Metaphysics as an Error

[SpeedOfSound]

Meditative methods seek 'wisdom' by which I mean understanding the nature of the world the self and the absolute. They seek to control the inner life by understanding and controling the ego and mind.

You have already failed all the philosloppy, physics, and biology test that we have given you. Let's see how well you do on matters spiritual.

What do you see that is seriously a problem with your above statement?


BTW. You chose not to answer my questions yesterday about Penrose.

[FBM]

...Carrot-esian dualism.

This post has been reported.

Hey. I thought it was a phenomenal post. Maybe the post reported itself. Or would that be too "post" modern?

Gimme a minute to deconstruct a reply to that...

[SpeedOfSound]

It was from this perspective that the Papacy was aimed at developing theories about the world and science flourished.

Not pertinent to the thread but... I think the pope's recent stamp of approval on intelligent design was a similar effort by the church to make peace with science. I think the creotards got his position all wrong and then went ahead to make a bigger mess than ever. But I'm guessing. I can't normally be bothered with current affairs.

[Matthew Shute]

...Carrot-esian dualism.

This post has been reported.

Hey. I thought it was a phenomenal post. Maybe the post reported itself. Or would that be too "post" modern?

Gimme a minute to deconstruct a reply to that...

Leaf it alone, FBM. You'll never beet the Maris bard, in my Estima-tion.

[Surendra Darathy]

It was from this perspective that the Papacy was aimed at developing theories about the world and science flourished.

Not pertinent to the thread but... I think the pope's recent stamp of approval on intelligent design was a similar effort by the church to make peace with science. I think the creotards got his position all wrong and then went ahead to make a bigger mess than ever. But I'm guessing. I can't normally be bothered with current affairs.

Does that explain what are we doing in this colossal goat fuck of a thread? Metaphysics died 150 years ago, probably of scurvy, on a boat coming back from the Galapagos Islands.

[SpeedOfSound]

It was from this perspective that the Papacy was aimed at developing theories about the world and science flourished.

Not pertinent to the thread but... I think the pope's recent stamp of approval on intelligent design was a similar effort by the church to make peace with science. I think the creotards got his position all wrong and then went ahead to make a bigger mess than ever. But I'm guessing. I can't normally be bothered with current affairs.

Does that explain what are we doing in this colossal goat fuck of a thread? Metaphysics died 150 years ago, probably of scurvy, on a boat coming back from the Galapagos Islands.

I thought fucking the goats was just to kill time while we waited for the Highly Anticipated Metaphyssical Bedrock to be written? You're saying that the goats are somehow involved?

[Surendra Darathy]

...Carrot-esian dualism.

This post has been reported.

Hey. I thought it was a phenomenal post. Maybe the post reported itself. Or would that be too "post" modern?

Gimme a minute to deconstruct a reply to that...

Leaf it alone, FBM. You'll never beet the Maris bard, in my Estima-tion.

Hey, I'm jest arugula phyllo so furor, Cress almighty! Endive come here to savory important stuff. So lettuce tarragon into the shreds of oregano knowledge.

[Surendra Darathy]

I thought fucking the goats was just to kill time while we waited for the Highly Anticipated Metaphyssical Bedrock to be written? You're saying that the goats are somehow involved?

I goat it wrong, I guess. Goat am a Buddha! Your spiritual guide this morning has been Bhubba Rahj Fubar. Leave something in the tip jar, er, collection plate, on your way out. Waaaay out.

Thank you, goodboy Cerberus

[Surendra Darathy]

What do you see that is seriously a problem with your above statement?

I tend to see the problem as resting in the attempt to show that irrationality is rationality.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Loving Jessica Alba in this sense would entail loving God through loving his work.. the medieval conception of Platonic love.

[Animavore]

Loving Jessica Alba in this sense would entail loving God through loving his work.. the medieval conception of Platonic love.

That's what I was implying

[TheArtfulDodger]

I am interseted in this part of your post, because I agree that Kant made the (platonic) error of setting up the distinction between phenomena and neomena, defining all knowable by senses the 'phenomena' and all unknowable by senses the 'neomena' and thus brewing the duality which has poisoned western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.
Kant's conclusions that we can not know anything outside the phenomena is also his premise, and open to potential dismissal on this ground.

I think Kant’s philosophy is open to potential dismissal on many grounds.

Kant supposed that the philosophical concept of material substance (reflected in the scientific assumption of an external world of material objects) is an a priori condition for our experience. This is now known to be an error, there is no bottom turtle to material substance, and open to potential dismissal on this ground

To be honest, Im confident that no academic scientific discourse (published, peer reviewed works) make any commitments either way as far as the metaphysical notions of ‘internal-external’ are concerned.

Certainly, scientific discourse may involve talk of ‘substance’, but we should not conflate this concept with the Cartesian notion.

We know Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding applicable a priori to every possible experience, we might naturally wish to ask the further question of him; whether these regulative principles are really true. Are there substances? To these further questions, Kant himself firmly refused to offer any answer.

Indeed, some of the initial criticisms of Kant’s “Critique” concerned issues such as this.

[jamest]

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'.

[jamest]

Look, I'm aware that I've used the word 'existence', but note that it is a CONCLUSION to my reasoning.

Well, James, I think some of us are getting a little weary of hearing the conclusion of your "reasoning" without having seen any of your "reasoning". Such dedication to hiding your "reasoning" evokes images of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Oh c'mon. Do I really have to link to the post that evidently shows that I used reasoning to come to that conclusion? Btw, not liking my reasoning does not suffice to say that I haven't used reason.

The fact is that 'observation' is a significant concept in this matter, requiring an either/or solution.

No, I think you mean that "talking about observation" is a significant concept, and requires an either/or solution. A cat may look at a king, but then, cats don't give a flying fuck about clothing.

Whether communication is founded & faciltated solely upon 'the empirical', is obviously open to debate.

Well, let's "debate" it then. It will beat the fuck out of this simulation of AD-HDD. Communication is the empirical transmission of information from a source to a receiver. You don't have to know the ultimate nature of the source, the receiver, or the information to make a model of it.

I shall refer you to my previous post, to TheArtfulDodger, on this matter.

[SpeedOfSound]

Not exacly on topic but a couple of problems I have with Penrose/Hammeroff.

1. Microtubules polymerize/depolymerize at a very high rate inside neurons. I fail to see how quantum fluctuations could possible record any information that would be useful to a brain.

2. I'm not aware of any quantum influences on folded proteins. Other than the fact that they ARE proteins, anyway.

3. I fail to see how a calculation inside of a neuron that fires or does not fire adds anything useful. I suppose frequency modulation of the spike trains could be information and have some influence on which populations of neurons fire but I think the neuronal groups are too course grained to really give a shit about a little FM. But I fail to see how this information could be encoded in something as dynamic as tubulin polymers.

4. I tried to find the problem with gamma synchrony being too fast to be explained by action potentials but didn't have any real good luck. Freeman's papers are dense and a little strange. I'm not sure if they are worth reading. There are neurons that course across the entire brain in cortico-cortical bundles and they could synchronize in around 2 msecs. Particularly if we are talking about temporal binding and consciousness. The areas that are thus connected are the prime candidates for associative qualia spaces. Yet I have an open mind on this particular claim. Anyone have any more info on this?

5. What's up with the super intelligent paramecium?