lol. +1

Cito di Pense wrote: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.

I can imagine Eeyore describing success as merely the least of any two possible failures, but it can come to that. Halting Middle-Earth's descent into millennia of bleak totalitarianism and slavery wasn't nothing. It just wasn't everything. Nothing is. (Nothing worth crowing about, anyway.)

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Here it is:


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?

My position is similar to anti-realism in that I do not assume a bedrock version of external reality. The consistency is enough to justify the truth of science. In that truth, embedded in it, is the fact that we ourselves are, mind and body, understandable through science.

It's a model-in-the-middle that subsumes all of these ideas of subjectivity as well as the reality of objects. This reaching for some bedrock external reality is what is wrong with both idealism and some versions of reductive realism. The idea of what ontology is being somehow flawed in it's scope.

When i say 'there ARE trees' I am not saying that our imagination, narrative, or model exists in some concrete way. I am saying that there is X out there and that X has this structure that gives us a classification of multiple objects as trees due to that consistency.

I pushback against this idea that the tree class is only in our little heads. It can't possibly be for then we would reduce our reality to only one head, solipsism, and reduce everything to chaotic fantasy. Every subject would have a different kind of space-time and some of us would live with unicorns in castles in the clouds.

We all know god damned well what the boundaries are on reality.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:
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?

My position is similar to anti-realism in that I do not assume a bedrock version of external reality. The consistency is enough to justify the truth of science. In that truth, embedded in it, is the fact that we ourselves are, mind and body, understandable through science.

maybe we're not on the same page. Science is a method, not an assertion. No? It produces models which are not true but rather allow us to make predictions which may or may not be true on an individual basis and also on a case by case basis. Right?

It's a model-in-the-middle that subsumes all of these ideas of subjectivity as well as the reality of objects.

are you saying you found a way around subjectivity? Do tell.

This reaching for some bedrock external reality is what is wrong with both idealism and some versions of reductive realism. The idea of what ontology is being somehow flawed in it's scope.

When i say 'there ARE trees' I am not saying that our imagination, narrative, or model exists in some concrete way. I am saying that there is X out there and that X has this structure that gives us a classification of multiple objects as trees due to that consistency.

I pushback against this idea that the tree class is only in our little heads. It can't possibly be for then we would reduce our reality to only one head, solipsism, and reduce everything to chaotic fantasy. Every subject would have a different kind of space-time and some of us would live with unicorns in castles in the clouds.

We all know god damned well what the boundaries are on reality.

I think that's a pragmatic approach. But not that it has any ontological position that's better than straightforward American pragmatism along the lines of James, Pierce and Dewey.
Somewhere back in this or a similar thread I linked to poincare's the value of science. Did you loom at that? I'm asking because I am very much in agreement with his position on models.

By the way, I'm not dismissing American pragmatism. Dewey was the first philosopher I ever really connected with.

BWE wrote:Science is a method, not an assertion. No? It produces models which are not true but rather allow us to make predictions which may or may not be true on an individual basis and also on a case by case basis. Right?

Why insist on making completely general appraisals of 'science'? It might be that the only motivation you have is that somebody else is doing it. People doing 'scientific' research can be engaged in anything from stamp collecting to geometrodynamics.

You get no points for talking generally about predictions which may or may not be true on an individual basis. That's only the bane of those who are wrong much more often than they're right, even though what they're doing is systematic. Some people work in areas where their theories grow in scope instead of shrinking.

That models are not true is heard mainly from people who think they're making the rules but who are not playing the game, and may never have done.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Science is a method, not an assertion. No? It produces models which are not true but rather allow us to make predictions which may or may not be true on an individual basis and also on a case by case basis. Right?

Why insist on making completely general appraisals of 'science'? It might be that the only motivation you have is that somebody else is doing it. People doing 'scientific' research can be engaged in anything from stamp collecting to geometrodynamics.

You get no points for talking generally about predictions which may or may not be true on an individual basis. That's only the bane of those who are wrong much more often than they're right, even though what they're doing is systematic. Some people work in areas where their theories grow in scope instead of shrinking.

That models are not true is heard mainly from people who think they're making the rules but who are not playing the game, and may never have done.

I don't really know what you are saying here.

It sort of looks like you are checking my cv to see if it rates high enough to consider me for employment. If it helps, think of me as someone who read a fair amount but spent his life in a cave.

And doesn't want a job.

Science is a methodology that uses testable hypotheses to understand the nature of observable phenomena
The accumulation of knowledge that is derived from said hypotheses allows models to be created. They are
not statements of truth but approximations of it but as accurate approximations as can be at any given time

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

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?

My position is similar to anti-realism in that I do not assume a bedrock version of external reality. The consistency is enough to justify the truth of science. In that truth, embedded in it, is the fact that we ourselves are, mind and body, understandable through science.

maybe we're not on the same page. Science is a method, not an assertion. No? It produces models which are not true but rather allow us to make predictions which may or may not be true on an individual basis and also on a case by case basis. Right?
...

oh god damn it. Let's not get into presumptions about 'science is' when we can't even seem to talk consistently about 'tree is...'. First we are toddlers and we do trees then much later in life we may become scientists if we work hard. Philosophy of science isn't even part of that work. That comes way later in life when we have given up doing anything useful about science.

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

BWE wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

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?

My position is similar to anti-realism in that I do not assume a bedrock version of external reality. The consistency is enough to justify the truth of science. In that truth, embedded in it, is the fact that we ourselves are, mind and body, understandable through science.

maybe we're not on the same page. Science is a method, not an assertion. No? It produces models which are not true but rather allow us to make predictions which may or may not be true on an individual basis and also on a case by case basis. Right?

It's a model-in-the-middle that subsumes all of these ideas of subjectivity as well as the reality of objects.

are you saying you found a way around subjectivity? Do tell.

This reaching for some bedrock external reality is what is wrong with both idealism and some versions of reductive realism. The idea of what ontology is being somehow flawed in it's scope.

When i say 'there ARE trees' I am not saying that our imagination, narrative, or model exists in some concrete way. I am saying that there is X out there and that X has this structure that gives us a classification of multiple objects as trees due to that consistency.

I pushback against this idea that the tree class is only in our little heads. It can't possibly be for then we would reduce our reality to only one head, solipsism, and reduce everything to chaotic fantasy. Every subject would have a different kind of space-time and some of us would live with unicorns in castles in the clouds.

We all know god damned well what the boundaries are on reality.

I think that's a pragmatic approach. But not that it has any ontological position that's better than straightforward American pragmatism along the lines of James, Pierce and Dewey.
Somewhere back in this or a similar thread I linked to poincare's the value of science. Did you loom at that? I'm asking because I am very much in agreement with his position on models.

Yes. I have found a way around subjectivity. Simply refuse to take it so seriously. Why would you do that? Because you will get nowhere with subject/object speak. It's a confusion of meaning.

In applicative mathematics we start with models. No one gives a shit how real or true the models are. No one believes that they are such a thing that only one subjective little critter can use them. They would be pretty shitty models if they were subjective.

You admit consistency. Maybe we should look into what you have admitted.

We admit consistency. This ushers in all of science and all of commonsense knowledge. No worries about truthiness here because that springs forth from judgments about consistency.

We are now living the model-in-the-middle and we table any worries about metaphysics or ultimate truth.

Next we consider what we ourselves are in the MiM. Yes! We are embedded in the model. Subsumed as is all of our subjectivity concerns. Now when we look at what trees are and whether or not there is a class of them. we can consider ourselves as being in a dynamical relationship with the things around us. We don't jump to conclusions about all the tree class being in our subjective mind thingies because we have abandoned that kind of talk entirely.

See how quickly we can progress if we quit bitching about ontology and truthiness?

Well, I can't get past subjectiveness in the normal way of looking at it. Or, I think it involves something like radical skepticism up to the surface of our models to get around it anyway. I think I understand where you are coming from though. If I were to express what I think you are expressing, it would look a lot like this meditation:
http://www.dharmanet.org/coursesM/zafm/zenart2.htm

I guess I would get rid of objectivity and just say that we can share bits of our subjective experience. But that our subjective experience can be close to objective within itself.

BWE wrote:I guess I would get rid of objectivity and just say that we can share bits of our subjective experience. But that our subjective experience can be close to objective within itself.

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Not much point trying to carry on a conversation, then, is there? On the one hand you claim some infection, vascular accident, or other dissolution of brain tissue has reduced your acuity, not to mention your give-a-shit-ness. Or so you say. On the other hand, you claim to have read a lot. What do you think is weighing in right now? It looks to me like not giving a shit, and that's OK with me. However, you should include a warning with many of your posts noting that what you 'guess' might involve not really giving a shit. There's a whole huge discussion waiting about whether not giving a shit is worth giving a shit about. Just so you know where you're coming from, in case it's slipped your mind. Getting rid of objectivity is almost essential. Sometimes. In the future, consider going there by yourself, because that's going to work beat for you. My excuse is chronic sinusitis, which puts me in a foul mood when it flares.

Fair enough. My point is that there are dimensions to what we share of our experience. If I say, "this rock weighs 11 grams", the truth value In the statement is that I weighed the rock and registered that weight at 11 grams. Using models pragmatically allows you to accept that weight as accurate, but in actuality, the information given is not the weight, it is that I said i weighed the rock and registered that weight at 11 grams. You can double check if it's important enough or accept it if it's not but, though we should both get the same weight because we do assume consistency, words only communicate our experiences, they are not objective and cannot be.

Eta: I should amend that. The objective quality for the receiver is that they were received. What we seem to want to make objective is the information being transmitted.

BWE wrote:My point is that there are dimensions to what we share of our experience.

You're doing it again. I can pretend to understand or ask you to clarify. At this point, I worry that I should prepare myself for disappointment. You collapse everything into 'dimensions', and all the other words you use are or have been trivialized. You're basically referring to all of discourse. If you can't focus any more tightly than that, well, I'll take your claimed etiology into account.

BWE wrote:If I say, "this rock weighs 11 grams", the truth value In the statement is that I weighed the rock and registered that weight at 11 grams. Using models pragmatically allows you to accept that weight as accurate, but in actuality, the information given is not the weight, it is that I weighed the rock and registered that weight at 11 grams.

You know what sophistry is, BWE. Please reassure me you've heard the term before.

BWE wrote:You can double check if it's important enough or accept it if it's not but, though we should both get the same weight because we do assume consistency, words only communicate our experiences, they are not objective and cannot be.

Now you've collapsed everything into the word 'important'. It's a great word about which to embark on philosophical blogging. But say something about the nature of 'importance', for fuckety-fuck's sake.

BWE wrote:Eta: I should amend that. The objective quality for the receiver is that they were received. What we seem to want to make objective is the information being transmitted.

Don't kid yourself, pal. I've learned my lesson with you, and won't strive to push us toward objectivity any time we chat. I see no possibility of communicating with you on the matter of objectivity. I think you're trying to cut yourself some slack so you can pretend you're still having conversations with people. At this level, you are. You read what people write, and then you respond, "Bleeble bleeble". If you and I have anything in common to discuss, you're the one who's not letting it out, burying it under yards and yards of transmission and reception. It's fair in some circumstanced to focus just on that, but this ain't the time, because your particular cognitive situation is not what everybody wants to be talking about. If you want to claim impairment, claim it proudly.

cito wrote:Now you've collapsed everything into the word 'important'. It's a great word about which to embark on philosophical blogging. But say something about the nature of 'importance', for fuckety-fuck's sake

Importance is exactly what is subjective. I really don't think this is all that hard. If you are untangling the objective from the subjective, the subjective is the value we attach and the value we accept from others. The objective is the existence of the value we assign and the statements from others that they hold whatever values they claim to hold. I don't think that's sophistry. Maybe it is but I don't see it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:My point is that there are dimensions to what we share of our experience.

You're doing it again. I can pretend to understand or ask you to clarify. At this point, I worry that I should prepare myself for disappointment. You collapse everything into 'dimensions', and all the other words you use are or have been trivialized. You're basically referring to all of discourse. If you can't focus any more tightly than that, well, I'll take your claimed etiology into account.

Well, as I have mentioned several times, I am indeed referring to discourse.

That confusion I mentioned is my basic objection to shared ontology. We are not generally equipped to distinguish objective from subjective and typically try to make objectivity into an external quality - which, seems an awful lot closer to idealism than realism to me since it requires a God's eye view.

BWE wrote:If I say, "this rock weighs 11 grams", the truth value In the statement is that I weighed the rock and registered that weight at 11 grams. Using models pragmatically allows you to accept that weight as accurate, but in actuality, the information given is not the weight, it is that I weighed the rock and registered that weight at 11 grams.

You know what sophistry is, BWE. Please reassure me you've heard the term before.

That you would consider that sophistry suggests that you would consider the objective quality to be the weight rather than the statement.

BWE wrote:You can double check if it's important enough or accept it if it's not but, though we should both get the same weight because we do assume consistency, words only communicate our experiences, they are not objective and cannot be.

Now you've collapsed everything into the word 'important'. It's a great word about which to embark on philosophical blogging. But say something about the nature of 'importance', for fuckety-fuck's sake.

Importance is what is subjective.

BWE wrote:Eta: I should amend that. The objective quality for the receiver is that they were received. What we seem to want to make objective is the information being transmitted.

Don't kid yourself, pal. I've learned my lesson with you, and won't strive to push us toward objectivity any time we chat. I see no possibility of communicating with you on the matter of objectivity. I think you're trying to cut yourself some slack so you can pretend you're still having conversations with people.

Sorry I offend your sensibilities.

At this level, you are. You read what people write, and then you respond, "Bleeble bleeble". If you and I have anything in common to discuss, you're the one who's not letting it out, burying it under yards and yards of transmission and reception. It's fair in some circumstanced to focus just on that, but this ain't the time, because your particular cognitive situation is not what everybody wants to be talking about. If you want to claim impairment, claim it proudly.

Jesus Christ. I use words with some imprecision. That's just a fact about me. I let you know because it's going to be an ongoing issue that is easily addressed by simply asking if that is the word I meant. It often isn't. I'm not an imbecile though. Nor am I selling anything.