Posted: Jan 08, 2021 7:48 pm
by Frozenworld
Spearthrower wrote:It's just a word salad, FZ. Does the word salad itself impress you? I can word salad really well if you like - I was obliged to study French sociologists, so I am pretty much fluent in using a whole lot of words to say very little at all.

P.S. the second video's 'time stamp' is 00:00 out of 47:07... do you mean the link below entitled "The Pitch"?


Yes the first pitch. That's what I was getting at.

It seems the discussion here becomes be a next standard mainstream – philosophical process. Which will be in this case inevitably again fruitless and, at that, endless – in mainstream philosophy now a huge number of schools, doctrines, brilliant prophets, etc. exist and even to list them – as that seems as the main content in last comments is, will be necessary to spent rather large place on the RG servers.

When, at that, any “achievement” in the mainstream, including in “Philosophy of Science” has no any influence on other sciences; any indeed researcher by any means doesn’t think at her/his work – is the work “Pragmaticistic”? “monistic”? “Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept-tic”? “operational constructivism-tic”? “naive realism-tic”? “neokontianstantic”? “positivistic/ neo-positivism-tic”? “critical rationalism-tic”, etc., etc, etc.

Again – such situation is again inevitable consequence from that the mainstream philosophy principally cannot be some science since every its doctrine is based on principally non-provable and no-testable postulates; which use at that principally undefined rationally its basic notions/category, etc.

It is evident that to make something indeed useful for “usual” sciences, philosophy should first of all to define rationally – what are Matter and Consciousness; when in the reality in both main mainstream branches these notions/phenomena are fundamentally transcendent and so non-consignable; all what these branches claim are “everything is Matter” and “everything is Idea/Spirit…”. I.e. Mainstream “studies” “Being” without any rational answers on - What is this “Being”: or this “Being” is a being of what?

Just therefore [because of principal non-cognizability of main phenomena that constitute Universe] in the mainstream the fundamental [in the mainstream, of course] epistemological problems appear, when just the solving of these problems would be indeed very useful for “usual” sciences and would be necessary methodological basis for some “Philosophy of Science”.

But these notions above are Meta-mainstream notions and can be rationally defined/understandable/studied only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [see http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34958]

Where, including, it is rigorously proven that “Being” is being of informational patterns/systems of patterns only; the clear demarcation between Matter and Consciousness is defined; it is shown that, since there cannot be something that isn’t some informational pattern/system of patterns, in the reality there are no fundamental [“philosophical”] epistemological problems at all, etc.

And only in framework of this conception philosophy transforms into indeed science, obtaining indeed [absolutely] fundamental, interesting and paradoxical subjects for study – the notion/phenomenon “Information” and the “Information” Set; when because, for example, of extremely bifurcative nature of the information and absolutely infinite number of links in the Set, these notions/phenomena never will be completely formalized / studied by usual sciences and philosophy could play in this case some integrative role.

Yet in late 1700-th there were no different sciences, there was philosophy only, which fro, Antic times consisted of “Physics”, “Logics” and “Ethics”. Now “Physics”, “Logics” transformed into the set of sciences, and the mainstream philosophy practically has no relation to the sciences; all opposite – though often repeated by mainstream philosophers, claims have, in fact, no relations to the reality – see above. The informational conception above relate to the sciences fundamentally but this relation is short and simple – the conception defines for any science that every research is in depth a study of some informational systems, not non-understandable mainstream “Matter” and “Consciousness”, besides – solves the epistemological problem by its eliminating. That’s practically all.

But till now philosophy has indeed different – and indeed scientific - branch, which remained in this science from Antic times – Ethics, which isn’t a subject for studies by other sciences.

And just researches in this branch become be the priority of new philosophy, including taking into account seems rather plausible inference in the informational conception above that human’s consciousness is only a next stage of a development of some non-material structure that has potential to be developed into next stages with going at that in the Set’s regions outside our “usual” Universe; and so Ethics becomes be the science that studies and develops principles of humans’ behavior aimed at to make the consciousness’s transition optimal – clearing at that what are in this case the Good and the Bad, etc. when humans’ behavior that is optimal in the sense above is just “what the right thing is”.


That user also made a post on morality here:
https://iai.tv/video/the-good-the-bad-a ... 610123237#

And keeps citing this physics paper all the time: https://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf