Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:32 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:30 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:27 pm
WOT is confusing you?

Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

So for as long as you keep dodging the simple question "Can you give me an example of how you use that sentence in a real conversation?" I am going to treat you like an idiot.

WOT

Only question that remains then: how charitable is charitable enough?

Naaah. I am the sucker in this game... There is no way you are this stupid.

Go fuck yourself.

WOT

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:12 pm WOT

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:02 pm We can keep playing this stupid game

You are still playing...

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:02 pm you can keep affecting incomprehension of standard English words used in a standard way in a perfectly understandable context.

False. There is nothing "standard" about the sentence you are using.

Literally NOBODY says "I know my wife".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:27 pm Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

Seeming as my incomprehension is perfectly justifiable, and you continue avoiding the trivial request to use the sentence in a conversational context, I think it's only fair to assert that your intent is obscurantism.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:39 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:12 pm WOT

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:02 pm We can keep playing this stupid game

You are still playing...

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:02 pm you can keep affecting incomprehension of standard English words used in a standard way in a perfectly understandable context.

False. There is nothing "standard" about the sentence you are using.

Literally NOBODY says "I know my wife".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:27 pm Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

Seeming as my incomprehension is perfectly justifiable, and you continue avoiding the trivial request to use the sentence in a conversational context, I think it's only fair to assert that your intent is obscurantism.

WOT

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:25 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:39 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:12 pm WOT

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:02 pm We can keep playing this stupid game

You are still playing...

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:02 pm you can keep affecting incomprehension of standard English words used in a standard way in a perfectly understandable context.

False. There is nothing "standard" about the sentence you are using.

Literally NOBODY says "I know my wife".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:27 pm Go to Google. Type "I know my wife". Not a single fucking person on Earth has used that exact phrase.

You are the first one.

Seeming as my incomprehension is perfectly justifiable, and you continue avoiding the trivial request to use the sentence in a conversational context, I think it's only fair to assert that your intent is obscurantism.

WOT

WOT WOT

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:32 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:25 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:39 pm

You are still playing...



False. There is nothing "standard" about the sentence you are using.

Literally NOBODY says "I know my wife".



Seeming as my incomprehension is perfectly justifiable, and you continue avoiding the trivial request to use the sentence in a conversational context, I think it's only fair to assert that your intent is obscurantism.

WOT

WOT WOT

WOT

I’m unfamiliar with a lot of acronyms and I didn’t know what WOT meant. I looked it up online...

Acronym Definition; WOT: World of Tanks (online game); WOT: Web of Trust; WOT: Wide Open Throttle; WOT: Wheel Of Time; WOT: War on Terror(ism); WOT: World of Tomorrow; WOT: Waste of Time; WOT: Week of Training; WOT: Way of Thinking; WOT: Without Tenure... (69 total, apparently)

I’m guessing, in this context, “Waste of Time”?

From the perspective of someone (myself) simply reading this topic from start to finish, it appeared that Skepdick made a point that (in my own words) everything we interpret is a model of what is actually there, basically because we cannot know anything completely/truly? Peter presented a list of things (his wife, children, etc.) that he knows as more than just “models”.

Both perspectives have validity depending on how deep or where one dives. It is difficult to come to agreement on what we see, when we operate in different realms. I've experienced this too, and find it fascinating and frustrating at times because “what’s right in front of us” is apparently NOT what’s right in front of all of us. People can be all over the map for a single territory. Each perspective within that territory being affected by so many factors! And yet we still endeavor to agree on what we see and think!

The title of this topic intrigued me because I tend to agree/suspect that our human experience is based on what/how we interpret all around us – and there are no “ultimate static truths”, rather it’s more like there’s a vast field for our creativity to manifest individually and collectively. And we do so either productively or not -- whatever we feel drawn to create/experience.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:16 pm I’m unfamiliar with a lot of acronyms and I didn’t know what WOT meant. I looked it up online...

Acronym Definition; WOT: World of Tanks (online game); WOT: Web of Trust; WOT: Wide Open Throttle; WOT: Wheel Of Time; WOT: War on Terror(ism); WOT: World of Tomorrow; WOT: Waste of Time; WOT: Week of Training; WOT: Way of Thinking; WOT: Without Tenure... (69 total, apparently)

I’m guessing, in this context, “Waste of Time”?

From the perspective of someone (myself) simply reading this topic from start to finish, it appeared that Skepdick made a point that (in my own words) everything we interpret is a model of what is actually there, basically because we cannot know anything completely/truly? Peter presented a list of things (his wife, children, etc.) that he knows as more than just “models”.

Both perspectives have validity depending on how deep or where one dives. It is difficult to come to agreement on what we see, when we operate in different realms. I've experienced this too, and find it fascinating and frustrating at times because “what’s right in front of us” is apparently NOT what’s right in front of all of us. People can be all over the map for a single territory. Each perspective within that territory being affected by so many factors! And yet we still endeavor to agree on what we see and think!

The title of this topic intrigued me because I tend to agree/suspect that our human experience is based on what/how we interpret all around us – and there are no “ultimate static truths”, rather it’s more like there’s a vast field for our creativity to manifest individually and collectively. And we do so either productively or not -- whatever we feel drawn to create/experience.

Thanks for your intervention and perspective. Skepdick and I have a long history of wasting each other's time, and I'm sure s/he's as bored with it as I am.

Just to pick up one thing you say - you mention 'what is actually there' and the problem of different perceptions or perspectives about what is actually there. Box claims that all models of what is actually there are wrong - but some are useful. I obviously disagree with the first part of his claim, and I've been trying to show why I think it's false because incoherent. But I agree with you that the idea of 'ultimate static truths' quickly becomes problematic.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:29 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:16 pm From the perspective of someone (myself) simply reading this topic from start to finish, it appeared that Skepdick made a point that (in my own words) everything we interpret is a model of what is actually there, basically because we cannot know anything completely/truly? Peter presented a list of things (his wife, children, etc.) that he knows as more than just “models”.

Thanks for your intervention and perspective. Skepdick and I have a long history of wasting each other's time, and I'm sure s/he's as bored with it as I am.

Just to pick up one thing you say - you mention 'what is actually there' and the problem of different perceptions or perspectives about what is actually there. Box claims that all models of what is actually there are wrong - but some are useful. I obviously disagree with the first part of his claim, and I've been trying to show why I think it's false because incoherent. But I agree with you that the idea of 'ultimate static truths' quickly becomes problematic.

Ah! Thanks, Peter. Okay... right, "what is actually there" is a problematic phrase/statement. It might be more logical to say that everything we perceive is a "model" of our own creation. Does that make sense and/or ring true?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:48 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:29 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:16 pm From the perspective of someone (myself) simply reading this topic from start to finish, it appeared that Skepdick made a point that (in my own words) everything we interpret is a model of what is actually there, basically because we cannot know anything completely/truly? Peter presented a list of things (his wife, children, etc.) that he knows as more than just “models”.

Thanks for your intervention and perspective. Skepdick and I have a long history of wasting each other's time, and I'm sure s/he's as bored with it as I am.

Just to pick up one thing you say - you mention 'what is actually there' and the problem of different perceptions or perspectives about what is actually there. Box claims that all models of what is actually there are wrong - but some are useful. I obviously disagree with the first part of his claim, and I've been trying to show why I think it's false because incoherent. But I agree with you that the idea of 'ultimate static truths' quickly becomes problematic.

Ah! Thanks, Peter. Okay... right, "what is actually there" is a problematic phrase/statement. It might be more logical to say that everything we perceive is a "model" of our own creation. Does that make sense and/or ring true?

So the claim is: everything we perceive is a 'model' of our own creation.

I think the problem is always in the way we describe things, because it can so easily spiral us off into misconceptions, such as substance-dualism and metaphysics. For example, does 'everything' here mean all real things, so that other people and dogs, brains, neurons and electrochemical processes are models of our own creation? If so, I see no reason to believe that. And is the 'I' doing the perceiving also a model of my (our?) own creation? And if so, what is doing the creating? And so on.

In other words, this way of putting it is worse than a minefield. It's one great big bomb.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:45 pm So the claim is: everything we perceive is a 'model' of our own creation.

I think the problem is always in the way we describe things, because it can so easily spiral us off into misconceptions, such as substance-dualism and metaphysics. For example, does 'everything' here mean all real things, so that other people and dogs, brains, neurons and electrochemical processes are models of our own creation? If so, I see no reason to believe that. And is the 'I' doing the perceiving also a model of my (our?) own creation? And if so, what is doing the creating? And so on.

In other words, this way of putting it is worse than a minefield. It's one great big bomb.

Okay, I see. Yes, it can spiral off, and it is a big bomb!

What if we change the claim to this: Our interpretations are models of our own creation?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:54 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:45 pm So the claim is: everything we perceive is a 'model' of our own creation.

I think the problem is always in the way we describe things, because it can so easily spiral us off into misconceptions, such as substance-dualism and metaphysics. For example, does 'everything' here mean all real things, so that other people and dogs, brains, neurons and electrochemical processes are models of our own creation? If so, I see no reason to believe that. And is the 'I' doing the perceiving also a model of my (our?) own creation? And if so, what is doing the creating? And so on.

In other words, this way of putting it is worse than a minefield. It's one great big bomb.

Okay, I see. Yes, it can spiral off, and it is a big bomb!

What if we change the claim to this: Our interpretations are models of our own creation?

That may be better - but then, what does 'interpretation' mean here? We use the word in many quite different ways: we interpret (translate from) another language; we interpret a piece of music or ballet; we interpret data. And there are probably other uses.

I think it helps, if possible, to avoid replacing one problematic (and usually metaphorical) term with another one. For example, how does calling a model an interpretation clarify the situation? (Another misleading example is calling a supposed abstract thing a concept - as though that explains or clarifies anything.)

In our situation, I prefer to pare down entities to two: features of reality; and what we say about them - the described and the description. Descriptions are themselves features of reality - real things which we can describe. But I think it's vital to keep them in a separate and different bucket from all other features of reality, because only linguistic factual assertions (claims) have what we call truth-value. All other features of reality just are or were, neither true nor false.

Given this description/described distinction, I'd restate the claim: all descriptions are of our own making; a description is not and cannot be the described; and to mistake a description for the described is a mistake.

How does that strike you?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:33 am I'd restate the claim: all descriptions are of our own making; a description is not and cannot be the described; and to mistake a description for the described is a mistake.

How does that strike you?

Well...it sounds true, but I'm not sure the word "description" adequately represents or reflects the powerful creative influence/impact of our perceptions/interpretations/beliefs -- which is, at least, what I was talking about. What we think we see, may not be (and is surely not) the real or full truth, but we will believe it (for whatever reasons may serve us) and build on it as if it is the real or full truth. So, in that way, we are actively "creating" the idea/image/belief for ourselves. It seems to be more than a description. We "give it life", in a sense. We bring it into being and interact with it... even if it is a fantasy.

And, to some degree, we might be (and probably are) doing this creative embellishment with "everything" (all) we encounter or interact with, because it's the best we can do when we don't know "things" completely. We work with the "tools" we each have to craft what we can each understand or be served by.

So these are the "models" we create... from our limitations. They cannot represent the full truth.

I'm just trying to clarify further here -- what do you think? Sorry if I'm spiraling or adding more problematic words. Language seems so insufficient and cumbersome at times, and there appear to be so many levels/angles to navigate. But it's intriguing to try to communicate/share essence despite the mechanics.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:47 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:33 am I'd restate the claim: all descriptions are of our own making; a description is not and cannot be the described; and to mistake a description for the described is a mistake.

How does that strike you?

Well...it sounds true, but I'm not sure the word "description" adequately represents or reflects the powerful creative influence/impact of our perceptions/interpretations/beliefs -- which is, at least, what I was talking about. What we think we see, may not be (and is surely not) the real or full truth, but we will believe it (for whatever reasons may serve us) and build on it as if it is the real or full truth. So, in that way, we are actively "creating" the idea/image/belief for ourselves. It seems to be more than a description. We "give it life", in a sense. We bring it into being and interact with it... even if it is a fantasy.

And, to some degree, we might be (and probably are) doing this creative embellishment with "everything" (all) we encounter or interact with, because it's the best we can do when we don't know "things" completely. We work with the "tools" we each have to craft what we can each understand or be served by.

So these are the "models" we create... from our limitations. They cannot reflect the full truth.

I'm just trying to clarify further here. What do you think? Sorry if I'm spiraling or adding more problematic words. Language seems so insufficient and cumbersome at times -- and there appear to be so many levels/angles to navigate.

Thanks again. I think I get what you're saying. And I have a couple of methodological observations, focusing on two of the things you say:

1 ' What we think we see, may not be (and is surely not) the real or full truth'.

What we call truth is an attribute only of factual assertions - not of features of reality, which just are or were, neither true nor false. So the truth - real or unreal, full or partial - is not out there any more than falsehood is. What we see or think we see are features of reality. This may seem picky, but I think it's incredibly important, given the argument in my OP. The idea of 'real or full truth' seems bound up with the absurd idea of a complete or 'right' model, by comparison with which 'all models are wrong'.

2 '...we don't know "things" completely'.

What is it about things that we can't, at least in principle, know? Do they have some ineffable essence or fundamental reality - a Kantian noumena - for ever beyond our understanding? (I think this is metaphysical nonsense - not that I'm suggesting you believe it.)

Given these reservations, I agree with you about the astonishing creativity and flexibility of our collective efforts to understand ourselves and our reality.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:23 pm 1 ' What we think we see, may not be (and is surely not) the real or full truth'.

What we call truth is an attribute only of factual assertions - not of features of reality, which just are or were, neither true nor false. So the truth - real or unreal, full or partial - is not out there any more than falsehood is. What we see or think we see are features of reality. This may seem picky, but I think it's incredibly important, given the argument in my OP. The idea of 'real or full truth' seems bound up with the absurd idea of a complete or 'right' model, by comparison with which 'all models are wrong'.

Here's what comes to my mind...

Ultimately, (without humans) everything in this world is without definition or judgement -- because it is WE humans who are the ones who assign that. Therefore, we could say that "ultimately" there is no right or wrong. But in our lives, concepts of right and wrong and true and false, SERVE US... so WE assign them. Yes? Who else would be assigning them? Added to that, our human perception and understanding are clearly limited in varying ways by many factors. So, saying "all models are wrong" is just another way of saying "we create all models from a place/state of incomplete or limited information and awareness". From my perspective, that's NOT declaring that there is a right or complete model, rather that what we may THINK is right and complete, is not.

Whatever we think we know about something -- and however complete we think our knowing is -- there is surely MORE.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:23 pm 2 '...we don't know "things" completely'.

What is it about things that we can't, at least in principle, know? Do they have some ineffable essence or fundamental reality - a Kantian noumena - for ever beyond our understanding? (I think this is metaphysical nonsense - not that I'm suggesting you believe it.)

What we "know" is on a certain level and by certain rules that support and fit with our currently known physical reality and limitations. So, yes, that WORKS for us and we can say that is what we know.

But discussing MORE than THAT is not necessarily metaphysical. After all, wouldn't it be kind of crazy to suggest that we DO KNOW EVERYTHING, and that everything we think we see (with all of our skewed and limited ideas) is true and complete? How could that be possible when there are so many varied perceptions/ideas/definitions/beliefs among humans? What is right and true amidst that?

Furthermore, science and evolution continually expand what we think we "know" by uncovering what we couldn't even have imagined. The implications of quantum entanglement are staggering. Do our current ideas of the "metaphysical" become "physical" when they are proven with science to us, I wonder?

"Knowing" seems like a vehicle. It changes throughout history and throughout our own individual lives. It is helpful for these lives we live, but the risk associated with being rigid or static about our supposed "knowing" is that we nurture/reinforce JUST THAT, and we stop seeing/welcoming any other information. If we think our models are solid/true/complete, they stop expanding. Sure, a person can live their life just fine with a certain set of models, and what they think they know, but that doesn't somehow invalidate that there IS much more than that to see, understand, and work with.

Thanks for this discussion.

Lacewing

Btw, assuming you're one of aka Skepdick's many personae - probably better to disguise your stylistic quirks, such as block capitalisation for emphasis.