metaphysics is...
metaphysics is...
a) we experience something
b) that something has stable attributes by which we distinguish it
c) we find correlation between our interiour storage of and exterior sensing of the thing, making it indistinguishable from the ordinary use of the word reality
d) we verify that information by way of external collaboration, ie usually langauge
b) that something has stable attributes by which we distinguish it
c) we find correlation between our interiour storage of and exterior sensing of the thing, making it indistinguishable from the ordinary use of the word reality
d) we verify that information by way of external collaboration, ie usually langauge
Re: metaphysics is...
[quote=Skepdick post_id=492316 time=1611503858 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=492291 time=1611497753 user_id=15238]
Space is the correlation between our internal and external senses.
[/quote]
Uhuh. Explain how recall (retrieval of past information) works without any internal space?
[/quote]
Internal space is metaphorical.
[quote=Advocate post_id=492291 time=1611497753 user_id=15238]
Space is the correlation between our internal and external senses.
[/quote]
Uhuh. Explain how recall (retrieval of past information) works without any internal space?
[/quote]
Internal space is metaphorical.
Re: metaphysics is...
It's not. It's memory!!! Short term, long term etc.
If you didn't have any space - you wouldn't have any memories.
Like reliving every moment of your existence anew - just a blur through time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_complexity
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: metaphysics is...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_complexityattofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:39 pm Space is memory? ...but wo/man (the beings that invented the concept of TIME) don't understand what time IS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity
"You" are the algorithm. The space (memory) it take to define "you" is... all of your memories.
Re: metaphysics is...
What 'you', adult human beings, synthesize the idea of 'space' from; is just distance,itself, and, the idea of 'time' from; is just duration, itself.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:16 pmThe frame of the system is still part of the system.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:07 pm Synthetic a priori depends on naturalism as the frame and system of belief. Naturalism is form of pantheism. The biosphere is an ecological system. Within that system humans retain inherent brain-mind patterns. Chomsky has described generative grammar, for instance, as deep structure of human language.It's probable in a habitat that is measurable by values of space and time that humans, by process of natural selection, are inherently able to synthesise values of space and time.
And I further draw your attention to the fact that you've framed your beliefs in the language of "systems"; and you've framed those beliefs in Chomsky's universal grammar.
The synthetic a priory is still synthesised and in so far as synthesis goes - I think "synthesis" means exactly the same thing as "first principles thinking".
It still begs the question: When we are synthesising ideas (such as the idea of "systems", "space" and "time") what are we synthesising those ideas from?
Experience! Obviously. "space" and "time" are empirical, not conceptual. Space is memory. We don't really know what time is.
And, WHY do 'you' think or believe that 'you' can speak for ALL of 'us'? Some of us ALREADY REALLY DO KNOW EXACTLY what 'time' IS. Therefore, 'you' are WRONG here.
Re: metaphysics is...
LOL Creation (of systems) is ALREADY Truly WELL UNDERSTOOD. Well by some of 'us' that is.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:18 am All it ever was - the construction of powerful languages (such as the language of "systems") for understanding the world.
Chomsky called that faculty "generative grammars" - language that generates language.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God --John 1:1
Re: metaphysics is...
[quote=Age post_id=492452 time=1611540328 user_id=16237]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=492285 time=1611483505 user_id=17350]
[quote=Belinda post_id=492283 time=1611481378 user_id=12709]
Whether or not there is such a system of systems is impossible to ascertain. Isn't it funny how God keeps cropping up!
[/quote]
Creation (of systems) is so misunderstood.[/quote]
LOL Creation (of systems) is ALREADY Truly WELL UNDERSTOOD. Well by some of 'us' that is.
[quote=Skepdick post_id=492285 time=1611483505 user_id=17350]
All it ever was - the construction of powerful languages (such as the language of "systems") for understanding the world.
Chomsky called that faculty "generative grammars" - language that generates language.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God --John 1:1
[/quote]
[/quote]
This is no longer a philosophical thread.
[quote=Skepdick post_id=492285 time=1611483505 user_id=17350]
[quote=Belinda post_id=492283 time=1611481378 user_id=12709]
Whether or not there is such a system of systems is impossible to ascertain. Isn't it funny how God keeps cropping up!
[/quote]
Creation (of systems) is so misunderstood.[/quote]
LOL Creation (of systems) is ALREADY Truly WELL UNDERSTOOD. Well by some of 'us' that is.
[quote=Skepdick post_id=492285 time=1611483505 user_id=17350]
All it ever was - the construction of powerful languages (such as the language of "systems") for understanding the world.
Chomsky called that faculty "generative grammars" - language that generates language.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God --John 1:1
[/quote]
[/quote]
This is no longer a philosophical thread.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10025
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: metaphysics is...
..the moment U shut off what (could be) WISDOM, is the moment U R no longer being PHILOSOPHICAL.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:19 amThis is no longer a philosophical thread.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:05 amLOL Creation (of systems) is ALREADY Truly WELL UNDERSTOOD. Well by some of 'us' that is.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:18 am All it ever was - the construction of powerful languages (such as the language of "systems") for understanding the world.
Chomsky called that faculty "generative grammars" - language that generates language.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God --John 1:1
-
- Posts: 12714
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: metaphysics is...
Wiki provide a very sufficient explanation on what is Metaphysics,
Since as Russell stated, philosophy is not about definite answers but to keep questioning, then, metaphysics as described above is acceptable as a branch of philosophy.Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.[1]
The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among [the study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle’s works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics (ta meta ta physika, 'after the Physics ', another of Aristotle's works).[2]
Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are.
Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions:[3]
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
- What is there?
What is it like?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics
Metaphysics once upon a time seem to show high hopes to knowledge of reality, but then that was taken over by Science.
Since the independence of Science, the problem with those who dealing with metaphysics at present is they hastily jumped to definite answers into la la land. See my thread on;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land' - the land of illusions!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341
This is why they cling to the existence of God and the Soul as real based on Pure Reason without any empirical grounds at all.
Worst they think they are relying upon logic, but no! they are actually relying upon the crude pseudo-logic of Pure Primal Reason.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10025
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: metaphysics is...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:49 am Since as Russell stated, philosophy is not about definite answers but to keep questioning, then, metaphysics as described above is acceptable as a branch of philosophy.
Metaphysics once upon a time seem to show high hopes to knowledge of reality, but then that was taken over by Science.
Since the independence of Science, the problem with those who dealing with metaphysics at present is they hastily jumped to definite answers into la la land. See my thread on;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land' - the land of illusions!
...U quite simply, might be the most simple fuckwit upon THE term PHILOSOPHY.
-
- Posts: 12714
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: metaphysics is...
It is so easy and a reflection of stupidity and intellectual bankruptcy to merely make noises and throw statements around without sound justifications.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:56 am...U quite simply, might be the most simple fuckwit upon THE term PHILOSOPHY.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:49 am Since as Russell stated, philosophy is not about definite answers but to keep questioning, then, metaphysics as described above is acceptable as a branch of philosophy.
Metaphysics once upon a time seem to show high hopes to knowledge of reality, but then that was taken over by Science.
Since the independence of Science, the problem with those who dealing with metaphysics at present is they hastily jumped to definite answers into la la land. See my thread on;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land' - the land of illusions!
It is a typical symptom of those who are heavily infected, provoked and disturbed by the inherent existential dissonance.
-
- Posts: 12714
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: metaphysics is...
Note this from Wiki;
Rejections of metaphysics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics
Metametaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[34] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a metametaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][35] or ontological deflationism.[36]
In the 16th century, Francis Bacon rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.
In the 18th century, David Hume took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) with the statement:
Wittgenstein introduced the concept that metaphysics could be influenced by theories of aesthetics, via logic, vis. a world composed of "atomical facts".[39][40]
In the 1930s, A.J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[41] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it. Thus, while Ayer rejected the monism of Spinoza, he avoided a commitment to pluralism, the contrary position, by holding both views to be without meaning.[42] Carnap took a similar line with the controversy over the reality of the external world.[43] While the logical positivism movement is now considered dead (with Ayer, a major proponent, admitting in a 1979 TV interview that "nearly all of it was false"),[44] it has continued to influence philosophy development.[45]
Rejections of metaphysics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics
Metametaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[34] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a metametaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][35] or ontological deflationism.[36]
In the 16th century, Francis Bacon rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.
In the 18th century, David Hume took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and that metaphysics, which goes beyond these, is worthless. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) with the statement:
- If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it [metaphysics] can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[37]
Wittgenstein introduced the concept that metaphysics could be influenced by theories of aesthetics, via logic, vis. a world composed of "atomical facts".[39][40]
In the 1930s, A.J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[41] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it. Thus, while Ayer rejected the monism of Spinoza, he avoided a commitment to pluralism, the contrary position, by holding both views to be without meaning.[42] Carnap took a similar line with the controversy over the reality of the external world.[43] While the logical positivism movement is now considered dead (with Ayer, a major proponent, admitting in a 1979 TV interview that "nearly all of it was false"),[44] it has continued to influence philosophy development.[45]
Re: metaphysics is...
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=492482 time=1611559613 user_id=7896]
Note this from Wiki;
[size=130][b]Rejections of metaphysics[/b][/size]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics
Metametaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[34] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a metametaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][35] or ontological deflationism.[36]
In the 16th century, [b]Francis Bacon[/b] rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.
In the 18th century, [b]David Hume[/b] took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and [b]that metaphysics[/b], which goes beyond these, is [b]worthless[/b]. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) with the statement:
[list]If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. [b]Commit it then to the flames[/b]: for [b]it [metaphysics] can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion[/b].[37][/list]
Thirty-three years after Hume's Enquiry appeared, I[b]mmanuel Kant[/b] published his Critique of Pure Reason. Although he followed Hume in [b]rejecting much of previous metaphysics[/b], he argued that there was still room for some synthetic a priori knowledge, concerned with matters of fact yet obtainable independent of experience.[38] These included fundamental structures of space, time, and causality. He also argued for the freedom of the will and the existence of "things in themselves", the ultimate (but unknowable) objects of experience.
[b]Wittgenstein[/b] introduced the concept that metaphysics could be influenced by theories of aesthetics, via logic, vis. a world composed of "atomical facts".[39][40]
In the 1930s, [b]A.J. Ayer[/b] and [b]Rudolf Carnap[/b] endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[41] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it. Thus, while Ayer rejected the monism of Spinoza, he avoided a commitment to pluralism, the contrary position, by holding both views to be without meaning.[42] Carnap took a similar line with the controversy over the reality of the external world.[43] While the logical positivism movement is now considered dead (with Ayer, a major proponent, admitting in a 1979 TV interview that "nearly all of it was false"),[44] it has continued to influence philosophy development.[45]
[/quote]
...and then Kaiser Basileus solved philosophy.
Note this from Wiki;
[size=130][b]Rejections of metaphysics[/b][/size]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... etaphysics
Metametaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.[34] A number of individuals have suggested that much or all of metaphysics should be rejected, a metametaphysical position known as metaphysical deflationism[a][35] or ontological deflationism.[36]
In the 16th century, [b]Francis Bacon[/b] rejected scholastic metaphysics, and argued strongly for what is now called empiricism, being seen later as the father of modern empirical science.
In the 18th century, [b]David Hume[/b] took a strong position, arguing that all genuine knowledge involves either mathematics or matters of fact and [b]that metaphysics[/b], which goes beyond these, is [b]worthless[/b]. He concludes his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) with the statement:
[list]If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. [b]Commit it then to the flames[/b]: for [b]it [metaphysics] can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion[/b].[37][/list]
Thirty-three years after Hume's Enquiry appeared, I[b]mmanuel Kant[/b] published his Critique of Pure Reason. Although he followed Hume in [b]rejecting much of previous metaphysics[/b], he argued that there was still room for some synthetic a priori knowledge, concerned with matters of fact yet obtainable independent of experience.[38] These included fundamental structures of space, time, and causality. He also argued for the freedom of the will and the existence of "things in themselves", the ultimate (but unknowable) objects of experience.
[b]Wittgenstein[/b] introduced the concept that metaphysics could be influenced by theories of aesthetics, via logic, vis. a world composed of "atomical facts".[39][40]
In the 1930s, [b]A.J. Ayer[/b] and [b]Rudolf Carnap[/b] endorsed Hume's position; Carnap quoted the passage above.[41] They argued that metaphysical statements are neither true nor false but meaningless since, according to their verifiability theory of meaning, a statement is meaningful only if there can be empirical evidence for or against it. Thus, while Ayer rejected the monism of Spinoza, he avoided a commitment to pluralism, the contrary position, by holding both views to be without meaning.[42] Carnap took a similar line with the controversy over the reality of the external world.[43] While the logical positivism movement is now considered dead (with Ayer, a major proponent, admitting in a 1979 TV interview that "nearly all of it was false"),[44] it has continued to influence philosophy development.[45]
[/quote]
...and then Kaiser Basileus solved philosophy.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10025
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: metaphysics is...
...oh shit me timbers... I am so i b_anchor_rupt and doopid what ova big words than were NOT signed off by the 1 that signs off on S_words?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:18 amIt is so easy and a reflection of stupidity and intellectual bankruptcy to merely make noises and throw statements around without sound justifications.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:56 am...U quite simply, might be the most simple fuckwit upon THE term PHILOSOPHY.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:49 am Since as Russell stated, philosophy is not about definite answers but to keep questioning, then, metaphysics as described above is acceptable as a branch of philosophy.
Metaphysics once upon a time seem to show high hopes to knowledge of reality, but then that was taken over by Science.
Since the independence of Science, the problem with those who dealing with metaphysics at present is they hastily jumped to definite answers into la la land. See my thread on;
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land' - the land of illusions!
It is a typical symptom of those who are heavily infected, provoked and disturbed by the inherent existential dissonance.
..indeed MY Lord.