I must add 'sense data' to the list of foo-fuckery.

jamest wrote:
Why are you saying this? Of course there are correlations between x and y, since x is translated as being y.

Jesus christ! Learn what a correlation entails please. A relationship!!! It means that there definitely IS a RELATIONSHIP!!! There will be no significant correlation if there is not some relationship. Relationship is not necessarily a dependency but all dependencies necessarily show a correlation so correlation is what ya call a BIG CLUE.

GrahamH wrote:Thus far his position isn't really different to physicalism except for asserting that the metaphysical order is 'mental'. It seems that something about the m-order of an apple-in-a-gravity-well means that it falls to earth.

You nailed it. The interesting thing is that physicist physicalists don't actually make a claim about what the order 'really is'. They are looking into it.

jamest wrote:

lobawad wrote:

jamest wrote:
Why are you saying this? Of course there are correlations between x and y, since x is translated as being y.

Then you must retract your "completely different".

We observe something as being completely different to what it is, so there's no need. Sensations, for instance, are a phenomenon in their own right, orchestrated in a specific manner - and are yet translated to be 'a world' whereby the perceived order is the laws of physics - an order pertaining to the relations between the things which constitute that world. So, x = the observed sensations with their own particular order (xo); and y = observed things with their own particular order (yo).

In the order of your xo*, black is distinct from white. In the order of your yo, black is distinct from white. This is not "completely different". This is something shared, allowing the possibility of your "translation".

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again. In the arts, the extremes of modernism paint themselves into a corner, and the extremes of postmodernism can't paint the broad side of a barn.

You are trying to take both positions at the same time. The inevitable result of trying to sit down and stand up simultaneously is bending over for a bony blessing of the bunghole.

*(Saul Tigh, I would hope)

lobawad wrote:

jamest wrote:

lobawad wrote:

jamest wrote:
Why are you saying this? Of course there are correlations between x and y, since x is translated as being y.

Then you must retract your "completely different".

We observe something as being completely different to what it is, so there's no need. Sensations, for instance, are a phenomenon in their own right, orchestrated in a specific manner - and are yet translated to be 'a world' whereby the perceived order is the laws of physics - an order pertaining to the relations between the things which constitute that world. So, x = the observed sensations with their own particular order (xo); and y = observed things with their own particular order (yo).

In the order of your xo*, black is distinct from white. In the order of your yo, black is distinct from white. This is not "completely different". This is something shared, allowing the possibility of your "translation".

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again. In the arts, the extremes of modernism paint themselves into a corner, and the extremes of postmodernism can't paint the broad side of a barn.

You are trying to take both positions at the same time. The inevitable result of trying to sit down and stand up simultaneously is bending over for a bony blessing of the bunghole.

*(Saul Tigh, I would hope)

Nice.

Consider that if we were very sensitive to air, that we could see it move and feel it like we feel water, we would have the reality of something like fishes.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Thus far his position isn't really different to physicalism except for asserting that the metaphysical order is 'mental'. It seems that something about the m-order of an apple-in-a-gravity-well means that it falls to earth.

You nailed it. The interesting thing is that physicist physicalists don't actually make a claim about what the order 'really is'. They are looking into it.

Presumably James will claim that 'observation is not order', or something like that.

I can see it now...

Order requires Order-ING
Order-ING requires an order-ER ?
Therefore GOD

SpeedOfSound wrote:

lobawad wrote:

jamest wrote:

lobawad wrote:

Then you must retract your "completely different".

We observe something as being completely different to what it is, so there's no need. Sensations, for instance, are a phenomenon in their own right, orchestrated in a specific manner - and are yet translated to be 'a world' whereby the perceived order is the laws of physics - an order pertaining to the relations between the things which constitute that world. So, x = the observed sensations with their own particular order (xo); and y = observed things with their own particular order (yo).

In the order of your xo*, black is distinct from white. In the order of your yo, black is distinct from white. This is not "completely different". This is something shared, allowing the possibility of your "translation".

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again. In the arts, the extremes of modernism paint themselves into a corner, and the extremes of postmodernism can't paint the broad side of a barn.

You are trying to take both positions at the same time. The inevitable result of trying to sit down and stand up simultaneously is bending over for a bony blessing of the bunghole.

*(Saul Tigh, I would hope)

Nice.

Consider that if we were very sensitive to air, that we could see it move and feel it like we feel water, we would have the reality of something like fishes.

My young son trips on this one- when we're in the mountains or an airplane, we're in the (wet) clouds

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Western philosophy has been so sadly tricked by all this.

People are sadly tricked by their searches for deepity, and once they mistake obfuscation for deepity, the situation is hopeless.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Consider that if we were very sensitive to air, that we could see it move and feel it like we feel water, we would have the reality of something like fishes.

If you want to think about different experiences of reality, think about the Reynolds number for a very tiny foraminiferan in ordinary sea water. For plumbing that narrow, the viscosity of water is relatively high. Now think about jamest trying to study science.

We don't know whether someone is just trying to get a reaction, or is genuinely experiencing reality in a way much different to the way we do. We can't know that kind of shit in an internet forum, although when we see the disjointed syntax of asdfjkl, we tend to err on the side of caution.

GrahamH wrote:Presumably James will claim that 'observation is not order', or something like that.

I can see it now...

Order requires Order-ING
Order-ING requires an order-ER ?
Therefore GOD

To first order, this is a good parody. But it isn't just theism. It's the pretence that theism is intellectual. Weird combination.

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Is the perceived order -the laws of physics, also a metaphysical order?
Is the perceived order - a snowflake, say, also a metaphysical order?

No, they are orders translated from the original. Hence, they're no longer about the 'metaphysical'.

Translated from the original what?

Ask James why the translation is necessary, and you hear the tautology that observed phenomena are not metaphysical reality. Even though observed order is metaphysical order. If he didn't obfuscate that (as best he can), the circularity would be obvious. Hey. In fact, it is obvious. The translation is necessary because god is necessary. What's the point of having a god with nothing to do? Observed order is there to tell you that god is at work.

jamest wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

jamest wrote:
'Observed x' was originally meant as a reference to some observed entity. However, it also extends to order, in the sense that the order that we observe is not the order which is actually happening.

"The order that is really happening" would be the absolute metaphysical order. So, I was correct in saying that the metaphysical order in your philosophy ("the order that is really happening") is unobservable - it somewhere "behind the screen" in your often-cited TV analogy.

Incorrect assessment.

"In as far as the attempt to interpret an arbitrary picture I've painted in the imagination can be described as having correctness or otherwise", you could add. It may be a folly, it may be as useless as looking for deep meanings within a picture of gnomes roasting a pelican on a spit... on such charges, I plead guilty.

See also, The Critic As Artist.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:Who is to say that the relationship between the observed world and the metaphysical is anything akin to the relationship between images on a TV screen and the workings of a TV? You no doubt think you've given some great argumentative proof for this, here or elsewhere, but I'm not being disingenuous in saying that I've missed it.

Well, considering that images on a TV screen are related to something ordered and observable behind the TV screen...

I know it's only observably behind, but where else do we get the concept of 'behind'...?

Yes, I also know that the observable 'behind' is received as a result of the absolute 'behind'... Something behind which nothing else can be behind.... The absolute arse end of everything. See also, Anselm. Fucking Catholicism. It's here to hinder thinking. I can put forward no candidates for 'worse theology than Catholicism'. I can put forward jamest theology as 'substitute for Catholicism'.

James could always argue that the images on a TV screen appear because of magic... or that what we observe behind the TV screen is the result of a conspiracy...

Because of... a result of... James has to find the 'first cause of'.... Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

jamest wrote:When we watch the TV, we're actually watching the 'stuff' (and the order thereof) that occurs on the screen, which is then translated as being about [say] Batman saving the world from baddies.

TV "stuff" is part of an observed world, and you declare that the observed world, in its specifics, is unreal. The posts in this forum are parts of an observed world, and you say the observed world is unreal. Well, your observed philosophical presentations, James, are as unreal. The particular thoughts you experience are as unreal - only some elusive sense of mental order might be real. We can only guess at what your real arguments in defence of order might be, and what your real thoughts might be. All else is interpretation, translation, Critic as Artist. Your observed philosophy is heading for an abyss of absurdity, drip by drip of purple paint.

The same happens when we look at a painting. What we're observing, is orchestrated paint applied to a canvas, but what we think we observe is [say] The Mona Lisa. Hence, our actual observations are translated into something [and an order thereof] completely different to 'the stuff' of our observations.

What did you just say, there? Something about gnomes and pelicans unwinding on an infinite grid of canvases, all stitched together with the fur of stoats, covering an infinite series of interconnected Möbius loops? Perhaps something is getting lost in translation, here. I'm trying to go beyond the specific "stuff" I may observe on the screen.

We can now apply these analogies to experiences.

Sure, we could...

'The world' is the translated version of 'the stuff' we're actually observing. That is, we're not actually observing the world, we're observing a phenomenon which we translate as being the world. We think that we're observing the world, but we're not.

I think I'm observing some weird attempt at philosophy that looks like an unending bedtime story, but it now looks as though I must be observing something else. But wait, that can't be right. I only only think that I'm being told that when I observe x, I'm observing y. I think this based upon my observation of x, which may actually be some unknown y, saying something else, or nothing. Good times, eh, dancing around an abyss of absurdity with the pelicans?

"The order that is really happening" (metaphysical order) cannot be UNobservable, because if it were we would observe nothing.

...asserts observed jamest, x-jamest. But what about real James, y-jamest? Is y-jamest saying something else? Is he saying anything at all? I'm stuck with Moaner Lisas.

It would almost be akin to looking at the TV when it's not working. We do in fact observe 'reality'. We just don't realise it. We're just like the kids who watch Batman, oblivious to the stuff [and order thereof] our minds translate into being our superhero.

Batman-jamest seems to be saying one thing, but that's a translation of ordered-"stuff"! Now, what is ordered stuff saying? "Did you just order some absolute order, sir?"? No, that must be a TV-advertisement, something that Batman-jamest is saying on the TV.

I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post, yet.

I'm not quite sure that my screen can take much more of this surreal chaos, Jimmy. We'll see.

Matthew Shute wrote:The posts in this forum are parts of an observed world, and you say the observed world is unreal. Well, your observed philosophical presentations, James, are as unreal....

I'm trying to go beyond the specific "stuff" I may observe on the screen.

Well, there ya go, Matthew. The apparent abyss of absurdity is really a shallow pond, just chock-a-block with frolicking badgers, pelicans, and garden gnomes. When you're not looking, the pond is still, and reflected in its placid surface is the face of a girl with a cryptic smile. That's not really what X looks like, but you get the idea. It's what's behind that cryptic smile that you really need to worry about. When you're not looking, the badgers, pelicans, and gnomes are roasted, wrapped in bacon, and the liquid in the pond becomes a sauce bearnaise to be served over spears of asparagus grilled and wibbled in punctiliousnessness. And somewhere, there is a dormouse.

...and a camel.

... which is actually a meta-metaphysical horse blancmange imbued with metaphysical world status.

...which is also a stack of turtles, all the way down

And upon the turtles ride meta-foxes, all preaching the truth of x-jamest's y-jamest:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE[/youtube]

The fox spends a time reading the prose of Peter Atkins:

Peter Atkins wrote:We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.

And some Roald Dahl.

Matthew Shute wrote:
The fox spends a time reading the prose of Peter Atkins:

Peter Atkins wrote:We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.

Yeah, but that is just the observed universe. Real reality is not anywhere nearly so bleak.

Why? Because I fucking say so.