- #51
- 121
- 0
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
I've got a severe problem here. You seem to interpret all my questions as negations. I ask "are you sure?" and you answer "it doesn't really matter." It does matter when I'm asking and when I'm asking I'm not negating or urging an opposition, I'm simply asking your opinion. I would appreciate any answer like "yes, because ..." or "no, because ..." but you just seem to think that I mean "you aren't sure" by asking if you're sure.
The answer to "what a mind is built upon?" will later take shape after one's Philosophy has given her/him a concrete foundation for moving on. My thoughts have never given me such foundation thus I always hold that question in mind for further revisions/revolts. When it comes to talking Science I use the usual definition but am always cautious not to take it for granted.
And you're right. If I want to know Dennett's Philosophy I have to read his own book; that I can't because his book is possibly never published here. Your Philosophy, however, is present at hand and seems to take Dennett's point on this matter as a core concept for its further moves.
Being submitted to the pre-suppositions of a certain point of view, Science for example, gives the viewer a sense of internal consistency. That's good and even necessary as long as that specific point of view is meant to be explored. Assessment and comparison of points of view which is a philosophical task, on the other hand, must be done free of pre-suppositions peculiar to a specific point of view in order to be fair. Every point of view is internally consistent and righteous and if it's measured by its own means it will always seem responsive of all needs. As I said before, an external pre-supposition-free point of view must be maintained to verify the validity of various points of view in a comparison.
It is always possible that a certain point of view is in someway superior to others. It would be such a pleasure if we could find these superiorities/inferiorities. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is impossible due to that one can't be free of all pre-suppositions. In the best case, one is fair enough to put aside obvious pre-judices for or against a certain point of view but there're always pre-suppositions imposed on an individual that she/he is unable to detect. Consequently, general uncertainty can be applied here, too. Having applied general uncertainty, all points of view are leveled to a similar state. One can't be sure if one of them is really superior.
You say "isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?" That's indeed a just claim but let's see what "working well" means.
Science, for instance, has been successful in terms of longevity, prosperity and environment control (and Internet, of course!). Are these the ultimate terms for human beings? Longevity, prosperity and environment control seem so good to our common sense; no one wants to lose them. However, they are ultimates set and spread by Science (scientists in fact) in a period of about four centuries. These ultimates that seem so good to us needn't seem so good to everyone. Remember the resistance against Science and its means and ultimates in the past centuries? Didn't people of old times want better fruits? They perhaps did but they had ultimates that were of much higher worth to them. They thought environment control may be against God's will and their highest goal was to keep God satisfied. Longevity is partly gained by birth control, remember how the majority (really, the majority) stood against it? The ultimates/goals determine what is "working well" and what is not. And ultimates/goals are arbitrary. Nothing external limits the ultimates for a mind; the only limitation is the limits to the mind's imagination.
Every point of view "works well" when viewed from inside. This is the meaning of "internal consistency." This consistency is, however, no guarantee about the way that point of view appears from outside.
Before Science had become part of our daily lives, it was being viewed by people from other points of view, from outside. So it may have seemed frightening/absurd/dangerous/God-angering to them. It didn't seem to "work well" by their ultimates. Now that Science is just the biggest part of lives we're viewing it from inside and that's why it seems so good/satisfying/beneficial that we feel we can't live without it. Most of us perhaps wouldn't be alive without it. For feeding this over-populated planet seems to be a scientific problem but then that's another scientific claim which is coherent with the body of Science although this coherence may only be seen from inside and not outside. Perhaps there are other ways to feed people. There even may be extra-scientific means by which one can feed the entire population without any efforts. Seems ridiculous? It isn't! Think about it...
And I don't know that other one whose name starts with "St." Lest you mean Stewart Little
.
Finally, I haven't claimed anything special, yet; let alone "no external reality, only individual perceptions." I've only argued about "general uncertainty."
I'm waiting for your next post...
1. For Mentat:
I've got a severe problem here. You seem to interpret all my questions as negations. I ask "are you sure?" and you answer "it doesn't really matter." It does matter when I'm asking and when I'm asking I'm not negating or urging an opposition, I'm simply asking your opinion. I would appreciate any answer like "yes, because ..." or "no, because ..." but you just seem to think that I mean "you aren't sure" by asking if you're sure.
For "any" processing unit? How can he/you know that? There's no certainty about the limits of processing units, including our minds. See, this isn't Science this is Philosophy. You can't show me a human brain and tell me "it can do something in a range from 10^14 to 10^17 IPS, so it can't do 10^20 GIPS." That's nonsense here. For Philosophy no such thing as a human brain is sensible. "The mind" is an abstraction of the thinker entity. It isn't the brain or the software loaded on a (possibly artificial) neural network. It can't be given properties the scientific way. There's no certainty about the outcome of observation (which is the first step for Science) for the objective reality undergoes unpredictable modifications that we can't know about, in the best case.
The answer to "what a mind is built upon?" will later take shape after one's Philosophy has given her/him a concrete foundation for moving on. My thoughts have never given me such foundation thus I always hold that question in mind for further revisions/revolts. When it comes to talking Science I use the usual definition but am always cautious not to take it for granted.
And you're right. If I want to know Dennett's Philosophy I have to read his own book; that I can't because his book is possibly never published here. Your Philosophy, however, is present at hand and seems to take Dennett's point on this matter as a core concept for its further moves.
Halfway right. Whenever we talk/think we've already submitted to a set of pre-suppositions that are sometimes totally unknown. Fortunately, for Science at least they're well-introduced by giants like Francis Bacon as in his "Novum Organum."
Being submitted to the pre-suppositions of a certain point of view, Science for example, gives the viewer a sense of internal consistency. That's good and even necessary as long as that specific point of view is meant to be explored. Assessment and comparison of points of view which is a philosophical task, on the other hand, must be done free of pre-suppositions peculiar to a specific point of view in order to be fair. Every point of view is internally consistent and righteous and if it's measured by its own means it will always seem responsive of all needs. As I said before, an external pre-supposition-free point of view must be maintained to verify the validity of various points of view in a comparison.
It is always possible that a certain point of view is in someway superior to others. It would be such a pleasure if we could find these superiorities/inferiorities. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is impossible due to that one can't be free of all pre-suppositions. In the best case, one is fair enough to put aside obvious pre-judices for or against a certain point of view but there're always pre-suppositions imposed on an individual that she/he is unable to detect. Consequently, general uncertainty can be applied here, too. Having applied general uncertainty, all points of view are leveled to a similar state. One can't be sure if one of them is really superior.
You say "isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?" That's indeed a just claim but let's see what "working well" means.
Science, for instance, has been successful in terms of longevity, prosperity and environment control (and Internet, of course!). Are these the ultimate terms for human beings? Longevity, prosperity and environment control seem so good to our common sense; no one wants to lose them. However, they are ultimates set and spread by Science (scientists in fact) in a period of about four centuries. These ultimates that seem so good to us needn't seem so good to everyone. Remember the resistance against Science and its means and ultimates in the past centuries? Didn't people of old times want better fruits? They perhaps did but they had ultimates that were of much higher worth to them. They thought environment control may be against God's will and their highest goal was to keep God satisfied. Longevity is partly gained by birth control, remember how the majority (really, the majority) stood against it? The ultimates/goals determine what is "working well" and what is not. And ultimates/goals are arbitrary. Nothing external limits the ultimates for a mind; the only limitation is the limits to the mind's imagination.
Every point of view "works well" when viewed from inside. This is the meaning of "internal consistency." This consistency is, however, no guarantee about the way that point of view appears from outside.
Before Science had become part of our daily lives, it was being viewed by people from other points of view, from outside. So it may have seemed frightening/absurd/dangerous/God-angering to them. It didn't seem to "work well" by their ultimates. Now that Science is just the biggest part of lives we're viewing it from inside and that's why it seems so good/satisfying/beneficial that we feel we can't live without it. Most of us perhaps wouldn't be alive without it. For feeding this over-populated planet seems to be a scientific problem but then that's another scientific claim which is coherent with the body of Science although this coherence may only be seen from inside and not outside. Perhaps there are other ways to feed people. There even may be extra-scientific means by which one can feed the entire population without any efforts. Seems ridiculous? It isn't! Think about it...
Another scientific claim in extra-scientific context.
I'd be honored to be compared to the great Friedrich Nietzsche . I've only read his "Also Sprach Zarathustra." I read it when I was 9 for the first time. Then I couldn't even understand some words in its translation to my native language but was fascinated by Zarathustra's descent and the outer layer of his speech. Later I read it another two times with a 4-year gap in between though I never well understnood it. It still fascinates me.
And I don't know that other one whose name starts with "St." Lest you mean Stewart Little
.Finally, I haven't claimed anything special, yet; let alone "no external reality, only individual perceptions." I've only argued about "general uncertainty."
I'm waiting for your next post...
Last edited: