What is philosophy and what is its purpose?

[Skepdick]

As I pointed out, the sentences: There is nothing and There is no thought, are self-refuting in any logical system that isn't utter bollocks.

Well, that's only one side of the coin. If your logical system can prove a negative you system is utter bollocks too.
The philosophical language games don't result from self-refutation. They result from equivocation.

There is thought.
But there is also experience.
There is also perception.
Oh. And consciousness.
Oh. And reason.

Which only begs the question. No, in fact - it begs a bunch of questions.
Is thought the same as or different from experience ?
Is thought the same as or different from perception?
Is perception the same as or different from consciousness?
Is reason the same as or different from thought?
...
...

In the language of semiotics: Are 'thought', 'experience', 'perception', 'consciousness' and 'reason' just different signifiers for the same signified?
In English: Are they synonyms?
In the language of metaphysics: How many things exist?
Do you answer it like the Existence-monists (1), dualists (2) or priority monists (many)?

The fidelity of your taxonomy can be quantified.

Right. And if he invents a logic according to which the sentence 'I don't exist' can be uttered cogently, he is either a genius, or more likely a blithering half-wit.

You were just arguing for that position.... by claiming that "experience is known" there's no room for "I". What gives?
But more than that. I am uttering the sentence.

I don't exist. I mean it - it's true. I am simply rejecting your static ontology in favour of a dynamic one.

The "I" is a consequence of many causes. The "I" is a cause of many consequences. The "I" is a series of events. The "I" is a temporal phenomenon that is difficult to define or capture in ontological-categorical language.

Are you saying that's not cogent? In what logic do you prove that negative?

Yep, we definitely mean different things by juxtaposition.

juxtaposition. noun. the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect.

I am placing two things closely together - the concepts of 'thought' and 'experience'. Do you see a contrast?

In all the ways thought and experience are the same, how are they different?
in all the ways thought and experience are different, how are they the same?
Is thought an experience?
Is experience a thought?
Which comes first?

[uwot]

As I pointed out, the sentences: There is nothing and There is no thought, are self-refuting in any logical system that isn't utter bollocks.

Well, that's only one side of the coin. If your logical system can prove a negative you system is utter bollocks too.

Who is trying to prove a negative?

There is thought.
But there is also experience.
There is also perception.
Oh. And consciousness.
Oh. And reason.

Indeed; as I said to RCSaunders:

It's an artefact of Descartes' 'Je pense, donc je suis'. Rather marvellously he cocked a snook at academia of the time and wrote in French, not Latin. If you follow his line of reasoning in the Discourse or Meditations, "thoughts" are any, I dunno, 'mental object'? An experience, sensation, perception, feeling, awareness - pretty much anything that goes on between the ears that shows the lights are on and someone is home.

I am simply rejecting your static ontology in favour of a dynamic one.

It's not my ontology.

The "I" is a consequence of many causes. The "I" is a cause of many consequences. The "I" is a series of events, experiences and memories. The "I" is a temporal phenomenon that is difficult to define or capture in any language.

Are you saying that's not cogent? In what logic do you prove that negative?

And in my first contribution to this thread, I said:

Some people think the most important aspect of philosophy is logic and, yeah, an incoherent story is a bit crap, but it is demonstrably the case that the choices people make about the stories they believe are aesthetic, rather than logical. Essentially people pick a set of premises they happen to like and weave a narrative out of them.

So you like your definition of 'I', which is perfectly reasonable.

Yep, we definitely mean different things by juxtaposition.

juxtaposition. noun. the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect.

I am placing two things closely together - the concepts of 'thought' and 'experience'. Do you see a contrast?

In all the ways thought and experience are the same, how are they different?
in all the ways thought and experience are different, how are they the same?
Is thought an experience?
Is experience a thought?
Which comes first?

See above.

[uwot]

I am teaching...

No you're not.

This proves that you are not reading or understanding the actual words that I am writing down here.

Doesn't work like that Age, I used to be a teacher. If your students are baffled or already know, you're not teaching them anything.

Still, this is the important bit:

...you can buy the book, Einstein on the train and other stories, by me, Will Bouwman, on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-train-o ... way&sr=8-1

Of course this is the "important bit", to one who is self-obsessed.

Damn right. If I can shift a few copies, maybe I won't have to go back to teaching.

[Skepdick]

Who is trying to prove a negative?

"There is nothing" is a negative claim. In the same way that "There is an invisible, untouchable, massless, non-baryonic entity in my garage" is a negative claim.

It is an ontological distinction without an empirical difference.

the choices people make about the stories they believe are aesthetic, rather than logical.
Essentially people pick a set of premises they happen to like and weave a narrative out of them.

The point I am making is that "logic" is just set of grammatical rules. Nothing else.
Our faculties and criteria for choosing grammatical rules are no different to our faculties for choosing stories.

Aesthetics, pragmatics, convention etc. etc. etc.

Your appeal to logic appears to be normative rather than descriptive, hence why I keep asking you - which logic? Meaning - which set of rules have you CHOSEN and how?

So you like your definition of 'I', which is perfectly reasonable.

The point is that there are a 100 definitions for "I". 100 conceptions for "I". None that I like any more than the others.

And if I don't like one more than the others, well... how do you choose?

[surreptitious57]

Is thought the same as or different from experience ?
Is thought the same as or different from perception ?
Is perception the same as or different from consciousness ?
Is reason the same as or different from thought ?

These answers may be provisional rather than absolute but as true as can be at this point in time

Thought is generally taken to be mental while experience is generally taken to be physical
But this is rather confusing because the mental is a sub set of the physical and so mental phenomenon cannot be non physical
But human minds for reasons of practicality and simplicity prefer to have the mental and physical as two separate categories

Thought is a type of perception that is on the same spectrum as sense perception but is by comparison more subtle

Direct perception is rooted in consciousness while indirect perception such as dreams are rooted in non conconsciousness
Direct perception means one is fully aware what they are experiencing is real and indirect perception means the opposite

Reason is a sub set of thought because all reason must by definition be logical but not all thought has to be logical
Reason is the application of logic to the real world so is used to provide effective solutions to real world problems

[Skepdick]

These answers may be provisional rather than absolute but as true as can be at this point in time

Every body keeps mentioning those answers. Nobody keeps committing to them...

If you say "thought is not the same as experience", then that's the same thing as saying "Thought and experience exist".
It's the same thing as saying "At least two distinct things (thought and experience) exist"

But then you say "thought is a subset of experience" and I know you are double-counting.

[surreptitious57]

In the language of semiotics : Are thought - experience - perception - consciousness and reason just different signifiers for the same signified ?
In English : Are they synonyms ? In the language of metaphysics : How many things exist ?
Do you answer it like the Existence monists ( I ) dualists ( 2 ) or priority monists ( many ) ?

Thought and experience can be treated as synonyms - but not absolutely so
Perception and consciousness can be treated as synonyms - but not absolutely so
Reason cannot be treated as synonymous with any of them - but it is a synonym of logic

There is no answer to the question of how many things exist in the language of metaphysics - it is unanswerable
But it can be reduced to two categories - that which exists and is actually known and that which exists but is not actually known
Now sometimes the unknown becomes the known but the two categories will always remain because omniscience is not possible

Existence can be compartmentalised into smaller sub sets but Existence itself is singular and absolute so should be regarded as non dualistic

[surreptitious57]

Everybody keeps mentioning those answers . Nobody keeps committing to them

Any type of committment would be dogmatic and dogma is the point at which reason becomes ineffective
Also definitions are descriptive not prescriptive so some latitude has to exist due to the nature of language
This language is non mathematical so there is no deduction or proof involved - absolute certainty does not exist here

[uwot]

Who is trying to prove a negative?

"There is nothing" is a negative claim. In the same way that "There is an invisible, untouchable, massless, non-baryonic entity in my garage" is a negative claim.

It is an ontological distinction without an empirical difference.

The difference is the first one cannot be stated without it being untrue, even if that statement were the only thing that exists. The latter may or may not be true. Probably not, but you're right, there is no empirical data I could provide to support my scepticism.

The point I am making is that "logic" is just set of grammatical rules. Nothing else.

Yes Skepdick, it's a point I've made several times myself.

Your appeal to logic appears to be normative rather than descriptive, hence why I keep asking you - which logic? Meaning - which set of rules have you CHOSEN and how?

Methodological anarchy. Use the nearest tool to hand that'll do the job.

And if I don't like one more than the others, well... how do you choose?

Methodological anarchy.

[surreptitious57]

In all the ways thought and experience are the same how are they different ?
In all the ways thought and experience are different how are they the same ?
Is thought an experience ?
Is experience a thought ?
Which comes first ?

Thought is more subtle than experience but both are physical - the firing of neurons is electrochemical and so thought is definitely physical
Thought is a type of experience - when an experience is very subtle it is labelled as mental not physical but mental is a sub set of physical
Thought is a sub set of experience - all thoughts are experiences but not all experiences are thoughts - experience is also all of existence
Experience came first because the Universe existed before minds did - physical objects can experience but are simply unaware they do

[Skepdick]

The difference is the first one cannot be stated without it being untrue, even if that statement were the only thing that exists. The latter may or may not be true. Probably not, but you're right, there is no empirical data I could provide to support my scepticism.

You can't say "There is nothing is untrue" without abandoning epistemic agnosticism.

From that claim alone you exemplify bias towards positive claims.

Methodological anarchy. Use the nearest tool to hand that'll do the job.

What is the job at hand when one is engaging in skepticism? To doubt, I imagine?

And so it shall be doubted that "There is nothing is untrue" is a true claim.

[uwot]

You can't say "There is nothing is untrue" without abandoning epistemic agnosticism.

Well epistemic agnosticism in practice is logical positivism, and I'm not a logical positivist. Nor am I an agnostic, I really don't care what people believe.

From that claim alone you exemplify bias towards positive claims.

Nah mate. I'm just saying that the particular phrase 'There is nothing' is self-refuting in any cogent logical system.

And so it shall be doubted that "There is nothing is untrue" is a true claim.

Go for it!

[Age]

I am teaching...

No you're not.

This proves that you are not reading or understanding the actual words that I am writing down here.

Doesn't work like that Age, I used to be a teacher. If your students are baffled or already know, you're not teaching them anything.

If you read the actual words that I wrote, then it could be seen that I am not meant to be teaching 'you' any thing. This can be clearly seen and understood in the words that I wrote.

When, and if, my words are not baffling nor not already known, then I am teaching. This 'teaching' in question was never meant for 'you'. 'You' are not an intended prospective student, so you were never meant to learn any thing. The purpose of a test subject is to be studied, not taught, and so 'you're are just helping in the learning and understanding, or teaching, for "others".

It is your words that is helping in this teaching. Your BELIEF that this teaching is not happening is helping in learning and understanding how the brain works, and is effected by beliefs.

Still, this is the important bit:

Of course this is the "important bit", to one who is self-obsessed.

Damn right. If I can shift a few copies, maybe I won't have to go back to teaching.

Maybe that means that the more copies you shift, then the less you have to teach as well.