Albert Einstein

[ken]

Most of what I write is just only in response to question what has already been written down by others, which now cannot be removed. There is a reason I used a forum like this. Obviously, if the others here do not start or not now (want to) answer My questions, then there is some reason not to. Whatever the reason is of no real concern to Me. What is important to Me, however, is what the words ARE that are actually written down, because that is what others are looking at and seeing. Others base their views upon what is seen, and not upon what is not seen. Why My questions do not get replied to will be judged upon by others later on, when the true answer is more clearly obvious to them.

From the onset I have only wanted to learn how to better express, ONLY what I want to say, and not just "fit in" with others because I will be ridiculed if I do not. My words, on purpose, do not fit in with the 'shared meaning' of "today's" language. I write in a way, which is more honest than others, to aggravate them because I learn far more from their replies this way, then I would by just fitting, in like they are. The peoples of today are still suffering from the same confusion that people have suffered for, for thousands of years. None of which is obviously becoming any clearer to them. The peoples of "today" are still unable to answer any of the meaningful questions in Life. So, of course, My "private language" was never destined to be fully, or even slightly, understood here, especially in this forum. This forum is just a stepping stone of communicating and language learning for Me, in the unobservant and unconscious way to others that I am doing it now. A learning that is done in a way that is not obvious to the others here at all. So, it could been seen as, and I have purposely been, speaking a "private language" and having a true "conversation with Thee Self. As will be noticed NOW it was NOT for the peoples of "today" to consciously recognize, but for you future generations who WILL see and understand exactly WHAT I have been doing throughout this period here, and, more importantly WHY I have been doing it. The responses given by the people here, which is coming from the unconscious 'I', of which 'you' people are NOW becoming far more aware of, is the evidence that i even unintentionally started out doing.

During My intentional learning phase of how to find the right language to better express from, I unintentionally have been producing the evidence and proof from others within their responses, and from within their non response(s), to My clarifying questioning, which can and will NOW actually be used scientifically to support My continually gaining NEW views.

The outcome, for what I propose to express, i.e., show how we call all live together in peace and harmony, IS achieving that what we all truly want and seek. If and when that is achieved, then what I am doing here WILL be recognized and acknowledged. The person who comes across this and studies this forum will now know how it all partly come about. So, this private language that 'I' am having here is actually 'Me' having a conversation with Thee (Real and True) 'Self', of which only a future generations of peoples from "today" can and WILL fully understand.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Eventually ken will realise that he is having a conversation with himself.

It's hard to tell. Almost as if he's speaking a private language.

[Metazoan]

... That Berkeley guy you never heard of... his idealism was in part a response to a problem that this other guy called Descartes couldn't answer regarding how an immaterial brain could causally interact with a physical brain. Your own dualism is not going to have the answer to that problem either, and it will be subject to a problem of solipsism as these things always are, plus all the other perfectly usual problems for that perfectly recognisable theory. I know lots about that, Hobbes knows more than I do...

Hi FlashDangerpants,

Why is solipsism to be considered a problem?

Wouldn't the uncertainty give a far greater range of possibilities to explore than rejecting it?

I am no philosopher and I don't see it as a problem so i would be grateful if you would expand on this a bit.

Thanks.

M

[FlashDangerpants]

It somewhat undermines any big claim to have knowledge about all the truths of the universe, if that knowledge doesn't include that there is a universe.

[Metazoan]

Hi FlashDangerpants,

Thanks for your succinct reply.

I guess I misread your post as suggesting that solipsism somehow undermined Berkeley's idealism rather than dualism.

As an idealist, my challenge is to see why my mind creates the illusion of a brain.

Not that it will entirely banish solipsism but I can then finally bury dualism.

M.

[Metazoan]

Hi FlashDangerpants,

It somewhat undermines any big claim to have knowledge about all the truths of the universe, if that knowledge doesn't include that there is a universe.

Kant suggests that the universe as a thing in itself is unknowable, does that mean that a non-solipsist is mistaken?

To be unknowable, I shouldn't be able to detect a difference between whether a universe as a thing in itself is there or not. That I think I exist cannot then be reason enough to assert that there is actually a universe.

This may be a bit 101 and I am not trying to act like a mad donkey, just asking.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

This is looking like a bit of an understatement

M.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hi FlashDangerpants,

Thanks for your succinct reply.

I guess I misread your post as suggesting that solipsism somehow undermined Berkeley's idealism rather than dualism.

As an idealist, my challenge is to see why my mind creates the illusion of a brain.

Not that it will entirely banish solipsism but I can then finally bury dualism.

M.

Idealism does not create an illusion of a brain, but it offers you an understanding of a brain through the ideal of a brain. And reminds you that you can only know a brain through the idea of it. It does not deny materialism but simply asserts that matter is only knowable through the ideas around it.

Solipsism is idealism taken to stupid and ridiculously nihilistic extremes. Dualism is a position held by materialists that find idealism appealing but is continually confused between the two positions.

[prothero]

Kant suggests that the universe as a thing in itself is unknowable, does that mean that a non-solipsist is mistaken?

To be unknowable, I shouldn't be able to detect a difference between whether a universe as a thing in itself is there or not. That I think I exist cannot then be reason enough to assert that there is actually a universe.

Kant was not a solipsist. He did not deny the existence of an independent external world. Kant did suggest the limits of human conception and of human sense perception (and by extension our instruments) imply that we can never "know" the world perfectly and completely as it is "the thing in itself". He also suggested that preexisting categories of mind (space, time and causality) color the way we can perceive and "know the world", we impose those categories on nature they might not reside there. Kant is regarded by some as a response to the severe skepticism of Hume. "transcendental idealism". For that matter Berkeley was not a solipsist either and since this was a thread about Einstein originally (definitely not a solipsist). Solipsism is a useful exercise in exploring the limits of our knowledge about an "external, real, independent world" but not a very useful philosophy for life.

[Metazoan]

Hi Hobbes,

Thanks for your reply,

Idealism does not create an illusion of a brain,...

I see my idealism is a paradigm rather than the cause of anything other than the way I think about my illusions.

...And reminds you that you can only know a brain through the idea of it.

For me that is not my idealism but Kant.

It does not deny materialism but simply asserts that matter is only knowable through the ideas around it.

This is where we disagree; I don't think matter is knowable at all.

Of course there are two types of matter here, the phenomenal illusion and the noumenal thing in itself. Knowing anything about the former tells you nothing about the latter.

When I was a materialist I thought there was a causal relationship between the two.

I lost that link and became an immaterialist. (Long story.)

I am no expert on Kant but his ideas seem to have withstood a lot of scrutiny over the years so I am erring on the side of unknowable means unknowable.

Solipsism is idealism taken to stupid and ridiculously nihilistic extremes.

I don't mind looking stupid or ridiculous in your eyes. Worrying about what people think of you allows them to control you, and is a barrier to learning too.

Anyway, I am only a figment of your imagination so no harm done.

As far as I can see solipsism comes as part of the deal, you don't invent it; kind of like discovering some in-laws in the attic after the event.

Dualism is a position held by materialists that find idealism appealing but is continually confused between the two positions.

I suspect dualism is an inevitable consequence of materialism. You either accept it or deny it, much like most other challenges in life.

To boil this down to the core; if materialists assert that the noumenal universe is knowable, which would appear to be the core of their belief, they must also assert that Kant is wrong in suggesting that the noumenal universe is unknowable.

This would suggest some possibilities:-

1) Kant is wrong.
2) I am wrong about what Kant meant.
3) Materialists don't assert the noumenal universe is knowable.
4) Materialists are closet idealists.
5) Materialism is a religion.
6) I am a heretic.
7) ...

Please send all hate mail and suggestions to kick rocks to the usual address.

Thanks,

M.

Edited for typo: What on earth is a nomena?

[Metazoan]

Hi prothero,

Thanks for that, it was just the sort of thing I was looking for.

Let me chew on what you have said and get back to you.

I took this thread to be about the power of imagination rather than Albert Einstein specifically.

Thanks again,

M.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hi Hobbes,

Thanks for your reply,

Idealism does not create an illusion of a brain,...

I see my idealism is a paradigm rather than the cause of anything other than the way I think about my illusions.

...And reminds you that you can only know a brain through the idea of it.

For me that is not my idealism but Kant.

It does not deny materialism but simply asserts that matter is only knowable through the ideas around it.

This is where we disagree; I don't think matter is knowable at all.

If this is the case then you cannot speak of it.
And so have nothing more to add to the conversation.

[Metazoan]

Hi Hobbes,

...I don't think matter is knowable at all.

If this is the case then you cannot speak of it.

Of course I can; in the same way I can talk about the largest prime number in that there isn't one, I can talk about squaring the circle in that you can't, I can talk about the completeness of mathematics in that it isn't. I can talk about unicorn's droppings tasting like chicken in that they don't.

Ok, I'm not so sure about that last one.

I wish to explore how it is that materialists can claim the ability to speak of a noumenal universe with greater authority than I can muster.

I am less interested in being told that I am wrong than understanding why I am wrong.

And so have nothing more to add to the conversation.

Ah, an optimist as well as a materialist.

My phenomenal universe provides me with enough possible answers without having to create a noumenal one as well. I'm quite sure I can keep this up ad nauseam.

Taking prothero's implication that this may be off topic, maybe a new thread is in order.

Decisions decisions... Epistemology or Philosophy of Religion?

The again, does this forum need another thread on this wrinkled old chestnut?

Answers on a postcard...

Thanks,

M.

Edit: Doh!!! I said 'completing the square' not 'squaring the circle'. I can't distinguish my phenomenal brain from a bowl of warm porridge. I'm glad no one reads my posts.

[Metazoan]

Hi prothero,

Kant was not a solipsist.

My definition of a solipsist is someone who believes that the noumenal world is unknowable. I thought that Kant suggested that the noumenal world is unknowable. Ergo Kant is a solipsist.

This apparent contradiction may be due to us having different meanings attached to the placeholder 'solipsist', a different interpretation of what Kant meant, Kant changed his mind, or any combination of the three.

As the key log would appear to be the unknowability or otherwise of the noumenal world, this contradiction may evaporate without further consideration of it.

He did not deny the existence of an independent external world.

Nor do I, it would be entirely disingenuous to do so, unknowable takes no prisoners.

As Hobbes hinted at, claiming to know something about the unknowable is a very quick way to lose a debate. Fortunately, one's inability to point at the void doesn't make the void knowable; it simply suggests that you have a null pointer.

Knowing that knowing that the noumenal world is unknowable is unknowable would be enough for me.

Wittgenstein is on my suggested reading list but I haven't got there yet.

To paraphrase a lot of hand waving on my part; to be knowable I have to be able to draw a circle around it.

Kant did suggest the limits of human conception and of human sense perception (and by extension our instruments) imply that we can never "know" the world perfectly and completely as it is "the thing in itself".

I have also seen this stated using the word 'directly' as well. Unfortunately, like internet connection speeds, up to 'not perfectly', 'not completely', or 'not directly' also includes 'not at all'.

So this statement is true for both situations; the noumenal world being unknowable and knowable.

You can't perfectly know the highest prime number, you can't completely know the highest prime number, you can't directly know the highest prime number. Put that way the bias is toe curling.

I am still in the dark. Did the materialists take Kant's words and do a little marketing spin on them? They can always claim the statements are true whatever.

Did Kant assert that the noumenal world was unknowable? Anything else would appear to be claiming the opposite.

My challenge is that I already believe, reading about Kant confirms my prejudices as does listening to the obvious rhetoric against. I am human, with all the biases and prone to all the fallacies that the mind is heir to. I was hoping that a materialist would simply say something along the lines of "the noumenal world is knowable because x,y,&z." I can then feed that back into my reasoning and get a different perspective.

He also suggested that preexisting categories of mind (space, time and causality) color the way we can perceive and "know the world", we impose those categories on nature they might not reside there.

Can't argue with that.

Kant is regarded by some as a response to the severe skepticism of Hume. "transcendental idealism".

And so my reading list gets longer.

For that matter Berkeley was not a solipsist either and since this was a thread about Einstein originally (definitely not a solipsist).

See my first point.

Solipsism is a useful exercise in exploring the limits of our knowledge about an "external, real, independent world"...

So far so good. It works for me.

...but not a very useful philosophy for life.

For my sins I am also a determinist. So I end up as an existentialist without free will. I find the 'authentic' me to be a rather benign creature whose philosophy boils down to basically being honest. On top of everything else, that really sucks.

M.

[prothero]

My definition of a solipsist is someone who believes that the noumenal world is unknowable. I thought that Kant suggested that the noumenal world is unknowable. Ergo Kant is a solipsist.

Words have standard meanings, you can use them differently but you are going to confuse your readers and anyone talking with you. Yours is not the standard definition of “solipsism”. I am not a debater, so I will not debate this with you.

As Hobbes hinted at, claiming to know something about the unknowable is a very quick way to lose a debate. Fortunately, one's inability to point at the void doesn't make the void knowable; it simply suggests that you have a null pointer.Knowing that knowing that the noumenal world is unknowable is unknowable would be enough for me.To paraphrase a lot of hand waving on my part; to be knowable I have to be able to draw a circle around it. I have also seen this stated using the word 'directly' as well. Unfortunately, like internet connection speeds, up to 'not perfectly', 'not completely', or 'not directly' also includes 'not at all'.

There are many interpretations of Kant. I have a middle ground interpretation that he is trying to indicate the limits and methods of our possible “knowledge”. He seeks to end the dispute between the empiricists and the rationalists. Sense impressions alone cannot give knowledge they must be organized categorized by the mind and subjected to reason. We cannot “know everything” we do not “know nothing”. Everything that we “know” is through the application of reason, preexisting categories of mind (space, time and causality) and sense “experience”. Hence the critiques of various forms of knowledge.
“Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”- Kant

“Intuition and concepts constitute... the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge”- Kant.

“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”- Kant

“Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.”-Kant

“because reality must conform to the human mind's active concepts to be conceivable and at all possible for us to experience. Kant thus regarded the basic categories of the human mind as the transcendental "condition of possibility" for any experience.[6]”
Kant saw that the mind could not function as an empty container that simply receives data from outside. Something must be giving order to the incoming data.
Hume had stated that experience consists only of sequences of feelings, images or sounds. Ideas such as "cause", goodness, or objects were not evident in experience, so why do we believe in the reality of these? Kant felt that reason could remove this skepticism, and he set himself to solving these problems. He did not publish any work in philosophy for the next 11 years.
Kant asserts that experience is based both on the perception of external objects and a priori knowledge.[56] The external world, he writes, provides those things that we sense. But it is our mind that processes this information and gives it order, allowing us to comprehend it. Our mind supplies the conditions of space and time to experience objects. According to the "transcendental unity of apperception", the concepts of the mind (Understanding) and the perceptions or intuitions that garner information from phenomena (Sensibility) are synthesized by comprehension. Without the concepts, perceptions are nondescript; without the perceptions, concepts are meaningless — thus the famous statement, "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions (perceptions) without concepts are blind."[57] End of Wikipedia

My challenge is that I already believe, reading about Kant confirms my prejudices as does listening to the obvious rhetoric against. I am human, with all the biases and prone to all the fallacies that the mind is heir to. I was hoping that a materialist would simply say something along the lines of "the noumenal world is knowable because x,y,&z." I can then feed that back into my reasoning and get a different perspective.

I am not a materialist (physicalist) nor am I an idealist. I am a process monist which I regard again as a middle ground between idealism and physicalism.

For my sins I am also a determinist. So I end up as an existentialist without free will. I find the 'authentic' me to be a rather benign creature whose philosophy boils down to basically being honest. On top of everything else, that really sucks.

I am not a determinist. I find determinism like solipsism to be a philosophy of little use in developing a worldview pragmatically useful in life. Honesty seems like a good principle.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am not a determinist. I find determinism like solipsism to be a philosophy of little use in developing a worldview pragmatically useful in life. Honesty seems like a good principle.

You can only be honest if you are determined to be honest. Rejecting determinism is dishonest.