BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Here it is:

Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness,

This definition of externally real is what you are thinking. Not what I am saying at all. I think your idea of 'treeness' is the impostor. Not the thing I am referring to as 'treeness'. My 'treeness' is Some Thing x, that when filtered through a Specific Vantage Point. our vantage point in the case of trees, will always yield treeness.

Our VP is required for the treeness. Right? You would agree with that. What I am saying is that there would be no 'treeness' without the x as well as our VP.

This is called physicalism because it insists that the VP as well as the x are both of the same type. The VP is not a spirit mind but rather a part of physicality and the interaction within the physical is why we get treeness from x.

Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

That's how we humans know how to find caterpillars!

SpeedOfSound wrote:Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

This is kind of elaborate, when the main project is to be able to find your own whatever with nothing but two hands and a flashlight. This is usually made fun of because somebody can't manage it.

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Can't trees be "externally real" relative to all "observers", so not "internal qualities" without getting into "Treeness" and "absolute truth"?

In a fantasy scenario such as simulated world trees could be independent of internal states of any observer in the simulation and you make no commitement to the ultimate truth of trees. Can't you argue that what makes trees "real" is on par with what makes "observers" observe, that trees are not just "internal qualities of observers", and call that physicalism?

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

This is kind of elaborate, when the main project is to be able to find your own whatever with nothing but two hands and a flashlight. This is usually made fun of because somebody can't manage it.

I make no apologies for how elaborate I have to get in order to get these spirit-mind people to let go of their faulty reasoning.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

This is kind of elaborate, when the main project is to be able to find your own whatever with nothing but two hands and a flashlight. This is usually made fun of because somebody can't manage it.

I make no apologies for how elaborate I have to get in order to get these spirit-mind people to let go of their faulty reasoning.

Nor should you feel obliged to do so. The obvious difference between us is that I am not dedicated to the process of getting spirit mind people to let go of their faulty reasoning, especially when such elaborate alternatives are being offered.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

This is kind of elaborate, when the main project is to be able to find your own whatever with nothing but two hands and a flashlight. This is usually made fun of because somebody can't manage it.

I make no apologies for how elaborate I have to get in order to get these spirit-mind people to let go of their faulty reasoning.

Nor should you feel obliged to do so. The obvious difference between us is that I am not dedicated to the process of getting spirit mind people to let go of their faulty reasoning, especially when such elaborate alternatives are being offered.

That's fair. You don't give a shit about what happens to our society. I do. That's fair too.

Why is it though that you feel obliged to tell me what I am obliged to feel?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Here it is:

Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness,

This definition of externally real is what you are thinking. Not what I am saying at all. I think your idea of 'treeness' is the impostor. Not the thing I am referring to as 'treeness'. My 'treeness' is Some Thing x, that when filtered through a Specific Vantage Point. our vantage point in the case of trees, will always yield treeness.

Our VP is required for the treeness. Right? You would agree with that. What I am saying is that there would be no 'treeness' without the x as well as our VP.

This is called physicalism because it insists that the VP as well as the x are both of the same type. The VP is not a spirit mind but rather a part of physicality and the interaction within the physical is why we get treeness from x.

Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

That's how we humans know how to find caterpillars!

I don't see how that implies anything more than consistency of the universe at our scale.

GrahamH wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:lol. You'll just have to wonder I guess.

I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Can't trees be "externally real" relative to all "observers", so not "internal qualities" without getting into "Treeness" and "absolute truth"?

In a fantasy scenario such as simulated world trees could be independent of internal states of any observer in the simulation and you make no commitement to the ultimate truth of trees. Can't you argue that what makes trees "real" is on par with what makes "observers" observe, that trees are not just "internal qualities of observers", and call that physicalism?

You could call it just about anything you want afaict. But if the goal is to get rid of spirits in other people's models, then I kinda think claiming some sort of absolute value is a bad idea since spirits are normally considered unknown quantities.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

This is kind of elaborate, when the main project is to be able to find your own whatever with nothing but two hands and a flashlight. This is usually made fun of because somebody can't manage it.

I make no apologies for how elaborate I have to get in order to get these spirit-mind people to let go of their faulty reasoning.

Nor should you feel obliged to do so. The obvious difference between us is that I am not dedicated to the process of getting spirit mind people to let go of their faulty reasoning, especially when such elaborate alternatives are being offered.

That's fair. You don't give a shit about what happens to our society. I do. That's fair too.

Why is it though that you feel obliged to tell me what I am obliged to feel?

I don't think homogenizing by force is ever really a good thing for society. There are certainly destructive models out there, but I don't think the fulcrum hinge on ontological positions so much as community values. I am a lot more suspect of someone telling others what to believe than I am of someone stating their own values as values for others to consider.

BWE wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Can't trees be "externally real" relative to all "observers", so not "internal qualities" without getting into "Treeness" and "absolute truth"?

In a fantasy scenario such as simulated world trees could be independent of internal states of any observer in the simulation and you make no commitement to the ultimate truth of trees. Can't you argue that what makes trees "real" is on par with what makes "observers" observe, that trees are not just "internal qualities of observers", and call that physicalism?

You could call it just about anything you want afaict. But if the goal is to get rid of spirits in other people's models, then I kinda think claiming some sort of absolute value is a bad idea since spirits are normally considered unknown quantities.

And you think SoS is claiming that? Maybe you are wrong about that. Your basis for thinking it doesn/t seem strong. Maybe you are mistaken.

GrahamH wrote:

BWE wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

BWE wrote:
I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Can't trees be "externally real" relative to all "observers", so not "internal qualities" without getting into "Treeness" and "absolute truth"?

In a fantasy scenario such as simulated world trees could be independent of internal states of any observer in the simulation and you make no commitement to the ultimate truth of trees. Can't you argue that what makes trees "real" is on par with what makes "observers" observe, that trees are not just "internal qualities of observers", and call that physicalism?

You could call it just about anything you want afaict. But if the goal is to get rid of spirits in other people's models, then I kinda think claiming some sort of absolute value is a bad idea since spirits are normally considered unknown quantities.

And you think SoS is claiming that? Maybe you are wrong about that. Your basis for thinking it doesn/t seem strong. Maybe you are mistaken.

I am pretty sure I don't really understand what SoS is intending with his system. I know that there are a few factors that look like red flags to me. One of which is the impression that the system is for public rather than internal consumption.

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
I think you are the one who is injecting ideas of absolute truth and ontology into my claim that 'there ARE trees' and hence you are confusing map with territory. How's that for irony?

I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Here it is:

Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness,

This definition of externally real is what you are thinking. Not what I am saying at all. I think your idea of 'treeness' is the impostor. Not the thing I am referring to as 'treeness'. My 'treeness' is Some Thing x, that when filtered through a Specific Vantage Point. our vantage point in the case of trees, will always yield treeness.

Our VP is required for the treeness. Right? You would agree with that. What I am saying is that there would be no 'treeness' without the x as well as our VP.

This is called physicalism because it insists that the VP as well as the x are both of the same type. The VP is not a spirit mind but rather a part of physicality and the interaction within the physical is why we get treeness from x.

Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

That's how we humans know how to find caterpillars!

I don't see how that implies anything more than consistency of the universe at our scale.

That thing you call, off-the-cuff, 'consistency' is what is real. It's what I am talking about. It's some pretty serious shit and if it were not for this we wouldn't be here having this disagreement. Nor would we have means to have any kind of communication.

Now it could be that we are some kind of thing that is so similar in form that we communicate entirely by this internal similarity. If that is your argument then I challenge you that on deep analysis your argument will break down.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:
I'm a little confused. What would your claim be if not a claim to absolute ontological truth? Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness, or trees is a word to describe a patterned set of perceptions from our own vantage point in which case there is no treeness externally but rather that is an internal quality used in navigation and prediction. No?

Here it is:

Either trees are externally real entities, i.e. from any vantage point, trees would retain their treeness,

This definition of externally real is what you are thinking. Not what I am saying at all. I think your idea of 'treeness' is the impostor. Not the thing I am referring to as 'treeness'. My 'treeness' is Some Thing x, that when filtered through a Specific Vantage Point. our vantage point in the case of trees, will always yield treeness.

Our VP is required for the treeness. Right? You would agree with that. What I am saying is that there would be no 'treeness' without the x as well as our VP.

This is called physicalism because it insists that the VP as well as the x are both of the same type. The VP is not a spirit mind but rather a part of physicality and the interaction within the physical is why we get treeness from x.

Looked at in that way it is undeniable that there is something about the x that produces, when filtered by our specific VP, treeness, and if we now run that same x through a new VP, say for a caterpillar, that there is now something in common and that is what we conceive to be trees when thinking in this greater abstraction.

That's how we humans know how to find caterpillars!

I don't see how that implies anything more than consistency of the universe at our scale.

That thing you call, off-the-cuff, 'consistency' is what is real. It's what I am talking about. It's some pretty serious shit and if it were not for this we wouldn't be here having this disagreement.

Ok. If you are addressing what I am calling consistency, then we definitely have a piece of common ground. I will go so far as to say that this consistency is the one thing we have no choice but to accept about the universe even if it is ultimately not accurate. But then, what is the point of the rest of your philosophy? As an ontological principle, I think that's the only one we are forced to accept. Are there others?

BWE wrote:Ok. If you are addressing what I am calling consistency, then we definitely have a piece of common ground. I will go so far as to say that this consistency is the one thing we have no choice but to accept about the universe even if it is ultimately not accurate. But then, what is the point of the rest of your philosophy? As an ontological principle, I think that's the only one we are forced to accept. Are there others?

There are those who regard that consistency as somebody else's jiggery-pokery, and as something that could be withdrawn, like permission to pass over in getting from here to there. I'm not sure that I'd agree such people have consistency as an ontological principle. Or maybe they do, and they just fart around with their theories about jiggery-pokery to make some other point.

I'm, like, when you do that ontologic thing, it's no good unless you do that ontologic thing... all the way. You can always change your mind later, and divorce yourself from it, but nattering about it, and being on-again, off-again with jiggery-pokery seems like playing your audience for fools. Trying to hold out and say we could all be heartily surprised is just playing around.

I've been this way for decades. Not interested in trying on jiggery-pokery. I can always change my mind later, but I don't play with my audience now. I treat this as what there is, and that's an ontological principle, I think you'd agree.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Ok. If you are addressing what I am calling consistency, then we definitely have a piece of common ground. I will go so far as to say that this consistency is the one thing we have no choice but to accept about the universe even if it is ultimately not accurate. But then, what is the point of the rest of your philosophy? As an ontological principle, I think that's the only one we are forced to accept. Are there others?

There are those who regard that consistency as somebody else's jiggery-pokery, and as something that could be withdrawn, like permission to pass over in getting from here to there. I'm not sure that I'd agree such people have consistency as an ontological principle. Or maybe they do, and they just fart around with their theories about jiggery-pokery to make some other point.

My working hypothesis is that the dominant paradigm no longer promotes a conception of remote controls as magic. That being the case, I think the jiggery-pokery is about other points even if those points cause contradiction.

I'm, like, when you do that ontologic thing, it's no good unless you do that ontologic thing... all the way. You can always change your mind later, and divorce yourself from it, but nattering about it, and being on-again, off-again with jiggery-pokery seems like playing your audience for fools. Trying to hold out and say we could all be heartily surprised is just playing around.

I've been this way for decades. Not interested in trying on jiggery-pokery. I can always change my mind later, but I don't play with my audience now. I treat this as what there is, and that's an ontological principle, I think you'd agree.

I think that's a commitment to a worldview you are talking about. Is that right?

BWE wrote:I think that's a commitment to a worldview you are talking about. Is that right?

I guess so. Who's done more than that? In a conversation like this, no one can really walk the walk. I'm just talking about verbal jiggery-pokery. So here, I won't wildly obfuscate an answer to your question. Maybe I'd say you can only walk your ontology.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I think that's a commitment to a worldview you are talking about. Is that right?

I guess so. Who's done more than that? In a conversation like this, no one can really walk the walk. I'm just talking about verbal jiggery-pokery. So here, I won't wildly obfuscate an answer to your question. Maybe I'd say you can only walk your ontology.

Yeah. That's a good argument for holding that ontology as loosely as possible though. It seems more productive anyway if saving the world were on your agenda, which, for some people I suppose it is. I tend to see savior types as instead thinking that savioring involves conversion to a preferred ontology rather than relaxing ontology itself.

ETA: Although I suppose relaxing ontologies is basically conversion so maybe there's no way out. It seems vaguely related to intolerance of intolerance I suppose.

BWE wrote:I tend to see savior types as instead thinking that savioring involves conversion to a preferred ontology rather than relaxing ontology itself.

I think that's perceptive, and even better, accurate within its remit. What you get a lot of in anything that looks like a congregation is the reflex to convert.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I tend to see savior types as instead thinking that savioring involves conversion to a preferred ontology rather than relaxing ontology itself.

I think that's perceptive, and even better, accurate within its remit. What you get a lot of in anything that looks like a congregation is the reflex to convert.

I think it goes beyond congregation into the desire to fix problems. In social science, there is a term called a "wicked problem"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
which is largely characterized by the fact that although many people may see the same problem, different stakeholders have different problem definitions due to differing circumstances as much as to different worldviews/assumptions. But what people tend to notice is disagreement on the problem definition hence the urge to convert. It feels like if we could just define the problem the same way, we could solve it. Unfortunately, this turns out not to be the case because the issue is much deeper than worldview. Even if we all believed the same thing, we have different needs based on our circumstances which is enough to create the systemic feedback response which creates the wickedness of the problem. Still, it hasn't stopped people from trying.

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I tend to see savior types as instead thinking that savioring involves conversion to a preferred ontology rather than relaxing ontology itself.

I think that's perceptive, and even better, accurate within its remit. What you get a lot of in anything that looks like a congregation is the reflex to convert.

I think it goes beyond congregation into the desire to fix problems. In social science, there is a term called a "wicked problem"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
which is largely characterized by the fact that although many people may see the same problem, different stakeholders have different problem definitions due to differing circumstances as much as to different worldviews/assumptions. But what people tend to notice is disagreement on the problem definition hence the urge to convert. It feels like if we could just define the problem the same way, we could solve it. Unfortunately, this turns out not to be the case because the issue is much deeper than worldview. Even if we all believed the same thing, we have different needs based on our circumstances which is enough to create the systemic feedback response which creates the wickedness of the problem. Still, it hasn't stopped people from trying.

Oh, don't I know it. For several weeks now, I've followed a thread where various individuals with obvious (and even admitted) personal issues related to physical contact are purporting to instruct me on the social problem of sexual assault. While I accept that people with issues will complain that they sometimes don't feel comfortable in public, I have to laugh when such people are both aware of their own condition and still want to play the role of the teacher. All this on a forum where the top issue is still religious fanaticism. Far be it from me to say that the issue is only as deep as someone's 'worldview'. I also don't expect people to disqualify themselves from trying to solve problems when personal issues make the problems seem so intense to them.

The way it works out around here is that many different forms of fanaticism are acceptable, as long as they don't include gods. It's never clearer than in the politics and current events threads. I don't mince words when I notice the pattern at the same time I acknowledge there's no solution for the problem. Naturally, I'm seen as cruel and heartless because I don't offer solutions to any of these problems.

Mark Knopfler has a song, "Cleaning My Gun" that reflects my mood when people agonize about the world's problems. I mainly tend my own garden and wait for the thugs to come through the door, saving the last bullet for myself. I don't know whether you picked up on this, but the Lord of the Rings saga is ultimately a story of failure, even though the One Ring is destroyed.