asking. I will especially enjoy you calling the test "arrogant". Humans are pretty easy to categorize. You're not all that unique.

First of all, I really wish you wouldn't lecture me on skepticism (or anything else, if you can help it). I am willing to learn from you, but not as your "lesser", merely as one who does not yet know what you know. That's why I was reluctant to reveal my age until after I'd established a name for myself on the PFs. As it is, most other members have avoided the natural tendency to condescend to a younger person (either by virtue of having formed their opinions about me before I revealed my age, or by virtue of not being so opinionated). Please do the same.

Now this really irritates me. I challenge anyone to go back and research my dealings with you. If I have made any comment about age, it is EXTEMELY rare. I do not believe I have done it here either. I think I have been overly accomodating on this age issue. I'm not even sure why this came up here. I just made a comment about "my" age. Perhaps your sensitivity to such an issue explains your approach somewhat.

As to my saying "wrong", that is simply because I had already told you where to find the answers to your questions, yet you persist in asking them here. You continue to make statements that have already been countered in another thread, and I continue to point you to that thread.

I'm asking no questions. I am merely telling you that language is useful if it communicates. That is what it is for! If the word has meaning to me and it communicates what I'm referring to, then it is useful and not "empty". Sorry you don't agree but that doesn't make it "wrong".

But it's also not what I'm doing. I use the history of the terms (their etymology) to explain to you why your terms are not necessarily good ones. I use this historical approach to show you that these terms may be quite "empty", in that they don't refer to anything real, and I ask you to consider the argument from that same historical approach.

But they do refer to something real to me. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't care about historical uses. I don't believe that god handed down a book of words with the "right" definitions in it.

What difference does that make?

All the difference in the world. It is the only thing that matters.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to post it here. And then you dare to tell me what a philosophy forum is for? You're the one who's using it to make personal comments in the hope of discrediting the opponent without ever having to address his argument.

Nice try. But I haven't made any personal comments unrelated to the topic at hand. I have every right to call out a biased position if I see one. I will typically do this when a person insists on clinging to an idea even though they cannot defend it in any effective way coupled with humiliating instances of being told I'm "Wrong".

 

[Tournesol]

Belief is useless to me here. "Disbelief" is the belief that another opinion is wrong, and is thus also useless. I am defending the position I have chosen to defend, simply because I have chosen to defend it. I could turn out to be a Bible-thumpin', Jesus-lovin', fire-and-brimstone Christian and it would make no difference whatsoever to your inability to counter me successfully.

Sure. You couldn't get any more dogmatic.

 

[Tournesol]

If you are referring to my position regarding causality, which I stated to Doctordick, then you should know full well that no one has ever been able to successfully defend causality from a philosophical perspective. I certainly won't be foolish enough to try.

Really ? Perhaps you could start by telling us what is wrong with Kant's arguments.

 

[Mentat]

I meant that I technically could not log in! My password expired and the process to reset it did not work!

I didn't mean to be offensive, I had really been scarce. Not for the same reason though.

I am now pro Dennett. I have read his book "Consciousness explained" and believe he is accurate. This view requires fewer assumptions than the views of Chalmers and is therefore more appealing to me.

I suspect you'll be leaving this one alone.

Because to counter it would endanger the arguments I'm currently holding on other threads, with other members. As I've said before, no Pyrrhonean would ever suggest countering yourself in public debate. It wouldn't even be an argument (except in some weird, schizophrenic way). That Chalmerean, post-Kantian, Dualistic concepts are the most popular here accounts completely for my continued arguments toward eliminativism. If you can turn the popular tide, I will indeed argue toward Chalmers et al.

I haven't said anything about your specific well-roundedness. You're putting words into my mouth.

No, I'm not. Look, I don't mean to be offensive here (though I know I have been), but when one says that well-roundedness comes from age, knowing that they have an enormous advantage, age-wise, over the one to whom they are speaking, the implication is clear.

If you ever take the time to take one of those professional personality test, I would be interested in the look on your face when you see how accurate the results are in seemingly unrelated areas from what the questions were asking. I will especially enjoy you calling the test "arrogant". Humans are pretty easy to categorize. You're not all that unique.

I have taken personality tests. According to "emode.com" I'm an "abstract reasoner" who can bring together completely unrelated concepts, coherently, or take apart seemingly coherent ones.

Now this really irritates me. I challenge anyone to go back and research my dealings with you. If I have made any comment about age, it is EXTEMELY rare. I do not believe I have done it here either. I think I have been overly accomodating on this age issue. I'm not even sure why this came up here. I just made a comment about "my" age. Perhaps your sensitivity to such an issue explains your approach somewhat.

I don't mean to be irritating. Please tell me how else I was supposed to take the explicit profession that your wisdom (or well-roundedness, or whatever you want to call it) has accompanied your age. In case you've forgotten, we were debating a point of deep philosophical import. To mention age as some asset you've got on your side is to imply just those comments about age that you claim to avoid making (and you're probably right, you probably haven't explicitly stated that which you've thoroughly implied).

I'm not trying to be polemic, I just wish you'd stop analyzing me, and start analyzing my argument. That's what people in a debate are supposed to do (unless it's a political one ).

I'm asking no questions. I am merely telling you that language is useful if it communicates. That is what it is for! If the word has meaning to me and it communicates what I'm referring to, then it is useful and not "empty". Sorry you don't agree but that doesn't make it "wrong".

A checker is useful. A checker can be used to play backgammon; indeed, the game of backgammon cannot be played sans checkers. However, a checker is not intrinsically useful, and its moves are not intrinsic either, since, if they were, I could use a checker to play chess. The checker only has use in the games that use it, and under the rules of those games.

So, also, a word only has the use that its particular language-game assigns to it. This is nothing greatly remarkable, until you get a language-game that claims to be able to judge all other language-games, all other fields of study. Then you've got what's wrong with Philosophy, as it's currently conducted, according to Rorty.

But they do refer to something real to me. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't care about historical uses. I don't believe that god handed down a book of words with the "right" definitions in it.

I can't believe I used the world "real" the way I did. I retract my statement, and apologize for having made it.

As to your words referring to something "real", that's just another part of your language-game (the term "real", that is).

All the difference in the world. It is the only thing that matters.

Says who? You? It may be the only thing that matters in your belief-system, but it doesn't hold much water in a lot of other systems. In fact, the term "scientific fact" could be argued to be utterly meaningless too, since science is not in the business of establishing absolute, unarguable facts (as per any of the philosophers of science I've ever read).

Nice try. But I haven't made any personal comments unrelated to the topic at hand. I have every right to call out a biased position if I see one.

No you don't. It is not relevant to the discussion whether my viewpoint is biased, what is relevant is what is being argued.

As to this...

I will typically do this when a person insists on clinging to an idea even though they cannot defend it in any effective way coupled with humiliating instances of being told I'm "Wrong".

I did indeed defend the viewpoint, quite successfully, and continue to do so on another thread. I once again refer you to my thread: "Wrong Turns". It's in the "General Philosophy" forum.

 

[Mentat]

Sure. You couldn't get any more dogmatic.

I am only equalling you. That's how I argue. The more dogmatic and staunch you get, the more I must become the same. If you'd remained (or, rather, if you'd ever been) open-minded and ready to change your views when a good argument presented itself, I would have been likewise.

 

[Philocrat]

I believe that there is but one reality where everything co-exists in a consistent paradigm. In my opinion, the distinctions and labels we use are all man made based on our epistomology. Of course, there has to be something about the ontology that leads to the epistemic differences, but I think the ontologies are consistent whereas, our limitations many times result in the epistemic differences not being consistent. This is why I am so torn on what to believe when it comes to ontology. Sometimes I feel like I'm skydiving without a parachute.

Give everything you can find in a given ontology a single role or multiple roles to play. For a part devoid of a role in an ontology is epistemologically meaningless. It might as well not exist in the first place!

 

[Fliption]

Because to counter it would endanger the arguments I'm currently holding on other threads, with other members. As I've said before, no Pyrrhonean would ever suggest countering yourself in public debate. It wouldn't even be an argument (except in some weird, schizophrenic way). That Chalmerean, post-Kantian, Dualistic concepts are the most popular here accounts completely for my continued arguments toward eliminativism. If you can turn the popular tide, I will indeed argue toward Chalmers et al.

This only makes my point about be selectively skeptical. I don't buy this "I can't disagree with myself in public" business. If it's a different thread what difference does it make? If anything, I would think it is exactly what a person who doesn't believe what they are saying would be doing.

No, I'm not. Look, I don't mean to be offensive here (though I know I have been), but when one says that well-roundedness comes from age, knowing that they have an enormous advantage, age-wise, over the one to whom they are speaking, the implication is clear.

I did not say that well-roundedness comes from age. This implies that it doesn't come from anything else except age. I said it comes "with" age. This doesn't preclude that there are other ways to get it. Besides when I said this we were NOT talking about a philosophical point. I was merely making a personal observation about being able to see through agendas etc. It seems clear to me now that you are overly sensitive to this issue.

I have taken personality tests. According to "emode.com" I'm an "abstract reasoner" who can bring together completely unrelated concepts, coherently, or take apart seemingly coherent ones.

I have taken some that are professionally administered. It is quite shocking.

I don't mean to be irritating. Please tell me how else I was supposed to take the explicit profession that your wisdom (or well-roundedness, or whatever you want to call it) has accompanied your age. In case you've forgotten, we were debating a point of deep philosophical import. To mention age as some asset you've got on your side is to imply just those comments about age that you claim to avoid making (and you're probably right, you probably haven't explicitly stated that which you've thoroughly implied).

See above.

I'm not trying to be polemic, I just wish you'd stop analyzing me, and start analyzing my argument. That's what people in a debate are supposed to do (unless it's a political one ).

I would be glad to do this but the problem that we keep having is that your "arguments" only point to the fact that you aren't communicating like a person would be if they were truly interested in communicating. It's almost as if the real point is to impress people and not to communicate with them. Sorry if I'm mistaken but it sure does come off this way.

A checker is useful. A checker can be used to play backgammon; indeed, the game of backgammon cannot be played sans checkers. However, a checker is not intrinsically useful, and its moves are not intrinsic either, since, if they were, I could use a checker to play chess. The checker only has use in the games that use it, and under the rules of those games.

Well now, I couldn't agree more. This is exactly my point! This is what I mean when I talk about this medium being difficult to communicate with. It seems we agree on this and didn't even know it. Of course a word is not intrinsically useful. I have been saying this forever. This is why I am saying that you can't tell me my words are "empty". Empty when compared to what? There is nothing intrinsic to compare it's content to. The language game you describe is all that language is. There is no other way to use language. So whatever conclusions you are coming to about philosophy because of this view can also be drawn about the very view you are defending. It just seems to end in an "everything is nonsense" conclusion.

So, also, a word only has the use that its particular language-game assigns to it. This is nothing greatly remarkable, until you get a language-game that claims to be able to judge all other language-games, all other fields of study. Then you've got what's wrong with Philosophy, as it's currently conducted, according to Rorty.

And how is it that Rorty's language game has escaped his own criticism?

As to your words referring to something "real", that's just another part of your language-game (the term "real", that is).

Just as "multiple drafts" is a part of your language game.

Says who? You? It may be the only thing that matters in your belief-system, but it doesn't hold much water in a lot of other systems.

Perhaps that is true about the word. But it isn't true about my experience.

No you don't. It is not relevant to the discussion whether my viewpoint is biased, what is relevant is what is being argued.

It is relevant because biased viewpoints are generally supported by flawed arguments and the biased participant usually isn't able to see the flaw that is so obvious to everyone else. How else should I attempt to point this out to you except to point out the bias? Perhaps I should just give up.

I did indeed defend the viewpoint, quite successfully, and continue to do so on another thread. I once again refer you to my thread: "Wrong Turns". It's in the "General Philosophy" forum.

OK fine. As I've said, I have an interest in understanding other legitimate views. But as a "real" skeptic and not just an actor, I expect to be convinced. And being subjected to accusations of being "wrong" or brainwashed by Kant without successfully convincing me doesn't sit well with me.

 

[AKG]

I am only equalling you. That's how I argue. The more dogmatic and staunch you get, the more I must become the same. If you'd remained (or, rather, if you'd ever been) open-minded and ready to change your views when a good argument presented itself, I would have been likewise.

I have to say, that's terrible. I don't see what you gain by being closed-minded. In philosophical debate, regardless of what position you hold and what position you're attacking, there is never anything to be lost by being open-minded and honest. That you think that matching closed-mindedness with dishonest closed-mindedness on your part is a "good tactic" suggests that you really miss the point.

 

[Mentat]

This only makes my point about be selectively skeptical. I don't buy this "I can't disagree with myself in public" business. If it's a different thread what difference does it make? If anything, I would think it is exactly what a person who doesn't believe what they are saying would be doing.

That's because you define "belief" differently than I do. Anyway, I've tried that before (countering a view I hold on one thread, with a statement on another) and people inevitably end up quoting me to myself.

I did not say that well-roundedness comes from age. This implies that it doesn't come from anything else except age. I said it comes "with" age. This doesn't preclude that there are other ways to get it. Besides when I said this we were NOT talking about a philosophical point. I was merely making a personal observation about being able to see through agendas etc. It seems clear to me now that you are overly sensitive to this issue.

I just don't like "personal observations" in the middle of philosophical debates.

I have taken some that are professionally administered. It is quite shocking.

I have taken only one administered professionally, and its results were similar (I can only remember the emode one verbatum, but I have tested myself numerous times).

See above.

Well, I am sorry for having taken offense. I guess I could have taken it better if I hadn't had to deal with elderly condescension for as long as I can remember.

I would be glad to do this but the problem that we keep having is that your "arguments" only point to the fact that you aren't communicating like a person would be if they were truly interested in communicating. It's almost as if the real point is to impress people and not to communicate with them. Sorry if I'm mistaken but it sure does come off this way.

But have you really been paying attention? If you had, you'd have realized that my historicaly approach to "qualia" and "subjective conscious experience" and the like is an attack on the terms being used, their actual usefulness/meaningfulness, and whether they can be dispensed with. So how can I deign to use these terms if they are the very things I'm attacking?

Well now, I couldn't agree more. This is exactly my point! This is what I mean when I talk about this medium being difficult to communicate with. It seems we agree on this and didn't even know it. Of course a word is not intrinsically useful. I have been saying this forever. This is why I am saying that you can't tell me my words are "empty". Empty when compared to what? There is nothing intrinsic to compare it's content to. The language game you describe is all that language is. There is no other way to use language. So whatever conclusions you are coming to about philosophy because of this view can also be drawn about the very view you are defending. It just seems to end in an "everything is nonsense" conclusion.

The difference is that I am talking about the etymology of your terms, and am thus critiquing the same game that philosophers of mind are playing. I'm glad we agree about language-games (for now), but philosophers of mind believe that they are playing chess (explaining consciousness and human interaction) when in fact they are playing with checker-pieces ("qualia", et cetera), and that is the point of my critique.

And how is it that Rorty's language game has escaped his own criticism?

Rorty's game is merely a critique of how another game is being played, in light of the history and propriety of the pieces being used. That philosophy has placed itself in the position of "judge of all fields of study", because of this misuse of pieces, is what is being attacked.

Just as "multiple drafts" is a part of your language game.

Yes, but I don't claim that they have any special value. They merely help explain consciousness, rather than leading us off into dead-ends and "hard problems".

Perhaps that is true about the word. But it isn't true about my experience.

And if your reports about your "experience" were biased by the vocabulary in which you've been brought up?

It is relevant because biased viewpoints are generally supported by flawed arguments and the biased participant usually isn't able to see the flaw that is so obvious to everyone else. How else should I attempt to point this out to you except to point out the bias? Perhaps I should just give up.

Attack the argument, not the arguer. If I am biased, it is only insomuch as a the chess-player with the white pieces is biased. If he's making a bad move, to defend the white king, then you should attack the move, not the player's bias.

OK fine. As I've said, I have an interest in understanding other legitimate views. But as a "real" skeptic and not just an actor, I expect to be convinced. And being subjected to accusations of being "wrong" or brainwashed by Kant without successfully convincing me doesn't sit well with me.

Wittgenstein referred to his approach as a "therapy of philosophy". Many people don't like to be told that they are mentally imabalanced, but that does not change the job of the therapist.

 

[Mentat]

I have to say, that's terrible. I don't see what you gain by being closed-minded. In philosophical debate, regardless of what position you hold and what position you're attacking, there is never anything to be lost by being open-minded and honest.

I was being open-minded and honest, when I began the thread. I only matched your level of closed-mindedness, I never exceeded it.

 

[Fliption]

That's because you define "belief" differently than I do. Anyway, I've tried that before (countering a view I hold on one thread, with a statement on another) and people inevitably end up quoting me to myself.

Then just tell them that, unlike them, you don't necessarily believe what you are saying. Then they must move on. I think it might be much better to be clear about such things, especially if you are engaging in an academic method as opposed to normal conversation.

Well, I am sorry for having taken offense. I guess I could have taken it better if I hadn't had to deal with elderly condescension for as long as I can remember.

I completely understand.

But have you really been paying attention? If you had, you'd have realized that my historicaly approach to "qualia" and "subjective conscious experience" and the like is an attack on the terms being used, their actual usefulness/meaningfulness, and whether they can be dispensed with. So how can I deign to use these terms if they are the very things I'm attacking?

But this is where I am now assuming that you really do "know" what these terms are referring to but you pretend not to in order to make a point. I cannot honestly believe that you really don't know what these terms refer to. I'm not saying that you know how they are defined. I'm not talking about language. I'm saying that you know what they "refer to". It is an experience. Not a definition. For me, the experience is the reason we have something to explain to begin with.

The difference is that I am talking about the etymology of your terms, and am thus critiquing the same game that philosophers of mind are playing.

Yes and I assumed that this "language game" view was just another example of such philosophy with it's own terminology. Is this not the case?

Rorty's game is merely a critique of how another game is being played, in light of the history and propriety of the pieces being used. That philosophy has placed itself in the position of "judge of all fields of study", because of this misuse of pieces, is what is being attacked.

I'm not sure I understand how he escapes the language dilemma. The way I understand this, there are no instances of words being used that aren't participating in some sort of language game. So the words of Rorty are just another game.

Yes, but I don't claim that they have any special value. They merely help explain consciousness, rather than leading us off into dead-ends and "hard problems".

I would argue these terms don't address the hard problem at all.

And if your reports about your "experience" were biased by the vocabulary in which you've been brought up?

But I'm not trying to explain my reports. I am trying to explain my experience.

Attack the argument, not the arguer. If I am biased, it is only insomuch as a the chess-player with the white pieces is biased. If he's making a bad move, to defend the white king, then you should attack the move, not the player's bias.

To make my point, the analogy would need to be tweaked. The biased player doesn't understand or respect the rules of chess and wishes to change them when they allow for an advantage for his white pieces. This fact must be pointed out by the opponent.

Wittgenstein referred to his approach as a "therapy of philosophy". Many people don't like to be told that they are mentally imabalanced, but that does not change the job of the therapist.

That a philosopher would label his own work as the therapy of his entire field seems a bit arrogant to me. Most philosophers think their work is an improvement on those that preceded them so I'm not sure what Wittgenstein thinks is all that meaningful. You say "no one likes to be told they are mentally imbalanced". I disagree. There is nothing wrong with therapy if there is truth in it. Maybe what people don't like is being told something that they know isn't true.

 

[sd01g]

Why does the epistemic differences established by mind-body distinctions necessitate an ontological divide? What is the defining difference between ontologies? How could two entities, from separate ontologies, ever be connected?

Any related comments or answers are, as always, greatly appreciated .

At the risk of being labeled simple minded I would suggest that the mind-body distinction should be analyzed as the matter-energy distinction. One only needs to think of what happens to the brain when it is deprived of it's energy supply (oxigenated blood) for only 10 minutes.

The MIND is the energy activated functioning brain. NO energy--no MIND. The dual nature of the mind-body produces two separate ontologies the same way matter-energy produces two 'separate ontologies.'

 

[RageSk8]

been a long time

"In contrast to the views of philosopher Daniel Dennett, Edelman accepts the existence of qualia and incorporates them into his brain-based theory of mind."

http://members.tripod.com/~xtro1666/gerald_edelman.htm

Edelman's concept of qualia is very different than the concept of qualia that Dennett rejects. From the site you give:

What the philosophers call “qualia”, the greenness of green and the redness of red, I think is a little too constricted. I believe that qualia are all the states you are experiencing and not experiencing now. Those qualia are those discriminations. So, effectively speaking, the thalamocortical core, or dynamic core as we call it, is responsible for giving rise to all these incredible numbers of discriminations. And, qualia are the discriminations.

This broad version of qualia, unlike the narrow version of qualia found in philosophy, does not have any subjective, intrinsically ineffable characteristics. It goes perfectly well with nominalism. I wish that Edelman had chosen a different word than “qualia” in order to avoid equivocation like this. Personally, I like Edelman’s approach to consciousness a lot. Even though I don’t see any reason why what the brain does isn’t computable, the computational model of the mind has a lot of problems and needs to be (tentatively) abandoned in favor of a neurophysiologic approach.

Anyways... I don’t know really how to further add to this conversation without further sidetracking the conversation into a debate about consciousness (seeing that there are many threads specifically on this subject anyways).


edit: HA! I still have my icon! I guess there is at least one advantage to having registered years ago.

 

[Tournesol]

Edelman's concept of qualia is very different than the concept of qualia that Dennett rejects. From the site you give:

Of course. Dennett's definition is set up to be knocked down.

This broad version of qualia, unlike the narrow version of qualia found in philosophy, does not have any subjective, intrinsically ineffable characteristics.

But the "intriniscally ineffable" characteristics aren't found in C.I Lewis's
original definition either.

It goes perfectly well with nominalism.

?

I don’t know really how to further add to this conversation without further sidetracking the conversation into a debate about consciousness

It's *supposed* to be about consciousness.

 

[Doctordick]

Anything that looks causal could be coincidental -- but where did that assumption ever get anybody ?

To date, absolutely nowhere! And the reason for that is that all explanations are causal in nature. However, in the absence of explanation, the idea of causality completely loses meaning. The interesting thing about that seemingly simplistic statement is that prior to the existence of an explanation causality simply not there. It has to be a brought into existence via explanation itself and that implies that the fundamental nature of explanation needs to be looked at closely in order to see exactly when the need for causality arises.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

I can't see how you can have an "understanding" that doesn't embrace a lot of explaining. Without explanation, all you would have is a vast array of meaningless facts.

I remember this post and I gave the response I did because it was immediately followed by the pure unadulterated adhominem attacks by Wilhelm who I take to be a completely useless Troll (you know, that old "birds of a feather flock together" presumption).

As you say, "all you would have is a vast array of meaningless facts", but that has to be exactly the place where all of what we know must begin. The serious question then is, how to we get from there to here? How do we produce an explanation from nothing but a vast array of meaningless facts. To answer that question, we need a way of representing that vast array of meaningless fact in the complete absence of meaning (the service the concept of a set does admirably- our beginning must be an undefined set which I call A). The second thing we need is an abstract definition of an explanation which does not rely on knowing anything about the meaning of the elements of A. An examination of the consequences of such a definition are quite surprising, at least to me they are.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

I remember this post and I gave the response I did because it was immediately followed by the pure unadulterated adhominem attacks by Wilhelm who I take to be a completely useless Troll (you know, that old "birds of a feather flock together" presumption).

well, it's pretty meaningless in a forum where people in different parts of the world post from different time-zones.