Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:41 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:28 pm

So does logic give meaning to sense or does sense give meaning to logic?

Neither.

You can play around with words like a philatelist playing with stamps, that is fine with me. Or if you really want to understand epistemology you will read my book and try to refute it (shouldn't be too hard.)

Either way I am done with this conversation.

Yeah I read the first five pages....to save you the trouble...considering premise is everything.

Yeah if you are going to take a strict empirical approach premised upon sensory data which is inherently probabilistic in nature a form of vagueness occurs due to the premise. Materiality is relativity and effectively is a approximation of any constant truth with the laws of physics inevitably being probabilistic given any length of time.

To argue from a premise of sensory data and move to logical analysis as an extension of it still observes a directive quality of empiricism to abstractness, which is inherently subject to choice as empiricism and abstract logical analysis are axioms in themselves which can be directed towards each other and is not limits to a strict starting point.

Also the premise of ambiguity as cause for the argument is ambiguous and is subject more to an emotional appeal rather than pure reason...and yet you necessitate the premise from pure reason when saying all evidence is strictly scientific and empirical in nature....Hence the premise contradicts where your argument is headed.

Add the fact you pick the brain as the local empirical source of knowledge in light of evidence where heart transplant patients receive memories from the original owner, a long with the heart having a higher degree of electromagnentic activity than the brain....and we cycle back to the emotional root of the argument without the correct premise being addressed.

Considering the brain is rarely understood in its full nature, to argue from a premise of the brain effectively is to argue from a variable that is not only "not" universally axiomatic but effectively is open to a further progression of data that leaves your presentation inevitably probabilistic.

The material foundations you argue, at best lead to a strict form of probabilism where all knowledge exists as not just through aa relativistic particulate nature but one which effectively is approximation, conducive a the very vagueness you argue against.

Relativity through atomic is subject to an infinite regress and mirrors a form of the munchaussen dilemma. This regressive nature of not just the arguments but empirical phenomena itself leads to an inherent absence of meaning as "all is flux" when relegated to a strict standard of empiricism alone. To argue the necessity of logical analysis effectively leads a a necessary system of metalogic to occur as all logic is not premised in strictly empirical means and needs a pure form of logic to give the logical analysis a framework of interpretation. So for example one may quantitify a phenomenon and gain evidence of it through math as a form of analysis, the question of number requires a strict abstract means which while probabiliatically may be proven over time with scientific discovery is still necessary for the scientific discovery to begin with....

Should I continue reading or do you really want a polemic argument against your work....

What was a real turn off was the brain as a premise for truth considering it is the abstract interpretation of data which gives credit to the brains nature and activity.


If you want to argue meaning is a balance between empirical and abstract data then we are left with a question of meaning as effectively being one of limits, not patterns considering patterns are composed of various limits, as the directive capacity of empirical and abstract data necessitates a form of linear alternation or circularity which gives form and function to the argument....Hence we are led to geometry as spatial limit which composes physical and abstract phenomenon.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:04 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:41 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:38 pm
Neither.

You can play around with words like a philatelist playing with stamps, that is fine with me. Or if you really want to understand epistemology you will read my book and try to refute it (shouldn't be too hard.)

Either way I am done with this conversation.

Yeah I read the first five pages....to save you the trouble...considering premise is everything.

Yeah if you are going to take a strict empirical approach premised upon sensory data which is inherently probabilistic in nature a form of vagueness occurs due to the premise. Materiality is relativity and effectively is a approximation of any constant truth with the laws of physics inevitably being probabilistic given any length of time.

To argue from a premise of sensory data and move to logical analysis as an extension of it still observes a directive quality of empiricism to abstractness, which is inherently subject to choice as empiricism and abstract logical analysis are axioms in themselves which can be directed towards each other and is not limits to a strict starting point.

Also the premise of ambiguity as cause for the argument is ambiguous and is subject more to an emotional appeal rather than pure reason...and yet you necessitate the premise from pure reason when saying all evidence is strictly scientific and empirical in nature....Hence the premise contradicts where your argument is headed.

Add the fact you pick the brain as the local empirical source of knowledge in light of evidence where heart transplant patients receive memories from the original owner, a long with the heart having a higher degree of electromagnentic activity than the brain....and we cycle back to the emotional root of the argument without the correct premise being addressed.

Considering the brain is rarely understood in its full nature, to argue from a premise of the brain effectively is to argue from a variable that is not only "not" universally axiomatic but effectively is open to a further progression of data that leaves your presentation inevitably probabilistic.

The material foundations you argue, at best lead to a strict form of probabilism where all knowledge exists as not just through aa relativistic particulate nature but one which effectively is approximation, conducive a the very vagueness you argue against.

Relativity through atomic is subject to an infinite regress and mirrors a form of the munchaussen dilemma. This regressive nature of not just the arguments but empirical phenomena itself leads to an inherent absence of meaning as "all is flux" when relegated to a strict standard of empiricism alone. To argue the necessity of logical analysis effectively leads a a necessary system of metalogic to occur as all logic is not premised in strictly empirical means and needs a pure form of logic to give the logical analysis a framework of interpretation. So for example one may quantitify a phenomenon and gain evidence of it through math as a form of analysis, the question of number requires a strict abstract means which while probabiliatically may be proven over time with scientific discovery is still necessary for the scientific discovery to begin with....

Should I continue reading or do you really want a polemic argument against your work....

What was a real turn off was the brain as a premise for truth considering it is the abstract interpretation of data which gives credit to the brains nature and activity.


If you want to argue meaning is a balance between empirical and abstract data then we are left with a question of meaning as effectively being one of limits, not patterns considering patterns are composed of various limits, as the directive capacity of empirical and abstract data necessitates a form of linear alternation or circularity which gives form and function to the argument....Hence we are led to geometry as spatial limit which composes physical and abstract phenomenon.

Thank you for taking the time to read the first five pages of my book and for your feedback - I knew you wouldn't find it hard to refute.

PS If you didn't like The Pattern Paradigm you will really hate the sequel!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:38 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:04 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:41 am

Yeah I read the first five pages....to save you the trouble...considering premise is everything.

Yeah if you are going to take a strict empirical approach premised upon sensory data which is inherently probabilistic in nature a form of vagueness occurs due to the premise. Materiality is relativity and effectively is a approximation of any constant truth with the laws of physics inevitably being probabilistic given any length of time.

To argue from a premise of sensory data and move to logical analysis as an extension of it still observes a directive quality of empiricism to abstractness, which is inherently subject to choice as empiricism and abstract logical analysis are axioms in themselves which can be directed towards each other and is not limits to a strict starting point.

Also the premise of ambiguity as cause for the argument is ambiguous and is subject more to an emotional appeal rather than pure reason...and yet you necessitate the premise from pure reason when saying all evidence is strictly scientific and empirical in nature....Hence the premise contradicts where your argument is headed.

Add the fact you pick the brain as the local empirical source of knowledge in light of evidence where heart transplant patients receive memories from the original owner, a long with the heart having a higher degree of electromagnentic activity than the brain....and we cycle back to the emotional root of the argument without the correct premise being addressed.

Considering the brain is rarely understood in its full nature, to argue from a premise of the brain effectively is to argue from a variable that is not only "not" universally axiomatic but effectively is open to a further progression of data that leaves your presentation inevitably probabilistic.

The material foundations you argue, at best lead to a strict form of probabilism where all knowledge exists as not just through aa relativistic particulate nature but one which effectively is approximation, conducive a the very vagueness you argue against.

Relativity through atomic is subject to an infinite regress and mirrors a form of the munchaussen dilemma. This regressive nature of not just the arguments but empirical phenomena itself leads to an inherent absence of meaning as "all is flux" when relegated to a strict standard of empiricism alone. To argue the necessity of logical analysis effectively leads a a necessary system of metalogic to occur as all logic is not premised in strictly empirical means and needs a pure form of logic to give the logical analysis a framework of interpretation. So for example one may quantitify a phenomenon and gain evidence of it through math as a form of analysis, the question of number requires a strict abstract means which while probabiliatically may be proven over time with scientific discovery is still necessary for the scientific discovery to begin with....

Should I continue reading or do you really want a polemic argument against your work....

What was a real turn off was the brain as a premise for truth considering it is the abstract interpretation of data which gives credit to the brains nature and activity.


If you want to argue meaning is a balance between empirical and abstract data then we are left with a question of meaning as effectively being one of limits, not patterns considering patterns are composed of various limits, as the directive capacity of empirical and abstract data necessitates a form of linear alternation or circularity which gives form and function to the argument....Hence we are led to geometry as spatial limit which composes physical and abstract phenomenon.

Thank you for taking the time to read the first five pages of my book and for your feedback - I knew you wouldn't find it hard to refute.

PS If you didn't like The Pattern Paradigm you will really hate the sequel!

It is easy to refute anything as all things move through void and are subject to it....it does not make one a philosopher....

So with that out of the way, in the form of a summary, what is your conception of meaning?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:38 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:04 pm

Thank you for taking the time to read the first five pages of my book and for your feedback - I knew you wouldn't find it hard to refute.

PS If you didn't like The Pattern Paradigm you will really hate the sequel!

It is easy to refute anything as all things move through void and are subject to it....it does not make one a philosopher....

So with that out of the way, in the form of a summary, what is your conception of meaning?

Meaning is what you find in a dictionary.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:04 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:38 am

It is easy to refute anything as all things move through void and are subject to it....it does not make one a philosopher....

So with that out of the way, in the form of a summary, what is your conception of meaning?

Meaning is what you find in a dictionary.

So meaning essentially is a list?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:04 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:26 am

Meaning is what you find in a dictionary.

So meaning essentially is a list?

The meaning of a word is explained in terms of other words in a dictionary. But of course without a personal experience of the world this will not tell you very much.

If you want to understand what some of those words mean .. such as 'yellow' you have to tie them in with your own experience.. such as 'the colour of a banana'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:02 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:04 am

So meaning essentially is a list?

The meaning of a word is explained in terms of other words in a dictionary. But of course without a personal experience of the world this will not tell you very much.

If you want to understand what some of those words mean .. such as 'yellow' you have to tie them in with your own experience.. such as 'the colour of a banana'.

So:

1) The meaning of a word is defined through another word.
2) The meaning of an empirical phenomenon is defined by another empirical phenomenon.
3) THE meaning of the word and the phenomenon are connected through the observer(s); hence the observer(s) is meaning in the respect it it acts as the connector. This connection observes itself as a limit from which meaning exists.
4) A dualism between the observer and connection appears as the connection stems from the observer and the observer stems from the connection, with both relative to a position in time. This connection between both observer and connection (as a limit) is in itself a connection, hence what we understand of limit exists through limit as a limit.
5) This limit is the foundation of structure as structure observes a connective capacity founded in the nature of being as being.
6) Language and empirical phenomena as existing through structure observe language and empirical phenomenon as limits in themselves that exist through the limits of the observer.
7. All limits exists through further limits, with these structures that stem from it acting as limits in themselves. In these respects man exists as both measurer and means where meaning exists as a point of origin in the observer, the intelligence of the observer through the limits of connection and separation, and the power of the observer to alternate by encapsulation the absence of reason under a form of circular reasoning through the axiom.

?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:02 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:35 am

The meaning of a word is explained in terms of other words in a dictionary. But of course without a personal experience of the world this will not tell you very much.

If you want to understand what some of those words mean .. such as 'yellow' you have to tie them in with your own experience.. such as 'the colour of a banana'.

So:

1) The meaning of a word is defined through another word.
2) The meaning of an empirical phenomenon is defined by another empirical phenomenon.
3) THE meaning of the word and the phenomenon are connected through the observer(s); hence the observer(s) is meaning in the respect it it acts as the connector. This connection observes itself as a limit from which meaning exists.
4) A dualism between the observer and connection appears as the connection stems from the observer and the observer stems from the connection, with both relative to a position in time. This connection between both observer and connection (as a limit) is in itself a connection, hence what we understand of limit exists through limit as a limit.
5) This limit is the foundation of structure as structure observes a connective capacity founded in the nature of being as being.
6) Language and empirical phenomena as existing through structure observe language and empirical phenomenon as limits in themselves that exist through the limits of the observer.
7. All limits exists through further limits, with these structures that stem from it acting as limits in themselves. In these respects man exists as both measurer and means where meaning exists as a point of origin in the observer, the intelligence of the observer through the limits of connection and separation, and the power of the observer to alternate by encapsulation the absence of reason under a form of circular reasoning through the axiom.

?

The sole purpose and use of words and language is for communication.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:43 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:02 pm

So:

1) The meaning of a word is defined through another word.
2) The meaning of an empirical phenomenon is defined by another empirical phenomenon.
3) THE meaning of the word and the phenomenon are connected through the observer(s); hence the observer(s) is meaning in the respect it it acts as the connector. This connection observes itself as a limit from which meaning exists.
4) A dualism between the observer and connection appears as the connection stems from the observer and the observer stems from the connection, with both relative to a position in time. This connection between both observer and connection (as a limit) is in itself a connection, hence what we understand of limit exists through limit as a limit.
5) This limit is the foundation of structure as structure observes a connective capacity founded in the nature of being as being.
6) Language and empirical phenomena as existing through structure observe language and empirical phenomenon as limits in themselves that exist through the limits of the observer.
7. All limits exists through further limits, with these structures that stem from it acting as limits in themselves. In these respects man exists as both measurer and means where meaning exists as a point of origin in the observer, the intelligence of the observer through the limits of connection and separation, and the power of the observer to alternate by encapsulation the absence of reason under a form of circular reasoning through the axiom.

?

The sole purpose and use of words and language is for communication.

And what is communication but a means of unifying and seperating perspectives?

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:31 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:43 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:37 pm

The sole purpose and use of words and language is for communication.

And what is communication but a means of unifying and seperating perspectives?

Communication is a sharing of ideas.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:34 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:31 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:43 pm

And what is communication but a means of unifying and seperating perspectives?

Communication is a sharing of ideas.

So it is a means of unifying or seperating further ideas?