What is Truth?

[Skepdick]

The whole discussion seems semantic.

That's what I said. Have you heard of Wadler's law?

Semantics is the only thing that needs discussing - syntax is a solved problem. We can engineer our existing languages to mean whatever we want them to mean.

You are using the concept, "ontological," to mean whatever exists, in whatever manner it exists.

Me and every ontologist.

I have no objection to your defining ontological that way. The problem is, everything that exists does not exist in the same way. Santa Claus exists, but does not exist as an actual person living at the corner of Maple and Tremont Street. Santa Claus does exist as a common fiction for the entertainment of Children at the Christmas season.

And that's fine, but that's hardly my point. I am drawing your attention to the fact that you can't give me an example of anything that doesn't exist.

Not even one.

If you choose to define concepts as ontological because they exist, fine. I certainly agree they exist. So, if you define, "ontological," as whatever exists, concepts are ontological.

I know. That's what I said - concepts are ontological. Hence my question: What is the ontological nature of a concept?

But I think it is important to distinguish those things that exist, whether anyone is conscious of or knows they exist or not from those things which only exist if someone is conscious of them, like your own thoughts, and all those other things that would no longer exist if humanity became extinct, like Santa Claus, language, mathematics, logic, the sciences, and all knowledge.

Distinguish things as you see fit, but avoid the category error. There is no such category for "non-existents". It's an empty set.

They all exist, so you would call them ontological, but they obviously do not exist in the same way the earth, sun, stars, rocks, rivers, and all other organisms exist. How would you differentiate them?

How is less relevant to why. Why do I need, or have to differentiate them?

[RCSaunders]

The whole discussion seems semantic.

That's what I said. Have you heard of Wadler's law?

Semantics is the only thing that needs discussing - syntax is a solved problem. We can engineer our existing languages to mean whatever we want them to mean.

You are using the concept, "ontological," to mean whatever exists, in whatever manner it exists.

Me and every ontologist.

I have no objection to your defining ontological that way. The problem is, everything that exists does not exist in the same way. Santa Claus exists, but does not exist as an actual person living at the corner of Maple and Tremont Street. Santa Claus does exist as a common fiction for the entertainment of Children at the Christmas season.

And that's fine, but that's hardly my point. I am drawing your attention to the fact that you can't give me an example of anything that doesn't exist.

Not even one.

I have no idea why you think I would do that. "There is no such thing as the non-existent," is the converse of my first premise, "there is only what exists."

If you choose to define concepts as ontological because they exist, fine. I certainly agree they exist. So, if you define, "ontological," as whatever exists, concepts are ontological.

I know. That's what I said - concepts are ontological. Hence my question: What is the ontological nature of a concept?

But I think it is important to distinguish those things that exist, whether anyone is conscious of or knows they exist or not from those things which only exist if someone is conscious of them, like your own thoughts, and all those other things that would no longer exist if humanity became extinct, like Santa Claus, language, mathematics, logic, the sciences, and all knowledge.

Distinguish things as you see fit, but avoid the category error. There is no such category for "non-existents". It's an empty set.

If you go back through this thread you will see my arguments with Scott Mayers are all in opposition to view there can be the, "non-existent." I have no idea where you got the idea I thought otherwise.

They all exist, so you would call them ontological, but they obviously do not exist in the same way the earth, sun, stars, rocks, rivers, and all other organisms exist. How would you differentiate them?

How is less relevant to why. Why do I need, or have to differentiate them?

You don't have to do anything. The reason I differentiate them is to avoid those kinds of errors that involve the reification of concepts like like math, logic, geometry etc. as things one can find free in nature, like the absurd idea that the universe is mathematical like Pythagoras, or that qualities or relationships can exist independently of the entities they are the qualities of or relationships between as though inches and hours existed in the same way as rocks and trees and could be found wild in nature.

[bahman]

A part of truth is about reality as we experience it. There is an underlying reality though.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you are trying to dominate the definition of 'what is ontology' to your own personal views and those of your likes.

I confess. You are right. The views I present are my own and I like them because they are true. Does that make them wrong?

Whose views are you expressing when you write a comment? Are they not your own? Do you dislike them?

Ontology refer to 4 philosophical perspectives - SEP; i.e.

• 1. (O1)the study of ontological commitment, i.e. what we or others are committed to,
  
  2. (O2)the study of what there is,
  
  3. (O3)the study of the most general features of what there is, and how the things there are relate to each other in the metaphysically most general ways,
  
  4. (O4)the study of meta-ontology, i.e. saying what task it is that the discipline of ontology should aim to accomplish, if any, how the questions it aims to answer should be understood, and with what methodology they can be answered.

You are only focusing on ontology as 'what there is' [2] and confined 'what-there-is' to things that are claimed to be absolutely independent of the mind.
This is why you are insisting 'a concept do not have an ontological nature'.

That's right. All the rest is academic nonsense, typical of the self-induced psychosis "philosophers," have turned the field of philosophy into. Do you ever think for yourself?

However by the general definition of what is ontology, a concept does have an ontological nature, i.e. that is has interactive elements within the mind [btw not as in dualism].

Isn't that a lovely piece of academic garbledegook. "... a concept does have an ontological nature, i.e. that is has interactive elements within the mind ..." What color are those elements? How much do they weigh? Have you ever seen any of them? What do they look like? How do you know this?

Your ontological [what is] view of things are existing ultimately & absolutely independent of the mind is illusory and delusional.

I was unaware of your ability to read minds and be aware of what is in other's consciousness. Perhaps your consciousness is illusion and delusion, I can't read your mind. Why should I doubt what I am conscious of in favor some absurd nonsense you or any other so-called philosopher assure me is more real than what I actually see, hear, feel, smell, and taste and the fact that I am conscious of them?

Yes, that things exist external to the mind is merely one perspective of ontology which is evidently [without doubt] based on common sense.

However, there is no way one can prove things exist absolutely independent of the mind, note Meta-Ontology, Meno's paradox and and the views Philosophical anti-realism [Kantian].

Prove to whom? Anyone who chooses to know whether anything exists independent of the mind can certainly know it. It is not necessary to prove it to all those whose minds are demented or corrupted by what passes for philosophy. If you are in a room with your friend while using your computer, if the computer does not exist independently of your friend's mind, if he should die, your computer would disappear. So much for Meno and Kant.

It is quite obvious your ideas are not your own and that most are derived from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, subtitled, "A Manual for Promoting Schizophrenia in Oneself and Others." In your case, the program has been totally successful.

You are making claims like a schizophrenia without any concern for arguments, rationality and truths.
Most of your statements are baseless statements.

If you are in a room with your friend while using your computer, if the computer does not exist independently of your friend's mind, if he should die, your computer would disappear. So much for Meno and Kant.

You are speaking from the vulgar point of view.
As I had stated, common sense and empirically I agree, there is an external world to the person. I see trees, roads and car outside my window which are external to my physical person.
However this proposition cannot be absolutely unconditional at the meta-level.
Humans only realizes external_ness and inner_ness because they have an inherent mode of
external_ness and inner_ness within their consciousness.

There are no trees-by-themselves, car-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note if all humans were to die, there would be no computers and no atoms, no quarks in any computer, no moon, no Sun, no reality-as-it-is. In this case, there is no possibility of any realization and emergence of anything at all.

[RCSaunders]

Most of your statements are baseless statements.

If you think so, just ignore them.

If you are in a room with your friend while using your computer, if the computer does not exist independently of your friend's mind, if he should die, your computer would disappear. So much for Meno and Kant.

You are speaking from the vulgar point of view.

The word, "vulgar," used to mean, "common or usual." These days it implies that which is crude and distasteful. I'll assume you intend the old meaning.

There are no trees-by-themselves, car-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note if all humans were to die, there would be no computers and no atoms, no quarks in any computer, no moon, no Sun, no reality-as-it-is. In this case, there is no possibility of any realization and emergence of anything at all.

You really think atoms, the moon, the sun, and the physical universe depend on human consciousness for their existence? I know you believe in evolution. Where did the universe that cannot exist without human consciousness come from for humans to evolve in, if it did not exit? Didn't the universe have to exist before human consciousness? Why won't it exist after human consciousness?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Most of your statements are baseless statements.

If you think so, just ignore them.

This forum is meant for open discussion and any one can participate as long as it is within its rules.
When your statement are insisting like 1 + 1 = 5 [at meta-level], obviously the philosophical responsible person will have to chip in to introduce a sense of rationality.

If you are in a room with your friend while using your computer, if the computer does not exist independently of your friend's mind, if he should die, your computer would disappear. So much for Meno and Kant.

You are speaking from the vulgar point of view.

The word, "vulgar," used to mean, "common or usual." These days it implies that which is crude and distasteful. I'll assume you intend the old meaning.

Yes, it is the former. My English is not that good but I have read very widely within philosophy to note the term 'vulgar' is still in use to represent those who don't think deeply and widely within philosophy.

There are no trees-by-themselves, car-in-itself which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Note if all humans were to die, there would be no computers and no atoms, no quarks in any computer, no moon, no Sun, no reality-as-it-is. In this case, there is no possibility of any realization and emergence of anything at all.

You really think atoms, the moon, the sun, and the physical universe depend on human consciousness for their existence? I know you believe in evolution. Where did the universe that cannot exist without human consciousness come from for humans to evolve in, if it did not exit? Didn't the universe have to exist before human consciousness? Why won't it exist after human consciousness?

What is reality-as-it-is emerges from a reality recipe with the following imperative ingredients within the following formulation;

• Human consciousness + humanity-based-things = reality-as-it-is to humans.

It is only when the above elements come together in the above formula that results in reality-as-it-is to humans.

We can substitute 'humans' for bats or any other living things;

• Bats consciousness + bats-based-things = reality-as-it-is to bats.

It make no sense to claim;

• consciousness-in-itself + things-in-themselves = reality-in-itself.

From a philosophical perspective,
the element 'claim' above has to be done by humans.

As I had stated
-humans [7b+] and other living things are part and parcel of reality-as-it-is to humans,
-there is no way humans can extricate themselves from reality which they are part and parcel of, to make an independent objective claim on reality.

To insist humans can make an absolute independent objective claim of reality in which they are part and parcel of would be a CONTRADICTION, i.e. an oxymoron.
Can you dispute this?

Note my argument;
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

[Skepdick]

I have no idea why you think I would do that. "There is no such thing as the non-existent," is the converse of my first premise, "there is only what exists."
...
If you go back through this thread you will see my arguments with Scott Mayers are all in opposition to view there can be the, "non-existent." I have no idea where you got the idea I thought otherwise.

What gave me the idea was your apparent disagreement with Quine, who handles the problem of ontology exactly as you do.

What exists? Everything.

To say that there are different types/kinds/modes of existence is to simply talk about subsets of existence.

You don't have to do anything. The reason I differentiate them is to avoid those kinds of errors that involve the reification of concepts like like math, logic, geometry etc. as things one can find free in nature, like the absurd idea that the universe is mathematical like Pythagoras, or that qualities or relationships can exist independently of the entities they are the qualities of or relationships between as though inches and hours existed in the same way as rocks and trees and could be found wild in nature.

But you can't separate the two?!? If concepts have a nature then concepts are natural - they exist ontologically. Any distinction you draw further is artificial.

Every time humans create - we reify. We reify knowledge, language, tools, ideas. The very tools we reify is what we use to further study nature with - how could we possibly study quantum mechanics without Mathematics?

Forget inches and hours. Do you think quantum entanglement exists "independent of human thought".

Because entanglement is computation. But computation is "just mathematics", so what is going on here?

Is the universe computational? Our our minds computational? Are we projecting our minds onto the universe? But our minds are (part of) the universe!

[RCSaunders]

Most of your statements are baseless statements.

If you think so, just ignore them.[/quote]
That's right! Just anyone with a computer may write whatever they like, which also means anyone who chooses to may ignore them. Freedom of speech means freedom to say anything, but includes freedom to only listen to what one chooses to listen to. No one is required to give credence to nonsense.

[RCSaunders]

I have no idea why you think I would do that. "There is no such thing as the non-existent," is the converse of my first premise, "there is only what exists."
...
If you go back through this thread you will see my arguments with Scott Mayers are all in opposition to view there can be the, "non-existent." I have no idea where you got the idea I thought otherwise.

What gave me the idea was your apparent disagreement with Quine, who handles the problem of ontology exactly as you do.

What exists? Everything.

To say that there are different types/kinds/modes of existence is to simply talk about subsets of existence.

That's right!

You don't have to do anything. The reason I differentiate them is to avoid those kinds of errors that involve the reification of concepts like like math, logic, geometry etc. as things one can find free in nature, like the absurd idea that the universe is mathematical like Pythagoras, or that qualities or relationships can exist independently of the entities they are the qualities of or relationships between as though inches and hours existed in the same way as rocks and trees and could be found wild in nature.

But you can't separate the two?!? If concepts have a nature then concepts are natural - they exist ontologically. Any distinction you draw further is artificial.[/quote]
Call everything ontological if you like, but as you pointed out, there are subsets of existence. All I am doing is identifying those subsets. Of course they are artificial (which only means the art or method by which one discriminates between things that are different by identifying what those differences are). Everything a human being does is, "artificial."

Every time humans create - we reify. We reify knowledge, language, tools, ideas. The very tools we reify is what we use to further study nature with - how could we possibly study quantum mechanics without Mathematics?

You are using, "reify," in a way that I do not understand. I'm only referring to the informal fallacy of miscategorizing what belongs in any of the subsets of existence.

Forget inches and hours. Do you think quantum entanglement exists "independent of human thought"?

Because entanglement is computation.

Really!? The universe has computers? Which program language do they use?
[/quote]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Most of your statements are baseless statements.

If you think so, just ignore them.
That's right! Just anyone with a computer may write whatever they like, which also means anyone who chooses to may ignore them. Freedom of speech means freedom to say anything, but includes freedom to only listen to what one chooses to listen to. No one is required to give credence to nonsense.

It is also include the freedom to critique what is false and nonsense when deliberated at a meta-level.

Here is a point where Kant critiqued the vulgar view 'there is an external world'' [you agree with this existence of the external world in the absolute sense]
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... hers/kant/

• Kant's main change in the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason was an attempted refutation of this British idealism (B 274). He thought he had a proof of the existence of the external world. Kant thought it a scandal in philosophy that we must accept the existence of material things outside ourselves merely as a belief, with no proof.
  
  • The only thing which might be called an addition, though in the method of proof only, is the new refutation of psychological idealism, and the strict (and as I believe the only possible) proof of the objective reality of outer intuition. However innocent idealism may be considered with respect to the essential purposes of metaphysics (without being so in reality),
    it remains a scandal to philosophy, and to human reason in general,
    that we should have to accept the existence of things outside us (from which after all we derive the whole material for our knowledge, even for that of our inner sense) merely on trust,
    and have no satisfactory proof with which to counter any opponent who chooses to doubt it.
    (Preface to Second Edition, Critique of Pure Reason, B XL)

G E Moore tried to counter Kant's argument using common sense but failed.

Here is one hand is an epistemological argument created by George Edward Moore in reaction against philosophical skepticism and in support of common sense.

The argument takes the following form:

• Here is one hand,
  And here is another.
  There are at least two external objects in the world.
  Therefore, an external world exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_o ... nd_replies

[Skepdick]

Call everything ontological if you like, but as you pointed out, there are subsets of existence. All I am doing is identifying those subsets.

OK. Observe your language "there are subsets" is an ontological statement. It says "there exist subsets". But that doesn't address anything - it just leaves us with yet another ontological question.

What is the ontological nature of a subset?

Of course they are artificial (which only means the art or method by which one discriminates between things that are different by identifying what those differences are).

More ontological uncertainty. What's the ontological nature of "similarities" and "differences"?

Everything a human being does is, "artificial."

If that is true then being human is artificial.

You are using, "reify," in a way that I do not understand.

I am using reify in the standard, dictionary way. Turning something abstract into something concrete. Turning the concept of a concept into the word "concept" is reification.

Turning the concept of a transistor into an actual transistor - reificiation.
Turning the concept of a computer into a digital computer - reification..

I'm only referring to the informal fallacy of miscategorizing what belongs in any of the subsets of existence.

So, this makes no sense to me. If all categorization is artificial, then what is the ontological nature of 'miscategorization'?

Really!? The universe has computers? Which program language do they use?

No. The Universe DOES computation with entanglement. You could use any programming language which can describe quantum systems.
Something like QuTiP (which is just Python) works just fine.

The question isn't about the language - the question is about the reification of whatever language you choose.

How do we reify quantum gates? By entangling qubits.
How do we reify quantum operations? Microwaves
How do we reify quantum measurements? Also Microwaves

Here's the crux of it all, though: Either the structure of the universe is computational or the structure of the instrument we use to understand the universe with is computational: our minds. It is difficult to identify the correct categorisation scheme in practice.

[RCSaunders]

Here's the crux of it all, though: Either the structure of the universe is computational or the structure of the instrument we use to understand the universe with is computational: our minds. It is difficult to identify the correct categorisation scheme in practice.

I understand your view. I do not agree with it, but I have no wish to change it, if that is what you choose to believe. Any further discussion would require one of us to start from a different premise, which is apparently not going to happen, which is perfectly OK with me. We don't have to agree, we only have to be reasonable, which you have been and I much appreciate.

[Skepdick]

I understand your view. I do not agree with it, but I have no wish to change it, if that is what you choose to believe. Any further discussion would require one of us to start from a different premise, which is apparently not going to happen, which is perfectly OK with me. We don't have to agree, we only have to be reasonable, which you have been and I much appreciate.

You don't have to agree with me to recognise your error. Language reification is computer science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reificati ... r_science)

Inevitably, it all boils down to the question: What is "it" that you consider to be a first-class citizen of your conceptual system? I can't find such a thing - I can't find any axioms/foundations. And if I can't find them after looking for so long - I can't possibly need them.

But it sounds like you consider Taxonomy as a first class citizen of yours.

[RCSaunders]

What is "it" that you consider to be a first-class citizen of your conceptual system? I can't find such a thing - I can't find any axioms/foundations. And if I can't find them after looking for so long - I can't possibly need them.[Emphasis mine]
Why would you look for something you had no reason to suspect existed? How would even go about it?

Not, "it," but, "them," are the foundation of my conceptual understanding. They are my consciousness (one thing) and that which I am conscious of (the other thing), which is existence.

But it sounds like you consider Taxonomy as a first class citizen of yours.

Taxonomy is not fundamental to epistemology, but is certainly necessary. Identification is the fundamental, it is the method by which all concepts of what exists are formed.

[Skepdick]

Not, "it," but, "them," are the foundation of my conceptual understanding. They are my consciousness (one thing) and that which I am conscious of (the other thing), which is existence.

Yes, but existence has no categories. Hence the problem.

Taxonomy is not fundamental to epistemology, but is certainly necessary. Identification is the fundamental, it is the method by which all concepts of what exists are formed.

Taxonomies are the result of identification/categorization.

Which is precisely why I asked you the ontological question: What is the nature of categories?

Do categories exist? Where?