Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:18 pm
This is only begging the question.
How do you know that what you have acquired is knowledge?
That is true, I don't. I was trying to explain what I have found useful in the past and am avid to be taught something I like even better.
It is exactly the same problem I raised about the pursuit of ontology.
How do you tell that you have found it? Being the “true nature of reality” or “true knowledge”?
Without some criteria (values!) for what it does, what it looks like, what you can DO with it when you found it - it is all a wild goose chase.
As you said “I will like it better”
I will know it when I see it.
I know myself well enough that I know that I will like an idea that fits with what I already understand. Therefore if I am to learn a new model I'd have to ease myself into it starting with some attribute of it that I understand. Much of one's metaphysics choices simply describes who one thinks one is. Is a mathematician or physicist more free than an artist, or vice versa? Whatever, I am very keen on critical evaluation of what people in a forum like this write, and I welcome criticisms of my own ideas which if they are good,will withstand adverse criticisms. In short, my criterion for approaching the good is human freedom of thought and expression.
PS it helps to have insight into one's own prejudices.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:45 pm
Prejudices, desires - what is the difference ?
The way I tell the difference is that the desires of a free person are less prejudiced by traditions, unreflective reactions, and certain brain lesions.
It's the proper job of educators to allow people to be free.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:45 pm
Prejudices, desires - what is the difference ?
The way I tell the difference is that the desires of a free person are less prejudiced by traditions, unreflective reactions, and certain brain lesions.
It's the proper job of educators to allow people to be free.
Till you discover that your desires are exactly like the traditions you rebelled against for 20 years
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:45 pm
Prejudices, desires - what is the difference ?
The way I tell the difference is that the desires of a free person are less prejudiced by traditions, unreflective reactions, and certain brain lesions.
It's the proper job of educators to allow people to be free.
Till you discover that your desires are exactly like the traditions you rebelled against for 20 years
Of course - this is my anecdotal full circle.
I prefer to regard this as a spiral not a circle. In other words like Hegel said we have thesis, antithesis, and new synthesis. It's never the same water that flows under the bridge.
The way I tell the difference is that the desires of a free person are less prejudiced by traditions, unreflective reactions, and certain brain lesions.
It's the proper job of educators to allow people to be free.
Till you discover that your desires are exactly like the traditions you rebelled against for 20 years
Of course - this is my anecdotal full circle.
I prefer to regard this as a spiral not a circle. In other words like Hegel said we have thesis, antithesis, and new synthesis. It's never the same water that flows under the bridge.
Of course. But the narrarive that I previously vehemently rejected as false now I can relate to and interpret as true.
I guess my definition of ‘truth’ changed if nothing else
But the narrarive that I previously vehemently rejected as false now I can relate to and interpret as true.
Is there such a thing as the same narrative on occasions apart in time? How can you hold the same narrative when you are not the same person as held ''
' it ' twenty years ago? A mathematical narrative, yes. But a social narrative, no.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:39 pm
Is there such a thing as the same narrative on occasions apart in time? How can you hold the same narrative when you are not the same person as held ''
' it ' twenty years ago? A mathematical narrative, yes. But a social narrative, no.
It all boils down to Interpretation. And context is everything. If you interpret the Bible against the life experiences of a 10 year old then it all looks like bullshit. If you interpret it against the experiences of a 100 year old - I am sure they will find lots of parallels.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:39 pm
What is the difference between B and
It all boils down to Interpretation. And context is everything.
Yes, but there is a name for the theory that it's impossible for any two events to be the same event. Please can anyone tell me what the theory is called?
TimeSeeker, I did not understand what you meant by the two Bs being different. I had thought that you referred simply to the images occupying different spaces. Of course Cartesian coodinates don't apply to mental entities, and interpreters are relevant to mental entities. An artificial intelligence is aware of its own Cartesian coodinates when it's made to do robotic activities such as driving a car.
Vedanta non-dualism does I understand envisage a state of being 'where ' even Cartesian coordinates don't matter. This is why (apart from mystics) nobody can achieve non dualism intellectually except by means of artistic analogies in poetry, music, and picture.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:39 pm
Yes, but there is a name for the theory that it's impossible for any two events to be the same event. Please can anyone tell me what the theory is called?
Well. It entirely depends on what you mean by "sameness". See next paragraph
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:39 pm
TimeSeeker, I did not understand what you meant by the two Bs being different. I had thought that you referred simply to the images occupying different spaces.
Yes - their cartesian co-ordinates are only but one particular way in which you could differentiate the two Bs.
But they are different in their ontology! Even though they LOOK exactly the same, they are actually different THINGS. They behave differently!
They contain different information! The context in which the symbol is to be interpreted is IN the symbol itself!
The mistake you made is that you only used your visual perception to try and distinguish them, whereas I demonstrated to you an experiment (different contexts!) in which they behave and are interpreted differently.
TimeSeeker, I have studied tonal values in watercolour painting but I suspect that the experiment you posted is electronic sleight of hand.
Nonetheless I do hold to your theory that interpretation is ubiquitous. Your explanation involving the origins of the two Bs I did of course know nothing about until you told me.Do you imply that the more information one discovers about an event the more the event appears unique?
I hold to the significance for interpreters of coodinates including when the interpreters who may be blind bats don't know the word 'coordinates'. I imagine that spatial differences are integral to most living systems including sunflowers, which have no need to express spatial relativity in words. It must surely be impossible for vedanta non dualists to produce any evidence for their idea.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:09 pm
I hold to the significance for interpreters of coodinates including when the interpreters who may be blind bats don't know the word 'coordinates'. I imagine that spatial differences are integral to most living systems including sunflowers, which have no need to express spatial relativity in words. It must surely be impossible for vedanta non dualists to produce any evidence for their idea.
I think the more distinctions one can draw about a thing - the more information they have about the thing. The better they understand it.
TimeSeeker, I dont want to niggle but how can you possibly reject In its symbolic representation, "a=a", "Epp", or "For all x: x = x".
We agree in nature that every event is a unique event. However, given that there were hypothetically two systems with identical attributes within a specified discourse in which attributes were finite and for practical purposes very limited in number then for the purposes of that discourse the two events would be the same event.
Last edited by Belinda on Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:32 pm
TimeSeeker, I dont want to niggle but how can you possibly reject In its symbolic representation, "a=a", "Epp", or "For all x: x = x".
Not at all. That is an important question.
And it boils down to context again.
Do you interpret X in context of Type theory or set theory?
I reject set theory interpretations because I reject set theory.
