"Project Logic" #3

[wleg]

reasonvemotion,

My sensory guide was that of a block of chocolate, not a now brown mass of which I dont have sensory input. This means of identification is unreliable.

Are you saying that you remember the chocolate not melted and because you haven't seen the melted chocolate the means of identification or knowing it is melted is unreliable. I don't know by what method you know the chocolate is melted, without seeing it, but the method seems reliable to me.

[Ginkgo]

In a funny sort of way words don't have realistic meanings.

Thank you. Yes. Words have useful meanings, but not realistic meanings.

The words are useful, because the person we share them with is using the same "operating system" that we are, thought.

So when we say "tree" implying a separate object which doesn't actually exist, the other person recognizes what we mean because they are also using thought, which creates the same illusion of division for them. They see the tree as a separate object just as we do.

If we were both aware of how the divisive nature of thought is distorting our perception of the real world, the word "tree" might come to have a more precise and accurate meaning. Instead of referring to a separate object which doesn't exist, the word "tree" might refer to the compelling shared illusion of a separate object.

However, because humans, including philosophers, are generally not interested in examining the limitations of the equipment they are using, and we have much practical business to attend to, we skip the precise and accurate definition of tree, and use the shorthand version which implies the existence of a separate object.

I would propose while this shortcut is sensible and practical for regular people doing regular tasks, it's insufficient for philosophers busying themselves with the business of definitions.

You seem to be advocating a form of idealism. Our conscious experience is not the real world, but a representation of the real world in our brains. In other words, we don't perceive such things as trees or any other object directly. So when language was formulated it was done so on the basis that it was only just a representation of objects as they appear in our heads. This, as opposed to a formulation in language based on the real nature of objects that exist, 'out there'

I think this is what you are saying.

[Felasco]

Project Logic is not here to argue with other participants.

Then how are we to determine whether a particular proposition succeeds or not????

The Project will buy propositional sentences supported by logical argument that enhance philosophical knowledge.

No, you won't. You won't even seriously consider propositional sentences supported by logical argument that enhance philosophical knowledge, let alone pay for them.

The form of argument has been explained and demonstrated.

No, it has not.

What is not realized is that the ability to think systematically comes from understanding the nature of existence.

You have yet to demonstrate an interest in the nature of existence.

[reasonvemotion]

I don't know by what method you know the chocolate is melted, without seeing it, but the method seems reliable to me.

I am saying that if a block of chocolate melts, all the distinguishing features it held for my senses will be changed, dramatically, but the chocolate itself still remains. Does this not naturally follow on that an impression of my senses is not a reliable guide.

[wleg]

reasonvemotion,

I am saying that if a block of chocolate melts, all the distinguishing features it held for my senses will be changed, dramatically, but the chocolate itself still remains. Does this not naturally follow on that an impression of my senses is not a reliable guide

I guess it would if the block of chocolate is the only way you want to know that chocolate exist.

[Felasco]

You seem to be advocating a form of idealism.

I don't know if I am or not honestly...

Our conscious experience is not the real world, but a representation of the real world in our brains.

Yes, of course, and it's an inaccurate representation. I thought of an example that may help make my thesis more clear.

Our eyes pick up only a fragment of the electromagnetic spectrum. We don't see what's really there, but only that fragment of reality our eyes can detect. Thus, we have a distorted view of reality.

But we all suffer from this same limitation, so it's practical to discuss our day to day reality as if it didn't include gamma rays etc.

Likewise, it's practical and useful to discuss separate things, because we all perceive them due to the nature of our observational equipment, even though technically separate things don't exist in the real world.

Our mind is just another piece of equipment with it's own limitations, which introduces it's own set of distortions in to our view of reality. My proposal is that we should attempt to understand these limitations and distortions in the same way an astronomer would be expert in any defects of their telescope.

So when language was formulated it was done so on the basis that it was only just a representation of objects as they appear in our heads.

Interesting point, and well put. I hadn't thought of that. Yes, language describes the real world we live in, the one in our minds. Neato, I like it.

[wleg]

Felasco,

The Project believes that doing philosophy is all about constructing realistic definitions of the philosophical concepts i.e.:existence, reality, ideas, truth, need, right, good, purpose, meaning, value, perception, equal, different, consciousness, sense, concept, thought, logic, reason, belief, behavior, problems, knowledge, useful etc.. Define any of these, supported by logical argument, and you will get paid. The process of constructing a logical argument has been explained and demonstrate at least twice. The last demonstration is this one:

Argument: If it is possible to use words to do philosophy that constructs useful knowledge, or do philosophy that does not construct useful knowledge, it follows; the words used to do philosophy, that symbolize concepts, must have realistic definitions, else the knowledge will be unrealistic and useless.

Propositional statement: The process of using words to do useful Philosophy depends on using words symbolizing concepts having realistic definitions.

Wayne Leggette Sr.

[reasonvemotion]

I am saying that if a block of chocolate melts, all the distinguishing features it held for my senses will be changed, dramatically, but the chocolate itself still remains. Does this not naturally follow on that an impression of my senses is not a reliable guide


I guess it would if the block of chocolate is the only way you want to know that chocolate exist.

Not want. Know.

Based on my argument, I can assume you agree.

[Ginkgo]

You seem to be advocating a form of idealism.

I don't know if I am or not honestly...

Our conscious experience is not the real world, but a representation of the real world in our brains.

Yes, of course, and it's an inaccurate representation. I thought of an example that may help make my thesis more clear.

Our eyes pick up only a fragment of the electromagnetic spectrum. We don't see what's really there, but only that fragment of reality our eyes can detect. Thus, we have a distorted view of reality.

But we all suffer from this same limitation, so it's practical to discuss our day to day reality as if it didn't include gamma rays etc.

Likewise, it's practical and useful to discuss separate things, because we all perceive them due to the nature of our observational equipment, even though technically separate things don't exist in the real world.

Our mind is just another piece of equipment with it's own limitations, which introduces it's own set of distortions in to our view of reality. My proposal is that we should attempt to understand these limitations and distortions in the same way an astronomer would be expert in any defects of their telescope.

So when language was formulated it was done so on the basis that it was only just a representation of objects as they appear in our heads.

Interesting point, and well put. I hadn't thought of that. Yes, language describes the real world we live in, the one in our minds. Neato, I like it.

Hello Felasco,

Google.... George Berkeley, that is usually a good starting point for the study of idealism.


Ginkgo

[wleg]

reasonvemotion,

I'm having difficulty understanding how your sensory or memory process can be unreliable because you have seen a block of chocolate but you have not seen melted chocolate. I think the situation might better be called ignorance. I'm ignorant of a lot of things but how does that relate to "things being defined by their attributes"? I can see how philosophers can use a situation of ignorance and confuse it by referring to it as unreliable sensory process. And I agree we can certainly be ignorant but I wouldn't agree to confuse the situation by calling it anything else but ignorance.

[Felasco]

The Project believes that doing philosophy is all about constructing realistic definitions of the philosophical concepts i.e.:existence, reality,

Sorry, no longer buying this. I'm willing to believe you are sincere. And you seem to have mastered the form of posts that sound like philosophy. But I see little evidence you are actually interested in realistic definitions, or that you've ever paid anybody for anything.

I'd be willing to change my view if you wish to reveal your real name, website and contact info for people you've paid so we can examine the evidence for ourselves.

[chaz wyman]

The Project believes that doing philosophy is all about constructing realistic definitions of the philosophical concepts i.e.:existence, reality,

Sorry, no longer buying this. I'm willing to believe you are sincere. And you seem to have mastered the form of posts that sound like philosophy. But I see little evidence you are actually interested in realistic definitions, or that you've ever paid anybody for anything.

I'd be willing to change my view if you wish to reveal your real name, website and contact info for people you've paid so we can examine the evidence for ourselves.

I'm thrilled to learn we agree on something.
I told him this some time ago.

[chaz wyman]

You seem to be advocating a form of idealism.

I don't know if I am or not honestly...

Our conscious experience is not the real world, but a representation of the real world in our brains.

Yes, of course, and it's an inaccurate representation. I thought of an example that may help make my thesis more clear.

Our eyes pick up only a fragment of the electromagnetic spectrum. We don't see what's really there, but only that fragment of reality our eyes can detect. Thus, we have a distorted view of reality.

But we all suffer from this same limitation, so it's practical to discuss our day to day reality as if it didn't include gamma rays etc.

Likewise, it's practical and useful to discuss separate things, because we all perceive them due to the nature of our observational equipment, even though technically separate things don't exist in the real world.

Our mind is just another piece of equipment with it's own limitations, which introduces it's own set of distortions in to our view of reality. My proposal is that we should attempt to understand these limitations and distortions in the same way an astronomer would be expert in any defects of their telescope.

So when language was formulated it was done so on the basis that it was only just a representation of objects as they appear in our heads.

Interesting point, and well put. I hadn't thought of that. Yes, language describes the real world we live in, the one in our minds. Neato, I like it.

Hello Felasco,

Google.... George Berkeley, that is usually a good starting point for the study of idealism.


Ginkgo

Skip the Berk, just straight to Hume and Locke.

Go to Enquiry

[Felasco]

No, read Felasco, I've heard he's the best idealist.

[wleg]

Almost a week ago Project Logic announced it would pay five thousand dollars ($5000.00) to the first person who submitted a purpose for doing Philosophy more beneficial to mankind than understanding and teaching the process of realistic thinking. There has been no response. I believe it reasonable to assume that those who are aware of the offer can not think of a purpose for doing Philosophy more beneficial than this. In this case, if the #1 purpose of doing philosophy is to understand the process of realistic thinking, what is the first concept that philosophers have to understand before it is possible to begin to understand the process?

Wayne Leggette Sr.