Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote:

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

Why not send this to your discourse on ?objective morality ?

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

I'd say that epistemology asks how we can know anything. The verb 'can' implies power to do. Therefore what knowledge does is built into the idea epistemology,

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:06 pm Why not send this to your discourse on ?objective morality /

Because the poster of that thread (Peter) has no interest in finding common ground or different conceptions of 'objectivity'
He is trying to ground morality in "objective facts" (and facts are things we SAY about the world) ignoring this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

In his conception the future is not real.

Which is my little bout with philosophers and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism

TimeSeeker :

In the 19th century, the semiotician Charles Saunders Peirce suggested what some think is a similar model: according to his triadic sign model, meaning requires (1) an interpreter, (2) a sign or representamen, (3) an object, and is (4) the virtual product of an endless regress and progress called Semiosis.[2] Some have interpreted Peirce as addressing the problem of grounding, feelings, and intentionality for the understanding of semiotic processes.[3] In recent years, Peirce's theory of signs has been rediscovered by an increasing number of artificial intelligence researchers in the context of symbol grounding problem.[4]


Re: "The virtual product of an endless regress and progress called Semiosis" is what I believe meaning to be." Social anthropologist Raymond Firth wrote about symbols. He wrote that symbols can be subdivided with signs and signals.It's years since I read the book and what stays with my understanding of the matter is that signs are accepted as legitimate referents within some specific discipline, for instance in medicine signs are what the clinician objectively observes while symptoms are what the patient feels. Signals are even more circumscribed and have very explicit referents e.g. "road closed" or if I raise my hand the auctioneer will accept my bid. Symbols proper are more akin to metaphors and open to subjective feelings and memories.

Dragging this back to the original topic, I'd claim that none of the above (symbols, signs, or signals) is relevant to advaita non-dualism which is well said by Rumi ;

"Beyond ideas of right doing and wrongdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there."
The poet uses tropes which cause flickering understandings , which is true to how we dynamically experience learning processes

Also, of signs, signals, and symbols what I remember about mathematical or formal -logical signs is that they are indeed signs not symbols.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:10 pm Also, of signs, signals, and symbols what I remember about mathematical or formal -logical signs is that they are indeed signs not symbols.

Linguistically - there is no distinction. Or at least - I choose not to make a distinction unless good reason.

They both contain (and intend to communicate) meaning (information).

TimeSeeker:

I choose not to make a distinction unless good reason.

Medics have good reason to be precise about signs and symptoms. I bet you don't think that people who make railway signals are being poetic! I hope you don't think that authors of serious fiction(or Shakespeare)are preaching final truths.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:03 pm Medics have good reason to be precise about signs and symptoms. I bet you don't think that people who make railway signals are being poetic! I hope you don't think that authors of serious fiction(or Shakespeare)are preaching final truths.

You've only brought precision into the discussion now.

There is nothing that says a symbol is any more OR any less precise than a sign. Precisely because semiotics mandates that the symbol OR sign is interpreted.

And so the MEANING of the sign or symbol can be as precise or as imprecise as needed by those who have agreed on its meaning/use.

In this example I believe you are referring to medical jargon where in medical emergencies medics use stickers with the labels P1 to P4 to indicate patient severity/priority. It doesn't mean "Parking levels 1 to 4" (which is what it means when used in the context of an elevator).

Context

TimeSeeker wrote:

There is nothing that says a symbol is any more OR any less precise than a sign

But there is something that says that! I have just posted a useful heuristic device, which is not nothing.

The difference between a symptom and a sign in medical jargon is that the former is subjective and the latter is objective.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:23 pm But there is something that says that! I have just posted a useful heuristic device, which is not nothing.

The difference between a symptom and a sign in medical jargon is that the former is subjective and the latter is objective.

But in the CONTEXT of medicine there never was any confusion between MEANING of the words (signifier) SYMPTOMPS and SIGNS? They signify different things.

In the CONTEXT of linguistics there is confusion about the MEANING of the words (signifier) SYMBOLS and SIGNS! They signify very similar things.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:30 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:23 pm But there is something that says that! I have just posted a useful heuristic device, which is not nothing.

The difference between a symptom and a sign in medical jargon is that the former is subjective and the latter is objective.

But in the CONTEXT of medicine there never was any confusion between MEANING of the words (signifier) SYMPTOMPS and SIGNS? They signify different things.

In the CONTEXT of linguistics there is confusion about the MEANING of the words (signifier) SYMBOLS and SIGNS! They signify very similar things.

Ah, right! However I view medicine as subject to professional discipline , while linguistics is an open field of enquiry. An open field of enquiry allows even me to move the parameters around as long as I don't frighten the horses.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:37 pm Ah, right! However I view medicine as subject to professional discipline , while linguistics is an open field of enquiry. An open field of enquiry allows even me to move the parameters around as long as I don't frighten the horses.

I view linguistics as a field for general systemic analysis. How words are invented, adopted, used, repurposed, updated etc. Every professional field has jargon. Which is in line with Rorty's language as a tool idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDiENpmpY78

Because there is no authority on language - I am interested in the dynamics of it. And particularly in the context of natural language processing (with computers).

Knowing how language works and evolves (broadly) allows me to also learn jargon faster. because I know WHY the jargon exists. I know what the "players in the game" are optimising for.

Which in medicine and in the army is "saving lives", so precise, rapid, unambiguous information saves lives.

I was taught that there is psycholinguistics for instance as per Chomsky. And sociolinguistics as for instance later Wittgenstein. I think there is also logic under the umbrella term of linguistics.

TimSeeker:

Knowing how language works and evolves (broadly) allows me to also learn jargon faster. because I know WHY the jargon exists. I know what the "players in the game" are optimising for.

That would be psycholinguistics (works) and sociolinguistics (evolves)not so?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:06 pm I'd say that epistemology asks how we can know anything. The verb 'can' implies power to do. Therefore what knowledge does is built into the idea epistemology,

This is only begging the question.

How do you know that what you have acquired is knowledge?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:02 pm That would be psycholinguistics (works) and sociolinguistics (evolves)not so?

Well, it may be useful to decompose them into those two branches for better understanding at micro level, but ultimately you have to synthesise it again into a holistic/macro understanding in the context of social psychology.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:06 pm I'd say that epistemology asks how we can know anything. The verb 'can' implies power to do. Therefore what knowledge does is built into the idea epistemology,

This is only begging the question.

How do you know that what you have acquired is knowledge?

That is true, I don't. I was trying to explain what I have found useful in the past and am avid to be taught something I like even better.

Knowing how language works and evolves (broadly) allows me to also learn jargon faster. because I know WHY the jargon exists. I know what the "players in the game" are optimising for.

You advocated holistic/macro understanding in the context of social psychology. For an example, how can you know what the players in the game of vedanta non-dualism are optimising for?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:20 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:06 pm I'd say that epistemology asks how we can know anything. The verb 'can' implies power to do. Therefore what knowledge does is built into the idea epistemology,

This is only begging the question.

How do you know that what you have acquired is knowledge?

That is true, I don't. I was trying to explain what I have found useful in the past and am avid to be taught something I like even better.

It is exactly the same problem I raised about the pursuit of ontology.

How do you tell that you have found it? Being the “true nature of reality” or “true knowledge”?

Without some criteria (values!) for what it does, what it looks like, what you can DO with it when you found it - it is all a wild goose chase.

As you said “I will like it better”

I will know it when I see it.

It is way easier when you have a clear goal in mind!