Writing a philosophy of my own.

[BurnedOut]

Being qua being ... what was that?
Supercilious?
As if?
I was trying for semi-serious at times.
that rhymes with `supercilious'
Does this count for something now?



Ahhh ... bullshit and based/founded, as opposed to unfounded as per discounting?



You DID figure that one out as intended.
I was trying for absurdism and mock narcissism by elevating my self above BOTH of you.
Watch how Donald Trump does it some time.



There you go, you've go Appeal to Authority working for/against you now.
FWIW, I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass what Stephen wolfram has been promoting ... or for how long.




Dude, it WORKED for getting your panties in a wad.
I was light heartedly presenting stimuli into your metaphorical skinner box.
You reacted as a perfect reactionary.
They were and remain ONLY words as per Philosophy of Language.

The dead-serious part of my post was ...
"Good luck on YOUR paper, dude."

Sincerely,
Gene

You sound defensive to be honest. I don't think its me who got my panties in my wad. Using terms like 'appeal to authority' and stuff, I suppose you read psychology and try to use it everywhere. Cool, I don't see how you actually criticised my theory in any way by 'appealing to authority (aka posting links and then reading through it)'. Making original theories and using a priori cognition to derive your actual criticisms with monumental theory bound to replace the one you are trying to criticise is harder than using several frames of references and then using cynicism to cover your tracks. Good work with the condescension.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Cognisant]

Cognisant could(will) you define or elaborate or what you mean when you say "inherently meaningful"? Because I don't see how hard determinism automatically makes it so that life isn't inherently meaningful.

Hard determinism precludes free will, without free will whether or not you have a soul is irrelevant, I mean what's the point of a god judging someone for being evil when that god made them evil in the first place? It's like damming a squirrel for being a squirrel, not exactly fair when the squirrel had no choice in the matter and from the squirrel's perspective what's wrong with being a squirrel?

As I see it this life isn't the prelude to another, it's not a test, there's no transcendental meaning to it we're just here and that's it, that's all there is to it, there's no objective purpose just a bunch of people each with their own subjective goals and desires.

So yes life is inherently, subjectively, meaningful.

 

[redbaron]

Emotions are inherently meaningful to the people who experience them and therefore my new philosophy is that maximising the good emotions for many people is the inherent meaning of life.

 

[doncarlzone]

That makes sense when you're talking about wanting to go home from a literal party but as a metaphor for life your quote fails to explain why one would become so weary of life that death becomes preferable, I think it's a false analogy fallacy.

Don't just assume that eventually you'll want to die, that's a baseless assumption, instead tell me why you'll eventually want to die and then clarify why that reasoning is applicable to your future self but not your current self.

I agree that Hitchens' quote is not a perfect analogy as few are, I could easily have left that quote out of my post.

Well, perhaps when I am so old that I can't walk or even think coherently and will need assistance 24/7. Or perhaps at a point when I am old and very sick.

These are just two examples that do not apply to me now.

You may say, what if you never got sick and old? Well, then at that point where the world is so crowded and horrible from immortals walking around.

Again, that doesn't apply to me now either.

Is there no world in which I would want to be immortal in? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. If there are no limits to my imagination in this regard, then maybe there is

 

[BurnedOut]

Emotions are inherently meaningful to the people who experience them and therefore my new philosophy is that maximising the good emotions for many people is the inherent meaning of life.

Hormone hacking !

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[redbaron]

That said I think balance is actually necessary. There's benefits to negative experience that I think can't be replicated by intellectual understanding - you need to experience the bad to grow, and only growth can lead to long-term goodness of inherent emotional experience.

 

[doncarlzone]

That said I think balance is actually necessary. There's benefits to negative experience that I think can't be replicated by intellectual understanding - you need to experience the bad to grow, and only growth can lead to long-term goodness of inherent emotional experience.

Sounds reasonable (as a start).

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Hello fellow intps. My decision to take up philosophy was quite abrupt. Apparently my shrink had told me that philosophy would suit my analytical thinking style and now I feel it truly does. Its only been 1 week as such and I'm already latched on to 'Critique of pure reason'. However, one day, I suddenly decided to write some of my own. As I read 'Thinking Fast and Slow', i slowly realised the uselessness of using intuition in daily activities except split second decisions. So, here is how my journey began. I decided to write an essay on 'The critique on usage of intuition'.
As I kept on writing, I slowly veered off track after writing the first chapter and decided to follow the tangent of 'The prevalence of patterns'. That's when I introduced the concept of 'binary cognition'

So I based off almost 30 pages and counting on the concept of usage of binary logic in the age old debate of 'randomness vs determinism'

Till now, I'm going okay, able to derive theories and ideas and thinking of transcribing it digitally ( I'm comfortable with pen and paper more than keyboards).

I just want your opinions on whether using the concept of 'binary logic' and 'mathematical functions' is okay for basing a treatise in the debate of free will vs determinism. Also, a stupid question. I'm 17 and I wish to base off a book on this. Will I be able to do it ? Apparently I'm quite insecure about my own work always thinking that its stupid.

Thank you all.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

You can use whatever means you want to argue a certain point. It's philosophy, a free-enterprise.

If you've easily written 30 pages, you could easily write a book.

Would it be worthwhile, or well received? Probably not well-received, but to know if it would be worthwhile in a grander sense I would need to have a conversation with you, but I may not be the sort to properly grasp your ideas.

/stopped reading the thread after a while because of all the argumentz /thinkerz

 

[redbaron]

I think the value of writing your own book of philosophy extends beyond the immediate effects it might have on potential readers and, if anything, would benefit yourself more than anyone and kind of captures the essence of all truly useful or meaningful philosophy in that it makes it quantifiable in a way that few ever achieve.

Whether it's published, well-received or especially grand kind of defeats the purpose of philosophy anyway. What matters is that you benefit from the process and that it puts you in a direction that you like.

 

[BurnedOut]

I think the value of writing your own book of philosophy extends beyond the immediate effects it might have on potential readers and, if anything, would benefit yourself more than anyone and kind of captures the essence of all truly useful or meaningful philosophy in that it makes it quantifiable in a way that few ever achieve.

Whether it's published, well-received or especially grand kind of defeats the purpose of philosophy anyway. What matters is that you benefit from the process and that it puts you in a direction that you like.

Yes, that's my point. It's basically a test of own thinking complexity

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Hard determinism precludes free will, without free will whether or not you have a soul is irrelevant, I mean what's the point of a god judging someone for being evil when that god made them evil in the first place? It's like damming a squirrel for being a squirrel, not exactly fair when the squirrel had no choice in the matter and from the squirrel's perspective what's wrong with being a squirrel?

As I see it this life isn't the prelude to another, it's not a test, there's no transcendental meaning to it we're just here and that's it, that's all there is to it, there's no objective purpose just a bunch of people each with their own subjective goals and desires.

So yes life is inherently, subjectively, meaningful.

So to clarify, meaning and purpose synonymous in this context to you? If so, I understand where you're coming from. If not I still don't understand how life can't be objectively meaningful as a result of hard determinism.

 

[Happy]

Knowledge is like money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value.

By this logic, circulating your knowledge enriches its quantity and value. If, for you, that involves writing and publishing a book, you should by all means go ahead with it.

 

[Cognisant]

I agree that Hitchens' quote is not a perfect analogy as few are, I could easily have left that quote out of my post.

Well, perhaps when I am so old that I can't walk or even think coherently and will need assistance 24/7. Or perhaps at a point when I am old and very sick.

These are just two examples that do not apply to me now.

You may say, what if you never got sick and old? Well, then at that point where the world is so crowded and horrible from immortals walking around.

Again, that doesn't apply to me now either.

Is there no world in which I would want to be immortal in? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. If there is no limits to my imagination in this regard, then maybe there is

So barring external factors because obviously nobody wants to live forever if that life isn't worth living, you agree that simply having lived a long time isn't sufficient cause for someone to want to die?

So to clarify, meaning and purpose synonymous in this context to you? If so, I understand where you're coming from. If not I still don't understand how life can't be objectively meaningful as a result of hard determinism.

Well what do you mean by objectively meaningful?

 

[doncarlzone]

So barring external factors because obviously nobody wants to live forever if that life isn't worth living, you agree that simply having lived a long time isn't sufficient cause for someone to want to die?

No (or yes, I agree with that). Nor do I think that the fact that you are going to die at one point is sufficient cause to even contemplate that life is meaningless, or meaningful, for that matter. Time in isolation, in this regard, means nothing.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Well what do you mean by objectively meaningful?

Objectively meaningful in that there is an objective quality/aspect of life that makes it worth living.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Determinism as a building block in a nihilistic philosophy seems to me an intellectually lazy play on words. Even if the universe is deterministic, it is impossible even in theory to predict everything - by virtue of physical limits on how fast information can travel and how much information you need to predict certain things. It has been calculated, for example, that in order to predict the positions of billiard balls on a table after 50 collisions or so, you need to know the positions and speeds of all atoms in the universe at the inital state. That information is impossible to obtain, even in theory. So we know we will never be able to treat the world as a deterministic machine. Moreover, none of us feels determined, and everything about our lives revolves around choices. Then effectively, determinism remains a hypothetical which will never have any bearing on our lives.

 

[Cognisant]

Then effectively, determinism remains a hypothetical which will never have any bearing on our lives.

Actually for just one example it has profound implications for the definition of justice, if we accept that hard determinism is true then every criminal act can be attributed to factors prior to the act itself. Thus rather than seeing a criminal as someone who has done wrong and deserves to be punished we would see them like a machine that is malfunctioning and in need of repair. Imagine rather than going to jail a criminal would receive an injection of nanobots and be released the next day, their defect having been fixed.

 

[Hadoblado]

Don't let the prospect of there being a closing paragraph put you off reading the story. You can't skip to the end to find out what happens, so for all intents and purpose the story is written as we read it.

 

[Black Rose]

Purpose as in, what it is I am meant to do, is at my own discretion. But then my own discretion is constrained by life circumstance. RB is right that emotions are meaningful and Serac is right that we do not feel constrained in most instances. So there may be initial conditions that forced me to type this message, but it was my intellectual/emotional state that made me feel the need to type it. Determinism cannot explain away my own consciousness. Even by pronouncing determinism controls every action I take I know I exist. That creates an existential loop. I am not in control because everything is determined, and I know it is determined by my consciousness. At this point, Existentialist give up and say "find your own meaning". Or enjoy being Sisyphus pushing the boulder uphill. But only under certain conditions do emotions arise that are meaningful. Consciousness allows me to know what I want and to some degree how to get it but no guarantees are possible, only a choice to move forward.

 

[gps]

You sound defensive to be honest.

I'm an Ink Blot, dude.
I am as I seem to whomever I seem for exactly as long as I seem.

I don't think its me who got my panties in my wad.

It's your projective test.
Tell us more about how I `sound' and what you `don't think' about you but do about me.

Using terms like 'appeal to authority'

Point taken.
I believe in retrospect that you could have been better `informed' had I kept with the logical fallacies theme: Genetic Fallacy might server better than appeal to authority.

BTW, NT/Rationals as a whole tend not to be impressed with would-be authority figures.
So when you're crafting Rhetoric -- as a branch of Philosophy -- intended to sway the INTPs here you might -- in future -- back off with an Appeal-to-Authority argument; it's likely backfire once again.

... and stuff, I suppose you read psychology and try to use it everywhere.

On my side of the pond we honor the distinction between past, present, and future tenses.
I `have red' -- English IS a phfonetic language, right? -- `psychology' articles, papers, and wiki pages.
Write now I'm righting -- fonetic English and all -- a reply to symbols I'm `reading'.

Cool, I don't see how you actually criticised my theory in any way ...

Dude, most of what I presented was intended as banter between fellow INTPs.
I was trying to tweak your nipples.
Some day when you defend your PhD thesis you'll thank me and the others here -- in the ad hoc encounter group you've set up via this thread.

... by 'appealing to authority (aka posting links and then reading through it)'. Making original theories and using a priori cognition to derive your actual criticisms ...

Criticisms?
As I said, I was cramming Stimuli into your metaphorical Skinner Box to evoke responses.
Others in the reading audience could click on the links I provided to further their eclectic educations.

... with monumental theory ...

Theory?
As if a `theory' of some monumental proportion would be needed to slap down, neutralize, or invalidate your thesis?
A Zen Master could blow it to smithereens with a simple mu.

... bound to replace the one you are trying to criticise is harder than using several frames of references and then using cynicism to cover your tracks.

Not that I'm criticiZing ... but we Colonials on THIS side of the pond have made a few minor orthographic modifications to The Queen's English.

We've also undone some of the Norman French spellings ending in `our' to `or' as in `color' and `favor'.

Good work with the condescension.

You're welcome!
Any Yank Colonial worth his salt can tweak a status conscious `Common Wealth' -- if not a British, outright -- citizen via this `(in)security exploit'.
As you were, recruit!
Resume `Paper writing'.

 

[gps]

intps ... the ones believing in empiricism.

Thems fightin' words, boy!

How do INTPs get data into their theory generating processes without sensory information?
How did your mu-dismisable dualistic pathogenic would-be `cognition' get established without empirical evidence to `suggest' your intuitive brain fart in progress?

Come to your senses, lad!
Your theories will become better grounded and more defensible if/when you do.

The senses can be used to ground an erstwhile Castle in the Air if you use them well-enough.

 

[gps]

Apparently I found a way to revive determinism

Self-apparent no doubt.
Then you and a swarm of like minded butterflies can (pre)determine EXACTLY where the tornado you co-create will deterministically manifest?

We've got plenty of need for your Butterfly Effects-free kind of determinism here in the US in Tornado Alley.
How much advance notice can you give those in the path of the tornadoes of the mind you've been off-spinning via your sensory-data-optional insights?

 

[gps]

With interesting ideas and thinkers always comes great outrage and resistance. I’m not saying OP’s ideas are necessarily going to be ground-breaking , but what people seem to forget is what it takes to build these structures in the first place. Use the potential to refine, persist and perfect.

Edit: I guess I’m curious about this statement:
"Now if the pattern has the ability to evolve, we can deduce that the pattern has some sort of sentience."

Would you mind explaining further? Why does a pattern’s ability to evolve necessitate sentience? What do you mean by ‘sentience’?

His attempt at grounding `sentience' was indicative of eschewing cause-and-effect rational cognition in favor of the bullshit `because I say so' attributive thinking of Political Science, Sociology, Economics, and other limp-dick `soft' so-called `sciences'.

Single celled organisms and even mammals -- such as the sloth -- have the DNA- and sexual-reproduction- aided means to `evolve' yet how much sentience qua `sentience' do they manifest ... and WHY?
The sloth's sentience is limited by it's diet and it's diet limit's it's sentience.

I, for one, would not attribute sentience to any of the tetrahedra I've incorporated into wire-frame sculptures I've crafted from hollow-shafted cotton buds and use tetrahedra as fundamental structural elements; but I can't remove the power of mere attribution to allow a quantum leap via non sequitur

Tree huggers attribute sentience to trees.
Would-be Geologists can attribute sentience to the whole friggin planet via Gaia theory

Sentience as a non-living abstraction cannot defend itself against these attributive projections, assertions, and/or non sequiturs.

When someone starts making tetrahedral neural sub-networks and finds a way to wire them into supervening structures which manifest sentience I'll take this thus-far-nonsense seriously.

 

[BurnedOut]

I had read the entire story section of oddlydevelopedtypes and in the NT section, it was clearly mentioned that most NTs were killed off either by their own creations or were hell bent on destroying other intps. I was actually laughing after looking the arguments because it reminded me of how I argue with my ESTJ mom. Never mind, I admit we are the bitterest cynics.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

I was thinking of cogs challenge to demonstrate objective meaning. If we can agree that subjective meaning is an emotional state. Then we can objectively measure the correlations of meaning with a futuristic brain scanner. It is only a matter of time before we get this neuroscience thing down. So it is kind of a nonsequiter to say objective meaning does not exist because meaning is not a goal but meaningful emotions that need no specific purpose (goal). There is no universal goal/purpose as an object by which meaning is derived. Meaning is a universal feeling and that means it is definitely measurable in the object it resides in, The Brain.

 

[gps]

"inherently meaningful"?

It might be related to `Self evident'.
Both terms lack a datum ... a reference point.
`Inherent' to whom ... what entity capable of experiencing meaning qua `meaning'?
Evident to what, which, or whose `self'?

Such terms are useful for pushing emotional buttons via connotation yet lack any means for imparting a denotation one can wrap his or her mind around.

Imagine a number line with no zero, then start prattling on about numbers as if they had any fixed or derivable value.
One may allude to the notion of a number without communicating the quantifiable value a number must have to qualify as a number rather than the metaphysical notion of `number'.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

OP, to critique your theories: It's curious that you read Kant's "Critique" yet decided to commit the exact error the whole book is about: over-extrapolation of human perception.

You gotta consider the epistemic hubris – and ultimately the epistemic error – of thinking that there is something universal about human perception, or worse yet, human technology. You observe that computers are made of logic gates, so you take that and generalize it to mean that the whole universe is built of logic gates. That's wild, unconstrained generalization. It similar to the epistemic hubris that lead the ancients to suggest that there must be a god very much like us – with our sort of cognition and even our sort of emotions – who made the whole universe.

 

[BurnedOut]

OP, to critique your theories: It's curious that you read Kant's "Critique" yet decided to commit the exact error the whole book is about: over-extrapolation of human perception.

You gotta consider the epistemic hubris – and ultimately the epistemic error – of thinking that there is something universal about human perception, or worse yet, human technology. You observe that computers are made of logic gates, so you take that and generalize it to mean that the whole universe is built of logic gates. That's wild, unconstrained generalization. It similar to the epistemic hubris that lead the ancients to suggest that there must be a god very much like us – with our sort of cognition and even our sort of emotions – who made the whole universe.

Valid point indeed. But kant's critique seeks to impinge upon the relative differences between a priori and posteriori cognitions and explain how they arose.

Moreover I suppose I have mentioned somewhere that I'm only trying to stretch my mind a little bit. I'm not really taking this stuff seriously because what I'm doing is trying to fulfill the thirst for constantly theorizing about things. Another deviant theory won't make much of a difference right? After all assumptions need to be made before the commencement of a new concept.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[gps]

I was thinking of cogs challenge to demonstrate objective meaning.

Humpty Dumpty covered that one via this addressing of the meaning of words, while we're conflating and confusing the map for the territory, the words of a would-be `philosopher' with what he is philosphizing about:
"Words mean what I want them to mean"

The lover-of-wisdom creates `maps' for our imagination to reify into as-if-extant THINGS as per rhetoric masking the (il)logic negligibly different from that of Humpty Dumpty.
And that Rhetoric, Metaphysics, and Logic are all subsumed under the Love-of-wisdom umbrella it's damned hard for would-be philosphers to not dupe themselves and others via their Rhetoric while (mis)using would-be logic to exploit-through-rationalization metaphysical entities which don't map one-to-one and onto with Real world phenomena.

If we can agree that subjective meaning is an emotional state.

Not the Objectivist rationalizers among us.
Seek out those who've familiarized themselves with Ayn Rand's FICTION and fail to regain disbelief after suspending disbelief while reading said fictive piffle.
Many of them mistake the consensus reality co-created my those in their collective for would-be `objective' Reality/Cosmos

And I'd go with `emotional dynamic' rather than `state' ... although `state' is more commonly bandied around as a pre-approved social construct for co-fabricating a variety of `cultural' folie à plusieurs

Then we can objectively measure the correlations of meaning with a futuristic brain scanner.

THEN -- in the here and now -- we collectively CAN measure with a not-extant-in-the-present `futuristic' apparatus?
Do you sell pork futures as well?

It is only a matter of time before we get this neuroscience thing down.

Sure ... sure.
Billions of neurons manifesting mind-boggling complex mind.
And in due time we' be able to hook up a digital logic probe to each and every neuron THEN to an n-way timing chart which reveals which neurons fired in what sequencing order and with which `weight' ... thus allowing our gob-stopped minds which can't handle a mere dozen factors dependably to Grok what the hell is happening in Real Time.

So it is kind of a nonsequiter to say objective meaning does not exist because meaning is not a goal but meaningful emotions that need no specific purpose (goal).

I'd put it another way.
If you and one-or-more others are bandying around the term and the participants are taking it seriously a form of Folie à N is manifesting.
If you're doing it all alone it qualifies as mental masturbation, delusion, or both.

As the term `philosophy' appears in the title of this thread I'll mention both Intersubjectivism and dialectic at this time.

There is no universal goal/purpose as an object by which meaning is derived.

As if this were either necessary or desirable to *some* folks?
So long as meaning can be attributed or begged we'll have a never ending stream of like-shit-through-a-goose `philosophy' papers.

Meaning is a universal feeling and that means it is definitely measurable in the object it resides in, The Brain.

Not so much `resides in' as `manifests via'.
The `mind' is-a process, are processES which a brain DOES/performs/enacts.
Mind is what the brain DOES.

And some may experience qualitative qualia without experiencing the suchness of quantitative `measurement' or projective experience of the qualia residing exogenous rather than endogenous ... in one's own lymbic (sub)system.

 

[Black Rose]

When meaning is experienced in an emotional dynamic, it should be possible to observe and record what it looks like. From the standpoint of an observer, they may not experience meaning themselves (the subjective dynamic) but they can know what interactions are happening during the observation (the objective dynamic). This falls in line with the question of the hard problem of consciousness. Cogs view that meaning is only subjective makes it clear that an outside force cannot imbue life with meaning. And if the subjectivity is annihilated (see how the spelling resembles nihilism) them life has no meaning because it is gone. Objectivity usually denotes "That which exists in reality". So in some sense meaning exists in reality but only in objects known as subjects.

I objectively exist in reality but I have subjective experiences that somehow make me separate from reality. As I said before: I know I exist and I know determinism is the default of reality. I too like cog would will that I would live forever. The nature of meaning I view as deterministic, in an objective universe I am destined or fated to experience some degree of meaning. Meaning then is an outside force, the universe conspires to make me what it is that I become, experience, originated. So any meaning I experience derived from an objective deterministic reality. Realit decides the amount of meaning I will have. Reality is an outside force the allots me the meaning I have.

 

[gps]

Objectivity usually denotes "That which exists in reality". .

In Western context where the Subjectivity Vs Objectivity Dualism has been allowed each to conjure the other into being via mutual character foiling.

Though I don't think Postmodernists honor the bipolar bilateral honoring of both sides of the -- to them -- false dichotomy; my understanding is that for them none of us can tap directly into `The Objective' so the best we can each do is anchor our necessarily personal, necessarily subjective experiences of The World, The Cosmos as The Territory itself in some kind of self looping phenomenon wherein one can't discern the difference between The Map and The Territory anyway ... so lets all proceed as if our maps and models of the world are `valid' and we can VALIDate each others `Worlds' even though they vary from ours, social norms, or whatever.

So, if the `in reality' to which you conjecture something or other `exists' as a qualification for `Objectivity' I'm sensing an asymptotic suchness to this which would entail a faith-based trust in its a apriori existence on par with any number of (mis)conceptions of God(s).
I wonder how Objectivity Atheists and Objectivity Agnostics would Skeptically and empirically investigate the `existence' of the metaphysical notion of `The Objective'Can one hack off a gram of `objectivity' and run it through a gas chromatograph to see what it's made of as-if mass?
How about detecting it as energy, rather than mass, as-if a electromagnetic field?

That neither of these seems non-absurd I'm inclined to regard this notion of `The Objective' or `Objectivity' as a metaphysical beast of the sort of nouns NOT covered by Person, Place, or Thing, but rather of type `Idea' ... Figment of Imagination.

 

[Haim]

Objective thing is a thing which does not change from different viewpoints.
If I look from a window of a moving car on a tree it would seem as the tree is moving, from the tree standpoint I am moving, if you do the mistake of look at it from "Objective viewpoint" that will get you to the "false" the tree is not moving, the absurd we are both moving(than what is moving?) and the ridiculous none of us move.The objective data on this case is the distance and angle between me and the tree as it does not change, meaning has no such data it is only make sense once you chose a viewpoint.

 

[gps]

Objective thing is a thing which does not change from different viewpoints.
If I look from a window of a moving car on a tree it would seem as the tree is moving, from the tree standpoint I am moving, if you do the mistake of look at it from "Objective viewpoint" that will get you to the "false" the tree is not moving, the absurd we are both moving(than what is moving?) and the ridiculous none of us move.The objective data on this case is the distance and angle between me and the tree as it does not change, meaning has no such data it is only make sense once you chose a viewpoint.

But try reconciling all the paradigms employed by would-be `objective' thinkers.
Each objective thinker may pick a -- one -- paradigm and the next objective thinker may approach the same phenomenon from another paradigm ... looking through another prejudicial lens from another PoV/vantage_point.
And both may claim 100% objectivity without experiencing awareness of the biases their paradigm injected into their would-be objective thought processes.

I've been working my way through a book by Edward O. Wilson named Consiliance.

One might imagine that each of the disparate disjointed `sciences' wouldn't be or seem disparate and disjointed with respect the other sciences if they all employed the same `objectivity', would you?

 

[gps]

When meaning is experienced in an emotional dynamic, it should be possible to observe and record what it looks like.

I did some stuff with ERPs back in '96 ... which can tell a researcher WHEN brain signals happen but not so much WHERE they happen ... in which region(s) of the brain.
In contrast Functional MRIs can reveal WHERE neurons have been firing, but not necessarily in what order, what sequence.
Thus the motivation to conduct ERP and Functional MRI scans concurrently in an attempt to correlate temporal and spatial aspects of neuronal activity.

The HUGE problem with the emotional component of cognito-emotive qualia is that the lymbic system is buried so deep behind cortical tissue that ERPs sensed via scalp electrodes pick up neocortical activity as lymbic activity is masked by all the head cheese between the neurons firing there and the scalp electrodes.
Unless one is willing to turn an experimental subject into a variant to Michael Crichton's Terminal Man by invasively inserting electrodes into the regions of a subject's lymbic system its an operational BITCH to obtain information of any degree of detail or fidelity regarding EMOTION.

The `should be possible' and `to observe' of your wishful conjecture have a hell of time getting together in the neuroscience labs.

 

[BurnedOut]

I'm going to seriously stoned now.
I've hit a major roadblock. The problem is I'm not really able to define the concept of time in the realm of binary digits and mathematical functions. What is time per se? Does it actually lead to the creation of new entities or its simply us adopting a different position in the realm of spacetime? And if delay aka time actually exists, how is it produced in the first place. Please help me out now

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

Going to be * excuse me for typo errors. I was on the verge of tearing everything and dumping the thesis altogether.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

But try reconciling all the paradigms employed by would-be `objective' thinkers.
Each objective thinker may pick a -- one -- paradigm and the next objective thinker may approach the same phenomenon from another paradigm ... looking through another prejudicial lens from another PoV/vantage_point.
And both may claim 100% objectivity without experiencing awareness of the biases their paradigm injected into their would-be objective thought processes.

I've been working my way through a book by Edward O. Wilson named Consiliance.

One might imagine that each of the disparate disjointed `sciences' wouldn't be or seem disparate and disjointed with respect the other sciences if they all employed the same `objectivity', would you?

He meant that objectivity in terms of assertive statements if I'm not wrong. A fact is a statement evaluation of a situation. If you include the kinesthetics and the spatial realm in the realm of objectivity, it turns subjective again. Albert Einstein had argued about this in his theory of special relativity. It seeks to explain the same thing you are pointing at. I suppose linguistic meaning of fact and physic-al meaning of fact differ greatly.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

I'm going to seriously stoned now.
I've hit a major roadblock. The problem is I'm not really able to define the concept of time in the realm of binary digits and mathematical functions. What is time per se? Does it actually lead to the creation of new entities or its simply us adopting a different position in the realm of spacetime? And if delay aka time actually exists, how is it produced in the first place. Please help me out now

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

From a video I saw on quantum gravity research youtube channel I have this impression: Particles can travel forwards and backward in time leaving traces small enough not to create grandfather paradoxes. The tricky bit with time is that a grid must exist 4D so as to transfer particles by a connection between time periods. Particles are always looking for the lowest energy state to fall into, so they must be doing this across time. I am no expert but this 4D grid could be applied to the last few seconds or minutes of you reading this. I do believe particles are looking for the lowest energy state across this grid, (across time).

 

[gps]

A fact is a statement evaluation of a situation.

Okay.
Care to use math as an example?
A farmer has 3 pigs in one pen and 2 pigs in another.
Would `3 + 2 = 5' qualify as a `fact' as per your definition?
Where did the `pigs' go?

This is why math is only a pro forma science I'd characterize as a half-science in that mathematical expressions such as 3+2=5 only cover the quantitative half of the quantitative AND qualitative features of Science.

A mathematician may regard 3+2=5 as a factual evaluation of the situation ... because for him or her its all about quantity, numbers.
For someone interested in pigs, how much they each weigh, which are hogs, which are sows, etc., the would-be objective evaluation, assessment, or statement glossed over much of what was FIGURAL vis-a-vis THEIR value system.

If you and I were to attend the same 3-ring circus we could compare notes upon exiting.
What if we flip this?
What if we have a single-ring circus in the form of The Cosmos and we send in 3 scientists to apply their prejudicial paradigms, scientific methods, and ways of manifesting `objectivity', then compare notes?

What's a sociologist SEE -- and objectively state `facts' -- when looking at, say, a moon of Saturn?
What would a biologist SEE -- and objectively state `facts' --when observing a silicon-based integrated circuit under a microscope?
What might and astrophysicist SEE -- and objectively state `facts' -- when observing the group dynamics manifesting at/in this forum?


Objectivity and $5 will get you a cup of coffee where I live.
The myth of objectivity counts for less than a smile on your face when you're at the metaphorical Cash Register Of Life

Give me an large Objectivity latte to go, please ... and a donut.

 

[gps]

I've hit a major roadblock.
The problem is I'm not really able to define the concept of time in the realm of binary digits and mathematical functions.

What is time per se?

Can you re-pose this in E-Prime?
When we mis-use Natural Languages with reifying terms to represent abstract metaphysical concepts one can end up imagining/believing an abstraction were qua were concrete and extant.
If you are-qua-are questioning the nature of an abstraction it's best not to nominalize it to the extent that you have to subsequently denominalize it to discover it's nature as something other than the thing/noun you have fabricated in your mind's eye.
What if time were-qua-were a verb/process rather than a noun/thing?

What SEEMS time qua `time'?

Does it actually lead to the creation of new entities or its simply us adopting a different position in the realm of spacetime?

If space-time qualifies as a product then why not define time as the reciprocal of space?
If space x time = Constant ... where do your thoughts go?

And if delay aka time actually exists, how is it produced in the first place.

The way other qualia are produced ... via neuronal activity.
Einstein used a story involving sitting on a hot stove to address how the experience of `time' varies with circumstance

What if activity/process engendered, produced, or promoted `time' rather than taking place over a `course of time' as if Time were a priori, more elemental, or such?

What if time were derived/derivative rather than a prime mover?
[/QUOTE]

 

[BurnedOut]

Can you re-pose this in E-Prime?
When we mis-use Natural Languages with reifying terms to represent abstract metaphysical concepts one can end up imagining/believing an abstraction were qua were concrete and extant.
If you are-qua-are questioning the nature of an abstraction it's best not to nominalize it to the extent that you have to subsequently denominalize it to discover it's nature as something other than the thing/noun you have fabricated in your mind's eye.
What if time were-qua-were a verb/process rather than a noun/thing?

What SEEMS time qua `time'?




If space-time qualifies as a product then why not define time as the reciprocal of space?
If space x time = Constant ... where do your thoughts go?



The way other qualia are produced ... via neuronal activity.
Einstein used a story involving sitting on a hot stove to address how the experience of `time' varies with circumstance

What if activity/process engendered, produced, or promoted `time' rather than taking place over a `course of time' as if Time were a priori, more elemental, or such?

What if time were derived/derivative rather than a prime mover?

[/QUOTE]No no, I get your point but it's not answering the question. I suppose this is an elementary concept. Maybe no one can rationalize it without making any assumptions. I too made some assumptions and covered up for it but it still doesn't seem robust.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[TAC]

Are you trying to re-brand deductive reasoning as "binary cognition" or am I missing something?

 

[BurnedOut]

Are you trying to re-brand deductive reasoning as "binary cognition" or am I missing something?

Nope. Deductive reasoning can be applied to anything. To clear doubts I'll post some excerpts

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[TAC]

Also representing time as binary does not seem possible. Let me elaborate:
Time has no known beginning or endpoints. We can create and represents segments by benchmarking an know variable against an known amount of time, or we can take a snapshot of a moment in time and describe its characteristics. Assuming by binary, you are referring to deductive logic (Relationship between antecedent and consequent either T or F), we do not consider time when making arguments, however we do reference time (We know things like "the man was at the store at 9pm...therefore he wasn't home at 9PM or that a person cant be held personally accountable for anything that happened before their birth). The only thing we can say for certainty about time is that it is constant from how we observe it. I'd also put money that traveling through time is not possible, but rather if certain conditions are met; time can be bypassed. Imagine it as if jumping on an elevator going up; the jump are the conditions met to bypass time, when your feet land you will be higher than you started. The displacement between where your feet left the ground and landed is the time that passed while you were beyond its confines. Anyhow, assume time as an inductive metric as it has no known endpoints and can not be accounted for as a discrete variable just yet. I'm also not sold that time "moves", moving at the speed of time doesn't feel right (otherwise I'm progressing right at the speed of time). The best bet for defining it is qualitative (Affected by time or not affected by time). Expressing intervals as time may also be incorrect. A puddle doesn't turn into a river because of time, but because of a large amount of erosive activity that happened to take place over a long interval. The erosive factors are the causation of the river, not time. I've gotten way off topic and now I'm thinking about time instead of what I should be doing. I also may have contradicted myself in this quasi stream of consciousness exercise, but time really is a fascinating subject, and I don't look back when I think. Time may not actually exist, and just be a fabricated tool for abstract thought and comparison. Does a dog wonder how old it is, or when it last ate, or that the next time he pisses on the floor if he'll get yelled at? Or does a dog get tinges of deja vu when scolded for pissing on the floor? I wonder.

 

[BurnedOut]

Don't comment on the book. It's lying around at my place so I simply used it without the intention of making anything serious.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[gps]

Don't comment on the book.
It's lying around at my place so I simply used it without the intention of making anything serious.

Okay, then ... comments on the manuScirpt are not welcome.

The ring finger on the left hand appears far too long for starting and maintaining a committed relationship.
And that thumb, there's something not quite right about that too!

 

[BurnedOut]

Okay, then ... comments on the manuScirpt are not welcome.

The ring finger on the left hand appears far to long for starting and maintaining a committed relationship.
And that thumb, there's something not quite right about that too!

Har Har. I'm 17

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Black Rose]

I have never been good at reading others handwriting. I do not intentionally discount your notes.

 

[gps]

I have never been good at reading others handwriting. I do not intentionally discount your notes.

So this might be an opportunity to learn graphology as contrasted with hand writing addressed from a legibility standpoint.
If we can't learn how tetrahedra manifesting as mass-energy in a field of space-time -- however time qua TIME might come to be modeled -- we might discover something of the psyche of the progenitor of this philosophy in progress.

I don't see any figure-8 g's.
How are the i's dotted and t's crossed?

Handwriting samples of various philosophers might allow one to look for graphological clues which correspond with their metaphysics, rhetorical methods, logical fallacies, and such.

 

[BurnedOut]

So this might be an opportunity to learn graphology as contrasted with hand writing addressed from a legibility standpoint.
If we can't learn how tetrahedra manifesting as mass-energy in a field of space-time -- however time qua TIME might come to be modeled -- we might discover something of the psyche of the progenitor of this philosophy in progress.

I don't see any figure-8 g's.
How are the i's dotted and t's crossed?

Handwriting samples of various philosophers might allow one to look for graphological clues which correspond with their metaphysics, rhetorical methods, logical fallacies, and such.

Seriously? Graphology is pseudoscience although I use to gain some attention in social situations

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk