TheArtfulDodger wrote:jamest wrote:The point of my post that you cite, is to focus upon the observational aspect of the empirical realm. That is, if an entity observes/sees/acknowledges an entity within 'the world', then what can be said about 'that' which is observed/seen/acknowledged? Is it 'something' observed/seen/acknowledged internally or externally to that which is observing/seeing/acknowledging?
I don’t see any deeper implications to the concepts “internal-external” than what is, in a sense, empirically transparent: X observes Y, X and Y are in a spatial relation to one another. The concepts of internality-externality have their meanings grounded in such relations, not in some hidden (non-empirical) metaphysical sense.
Well, this is the crux of the issue, so forgive me for wanting to explore it further.
... What you say implies that you are ignoring/whitewashing the significance of '
observation' - certainly, that you give no significance to that concept. But what is 'empirical information', other than
that which is
conceived by the/a
conceiving entity?
...
All events within the empirical realm are reducible to opinion/report. That is, any relationship between two+ entities within the empirical realm is not purely objective/absolute, in that it is open to doubt/revision. That's how science operates: empirical information is always subject to revision.
... Consequently, empirical information is to be understood as not
just the relationship between two+ entities within the empirical realm, but as the
conceived relationship between two+ entities within that realm.
In a nutshell, I think that it's vitally important - in regards to this issue - to acknowledge the significance of 'a reportER'
as integral to 'empirical data'. Consequently, I think that your response fails to counter/refute what I said. That is, any enquiry regarding the internal/external nature of 'empirical data', is still valid.
Okay, heres how I understand things: observation is an event that involves an observer component and an observed component. Observation cannot be reduced to either one or the other, it is both apsects.
The 'observed component' MUST be either internal/integral or external/separate to the 'observer component'.
Observation is a causal relation between both these aspects. Further, observation involves a synthesis (or entanglement) between observer and observed.
If there is an 'entanglement' between both aspects, then both aspects are reducible to
One 'thing'. That is, the observed is integral/internal to the observer... and vice versa.
Metaphysics endorses a dualism I myself find repulsive ie the incommensurable nature of “appearance” and “reality”. Your post didn’t provide an argument in favour of maintaining this dualism.
I'm not a dualist. I think that whatever is observed is reducible to both
that which creates the observation, and observes 'it'.