Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 amVery good! Then I trust you will correct my misunderstanding, and you will tell me (and everybody watching) what knowledge is?

Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge; not knowledge itself. And definitely not applied science (wtf does that even mean).

We have a context. Understanding The Universe.

That's taking things out of context with a blanket context, which doesn't always apply either.

Yes! That is the topic I am discussing! By calling me out for 'strawman' you are committing ad-hominem and appealing to purity!

Are you? So philosophy is the same as applied science to you?

So why do you think there is an objectively standardized meaning on the word 'morality' ? Do you even care about the law of non-contradiction?

Strawman of strawman; morality has almost nothing to do with the things I wrote; it's standardized meaning or lack thereof even less.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:16 am Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge; not knowledge itself.

The nature of knowledge? So that is like saying you are studying the ontology of knowledge? In a universe where we don't have any other ontology except physics? Nice

Are you using the tools, techniques and methods of physics to study knowledge? If not - what tools, techniques and methods are you using to study knowledge?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:16 am And definitely not applied science (wtf does that even mean)

It means is ACQUIRING knowledge.
It means APPLYING knowledge.
It means UPDATING knowledge.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:16 am Are you? So philosophy is the same as applied science to you?

Yes. Understanding the universe encompasses the study of humans and how humans acquire knowledge of the universe. Because we are part of the universe.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:16 am Strawman of strawman; morality has almost nothing to do with the things I wrote; it's standardized meaning or lack thereof even less.

Well, by my conception of 'morality' it has everything to do with it!
So is my conception wrong or is your conception wrong?

How do we DECIDE?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:21 amThe nature of knowledge? So that is like saying you are studying the ontology of knowledge? In a universe where we don't have any other ontology except physics? Nice

Are you using the tools, techniques and methods of physics to study knowledge? If not - what tools, techniques and methods are you using to study knowledge?

Aha, so you didn't even know what "epistemology" means, strawmanning everything.

Btw there are many things about the nature of human understanding / the many forms of human understanding / the inner workings of the human brain/mind, that physics can't address yet.

It means is ACQUIRING knowledge.
It means APPLYING knowledge.
It means UPDATING knowledge.

That's a distortion/oversimplification, especially when mixing together epistemology and applied science.

Yes. Understanding the universe encompasses the study of humans and how humans acquire knowledge of the universe. Because we are part of the universe.

You are on the wrong forum then. Actually understanding English would have helped you avoid strawmanning ALL OF PHILOSOPHY.

Well, by my conception of 'morality' it has everything to do with it!
So is my conception wrong or is your conception wrong?

How do we DECIDE?

We "decide" by a generally established consensus. And the consensus is that we shouldn't mix toghether everything to the point of complete incomprehensibility. You know, bad utility.
It's all right to go against this consensus, just don't expect to make much of an impact with it.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:33 am Aha, so you didn't even know what "epistemology" means, strawmanning everything.

Don't deflect now. Define knowledge and epistemology.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:33 am Btw there are many things about the nature of human understanding / the many forms of human understanding / the inner workings of the human brain/mind, that physics can't address yet.

Naturally. The causal chain from physics, to chemistry, to organic chemistry, to biology, to anthropology, to neurology to psychology is far too complex. Which is precisely why we don’t study or talk about “the batter of human understanding and knowledge” in the ontological sense! So which sense ARE we talking about them in? Philosophical sense?

What does that mean?

To say that science can’t address those concerns but philosophy can is much like saying "there are many aspects of reality science can't address - therefore God!".

What is the methodology behind philosophy?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:33 am That's a distortion/oversimplification, especially when mixing together epistemology and applied science.

Am I mixing them? You haven't defined epistemology/knowledge yet. So you are not allowing for the possibility that you are mistaken and I am right.

Knowledge is inseparable from system dynamics. For knowledge is constantly updated/expanded/corrected/refreshed/forgotten/discarded as new information from reality arrives. And so if your conception of 'epistemology' doesn't take system dynamics into account - I think I have a better claim to 'epistemology' than you do?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:33 am You are on the wrong forum then.

Since you fail to provide your objective standards for asserting 'rightness' and 'wrongness' from now on I am just going to interpret 'right' and 'wrong' as "I like it" and "I don't like it". Or at least until we come to a CONSENSUS on the objective standards.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:33 am We "decide" by a generally established consensus. And the consensus is that we shouldn't mix toghether everything to the point of complete incomprehensibility. You know, bad utility.

Well, lets decide then! What is the utility of philosophy? What is YOUR utility in philosophy?

On 'incomprehensibility' - that is rather ironic! Have you read any philosophical writings? 90% of it is esoteric sophistry ! You will have much better understanding going to wikipedia

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 am That's what you are doing, you enjoyed hurting your family members and others around you by one-upping them saying they don't exist, you don't exist, they don't have a mother etc. You are abusive, all because you are too weak to properly handle the non-existence of the separate self.

There, there, don't fear your own weakness, lay it all on me, I was made to bear this unbearable lightness of being.

Just keep laying it all on me, that's what I'm here for, I can take it all...else I would have quit this life a long time ago.

Don't worry about this one here, this one is here is home safe and well.

Care more about your own stark nondual realisation of your real self and face it head on without fear or rejection that you are totally alone in YOUR own MIND and that others are totally alone in their own minds too...be strong and have the courage to face your real face and be free of the needy dependancy for other people to soothe your fearful suffering lonely heart.

I see you are still hurting, be not afraid, for I am always here for you.

One-upping people is not hurting them, you can never one-up another person without their permission. Other people have minds as well you know, they can make up their own minds about that they want to allow in their own headspace...if you are wise, then you will not allow other peoples dirty feet to walk all over your own mind, but if you do, then all the fool you, its your hurting mess...no one elses.

It seems you've already made your own mind up about this mind here..that's your loss not mine, that's your own closed minded tight contracted fearful self you need to work on. It's not the reality of this mind here.

You abuse yourself...I'd keeping working on that ...it's not what any of this is all about.

.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:37 am ...

Here's a starter, since you love Wiki links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

See if you can spot any differences between them.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:16 am Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge; not knowledge itself.

Lets strike at the heart and idiocy of this claim.

Lobotomology is the study of the nature of quarks, leptons and electrons, not quarks, leptons and electrons themselves.

If I were to utter that sentence every physicist with a brain cell would call me out on my bullshit! Because physics doesn't describe what a quark IS. Physics describes how a quark BEHAVES. Our most coveted and precise science does NOT deal with ontology! Ontology is out of bounds for humans!

So exactly like Lobotomology is made up (OBVIOUSLY!), then Epistemology is also a made up field of enquiry! That is EXACTLY what I am trying to tell you

Knowledge doesn't have an ontology! It has properties!

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:22 pm Neuroscience and psychiatry are entirely separate disciplines responsible for treating different types of brain disorders
Neuroscience deals with conditions that can be reduced or eliminated by surgery while psychiatry deals with conditions
that can be reduced or eliminated by therapy and / or medication and since they are separate they tend not to overlap

That's simply not true that they treat different types of brain disorders. Some neuroscientists are not clinicians. Neuroscientists can and do also add their special expertise to that of psychiatrists.

TimeSeeker wrote:

Yeah, I have absolutely no idea how to solve the mind-body problem.

Are you serious? I'd have thought that you would immediately see that mental language , and extended matter language, mediate the two main models of the same thing , nature.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:29 pm TimeSeeker wrote:

Yeah, I have absolutely no idea how to solve the mind-body problem.

Are you serious? I'd have thought that you would immediately see that mental language , and extended matter language, mediate the two main models of the same thing , nature.

I was being facetious

I am comfortable with the answer that minds are emergent properties of brains. But neuroscience is way too primitive to give us predictive models that are useful in day-to-day life. So I default to Platonism.

Even if neuroscience was to explain how minds works, and create detailed models of minds, I don’t think THAT model/description would be far useful to the mind itself. Complex models are expensive to manipulate mentally’

So we will always be stuck with Platonistic models. Because they are computationally cheap. Our hardware has limits...

Kahneman’s System I and System II.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:16 am Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge; not knowledge itself.

Lets strike at the heart and idiocy of this claim.

Lobotomology is the study of the nature of quarks, leptons and electrons, not quarks, leptons and electrons themselves.

If I were to utter that sentence every physicist with a brain cell would call me out on my bullshit! Because physics doesn't describe what a quark IS. Physics describes how a quark BEHAVES. Our most coveted and precise science does NOT deal with ontology! Ontology is out of bounds for humans!

So exactly like Lobotomology is made up (OBVIOUSLY!), then Epistemology is also a made up field of enquiry! That is EXACTLY what I am trying to tell you

Knowledge doesn't have an ontology! It has properties!

So your argument is that epistemology isn't ontology, it's just a "made up" field, an analysis?

Because that's basically what epistemology is about, in contrast to ontology. That's why it's called epistemology and not ontology.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:03 pm So your argument is that epistemology isn't ontology, it's just a "made up" field, an analysis?

Because that's basically what epistemology is about, in contrast to ontology. That's why it's called epistemology and not ontology.

No. That's not my argument. Let me dumb it down for you a little, because you really seem to struggle going up and down the complexity abstraction hierarchy.

The ontology of biological organisms are cells
The ontology of cells is organic chemistry
The ontology of organic chemistry is classical chemistry
The ontology of classical chemistry is classical physics.
The ontology of classical physics is quantum physics.

Decomposing phenomena into their PARTS is called analysis, or reduction, or deconstruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity). It is exactly the same MENTAL PROCESS. Lets call this process 'ontological reductionism' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction ... ductionism )

And so by studying (analysing, reducing, deconstructing) ANYTHING you are doing 'ontological reduction' to it.

When you are STUDYING anything - you are doing 'ontological reduction'.

If epistemology is the STUDY of knowledge, then epistemology is the ONTOLOGICAL REDUCTION of "knowledge".

Into what parts? Recurse this question until you get to physics.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:12 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:03 pm So your argument is that epistemology isn't ontology, it's just a "made up" field, an analysis?

Because that's basically what epistemology is about, in contrast to ontology. That's why it's called epistemology and not ontology.

No. That's not my argument. Let me dumb it down for you a little, because you really seem to struggle going up and down the complexity abstraction hierarchy.

The ontology of biological organisms are cells
The ontology of cells is organic chemistry
The ontology of organic chemistry is classical chemistry
The ontology of classical chemistry is classical physics.
The ontology of classical physics is quantum physics.

Decomposing phenomena into their PARTS is called analysis, or reduction, or deconstruction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity). It is exactly the same MENTAL PROCESS. Lets call this process 'ontological reductionism' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction ... ductionism )

And so by studying (analysing, reducing, deconstructing) ANYTHING you are doing 'ontological reduction' to it.

When you are STUDYING anything - you are doing 'ontological reduction'.

If epistemology is the STUDY of knowledge, then epistemology is the ONTOLOGICAL REDUCTION of "knowledge".

Into what parts? Recurse this question until you get to physics.

Ah right, you don't understand what ontology means either.

Here's the 7th link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:16 pm Ah right, you don't understand what ontology means either.

Here's the 7th link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Ah right too! You have absolutely no clue what it means "to understand"

That is EXACTLY the conception of ontology I am using. The NATURE of being. It is exactly the conception of ontology a physicist uses.

We describe ontology with equations in respect to TIME and interactions and we measure change in behavior! Calculus. That is exactly what the Schrödinger equations are for.

In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation is a mathematical equation that describes the changes over time of a physical system in which quantum effects, such as wave–particle duality, are significant.

So when I speak about Epistemology I am very much talking about the ontology of knowledge. How knowledge is acquired, validated, updated, changed, corrected, discarded and forgotten over time as we receive new INFORMATION from reality.

How knowledge CHANGES as humans interact with the world.

Without system dynamics - you have no useful TOOLS to study knowledge!

The ontological description of quarks, leptons and electrons describe BEHAVIOR! The mathematical equations tell us what the thing DOES as it INTERACTS with other things.

Epistemology is telling us what knowledge IS. It doesn't tell us ANYTHING about what knowledge DOES!

You keep tripping over the problem of infinite regress because you can't see further than your logocentric nose.

The JTB definition of knowledge is Justified, true belief. Well that's fucking useless!

What is the ontology of justification? What does justification DO?
What is the ontology of belief? What does belief DO?
What is the ontology of truth? What does truth DO?

Welcome to the define X game!

In the language of Mathematics. Knowledge is a justified, true belief becomes: K = f(J,T,B)

What are J, T and B functions of?