Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

a perceived problem of our perceiving things

All problems are "perceived problems". I'm not a middleist. I'm not a nihilist. I'm a "minimalist". The word "problem" is just a word; it is not a "problem". Sometimes it is spelt "porblem" or "promble".

To return to my cat-and-mouse game, perceiving things is not a "promble" for cats, because they don't have a word for it. When cats have nothing to do, they go to sleep. Of course, you know that my Big Theory is that nothing begins to exist until you give it a name and invent the word "exist". It's taxonomy writ large, and how I exterminated the metaphysics before they got into my foundation timbers.

[Surendra Darathy]

The history of humanity is littered with revised concepts; theories; values and their associated parameters. Indeed, science itself is eternally fluid - forever reshaping its understanding of what is happening within the empirical realm.

Yeah, well: The canard in that one is that science is flawed because it does not "commit". The history of religion is littered with attempts to "commit" to coherent concepts that cannot be revised. What a failure that was. Finding the still point at the center of a turning world involves navel gazing, and it is a solipsistic enterprise. The whole point of riding a merry-go-round is to sit as close to the perimeter as you can and to look at the world as it spins by. People who easily get vertigo spend their time on the merry-go-round staring intently at the axis around which it turns. They shouldn't come to the fun-fair in the first place.

[FBM]

I study treeness on brainess.

You mean "brainness". "Brainess" sounds like a "female principle" to me. Brain and brainess created He them. I told you I was an expert on those -ness words. James, OTOH, studies the action of nessness on nessness.

Yeh BrainNess. You confuse brainness with bitchness.

[SpeedOfSound]

I study treeness on brainess.

You mean "brainness". "Brainess" sounds like a "female principle" to me. Brain and brainess created He them. I told you I was an expert on those -ness words. James, OTOH, studies the action of nessness on nessness.

Yeh BrainNess. You confuse brainness with bitchness.

My Bad.

[SpeedOfSound]

So how about it jamest. Can we be reasonably sure that there is treeness?

[Surendra Darathy]

there is 'something else' other than empirical data. Whether that 'thing' is the brain itself, God, or a pile of turtles, is not the issue here.

Good old Pyrrhonian skepticism makes no comment as to "other". You cannot say anything about it other than that you need the concept to justify your need to justify the concept. The "need to justify" is what we're all so curious about, here.

Whatever it is you eventually get around to, when you describe whether or not it is a pile of turtles or a pile of turds, there is going to be a large disconnect between that and ushering in an age of peace, love, and understanding. It's never been shown that raw assertions extracted from some self-important sage's hindquarters has ever led to more than acrimony.

Nothing has ever shown that introspection leads to any sort of hands-free spoon-bending. Introspection, that intercom to talk to God, but no one can say where the push-to-talk switch is.

Empirical data is the be-all and end-all of anything we can discuss coherently. If you call your brain fart a god, and I call it a pile of turtles, it doesn't mean that we're having a conversation. Every day, we get a little farther on an empirical account of "sensus divinatus" that boils down to recognizing it as a "brain fart".

[jamest]

In the instance that you have suggested, the observed component is happening internally to 'the brain'. But since you are implying that the brain exists distinctly to that which is being observed, you are in fact advocating a material reality, distinct and external to the observed component. That is, the instance you present entails an ontology commensurate with materialism.

You are imposing metaphysics on those with whom you are discussing this. Of the discussants, you are the only one here talking about the brain in terms of how and whether it "exists".

If somebody asks me to consider the scenario of 'the brain' being that entity that internalises and constructs emprical data/meaning for itself, then of course an ontology is implied - then of course we have to talk in terms of the brain actually existing. For, what sort of nonsense would it be to talk about a non-existing entity that internalises and constructs said things?
I'm not focussing upon things that have been said or claimed by anyone else here. I'm focussing upon things that are implied by things that have been said by some of the people here.

The empiricist states that the empirical brain is the part of the empirical model of empirical cognition where empirical sensory information is organized.

Look, if empirical data and meaning are showed to be internal constructs, then the 'empirical brain' - being an internal construct itself - cannot be that thing that is doing the internalising. That is, something must exist, distinct to empirical brains (real brains, perhaps!), that is internalising and constructing empirical data (including 'empirical brains'!) for itself!
In a nutshell, if what you say is correct, then the empiricist is wrong. That is, any model attributing the internalised construction of empirical data to something that itself is also reducible to empirical data, has to be erroneous. The model is fubar. A consequence of unveiling something as a basis for metaphysics, is the dire implications it has for empiricism & relativism.

Schrodinger's cat catches Schrodinger's mouse. You put the cat and the mouse in a room and when, the next day, the mouse is no longer there, but a tail and a hairball, and the cat are, you conclude that the cat observed the mouse. That's the empirical model. It may not be what really-o, truly-o "occurred" or "happened", but that's the conclusion from the empirical data. All you're left with is a set of observations. Scientists are not in the habit of saying "I observed this" and then start talking about themselves. You seem to think they should. That may only be because you think it's a great deal for people to talk about themselves.

I'm not denying that scientists do as you say they do. What I'm saying, is that they are leaving out something significant about empirical data - and the language/methodology of science confirms this.

The whole business of knowing something fershur is what the enterprise of "metaphysics" hoped to achieve. It's fucked.

Why is it "fucked"? Because we cannot know anything more than empirical data? But I don't agree with that, evidently. I think that any close analysis of what empirical data is proves that 'an observer' is fundamental in constructing it. Therefore, the observer (WHATEVER that might be), exists distinctly to the data that is constructed by it. That is, an analysis of empirical data proves the existence of 'something' OTHER than said data.

So you want to say that the model statements about brains means that empiricists know fershur that materialism is true

No, I say that model statements about brains have an implied ontology that empiricists haven't realised. My reason for saying this is that empirical data is internalised, and since empirical brains are integral to emperical data, then it cannot be an empirical brain that is doing this internalising. That is, implicit in their claim is that brains really exist distinctly to our awareness/understanding of them. Hence, an ontology commensurate with materialism is implied from such a model.

and that (though they don't state anything about the metaphysics of brains) empiricists are secret materialists.

They are ignorant materialists. Lots of people are doing/saying things without being aware of the philosophical category it places them in.

you are implying that the brain exists distinctly to that which is being observed, you are in fact advocating a material reality

So your hypothesis is that when an empiricist says that "brain" and "observed phenomena" are distinct components of a "model" and that this implies that the scientist models them as distinct components of a "material reality" with a metaphysics behind it?

Again, I am simply stating that scientists are [apparently] unaware of the ontological implications of such models.

If you don't start out with metaphysics, you won't end up with it.

My analysis starts out by focussing upon how empirical data/knowledge comes about. Metaphysics doesn't come into it until after the analysis suffices to show the existence of 'something' other than that data/knowledge.

Starting with metaphysics is the only way to end with it.

Now that's what you call an "assertion extracted fron one's hindquarters". Just how did you come to this conclusion?

You're so good at missing the point that you could join Custer at Little Big Horn and still be making plans for the weekend barbecue.

Yeah, well I would have stopped the Injuns with my proof for God's existence. After that, we'd all be hugging one another and smoking peace pipes.

Empiricists do not talk about "sources" and "essences", James. Scientists say that the brain is an organ in a physiological and anatomical model of human beings. Science does not talk about what the "essence" of a human being consists of. In order to do that, the scientist would have to engage in the intellectual masturbation of metaphysics, but she desists.

What an empiricist does not talk about is hardly the point. What is significant is when an empiricist says something that implies an ontology. Even if they are oblivious to such things.

[jamest]

So how about it jamest. Can we be reasonably sure that there is treeness?

I have no idea what you are asking me. It sounds like you're asking me about something akin to Plato's theory of forms, but you'll have to elucidate. And it will need to be relevant for me to get involved, otherwise, save it for the next thread.

[jamest]

The history of humanity is littered with revised concepts; theories; values and their associated parameters. Indeed, science itself is eternally fluid - forever reshaping its understanding of what is happening within the empirical realm.

Yeah, well: The canard in that one is that science is flawed because it does not "commit". The history of religion is littered with attempts to "commit" to coherent concepts that cannot be revised. What a failure that was.

What scientific knowledge cannot be revised? Further, what scientific knowledge do you have that has no dependence upon an individual's conceptual analysis of 'the world'?

Finding the still point at the center of a turning world involves navel gazing, and it is a solipsistic enterprise.

The truth is what matters. What doesn't matter, is whether you like that truth.

[SpeedOfSound]

So how about it jamest. Can we be reasonably sure that there is treeness?

I have no idea what you are asking me. It sounds like you're asking me about something akin to Plato's theory of forms, but you'll have to elucidate. And it will need to be relevant for me to get involved, otherwise, save it for the next thread.

No, No. Too deep. I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?

[Surendra Darathy]

You are imposing metaphysics on those with whom you are discussing this. Of the discussants, you are the only one here talking about the brain in terms of how and whether it "exists".

...we have to talk in terms of the brain actually existing. For, what sort of nonsense would it be to talk about a non-existing entity that internalises and constructs said things?

Unless you want to say what is entailed in "existing" beyond "serving a subject of discourse", I think you should stand down, now, James. The reason why people decline to accept that you are doing metaphysics is because you will not account for what is entailed in "existing". The reasons for this are obvious, apparently to everyone but you.

My explanation for why you will not describe what is entailed in existing: It may simply be because you don't know; that is, you haven't thought about it enough or read enough of what philosophers call metaphysics to engage in that discourse. Here's a (somewhat circular) "theory of existence" of a sort I think a fourteen-year-old metaphysician might attempt:

Anything that exists does so by virtue of having been caused to come into existence by the action of a prior existing entity.

This is not my view, though it may very well be your poorly-worked-out and inarticulate view. It folds all the problems of "existence" into the problem of "causality", but then throws you on the rocks of having to extract from your hindquarters a declaration of a first cause. This arbitrary escape from infinite regress is known as "question begging" or "assuming your conclusion", so favored of woo-heads and other sorts of religious nuts.

Look at the problems it generates if we account for the "existence" of a "brain" this way. We could say that "love" and "justice" exist by virtue of being caused by the actions of brains, and so on. It doesn't solve the problem of articulating what is entailed in "existing", just shunts the problem back to a first cause whose existence is taken as being uncaused.

Those you are conversing with here have been there and done that many times, and it just makes arse-gravy stew.

For, what sort of nonsense would it be to talk about a non-existing entity that internalises and constructs said things?

Well, James, what sort of fucking nonsense is it to say "there must be an uncaused cause that is the cause of all existing things"? This is precisely why people decline to witness your metaphysical journey. We know where it starts. It starts with an assertion you pull straight out of your butthole. Either give another account of what is entailed in "existence" than something extracted from your butthole, or impress us with a brand new kind of metaphysics that talks about something else besides "existence". If you don't talk about existence, you won't have to talk about first causes. If you do decide to talk about "existence", the only sensible motivation for it will be to allow you to talk about prime movers.

I'm not focussing upon things that have been said or claimed by anyone else here. I'm focussing upon things that are implied by things that have been said by some of the people here.

Bullshit, James. We do not have to talk about "existence" in order to do the empirical program. If you want to go there, start telling us what is entailed in this "existence". It's your word, not ours.

Look, if empirical data and meaning are showed to be internal constructs, then the 'empirical brain' - being an internal construct itself - cannot be that thing that is doing the internalising. That is, something must exist, distinct to empirical brains (real brains, perhaps!), that is internalising and constructing empirical data (including 'empirical brains'!) for itself!

There you are, again, assuming your conclusion. You keep repeating your mantra that "something must exist", but you won't say what is entailed in "existence" because either (1) you don't have a fucking clue how to say it or (2) you know how to say it, and you know you will embarrass yourself if you do. You may not be feeling embarrassment at your effort so far, but that is all on your shoulders. You may be so immersed in your own woo that self-analysis is forbidden you. This is a fine kettle of fish for a guy who writes about "self-knowledge".

A consequence of unveiling something as a basis for metaphysics, is the dire implications it has for empiricism & relativism.

Unless you wish carefully to lay out a rigorous definition of what is entailed in "existence", you're not unveiling anything.

I'm not denying that scientists do as you say they do. What I'm saying, is that they are leaving out something significant about empirical data - and the language/methodology of science confirms this.

What they are leaving out, in case you have not yet picked up on this, is nonsense talk involving a word like "existence" about which no metaphysical wibbler displays any capacity to say anything sensible.

The whole business of knowing something fershur is what the enterprise of "metaphysics" hoped to achieve. It's fucked.

Why is it "fucked"? Because we cannot know anything more than empirical data?

No, of course not, James. It is because we cannot construct any meaningful syllogisms using the word "existence". If you want to lead the world toward metaphysics, you had best get on this lingering problem.

I think that any close analysis of what empirical data is proves that 'an observer' is fundamental in constructing it.

Well, not so fast. You're off the tracks again, trying to talk about "observers" without having entailed your fundamental terms of "existence". We know that you think that, in order to be observed, something must "exist". Try not to get ahead of yourself. Once you straighten out the existence of "observables", then you can get on to the "essences" of "observers"

Therefore, the observer (WHATEVER that might be), exists distinctly to the data that is constructed by it.

Worry about the existence of observables, and then we will let you natter on about the nature of observers, and their different sort of "existence", which I am sure you are just itching badly to get onto. I think it quite lazy of you to skip over letting us know what is entailed in "existence" in order to reassure us that "observers exist". That kind of laziness leads to what some here will call "garbage philosophy".

That is, an analysis of empirical data proves the existence of 'something' OTHER than said data.

Yes, but until you tell us what is entailed in "existence", your empty rhetoric about "something other than data" can be safely ignored.

I say that model statements about brains have an implied ontology that empiricists haven't realised.

And I say your talk of ontology is premature, since you are the only one here insisting on talking about "existence". Since you obviously are not willing to say anything rigorous about "existence", you've invented a self-sodomising discourse.

That is, implicit in their claim is that brains really exist distinctly to our awareness/understanding of them.

You're the only one insisting on using this fucking word. Tell us, please, what is entailed in "existing", and then we will see if you can make metaphysics possible. So far, you've presented a self-sodomising discourse.

They are ignorant materialists. Lots of people are doing/saying things without being aware of the philosophical category it places them in.

To be a materialist, James, you have to be willing to say something about the existence of material substances. We assert that until you say something meaningful about what is entailed in "existence", your self-sodomising discourse can be ignored or derided.

I am simply stating that scientists are [apparently] unaware of the ontological implications of such models.

What we are aware of are the pitfalls of using a word like "existence" and wibbling about ontology. You don't have to say anything about existence in order to do science. Since you are so insistent on declaring the ontologic underpinnings of science, why don't you just fucking say something intelligible about what is entailed in "existence"?

My analysis starts out by focussing upon how empirical data/knowledge comes about. Metaphysics doesn't come into it until after the analysis suffices to show the existence of 'something' other than that data/knowledge.

Well, James, it's more than clear at this point that you love using the word "existence", but are reluctant to commit yourself to describing what is entailed in the semantics of this word you love to use so much. I think if you made the least little effort to do so, we'd be seeing a lot less big talk from you about the ontological underpinnings of science.

Starting with metaphysics is the only way to end with it.

Now that's what you call an "assertion extracted fron one's hindquarters". Just how did you come to this conclusion?

I came to this conclusion because of how much you evidently like to bandy about the word "existence" without providing the smallest clue of what you think is entailed in it.

You're so good at missing the point that you could join Custer at Little Big Horn and still be making plans for the weekend barbecue.

The point you are missing is that you need to say something intelligible about what is entailed in "existence".

Finding the still point at the center of a turning world involves navel gazing, and it is a solipsistic enterprise.

The truth is what matters. What doesn't matter, is whether you like that truth.

What is in evidence, James, is that you have not shown that you have the slightest inkling of how to present a philosophical version of what is entailed in "existence". After you do that, and a few more weeks of work, you may get around to discussing what is entailed in "truth", as applied to matters ontologic. So far, James, you've said nothing.

We are at the pivotal point of this discourse.

Yes, James, we are, as you put it so pompously, at the pivotal point of this discourse. Until you say something sensible about what is entailed in existence, your end of the conversation is, how you say? sitting on its thumbs and pivoting. A sight to behold!


And, just so you have a point of reference, something you badly need in order to begin, and relative to which you can compose your discourse: When I talk about the sorts of entities to which you attribute "existence", I am talking about entities which are well-defined features of scientific models (discourses with mathematics and careful use of language) that have not been falsified by contrary evidence. What's evidence? Empirical data intended to try to falsify the statements of well-defined scientific models, preferably collected by carefully-expressed methodology.

I don't care what the metaphysical nature of my desk is. It has mass and dimensions I can approximate in height, width, depth, giving it a bulk density. It has a position and velocity in a frame of reference in which I am not moving. While I'm typing this, my desk isn't moving relative to me. How about yours, James? What's your model of your desk's trajectory in space-time while you are sleeping? What "is" space-time, its "essential property"? I don't know, and I don't think you do either. Not enough to tell me about its "existence", anyway.

[SpeedOfSound]

there is...an absence in the Woosphere....

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

there is...an absence in the Woosphere....

[jamest]

Here's a (somewhat circular) "theory of existence" of a sort I think a fourteen-year-old metaphysician might attempt:

Anything that exists does so by virtue of having been caused to come into existence by the action of a prior existing entity.

This is not my view, though it may very well be your poorly-worked-out and inarticulate view. It folds all the problems of "existence" into the problem of "causality", but then throws you on the rocks of having to extract from your hindquarters a declaration of a first cause. This arbitrary escape from infinite regress is known as "question begging" or "assuming your conclusion", so favored of woo-heads and other sorts of religious nuts.

Firstly, a consequence of what I am saying (that 'things' of the empirical realm only apparently exist, conceived of by 'something' which exists), requires a qualification of the youngsters statement:

Anything that appears to exist does so by virtue of having been caused to apparently exist by the action of a prior existing entity.

It should instantly be apparent, now, why the problem of "infinite regress" is fubar: the regress stops at actual existence, as opposed to apparent existence.

Further, the problem of the origin of a 'first cause' can also be brushed aside if the thing that actually exists, has always existed; thus, the question "What caused it to exist" is rendered meaningless and silly.

Either give another account of what is entailed in "existence" than something extracted from your butthole, or impress us with a brand new kind of metaphysics that talks about something else besides "existence". If you don't talk about existence, you won't have to talk about first causes. If you do decide to talk about "existence", the only sensible motivation for it will be to allow you to talk about prime movers.

'First causes' are not a problem, as above. Regards defining existence: that is a conclusion of my metaphysic.

Existence must be synonymous with that which has actual being. Therefore, any exploration of 'existence' necessarily entails a conclusion to a metaphysic that describes attributes of that being.

Did you have something else in mind? Perhaps I misunderstand you. However, as I keep saying, the basis/grounds of metaphysics is to discover that there is 'actual existence'. The success of metaphysics would be in describing the qualities/attributes associated with it.

[Little Idiot]

there is...an absence in the Woosphere....

I for one have been busy with family stuff, my wife and youngest just left for a 3 month holiday and I have been busy for a few days with that.
I do need to piss on one camp fire though and I will post shortly;

Regarding the thread;
Its gone far enough as far as I am concerned; I demonstrated a start to metaphysics, involved SD in an exchange of information about absolute truth and therefore we did metaphysics, and did it with out error by using a valid 'if - then' logic argument. Thereby proving that metaphysics is possible, and is possible without errors. As I said, thats QED. I dont see any defence offered to that.
The ignoring of the post is not significant to dismiss that point.

If doing metaphysics does not prove metaphysics is do-able, then I feel sorry for those of closed mind and restricted capacity to accommodate new evidence, and in any I dont see myself spending much more time on this thread, as I said a few days back.

If me proving the point and then withdrawing constitutes a 'victory' to anyone on the J-team, then congratulations