Philosophy Now Forum

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 pm Assuming words are about imaginary things does not follow.

Nobody says words are about imaginary things. Words describe experiences and experiences are real.

This is the opening act of Phenomenology

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:14 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 pm Assuming words are about imaginary things does not follow.

Nobody says words are about imaginary things. Words describe experiences and experiences are real.

This is the opening act of Phenomenology

Some thoughts are about things imagined by humans.
Words are about thoughts that are had by humans
Some words are about imaginary things.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:48 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:24 am
But, in deference to my Robot Overlord, I accept some minuscule possibility that I'm, for example, a disembodied brain, maintained in a jar in a Cleveland lab, bein' fed impressions of an apple through embedded copper wires.

That’s all I’ve been saying.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:24 am The possibility doesn't keep me up at night, though.

Me neither. But I have found the discussion here to be very interesting.

Well, there you go...I knew you weren't a nutjob.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:39 pm Yes, agree.

That's gratifying, but a little worrying to. This is the third time someone has agreed with me about something on this thread. When others begin to agree with me, it worries me that I might be making a mistake, since it so seldom happens ... or, maybe I'm just catching up with everyone else.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:28 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:39 pm Yes, agree.

That's gratifying, but a little worrying to. This is the third time someone has agreed with me about something on this thread. When others begin to agree with me, it worries me that I might be making a mistake, since it so seldom happens ... or, maybe I'm just catching up with everyone else.

Don't get comfortable...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:48 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:56 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:06 am 1. E is a subset of O ( O is a superset of E)
2. There is an intersection between O and E (they are adjoint)
3. There is no intersection between O and E (they are disjoint)
4. There is a complete overlap between O and E (there is 1:1 correspondence)

Which one best describes your conception?

None of the above.

My bad. I thought the list was exhaustive, but obviously I was wrong.

Care to add the missing option which accurately represents your view?

It's not your list that is the problem. Its just irrelevant. Every universal concept is a way of identifying things that are similar so we don't don't have to completely describe and identify every particular existent. The fact that physical things can be identified as having particular states, solid, liquid, and gas, and one more if you want to include plasmas is not philosophical, "triasm," or, "quadism." There is no end to such divisions, old and new, hot and cold, male and female, paramagnetic and diamagnetic, or canned and fresh. These are not dualisms.

The distinction I was making was between the natural (that which exists without the intervention of human action) and the man-made (that which only exists because of human action), particularly those things which only exist as products of the human mind.

If you call that dualism, well then you do. You are free to call anything what you like.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:37 pm Some thoughts are about things imagined by humans.
Words are about thoughts that are had by humans
Some words are about imaginary things.

Thoughts, imagination - I experience both of those things.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm It's not your list that is the problem. Its just irrelevant.

It's not at all irrelevant. You categorized ALL existence into two - ontological and epistemic.

I am trying to determine whether you think there's an overlap between your categories, or whether you believe everything belongs into one or the other exclusively.

For example...

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm Every universal concept is a way of identifying things that are similar so we don't don't have to completely describe and identify every particular existent.

Do you think concepts (which are epistemic) have ontological existence?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm The fact that physical things can be identified as having particular states, solid, liquid, and gas, and one more if you want to include plasmas is not philosophical, "triasm," or, "quadism."

Do you think concepts (which are epistemic) have particular physical brain-states?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm There is no end to such divisions, old and new, hot and cold, male and female, paramagnetic and diamagnetic, or canned and fresh. These are not dualisms.

Which is exactly why called you out for Pluralism before you ever began....

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm The distinction I was making was between the natural (that which exists without the intervention of human action) and the man-made (that which only exists because of human action), particularly those things which only exist as products of the human mind.

Does your brain exist with or without the intervention of human action, or as a product of the human mind?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm If you call that dualism, well then you do. You are free to call anything what you like.

The label is not important - I am trying to understand what you are saying. You are making it difficult.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:42 pm Do you think concepts (which are epistemic) have ontological existence?

No.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:42 pm Do you think concepts (which are epistemic) have particular physical brain-states?

No.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:42 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm There is no end to such divisions, old and new, hot and cold, male and female, paramagnetic and diamagnetic, or canned and fresh. These are not dualisms.

Which is exactly why called you out for Pluralism before you ever began....

Oh, you only mean having more than one concept is, "pluralism." Odd, but if that's what you think, that's fine. I suppose if you want to call the fact that ontological existence, which includes human beings and makes concepts possible, "dualism," you may, but I do not think that is what dualism usually means, is it?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:42 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm The distinction I was making was between the natural (that which exists without the intervention of human action) and the man-made (that which only exists because of human action), particularly those things which only exist as products of the human mind.

Does your brain exist with or without the intervention of human action, or as a product of the human mind?

All physical entities, living organisms, conscious organisms, and rational conscious (mind) organisms exist without the intervention of human action. Since life, consciousness, and mind are attributes of oraganisms, animals, and man, those attributes exist without the intervention of human action. I regard all physical entities, including all organism, and all their attributes as perfectly natural ontological existents.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:42 pm The label is not important - I am trying to understand what you are saying. You are making it difficult.

I have no intention of making my explanations difficult and am sorry if they were not clear. I hope I have made my view understandable. If there is still misunderstanding, please ask, and don't worry about being critical. My answers have been brief so there are bound to be questions which would require more explanation, I think.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:04 am Oh, you only mean having more than one concept is, "pluralism." Odd, but if that's what you think, that's fine. I suppose if you want to call the fact that ontological existence, which includes human beings and makes concepts possible, "dualism," you may, but I do not think that is what dualism usually means, is it?

it's exactly what it means. You have split existence into two. Epistemology and ontology - mind and matter.

Hence Russell's joke... What's mind? No matter. What's matter? Never mind.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:04 am I regard all physical entities, including all organism, and all their attributes as perfectly natural ontological existents.

So your brain falls into that category. And this is where dualism short-circuits - your mind is what your brain does.

So your mind is ontological, but it's also epistemic. So which category does it fit in?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:16 am So your brain falls into that category. And this is where dualism short-circuits - your mind is what your brain does.

The brain does not produce the mind. Life, consciousness, and mind are perfectly natural attributes, but they are not physical attributes. Your physicalism is just a bad hypothesis based on the false belief that whatever is not physical is not natural.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:16 am So your mind is ontological, but it's also epistemic. So which category does it fit in?

The mind is ontological, but it is not, "epistemic." Epistemology only pertains to knowledge which the mind makes necessary and possible, but it is not knowledge itself. Mind is the attribute of human consciousness that makes conscious choice (volition) possible and necessary, the gaining and retaining of knowledge (intellect) possible and necessary, and thinking and making judgements (rationality) possible and necessary. The relationship of the mind to the physical brain is the same the relationship between conscious perception and the neurological system.

The neurological system is the means by which our consciousness directly perceives the physical, that is, sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes the physical, but the neurological system does not perceive anything. The brain is the means by which the conscious mind perceives, learns, thinks, and chooses, but the brain does not do the perceiving, learning, thinking or choosing.

I'm not making an argument here, only explaining how the relationship between the physical and psychological may rightly be understood. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about the fact that life, consciousness, and mind are additional attributes to the physical which are perfectly natural attributes only manifest in organisms and human beings. The belief that physical properties are the only possible natural properties is a kind of superstition.

I doubt very much that you will find agreement with this, which is fine, so long as you understand I'm not advocating some kind dualistic existence such as natural and supernatural like Descartes and other dualists.

Amen, brother.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:01 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:50 pm ...
I may not actually disagree with you, but I'd have to know how your are differentiating what you call empirically-real from really-real.

What is empirically-real is the reality that can be observed and verified. The most notable of this is via Science.

• Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

What is empirically-real is conditioned by human observations, testings and verification. Hume was the most notable empiricist philosopher.

What is claimed as really-real is that thing which is not conditioned by human observations, testings and verification. This is the view of the Philosophical Realists. Kant labelled this as the noumenon and thing-in-itself. ...

We may not have that much of a disagreement then. I made the mistake of thinking you were using, "real," in the everyday sense of what is actually so verses make-believe, but if I understand your explanation you use, "empirically-real," to mean actual existence and, "really-real," in the Platonic realism sense of some kind of mystical ineffable reality behind the existence actually experienced.

Agree.

I do not agree that, "What is empirically-real is, "conditioned," by human observations, testings and verification."

If by, "empirically-real," you mean the existence that we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, it is not, "conditioned," by human observation.

What I mean by reality is all that is and has the nature it has whether anyone is conscious of or knows what that existence is or what its nature is or not. What human observation, testing, and verification do is, "discover," (gain knowledge about) that existence and its nature. They do not make it or condition it.
Reality is what it is and has the nature it has whether any human ever observes, tests, or verifies it.

This may not be your view, so I'd be interested in how different it is from yours.

While your belief is not exactly of Plato's ideas, forms and universals, your "reality = all-that-is" there are both along the same vein/continuum, i.e. both are independent of the human-conditions of different degrees.

Human-conditions is a VERY loaded term in this case.
These human-conditions are not based on our present state, consciousness or awareness within reality, rather these human-conditions stretched back to the space-time 3-4 billion years since the first one-cell living things emerged and along with evolution till the present state.
On top of that space-time is also subjected to these human-conditions iteratively [looped].

Thus the model is this;

• Human-conditions + human individual[s] + spontaneous emerged reality [1] = spontaneous emerged reality [2 -all that is]

- in iterative mode.

If you believe "Reality is what it is" which is independent of the human-conditions, then when do you think humans will ever know what is that independent "Reality as all that is"?

When you believe "reality=all that is" as independent of the human condition, then you are aligning with the Correspondence Theory of Truth, where humans are always attempting to correspond with an invisible parallel reality which they can never know.

• Historically, most advocates of correspondence theories have been metaphysical realists; that is, they believe that there is a world external to the minds of all humans.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspon ... o_ontology

What I am proposing as with others of the likes is, "reality as all there is" are fully in engagement and interacting within the same reality they are a part of, as a result of emergence out of the interdependent human conditions.
The human self cannot extricate and claim itself to be independent from "reality-all there is"

• Note this analogy;
  This is like a piece-of-ice in a jar of water where the seemingly "individualized" ice-piece is independent of the water, but in reality the existence of the ice-piece is part & parcel and interdependent with the water. The piece-of-ice's size will change in accordance with everything [temperature, wind, etc.] that are surrounding it and the jar of water. If it is too hot, then the ice-piece will be non-existence and be just part-parcel of the water.

Similarly human beings are merely bundles of specific energy-pack interchanging within a universe of energy. What manifest as objects, things, consciousness within the individual is all interdependent with that universe of energy.
Just in case that will lead you to think, energy is the ultimate independent substance, NOPE it is not, "that energy" is again a emergent result from that interactions of the human conditions with the subject.

Thus if you believe "Reality is what that is" the most you are doing is hanging to this proposition in your mind. This is just a hope and wish. Thus you are leaving the proposition hanging [suspended] without realization any of its reality at all.
What you have are merely converted and interpreted sense-data in your brain/mind and never ever knowing what reality really is.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 pm Your thinking is there are no words without humans.

Isn't this logical and obvious.

Assuming words are about imaginary things does not follow.

I did not state that.

'Words' are basically linguistic elements.
They can represent thoughts or no thoughts.
Thoughts can represent real objects within reality, i.e. an apple on the table that is subsequently eaten.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:47 pm "When one mistaken a length of rope for a real snake, says a lot that one had been duped as to what is real."

When Penn & Teller transform a snake into rope, or vice versa, I've been duped (in a most entertaining way).

When I, because of poor lighting, mistake a rope for a snake, or vice versa, I've made a mistake.

Either way: I don't get all doubt-ridden about the realness of snakes or ropes. In the first case, I applaud P & T for their clever misdirection; in the second, I kick myself for bein' an idiot.

You have not mistaken it precisely since there is no deliberate intention in that case.
You were duped by an inherent "programmed" to facilitate your survival. The natural decision of your primal mind is to veer to the 'safer' judgment in case of uncertainty.

Note in the case of the bent-stick-in-water, all human beings will see a bent stick.
https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0070/ ... 394782.jpg

or the Herring Ilusion - i.e. curved parallel lines.

https://i.warosu.org/data/sci/img/0070/ ... 394782.jpg



From the above, all humans are inherently "programmed" to be duped in the above cases and many other cases of empirical illusion, logical illusion, transcendental illusions, etc.

Thus, with the above, the question is whatever you observed as real could be a programmed illusion from another perspective.
This is true as in the case of 'solidness'.
There is no such thing as real physical solidness.
Why you feel things as solid is very psychological [primal] because the electrons spin so fast as speed of light that you cannot press through with your fingers thus you will feel solidness.
Thus 'solidness' is an inherent subjective experience and not because 'solidness' is an absolute reality.

"Thus the question to ask is, are you also duped when you see and hold on to the 'real solid rope'."

No. I go to Ace Hardware, buy myself some nice nylon rope, then hang myself in despair that folks like Hoffman are actually taken seriously. The rope, its realness, is never in question. The only question: can I hang myself so that I kick quick, or am I gonna hang there twitchin' for ten minutes as I suffocate?

#

"A higher reality of the rope would be what materials the rope are made of and how many strands and how they are constructed to form the rope. Surely this fact has a higher degree of realness than the realness of just being a rope."

None of that is a higher reality. That there is the constituents of the rope, its foundation, none of which I have to be familiar with to recognize the rope as rope, or to use the rope to end my snakeoil salesman inspired despair.

The rope is real, it exists independent of me, its realness is independent of my familiarity with its constituents (nylon, hemp, old lady hair: I'm gonna swing at the end of it just the same).

As mentioned, the feel of 'solidness' of the rope is an illusion from another perspective as I had explained above in terms of the spinning of electrons within the 'rope' at the speed of light.

Thus 'solidness' and elements like colors, are not independent of your human conditions, rather they are interdependent with your inherited 3-4 billion years old conditions.

Btw, if you do not get any clue from me [the above] for further reflection, you can keep to your views.
I am not going further to explain my position.