The Prime Metaphor

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

The Prime Metaphor

Post by Advocate »

There is no really good place to start so i'll just jump in at random, dripping axioms as necessary.

The state of reality is that of the state within which we can sense and verify. This is the human bubble. Anything beyond this bubble is speculative and can only be speculative. Verification can be one of two things, empirical probability - the realm of science, or logical necessity - the realm of philosophy. Both are subject to the limits of our bubble but logic may extend that bubble according to the precision of the definitions of the words used within it.

Outside the bubble is undifferentiated stuff. Inside it are specific things. First we sense, then we notice, then we differentiate those patterns into things according to whatever use we have for them. Internal and external uses are distinct and that is a boundary which cannot be crossed. Internal patterns may be correlates of external reality or may be only internally consistent. For external purposes we use language to represent those patterns and words mean whatever we say they mean.

The mind/body problem is a no problem - it's two different metaphors for the same thing, just as psychology can be deconstructed to biology which can be deconstructed to chemistry, etc. They are different levels of understanding. Conscilience is constantly occurring. All human knowledge is like patches on a globe, covering certain knowledge about reality according to certain purposes.

Those patterns which exist within the mind either correlate with natural, physical/material reality or are the same as fiction. Opinions may therefore be more or less true based upon how closely they match testable reality.

That's a good enough start. I'll add all the new things that come up as they come up. I've tried to work out with various people what it would mean to have solved metaphysics and no one can agree that it's possible much less that i could have done it so i'll just address all my main points here. Coming up in a new post: Some Metaphysical Questions (answered)
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by ken »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am I've tried to work out with various people what it would mean to have solved metaphysics and no one can agree that it's possible much less that i could have done it so i'll just address all my main points here. Coming up in a new post: Some Metaphysical Questions (answered)
Did you notice that I replied to you 11 days prior to your post here regarding that solving metaphysics is not just possible but has already been done?
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

I'm not being facetious and my ego is not involved.

Before i go there, let me ask you these questions:

a) What would it mean to have solved metaphysics? (I'll put my own answer in another post)
My reply was;
"It would mean metaphysics has been solved. But what was the supposed problem in or with metaphysics in the first place, which seemingly needed solving anyway?"
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

b) How could such a contention be supported, verified, proven, etc.
My reply was;
"With logical reasoning."
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

c) What are the implications for society?
My reply was;
"The implications will become obvious after the solution is provided, and understood, which will be a much better society, by the way."

It might not have been absolutely clear, but I clearly hinted that metaphysics has already been solved.

A day later I also wrote;
"If you have, what you are talking about, [regarding solving metaphysics] then there is nothing to challenge anyway. There may, however, be some things that might just need clarifying, for some."
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:51 am

But for your edification, The nature of existence, the meaning of life, the mind/body problem, the nature of math and logic, are all simple. Everything's simple when you look at it from the correct perspective.
To which I replied;
"I agree with this wholeheartedly."

I also wrote;
"That is great if you can explain ALL of this already. That will save me having to do it."

So, WHY here did you write, "no one can agree that [solving metaphysics] it's possible much less that i could have done it"?

Did you NOT read what I previously wrote, or did you NOT comprehend what I wrote?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Advocate »

In no particular order: i was obviously talking of my prior experience. I'm glad to have had that change. I don't have any notifications from this forum and am not familiar with how it threads so i'm apparently missing things, but i'll address them as they come across my radar.

Since metaphysics can be solved, and according to some of us it has been, how do we organise our disagreement, correlate our agreement, and disseminate the latter?

(i'm turning on external notifications now so i can not miss so much)
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:22 pm In no particular order: i was obviously talking of my prior experience. I'm glad to have had that change. I don't have any notifications from this forum and am not familiar with how it threads so i'm apparently missing things, but i'll address them as they come across my radar.

Since metaphysics can be solved, and according to some of us it has been, how do we organise our disagreement, correlate our agreement, and disseminate the latter?
To organize our disagreement we just express our views, then we can see what they are, and then we can organize our disagreement by just listing out the disagreements.

Then if we discuss things with the same goal, and if we do this from a Truly OPEN and Peaceful perspective, then our agreements come to light, which in the same process disseminates agreement and dissolves disagreements.
Advocate wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:22 pm(i'm turning on external notifications now so i can not miss so much)
Turning on notifications is a good idea, as you are less likely to miss so much.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Advocate »

So, to you, how is metaphysics solved?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:00 am So, to you, how is metaphysics solved?
To me there is nothing to be solved here.

What do you see as needed being, or even being able to be, solved here?

I will help you out here. To me, the only thing that can be solved is a problem. Therefore, until a problem is posed, then is nothing to be solved. For example, the word 'metaphysics' is not a problem at all, so 'metaphysics', by itself, is not solvable.

"How is metaphysics solved?" is not problem at all, as it is not a logical question to begin with.

For me to explain how is metaphysics solved, then I would need you to tell me what the actual problem is first.

To me, only until a question is posed, for a solution, then only then can some thing be solved.

To me, a 'problem' is just a question posed, for a solution, and, for each and every problem there is a solution, or, in other words, for each and every question there is an answer.

So, if you would like to ask a question in regards to what problem you see in or with 'metaphysics' itself, then I will answer and solve that question and problem for you.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Advocate »

Age wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:16 am To me there is nothing to be solved here.

What do you see as needed being, or even being able to be, solved here?

I will help you out here. To me, the only thing that can be solved is a problem. Therefore, until a problem is posed, then is nothing to be solved. For example, the word 'metaphysics' is not a problem at all, so 'metaphysics', by itself, is not solvable.

"How is metaphysics solved?" is not problem at all, as it is not a logical question to begin with.

For me to explain how is metaphysics solved, then I would need you to tell me what the actual problem is first.

To me, only until a question is posed, for a solution, then only then can some thing be solved.

To me, a 'problem' is just a question posed, for a solution, and, for each and every problem there is a solution, or, in other words, for each and every question there is an answer.

So, if you would like to ask a question in regards to what problem you see in or with 'metaphysics' itself, then I will answer and solve that question and problem for you.
It's a collection of questions, all of which can be solved by the same understanding. What are things, what is time, what is infinity, what is self, what is paradox, etc.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:44 am
Age wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:16 am To me there is nothing to be solved here.

What do you see as needed being, or even being able to be, solved here?

I will help you out here. To me, the only thing that can be solved is a problem. Therefore, until a problem is posed, then is nothing to be solved. For example, the word 'metaphysics' is not a problem at all, so 'metaphysics', by itself, is not solvable.

"How is metaphysics solved?" is not problem at all, as it is not a logical question to begin with.

For me to explain how is metaphysics solved, then I would need you to tell me what the actual problem is first.

To me, only until a question is posed, for a solution, then only then can some thing be solved.

To me, a 'problem' is just a question posed, for a solution, and, for each and every problem there is a solution, or, in other words, for each and every question there is an answer.

So, if you would like to ask a question in regards to what problem you see in or with 'metaphysics' itself, then I will answer and solve that question and problem for you.
It's a collection of questions, all of which can be solved by the same understanding. What are things, what is time, what is infinity, what is self, what is paradox, etc.
So, to you, 'metaphysics' is a collection of questions, all of which can be solved by understanding that they are questions. Is this what you are saying here?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then what are you saying?

By the way, all of those questions have been answered, and thus are already solved, once and for all.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by nothing »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am There is no really good place to start so i'll just jump in at random, dripping axioms as necessary.

The state of reality is that of the state within which we can sense and verify. This is the human bubble. Anything beyond this bubble is speculative and can only be speculative. Verification can be one of two things, empirical probability - the realm of science, or logical necessity - the realm of philosophy. Both are subject to the limits of our bubble but logic may extend that bubble according to the precision of the definitions of the words used within it.
The human bubble is not independent from the universal one,
thus speculation would entail believing the universal bubble
is somehow not reflected in-as the human, and vice versa.

analogy:
'I am' = human bubble
'that I am' = universal bubble

If 'I am' is unknown unto itself, it can not reliably infer 'that I am',
thus such perception is limited to what one believes themselves to be,
but is not.

If/when this speculative belief is taken as reality, such is the emergence of suffering/death.
Outside the bubble is undifferentiated stuff. Inside it are specific things. First we sense, then we notice, then we differentiate those patterns into things according to whatever use we have for them. Internal and external uses are distinct and that is a boundary which cannot be crossed. Internal patterns may be correlates of external reality or may be only internally consistent. For external purposes we use language to represent those patterns and words mean whatever we say they mean.

The mind/body problem is a no problem - it's two different metaphors for the same thing, just as psychology can be deconstructed to biology which can be deconstructed to chemistry, etc. They are different levels of understanding. Conscilience is constantly occurring. All human knowledge is like patches on a globe, covering certain knowledge about reality according to certain purposes.
Thus true knowledge is like a summit: a top-down view (ie. through the lens of reciprocal motion, through to chemistry, giving rise to biology, giving rise to species, ethics etc.) of how relatively simple becomes relatively complex. Finding the axioms which invariably governs all is not different from traversing to the top of such a summit.
Those patterns which exist within the mind either correlate with natural, physical/material reality or are the same as fiction. Opinions may therefore be more or less true based upon how closely they match testable reality.
If/when taken deeper: knowledge and belief-based ignorance.
The same are the two mythical Edenic trees
which are used to illustrate the problem of BELIEF.

To merely believe to certainly know while being wrong,
means one is bound to be dead wrong (ie. death) for ever-believing
such to be so, wherein such is certainly not so.
Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
thou shalt not eat thereof, for in the day that thou eatest thereof,
thou shalt *surely die.
_________________________________________________________
*(emphasis added)
It takes a believer to believe the opposite of what is true.
Thus upside-down is a property of belief,
whereas right-side-up is a property of knowledge.

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance, thus
knowing all not to believe tends towards a state of 'all-knowing'
which is theism/atheism invariant.

Theism = approaches any possible all-knowing god
Atheism = approaches knowing there is no god
That's a good enough start. I'll add all the new things that come up as they come up. I've tried to work out with various people what it would mean to have solved metaphysics and no one can agree that it's possible much less that i could have done it so i'll just address all my main points here. Coming up in a new post: Some Metaphysical Questions (answered)
"Solving" metaphysics would entail explicitly defining what one means to "solve" metaphysics,
which would involve acknowledging if there is a problem to be solved, followed by the nature of the problem.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am There is no really good place to start so i'll just jump in at random, dripping axioms as necessary.

The state of reality is that of the state within which we can sense and verify. This is the human bubble. Anything beyond this bubble is speculative and can only be speculative. Verification can be one of two things, empirical probability - the realm of science, or logical necessity - the realm of philosophy. Both are subject to the limits of our bubble but logic may extend that bubble according to the precision of the definitions of the words used within it.

Outside the bubble is undifferentiated stuff. Inside it are specific things. First we sense, then we notice, then we differentiate those patterns into things according to whatever use we have for them. Internal and external uses are distinct and that is a boundary which cannot be crossed. Internal patterns may be correlates of external reality or may be only internally consistent. For external purposes we use language to represent those patterns and words mean whatever we say they mean.

The mind/body problem is a no problem - it's two different metaphors for the same thing, just as psychology can be deconstructed to biology which can be deconstructed to chemistry, etc. They are different levels of understanding. Conscilience is constantly occurring. All human knowledge is like patches on a globe, covering certain knowledge about reality according to certain purposes.

Those patterns which exist within the mind either correlate with natural, physical/material reality or are the same as fiction. Opinions may therefore be more or less true based upon how closely they match testable reality.

That's a good enough start. I'll add all the new things that come up as they come up. I've tried to work out with various people what it would mean to have solved metaphysics and no one can agree that it's possible much less that i could have done it so i'll just address all my main points here. Coming up in a new post: Some Metaphysical Questions (answered)
Metaphysics is not a problem to be worked out as it is a series of interpretations branching to further interpretations. It is grounded in a continual "Y" branching form, as such at best one can assume forms with even this interpretation being subject to further branching. It can't be solved as it is in its nature to be dynamically changing, any solutions is an inherently void axioms which produces further axioms.

Metaphysics is strictly painting with words, it would be like asking the question "can art be solved", when in reality its solution is grounded in its existence. The solution is in its existence itself.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

ken wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:49 pm
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am I've tried to work out with various people what it would mean to have solved metaphysics and no one can agree that it's possible much less that i could have done it so i'll just address all my main points here. Coming up in a new post: Some Metaphysical Questions (answered)
Did you notice that I replied to you 11 days prior to your post here regarding that solving metaphysics is not just possible but has already been done?
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

I'm not being facetious and my ego is not involved.

Before i go there, let me ask you these questions:

a) What would it mean to have solved metaphysics? (I'll put my own answer in another post)
My reply was;
"It would mean metaphysics has been solved. But what was the supposed problem in or with metaphysics in the first place, which seemingly needed solving anyway?"
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

b) How could such a contention be supported, verified, proven, etc.
My reply was;
"With logical reasoning."
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

c) What are the implications for society?
My reply was;
"The implications will become obvious after the solution is provided, and understood, which will be a much better society, by the way."

It might not have been absolutely clear, but I clearly hinted that metaphysics has already been solved.

A day later I also wrote;
"If you have, what you are talking about, [regarding solving metaphysics] then there is nothing to challenge anyway. There may, however, be some things that might just need clarifying, for some."
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:51 am

But for your edification, The nature of existence, the meaning of life, the mind/body problem, the nature of math and logic, are all simple. Everything's simple when you look at it from the correct perspective.
To which I replied;
"I agree with this wholeheartedly."

I also wrote;
"That is great if you can explain ALL of this already. That will save me having to do it."

So, WHY here did you write, "no one can agree that [solving metaphysics] it's possible much less that i could have done it"?

Did you NOT read what I previously wrote, or did you NOT comprehend what I wrote?
And how was metaphysics solved?
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Advocate »

The nature of what is (metaphysics):

The basic stuff of the universe is change itself. Energy is the primary expression of that change. Matter is slow moving, entangled energy. Time is a method of measuring that change just as our 3-dimensional spacial coordinates are; not fundamentally different measurements, just different perspectives on the same thing - change. Space is our sensory understanding of our proprioceptive sense as compared with all our other senses. Three dimensions is merely the smallest number of coordinates needed to locate things relative to each other in space. We are symmetrical along two axis so those are obvious and then up/down comes from experiencing gravity.

There are no limits in scale or size to the universe. Those concepts are derived from our limited human context. There are no ends in reality, only relative to other things - actually changes of state, of pattern. Whatever is not understood by physics today will be understood by physics tomorrow when they increase the resolution of their instruments to the next physical exponent/layer of reality.

Another understanding is that we sense, then recognise, then our subconscious filters for danger, then for interest; in either case passing the information on to the conscious mind if the threshold is met. The line between physical reality and our patterns and metaphors of it is the key understanding of what separates science from philosophy. Science is rigor. Philosophy is everything else ( desires (what we want/aesthetics), reason/logic (how to theoretically get it), practicality (how to Really get it) ). Altogether this understanding is The Prime Metaphor of all human existence and activity.

Another understanding is that Actuality is just stuff doing stuff ( see paragraph 1 ) and after we sense it we recognise it from stuff into things. All "things" are a pattern with a purpose and the resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern.

There are infinite ways to tell the story, but Kant was essentially right.
Last edited by Advocate on Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Advocate »

Age wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:16 am To me there is nothing to be solved here.

What do you see as needed being, or even being able to be, solved here?
Solved doesn't only mean addressing a problem. Sometimes the full and true answer to a question is: That question isn't meaningful because x. Sometimes: It is contingent upon <external variable, priority, salience, definitions>. Sometimes: Time doesn't permit giving a full explanation at this time, but the basics are x.

In any case, the understanding i expressed above either directly or by logical extension answers every metaphysical question. The solution to epistemology, ethics, etc. is the same as the solution to physics, a metaphor or set of maxims that fits the infinitely complex universe into our little football sized package of neurons effectively and actionably. This understanding is The Prime Metaphor, the seed of truth around which all human understanding can be organised into a Universal Taxonomy. Kant was essentially right but he didn't go nearly far enough - take it to it's logical extreme.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:47 am
Age wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 4:16 am To me there is nothing to be solved here.

What do you see as needed being, or even being able to be, solved here?
Solved doesn't only mean addressing a problem. Sometimes the full and true answer to a question is: That question isn't meaningful because x. Sometimes: It is contingent upon <external variable, priority, salience, definitions>. Sometimes: Time doesn't permit giving a full explanation at this time, but the basics are x.

In any case, the understanding i expressed above either directly or by logical extension answers every metaphysical question. The solution to epistemology, ethics, etc. is the same as the solution to physics, a metaphor or set of maxims that fits the infinitely complex universe into our little football sized package of neurons effectively and actionably. This understanding is The Prime Metaphor, the seed of truth around which all human understanding can be organised into a Universal Taxonomy. Kant was essentially right but he didn't go nearly far enough - take it to it's logical extreme.
Like I said, there is nothing to be solved here. This is because the resolution to all of Life's so called problems has already been found, and thus already solved.

The answer to the question; What is the solution that will solve all of Life's problem?, is the resolution, which has already be found, in how to find the full and true answer to all and every question.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by AlexW »

Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am Outside the bubble is undifferentiated stuff. Inside it are specific things. First we sense, then we notice, then we differentiate those patterns into things
What if there is no inside and outside, no "bubble"?
What if we simply think things into existence (as you seem to propose anyway)?
This existence would of course only be a conceptual existence and thus more of an "optical" illusion, not "real".
Wouldn't this leave us with a "thing-less", unlimited, infinite universe - where all "things" are only made up – thought up – via interpreting "undifferentiated stuff", "patterns", naming them, thus creating the illusion of the existence of apparently solid, independently existing things?

If this were so then what are we talking about when we refer to reality?
Post Reply