The Need to Start From Scratch

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by The Voice of Time »

WanderingLands wrote:I never said that we shouldn't live out our errors as errors are inevitable.
Are you implying we shouldn't seek out errors either, or was your additional "inevitable" comment just an odd remark that you didn't really need to say? Because if you are implying that, that would be counter-productive to progress, we need to seek out errors such that we may know them.
WanderingLands wrote:I'm saying that errors are challenges that can either make or brake us, and it is our will to overcome and prevent errors like that that we make progress. It is not "prejudice" to know what are errors and to know when to avoid them.
It is prejudice to assume you do know them without experimenting to find out.

Your initial post is still wrong (for the 5th time) at the quoted place, as the "cluttering" you're talking about are presumably "errors" (you wouldn't want to eliminate non-errors? So yes, that means it's "errors"), and are statistically necessary to know what's right. If you started anew, you would be jeopardizing the progress that is being made in finding and recognizing errors at the moment (and no, it's not something you can merely separate out of the reboot process, that's wishful thinking -> knowledge is entangled), not to mention you'd have a hell of problem sorting your new reboot situation, possibly leading to tearing historical entanglements of knowledge apart (not teaching history in such a manner that people can know what has lead everything to the place it is now, a purification problem), however, if you did not sort in such a manner as to tear on entanglement, you would not really be doing anything interesting with your reboot, instead, what you'd get, is a mere halt in the history of progress, and then continuing in the exact same place as last time, because people's doubts which have lead them to seek out alternative knowledge or trying out new things that may or may not be wrong, will still be there, as if they weren't there, people wouldn't subscribe to these forms of knowledge today...

Unless what you're really wanting to reboot is the human being, in which has you'd be having to abuse most of humanity for your own ends and what you think is right. Or... you can just continue doing what we are doing today, which is slowly convincing people one person at a time, resolving doubts one person at a time and resolving a problem of choices, one person at time, which again means you'll not really be doing anything at all that isn't done already x)

Now you can keep saying you didn't intend for it to mean that either (although by implication it does mean that), but at some point you must start being accountable for what you're saying or else you've just been talking empty words and everybody who have read your post have wasted their time. Which after reviewing what I've been myself saying here, seems to be exactly what you've been doing ^^
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by WanderingLands »

The Voice of Time wrote: Are you implying we shouldn't seek out errors either, or was your additional "inevitable" comment just an odd remark that you didn't really need to say? Because if you are implying that, that would be counter-productive to progress, we need to seek out errors such that we may know them.
My friend, as I have stated in the OP, I do acknowledge the fact that the error(s) has already been made. I said nothing about not seeking out errors; on the contrary, I said that we should use the available tools that's out there, such as the scientific method, our use of logic and our own thoughts and reason to know error as well as to know Truth.
The Voice of Time wrote: It is prejudice to assume you do know them without experimenting to find out.
It is not prejudice; it is deductive reasoning (which is "top-down" argument used by using the commonalities of similar facts to arrive at a conclusion via thinking and/or intuition). If it is false, then it is fallacious, but it's not prejudice unless if you're referring to a group of people, then that would be prejudice. However, if it's not directed toward people, then it is just a fallacy.

Also, as I said above, I am not discarding experimentation.
The Voice of Time wrote: Your initial post is still wrong (for the 5th time) at the quoted place, as the "cluttering" you're talking about are presumably "errors" (you wouldn't want to eliminate non-errors? So yes, that means it's "errors"), and are statistically necessary to know what's right.
Nevertheless, they should be discarded if they are in fact errors or false, let alone be examined to see if they are errors or not, and for the third time: I am not assuming that they are errors but in fact am using both inductive and deductive reasoning to know and see if they are errors.
The Voice of Time wrote: If you started anew, you would be jeopardizing the progress that is being made in finding and recognizing errors at the moment (and no, it's not something you can merely separate out of the reboot process, that's wishful thinking ->
That is actually not true, as in order to know why such errors keep repeating itself, as in cases of human history where the same problems keep repeating yourself, you do have to go back to the root cause of this and retrace your steps. Examples of history repeating itself would be conflict (between two countries, or a civil conflict between government and people). If you want to end the conflict, you would have to wonder what has brought up a conflict. You would have to think about the steps that caused the conflict, and you would have to also look at the means of those who were in the conflict.

You see, if you do not understand past conflicts, or past errors, then how would you spot an error at the moment, that is, if you don't know what's going on?
The Voice of Time wrote: knowledge is entangled), not to mention you'd have a hell of problem sorting your new reboot situation, possibly leading to tearing historical entanglements of knowledge apart (not teaching history in such a manner that people can know what has lead everything to the place it is now, a purification problem) however, if you did not sort in such a manner as to tear on entanglement, you would not really be doing anything interesting with your reboot, instead, what you'd get, is a mere halt in the history of progress, and then continuing in the exact same place as last time, because people's doubts which have lead them to seek out alternative knowledge or trying out new things that may or may not be wrong, will still be there, as if they weren't there, people wouldn't subscribe to these forms of knowledge today...
Well yes, knowledge is entangled, which is why we should untangle it. It is indeed a long process, but is nevertheless rewarding for the mind once you do find answers to the confusion of certain things. There will be frustration, but there is nothing to fret about if you were to know that you do have the tools of cutting through all of the entangled knowledge. You have to develop patience when searching, which is a much longer road than what many have thought.

Unless what you're really wanting to reboot is the human being, in which has you'd be having to abuse most of humanity for your own ends and what you think is right. Or... you can just continue doing what we are doing today, which is slowly convincing people one person at a time, resolving doubts one person at a time and resolving a problem of choices, one person at time, which again means you'll not really be doing anything at all that isn't done already x)
I am not trying to simply "reboot" the human being by means of coercion; the only thing I am doing is trying to get to the bottom of all of this confusion in the world to see what's going on. The means to do it is not new (ie. starting small); however, I am talking of the ends (which is doubt and confusion).
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by The Voice of Time »

WanderingLands wrote:It is not prejudice; it is deductive reasoning (which is "top-down" argument used by using the commonalities of similar facts to arrive at a conclusion via thinking and/or intuition). If it is false, then it is fallacious, but it's not prejudice unless if you're referring to a group of people, then that would be prejudice. However, if it's not directed toward people, then it is just a fallacy.

Also, as I said above, I am not discarding experimentation.
"Not discarding" is a very careful use of words, seems you are merely avoiding seeming to say what you are actually saying, which is not to use experimentation, which is absurd. Deductive reasoning is useful for situations, for the here and now, where you don't have the time to get to familiarize yourself with things properly, HOWEVER, deductive reasoning is NOT empirical! It does not give "truths", it gives "hints", it is absolutely preposterous that humanity should base itself on the poverty of deductive reasoning, we'd be stuck in the same infinite looping of thought because we did not reach out into the unknown to get our answers (I think you've been watching Sherlock Holmes too much... which I have to remind you is pure fiction). Deductive reasoning is recycling of what we already know, it does not give new information from which we can create new foundations of knowledge, it is merely polishing the corners of what we already have empirically validated.
WanderingLands wrote:Nevertheless, they should be discarded if they are in fact errors or false
And who is to judge that? Deductive reasoning is not going to give good long-term answers, it is a dead-end. You have to live the lie in order to know it's a lie with certainty. At best deductive reasoning can correlate hypothetical situations with empirically validated situations to arrive at approximate truths, or highly reliable truths, but at limited ability.
WanderingLands wrote:let alone be examined to see if they are errors or not, and for the third time: I am not assuming that they are errors but in fact am using both inductive and deductive reasoning to know and see if they are errors.
You are not going to know that from inductive- or deductive reasoning, both induction and deduction is in fact a form of assumption, because you assume you have sufficient knowledge to judge. If you know economy for instance, a human made thing, we can't even predict that very good with deductive or inductive reasoning, because we have limited ability to know what we need to know. It could be catastrophic to start assuming you have sufficient knowledge to deal with that, instead of empirically validating any amount of hypothesis you have.
WanderingLands wrote:That is actually not true, as in order to know why such errors keep repeating itself
Now you're just trying to sound like me but totally without the conviction. The next bundle of text is a large ramble of a completely off-topic talk about something which I in fact criticise you for in the next paragraph, and which I have said nothing about in this paragraph that would make what you're talking about here below, relevant to anything I've said. You seem to have lost sense of direction in this conversation.
WanderingLands wrote:as in cases of human history where the same problems keep repeating yourself, you do have to go back to the root cause of this and retrace your steps. Examples of history repeating itself would be conflict (between two countries, or a civil conflict between government and people). If you want to end the conflict, you would have to wonder what has brought up a conflict. You would have to think about the steps that caused the conflict, and you would have to also look at the means of those who were in the conflict.

You see, if you do not understand past conflicts, or past errors, then how would you spot an error at the moment, that is, if you don't know what's going on?
... /facepalm...

It is ironic that you will later on say that we should disentangle knowledge, when you are right here promoting the non-disentanglement of knowledge, but to add to the confusion, you start by saying that I'm wrong when I'm explaining that if you started anew you would loose the current progress from current experimentation, however, if you need to "retrace your steps" you would first have to walk them through, and a reboot would imply that you stopped doing what you're currently doing and so you would never know the end of the story, so to speak, and when retracing you'd not know the actual end to things and your retracing would be like filling the car with only half the fuel it needs to get you where you need to go.

Imagine you wanted to test the effects of alcohol, but stopped after you'd made yourself "tipsy", now ordinarily it's good to have some restraints, but you'd never actually know the paralysing effects of drunkenness if you never got drunk, and neither would you know all the fun you can have in the right situations by the effect of "bottled courage". Also, if you were to continue finding out later on, you would have to be tipsy twice (first, the time you half-finished the process, and then a second time before achieving drunkenness), increasing the time and effort you'd need to get to know the phenomena.
WanderingLands wrote:Well yes, knowledge is entangled, which is why we should untangle it.
Wait... wut? I'm describing the nature of knowledge, the way in which it works, and you want to go against nature?
WanderingLands wrote:It is indeed a long process, but is nevertheless rewarding for the mind once you do find answers to the confusion of certain things.
There will never be an end to the confusion, you are assuming there is an end-point, and I want to know from where you get that idea.
WanderingLands wrote:There will be frustration, but there is nothing to fret about if you were to know that you do have the tools of cutting through all of the entangled knowledge.
You mean separating the relevant pieces from each other? That's what disentanglement means. Entanglement means that things, because of history, relate to each other and have relevance towards each other, because of the dialectic development of knowledge as ideas that mix. The ideas of what is not true, are equally entangled with what is true, because through history, humans encounter crossings and have to choose direction, and then they've tested each direction seeing how far it can take them, and eventually they've figured out which is the best path to go. If you disentangle knowledge, you'll not get the link between the true and the non-true that verifies each one. You'd not get a very efficient association of knowledge either, because knowledge relates based on the relevance of the matter it is about. For instance, the history of mathematics relates to the history of physics intimately because of the way in which they've solved problems together and figured out the relationship between themselves, through entanglement. Disentangle them, and what remains is abstraction and confusion. You might think disentanglement leads to less confusion, but it will lead to just the opposite, things stop relating because the bond between them is cut.
WanderingLands wrote:You have to develop patience when searching, which is a much longer road than what many have thought.
Patience has limited and very specific value. Too much patience is far from good, it makes people inefficient and unproductive.
WanderingLands wrote:I am not trying to simply "reboot" the human being by means of coercion; the only thing I am doing is trying to get to the bottom of all of this confusion in the world to see what's going on.
That's not what your post implies.
WanderingLands wrote:The means to do it is not new (ie. starting small)
Think I understand what you mean, but you could've been more explanatory.
WanderingLands wrote:however, I am talking of the ends (which is doubt and confusion).
The ends? Not sure what is meant by that... on the other hand, if I can understand what you mean, we may zoom on to something we can perhaps agree more on. There is certainly far too much doubt and confusion in societies today (talking specifically about the form of destructive doubt and confusion that leads to existential angst and despair), and I agree it can be mitigated, and I believe it can be mitigated by a more standardized way of understanding current scientific progress (making science more available and fronting quality science more).

But some things we just simply don't know very well, and there's nothing we can really do about that but continue to develop science in that subject, as it would be counter-productive to use deduction or induction for "quick solutions" that most likely will result in people living lies believing that they are more secure and certain than they are, which in turn can lead to undesirable dependencies and action patterns in people. It is better then that they live out the maybe-lies as a living experiment and that we can figure out while we live in the maybe-lie whether it is in truth a lie or whether it is a truth, something we can depend upon with our knowledge.

In the end, most of the things we can do, we are already doing at some extent, depending upon which country/state you live in.
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by WanderingLands »

"Not discarding" is a very careful use of words, seems you are merely avoiding seeming to say what you are actually saying, which is not to use experimentation, which is absurd.
You ignored this part:
Also, as I said above, I am not discarding experimentation.
Let me say that I'm not against experimentation or inductive reasoning, as if you were to look more into my OP, it would be quite clear that using the tools (Logic, Scientific Method, reasoning, etc) that's available to examine philosophical ideas and such is an example of inductive reasoning. However, I do believe that we should also use methods other than inductive reasoning, which is deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is useful for situations, for the here and now, where you don't have the time to get to familiarize yourself with things properly, HOWEVER, deductive reasoning is NOT empirical! It does not give "truths", it gives "hints", it is absolutely preposterous that humanity should base itself on the poverty of deductive reasoning, we'd be stuck in the same infinite looping of thought because we did not reach out into the unknown to get our answers (I think you've been watching Sherlock Holmes too much... which I have to remind you is pure fiction).


Deductive reasoning is about taking all of the commonalities of intertwined events to create an explanation and thus, a conclusion for them. Though it does involve making assumptions from the intuition (inductive reasoning also uses assumptions to explain things, only that inductive is "down-top" argument), deductive reasoning is just about examination into events just as inductive reasoning does, and so it is indeed a legitimate form of investigation.

By the way, I do not understand why you brought Sherlock Holmes into the picture, when I never read or watch anything about it nor even mention it in my posts. My "philosophy" draws upon those of Rationalist thought, with an Esoteric dimension, so this is a baseless accusation.
Deductive reasoning is recycling of what we already know, it does not give new information from which we can create new foundations of knowledge, it is merely polishing the corners of what we already have empirically validated.
Not true. As a matter of fact, you can actually make different and/or deeper conclusions with deductive reasoning, just as with inductive reasoning. "Recycling of what we already know" is not a form of investigation nor a form of thinking, but is a form of regurgitation, and is contrary to deduction and induction, that is, if you were to think and investigate for yourself instead of copying other philosophers, scientists, historians, etc.
And who is to judge that? Deductive reasoning is not going to give good long-term answers, it is a dead-end. You have to live the lie in order to know it's a lie with certainty. At best deductive reasoning can correlate hypothetical situations with empirically validated situations to arrive at approximate truths, or highly reliable truths, but at limited ability.
If you already know that the error was an error, then you should find ways to combat it and/or avoid it in the future. It's one thing to "live the lie" to know that it was a wrong path, but it is foolish to not know why it happened, and it is foolish not to know when to find a way to avoid the path so that way you can work on yourself.
You are not going to know that from inductive- or deductive reasoning, both induction and deduction is in fact a form of assumption, because you assume you have sufficient knowledge to judge. If you know economy for instance, a human made thing, we can't even predict that very good with deductive or inductive reasoning, because we have limited ability to know what we need to know. It could be catastrophic to start assuming you have sufficient knowledge to deal with that, instead of empirically validating any amount of hypothesis you have.
Well, even empiricism can have flaws as well, as it only relies on sensory experience instead of thinking about it as rationalists do (and the rationalists can also suffer from using too much thought instead of senses, vice versa). Empiricism and Rationalism both have to use evidence for their claims; they just use two different methods. In the case of economy, empiricism is a good way of getting data, but it still also includes rationalism as you need to come up with explanations as to why your axiom or hypothesis is true.
It is ironic that you will later on say that we should disentangle knowledge, when you are right here promoting the non-disentanglement of knowledge, but to add to the confusion, you start by saying that I'm wrong when I'm explaining that if you started anew you would loose the current progress from current experimentation, however, if you need to "retrace your steps" you would first have to walk them through, and a reboot would imply that you stopped doing what you're currently doing and so you would never know the end of the story, so to speak, and when retracing you'd not know the actual end to things and your retracing would be like filling the car with only half the fuel it needs to get you where you need to go.
Let me clarify what I am actually saying. Here are the points as to what I'm saying.

1. Starting anew means to stop and take a break and then reflect back upon what fact or research is looked at when there's confusion.
2. Retracing the steps means to go back and find the errors of such confusion, such as to why an event happened (for example, why a conflict had broke out).
3. "Disentanglement" is in relation to the last two points, which is to retrace and/or "start anew". Re-entanglement would result in finding another fact to rebind the knowledge together as to the event making more sense.

These are all points that can be utilized to a varying degree when researching or when thinking. Thus, there is no contradiction to what I've said.
Imagine you wanted to test the effects of alcohol, but stopped after you'd made yourself "tipsy", now ordinarily it's good to have some restraints, but you'd never actually know the paralysing effects of drunkenness if you never got drunk, and neither would you know all the fun you can have in the right situations by the effect of "bottled courage". Also, if you were to continue finding out later on, you would have to be tipsy twice (first, the time you half-finished the process, and then a second time before achieving drunkenness), increasing the time and effort you'd need to get to know the phenomena.


It would be a bad idea, if not foolish idea, to repeatedly get drunk just to find the effects of alcohol. If I were to be repeatedly drinking just to see the effects of alcohol, I'd be damaging my body and also possibly lapse into an addiction to it in the near future. There are times when doing things completely empirical are just not worth taking, such as drinking. As I've said before, it's one thing to encounter error once, but it another encounter it again and again.
Wait... wut? I'm describing the nature of knowledge, the way in which it works, and you want to go against nature?
Nothing to do with going against Nature; it's called finding truths within the abundance of knowledge.
There will never be an end to the confusion, you are assuming there is an end-point, and I want to know from where you get that idea.
Indeed, life goes on, but you ca still look back at it to know what's truly going on in our world of interesting times....
You mean separating the relevant pieces from each other? That's what disentanglement means. Entanglement means that things, because of history, relate to each other and have relevance towards each other, because of the dialectic development of knowledge as ideas that mix. The ideas of what is not true, are equally entangled with what is true, because through history, humans encounter crossings and have to choose direction, and then they've tested each direction seeing how far it can take them, and eventually they've figured out which is the best path to go. If you disentangle knowledge, you'll not get the link between the true and the non-true that verifies each one. You'd not get a very efficient association of knowledge either, because knowledge relates based on the relevance of the matter it is about. For instance, the history of mathematics relates to the history of physics intimately because of the way in which they've solved problems together and figured out the relationship between themselves, through entanglement. Disentangle them, and what remains is abstraction and confusion. You might think disentanglement leads to less confusion, but it will lead to just the opposite, things stop relating because the bond between them is cut.
You see, I have a different take on "disentanglement", which means that you are examining each sides of the story and weighing them out to see if they are truthful or not. To say that we cannot separate falsehoods from truth is limiting yourself to the possibility that it can be done, and is the reason why that there is confusion out there.
Patience has limited and very specific value. Too much patience is far from good, it makes people inefficient and unproductive.
Well, if you were to do the opposite of patience (which would mean to be hasty), then you will still be in confusion and more so frustration that things are not done or taken care of. Of course, frustration is inevitable, but dwelling in it is not.
The ends? Not sure what is meant by that... on the other hand, if I can understand what you mean, we may zoom on to something we can perhaps agree more on. There is certainly far too much doubt and confusion in societies today (talking specifically about the form of destructive doubt and confusion that leads to existential angst and despair), and I agree it can be mitigated, and I believe it can be mitigated by a more standardized way of understanding current scientific progress (making science more available and fronting quality science more).
"Scientific progress" has not solved the angst of many who are in despair in this society, but has masked it and even caused more problems. What makes you think that new technology (an example of "scientific progress") is going to make people happier, especially when they often go through more personal problems (ie. divorce, alienation, drug addiction, violence, drama)? The real issue is that this society is not functional in the way of helping humans, but that it itself has become a deathtrap in ensuring a demise of people's natural varying identity into artificial commercialization.
But some things we just simply don't know very well, and there's nothing we can really do about that but continue to develop science in that subject, as it would be counter-productive to use deduction or induction for "quick solutions" that most likely will result in people living lies believing that they are more secure and certain than they are, which in turn can lead to undesirable dependencies and action patterns in people. It is better then that they live out the maybe-lies as a living experiment and that we can figure out while we live in the maybe-lie whether it is in truth a lie or whether it is a truth, something we can depend upon with our knowledge.
Science has become nothing more than a banal establishment, with all its contradictory and complicated theories, and with all of its destructive medicines and destructive technology and weaponry that it has built. Continuing this lie will do nothing but ensure our downfall and will keep us from figuring out why they exist in the first place.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by The Voice of Time »

WanderingLands wrote:
"Not discarding" is a very careful use of words, seems you are merely avoiding seeming to say what you are actually saying, which is not to use experimentation, which is absurd.
You ignored this part:
Also, as I said above, I am not discarding experimentation.
I didn't, it was part of my criticism, that you didn't actually mean to any greater degree even if you carefully placed that little escape-text there. I think you merely put it there to avoid appearing absolutistic in your opinion, although you have been largely campaigning in this thread for not using experimentation but instead relying on a range of unreliable human abilities... intuition, induction, deduction... these are the things you champion, so that little piece of text doesn't mean much even if you put it there.
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by WanderingLands »

The Voice of Time wrote: I didn't, it was part of my criticism, that you didn't actually mean to any greater degree even if you carefully placed that little escape-text there. I think you merely put it there to avoid appearing absolutistic in your opinion, although you have been largely campaigning in this thread for not using experimentation but instead relying on a range of unreliable human abilities... intuition, induction, deduction... these are the things you champion, so that little piece of text doesn't mean much even if you put it there.
Your "criticism(s)" are nothing more than accusations that are based on selectively reading what I've said. I never meant to say that I was not against experimentation just for the sake of avoiding criticism. As a matter of fact, in some cases I do believe that some form of experimentation and some form of empiricism is needed, especially when it comes to possibly science in some cases (though I would rather prefer myself to be a "Natural Philosopher", or prefer to yield metaphysics and esotericism with science).

However, I do not believe that experimentation, or empiricism, is the only way to solve our answers, as we do have the power of our minds to actually make decisions for ourselves. It is often best to use our thinking and our intuition to see the entirely deeper picture of things, especially when our sensory experiences can often at times deceive us, like for example, appearances. Thus, by only relying on empiricism, you'd risk falling into looking at things at face value, which can fail us if we were to look into more complicated stuff, like symbols, or anything that is vague and thus needs description which requires thought.

So in other words, I am saying that we should not limit ourselves to just sensory experience or just experimentation, even though it may nonetheless be a useful tool.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by The Voice of Time »

WanderingLands wrote:Your "criticism(s)" are nothing more than accusations that are based on selectively reading what I've said.
I do read all that you write. And most of it is incoherent nonsense.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by cladking »

WanderingLands wrote:The reason why we need to start from scratch in Philosophy, as well as Science, Religion/Spirituality, History, Political, Economic, and Social theories, is because of the fact that there has been so much clutter in what perceptions and opinions that have been put out in these subjects of knowing. In the case of Philosophy, since this is a particular one that I'm discussing although it is the same with all subjects of knowing, there are so many different schools in Philosophy that talk of varying ideas that often war off with one another. Examples include: rationalism vs. empiricism, realism vs. idealism, Plato vs. Aristotle, Heraclitus vs. Parmenides, liberalism vs. conservationism, meaning vs. nihilism.

As much as we learn a lot of knowledge that could be potential truths from different philosophers of different eras of our human history, we find differing opinions that often disagree with whatever type of philosophy that we are drawn into. Thus, we often get confused with which side of philosophical idea is correct, and so instead of actually finding out what this "perennial philosophy" exactly is, we argue against one another in trying promote which philosophy is better. Though there may have been some attempts to merge different ideas together, such as that of Immanuel Kant who tried to merge rationalism and empiricism in attempt to solve the problems of philosophy, even that has been critiqued by another philosopher named Hegel who came up with the idea of dialectics to solve the problem of Kant, ie. the idea that we can never know the exact thing in of itself.

Of course, I do acknowledge the fact that many people have different beliefs and different opinions and objections to certain ideas, which is indeed a good thing in our expenditure for Truth. This is why in the 21st century, we have resources on philosophical inquiry such as using Logic, and also using things such as the Scientific Method, and to also use our intuition and feeling, to process all of our thoughts and possibly conceptualize reality. We must now use our brains and our senses to critically think for ourselves to find our ow answers, if we want to succeed on the quest of Truth (the essence of the "perennial philosophy").

The same would also go for Science as well. What we need to do to solve the crises of Science that has arisen from mainly theoretical and mathematical physics is to scratch out the entire Standard Model theory (such as the many particles, quasi-particles, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, multiverse), and to start from scratch by use of the Scientific method, and to get back to the basics of Science. In doing so, we should also go back to Natural Philosophy (the combination of Science and Philosophy), so we can combine the truths of the physical world and the truths of metaphysical concepts.

Obviously, we will still look to resources outside ourselves for information, such as researching up on philosophy, science, history, politics, etc. to get differing perceptions of reality. This time, however, shall be a time of not subscribing to an particular paradigm (ideology, belief system, opinion), but an examination of all of those opinions to find Truth.
I believe the root of the problem is language (you've done some interesting work here).

Indeed, the root of almost everything is language. Human progress is not based on intelligence and for most practical purposes there is no such thing. Language underlies even thought. There was once a natural language which humans spoke which was an elaboration on a preceding animal language made possible by a mutation which allowed complex language and the ability to pass knowledge from generation to generation. This language incorporated learned knowledge and grammar consistent with nature and the wiring of the human brain. As such the language itself was metaphysics and was the metaphysics of a science based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment. As man progressed the language became exceedinglyx and failed spectacularly leading to 3500 years of mostly dark ages before the arisal of experimental science 500 years ago.

The problem now is that we've almost reached the limitations of the tool we use; experiment. We've lost sight of what it means to be human through the confused language we use.

We need to formalize definitions. We'll need to change education and scientific training to include much more metaphysics (truth and balance indeed). We'll need more applied science and and natural science. We really need to develop and teach generalism. Specialization is causing massive waste in all our systems and may be impeding progress. The vast majority of individuals with two brain cells to rub together are specialists and people just don't see the bigger picture usually.

There's already some blending of ancient science and experimental science but in a vacuum of definitions this will lead to chaos. Redevelopment of ancient science is indicated. Then a formalization of a new science can be contemplated.
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by WanderingLands »

cladking wrote: I believe the root of the problem is language (you've done some interesting work here).

Indeed, the root of almost everything is language. Human progress is not based on intelligence and for most practical purposes there is no such thing. Language underlies even thought. There was once a natural language which humans spoke which was an elaboration on a preceding animal language made possible by a mutation which allowed complex language and the ability to pass knowledge from generation to generation. This language incorporated learned knowledge and grammar consistent with nature and the wiring of the human brain. As such the language itself was metaphysics and was the metaphysics of a science based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment. As man progressed the language became exceedinglyx and failed spectacularly leading to 3500 years of mostly dark ages before the arisal of experimental science 500 years ago.

The problem now is that we've almost reached the limitations of the tool we use; experiment. We've lost sight of what it means to be human through the confused language we use.

We need to formalize definitions. We'll need to change education and scientific training to include much more metaphysics (truth and balance indeed). We'll need more applied science and and natural science. We really need to develop and teach generalism. Specialization is causing massive waste in all our systems and may be impeding progress. The vast majority of individuals with two brain cells to rub together are specialists and people just don't see the bigger picture usually.

There's already some blending of ancient science and experimental science but in a vacuum of definitions this will lead to chaos. Redevelopment of ancient science is indicated. Then a formalization of a new science can be contemplated.
I cannot disagree with what you said, as I myself have been thinking about the question of language and have even delved into some of the anomalies of the English language on this forum here (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12761).

Maybe I will look into language some day. I just have to keep focusing on limiting my ambitions and urges though as I tend to fall all over the place on my research (history, science, philosophy, spirituality), and so I just need balance so that I can maybe research up on language in the future.

I also do need to agree with trying to broaden our subjects in school, and that specialization (which is due to the influence of Pragmatism in the modern education system) is pretty much turning students into working surfs (hence the terms "human resources", and "human capital"). There's too much emphasis on work in this system, especially in America where I'm at, where the system relies on compliance in order for it to survive.

That's the New World Order for ya!
Ginkgo
Posts: 2634
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by Ginkgo »

Wanderinglands, looks like for have found a kindred spirit. He/she thinks the same way as yourself.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by cladking »


I cannot disagree with what you said, as I myself have been thinking about the question of language and have even delved into some of the anomalies of the English language on this forum here (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12761).

Maybe I will look into language some day. I just have to keep focusing on limiting my ambitions and urges though as I tend to fall all over the place on my research (history, science, philosophy, spirituality), and so I just need balance so that I can maybe research up on language in the future.

I also do need to agree with trying to broaden our subjects in school, and that specialization (which is due to the influence of Pragmatism in the modern education system) is pretty much turning students into working surfs (hence the terms "human resources", and "human capital"). There's too much emphasis on work in this system, especially in America where I'm at, where the system relies on compliance in order for it to survive.

That's the New World Order for ya!
I've read some older posts including the one cited.

Language is confused and has been for 4,000 years.

Pragmatism is only a part of the problem with education and is in part the result of the failure of education caused by loss of standards and expectations of success.

By the far the leading cause of specialization is the explosion in knowledge that made it impossible for most individuals to learn more than a very narrow piece of the spectrum of human knowledge. There's also the problem that generalism or nexialism hasn't even been properly defined so that it can be turned into a course of study. Most people are trained in very narrow specialties even when they work non-professional jobs.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by uwot »

cladking wrote:Indeed, the root of almost everything is language.
In what sense?
cladking wrote:Human progress is not based on intelligence and for most practical purposes there is no such thing.
What qualifies you to judge?
cladking wrote:Language underlies even thought.

It depends on what you mean by language, and thought for that matter. Can you string together a series of mental abstractions without their being language?
cladking wrote:There was once a natural language which humans spoke which was an elaboration on a preceding animal language made possible by a mutation which allowed complex language and the ability to pass knowledge from generation to generation.
Well, yes. It is reasonable to anticipate that more complex creatures have more complex communication, but there are examples of animals passing knowledge from generation to generation, dolphin hunting techniques, primate tool use, regional 'accents' in birdsong, for example.
cladking wrote:This language incorporated learned knowledge and grammar consistent with nature and the wiring of the human brain.
Maybe it did, but what is your evidence of any such language? Do you mean something like P.I.E?
cladking wrote:As such the language itself was metaphysics and was the metaphysics of a science based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment. As man progressed the language became exceedinglyx and failed spectacularly leading to 3500 years of mostly dark ages before the arisal of experimental science 500 years ago.
What is this 4000 year old calamity?
cladking wrote:The problem now is that we've almost reached the limitations of the tool we use; experiment.
The only way to find out if we have reached the limits of experiment, is to experiment.
cladking wrote:We've lost sight of what it means to be human through the confused language we use.
Anyone who isn't confused, isn't paying much attention.
cladking wrote:We need to formalize definitions. We'll need to change education and scientific training to include much more metaphysics (truth and balance indeed). We'll need more applied science and and natural science. We really need to develop and teach generalism. Specialization is causing massive waste in all our systems and may be impeding progress.
Formalizing definitions will impede progress. Basically, you are advocating the adoption of a paradigm based on your own beliefs. You are free to explore the world any way you wish, but if you think it is going to improve progress, you need to show some results rather than just make unfounded claims.
cladking wrote:The vast majority of individuals with two brain cells to rub together are specialists and people just don't see the bigger picture usually.
I think a broad education is commendable, what tends to happen is that people's education becomes more specialized the more they do. They don't generally forget everything hey learnt in the process.
cladking wrote:There's already some blending of ancient science and experimental science but in a vacuum of definitions this will lead to chaos. Redevelopment of ancient science is indicated. Then a formalization of a new science can be contemplated.
If you are to persuade individuals with two brain cells to rub together, you will need more than words.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2634
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by Ginkgo »

I pretty much agree with Uwot's response. However, I would like to expand on a few points made by cladking who manages to echo wanderinglands position on many issues

"Human progress is not based on intelligence for most practical purposes there is no such thing." cladking quote.

In this day and age it is actually based on intelligence. Do you think can you grab a few blokes off the street and get them to put together an MRI machine using earth, fire and water? Yes, an MIR machine does have practical application in medicine. Would you like to service a component when it breaks down?

"As such language was metaphysics and was the metaphysics of science based on logic rather than observation and experiment". cladking quote.

You probably mean that language was explained in terms of metaphysical explanations. There is no language of metaphysics. Prior to Newton there was no science as a discipline. If you are talking about 'science' based only on logic and observation prior to Newton then we are talking Aristotelian ontology.

A feature of the dark ages was the scarcity of written records. I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at. Also I'm not sure what you mean by language, "becoming exceedinglyx..." what does "x" stand for?
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by cladking »

It will take a while for me to get used to the formatting here. Please bear with me.
Ginkgo wrote: In this day and age it is actually based on intelligence. Do you think can you grab a few blokes off the street and get them to put together an MRI machine using earth, fire and water? Yes, an MIR machine does have practical application in medicine. Would you like to service a component when it breaks down?
What's mistaken for intelligence is mostly consciuousness and language. We are
taught how to see the world and language. Language formats our thought and al-
lows complex ideas to be communicated through writing and other means. We come
to mistake our knowledge and the technology around us as evidence for our own and
humanity's intelligence.

Humans do have some innate cleverness (moreso than most animals) but intelligence
isn't what allows us to see it nor what generates progress. It is almost strictly language
that drives everything, and always has been. Other animals aren't so much less intel-
ligent but they lack the human speech centers that more closely tie the brain to language
and the ability to communicate even the most complex ideas.
You probably mean that language was explained in terms of metaphysical explanations. There is no language of metaphysics. Prior to Newton there was no science as a discipline. If you are talking about 'science' based only on logic and observation prior to Newton then we are talking Aristotelian ontology.
We would be speaking of ontology if there were such a thing as logic once the ancient
language collapsed. Yes, logic still exists as math and each individual is capable of think-
ing logically because we all know what we mean. But any system only truly applies to
those who invent it or are able to relay it to someone in a form that can't be deconstruc-
ted. All modern language can be deconstucted. People hear and see what expect. They
miss author intent.
A feature of the dark ages was the scarcity of written records. I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at. Also I'm not sure what you mean by language, "becoming exceedinglyx..." what does "x" stand for?
It was a software glitch. "_Comple" was omitted by Bill Gates. It should have read, "be-
coming exceedingly complex...". I'll elaborate in anpother post.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: The Need to Start From Scratch

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
You probably mean that language was explained in terms of metaphysical explanations. There is no language of metaphysics. Prior to Newton there was no science as a discipline. If you are talking about 'science' based only on logic and observation prior to Newton then we are talking Aristotelian ontology.
The first human language arose as a result of a biological mutation. This mutation
arose in a very human like animal and was very important to survival so it was passed
on from generation to generation until in a very short time all individuals had the mu-
tation. This first individual didn't simply invent language because his animal forebearers
already had a language and he simply was able to elaborate on this. This first language
was very complex but it was an animal language and this language survived for some
40,000 years and was used by all humans during this time. There were dialects but the
language was the same everywhere. The language was inate to humans and people were
born with a mostly undeveloped ability to use it.

But the language had the same properties that all animal languages probably have. This
language incorporated new ideas into its vocabulary and grammar. All human knowledge
was added year by year and this knowledge became the means by which people thought.
"Scientific" words were specially delineated and had strict definitions. Other words weren't
used to formulate statements or express beliefs but to paint a picture in the mind of the
listener and this was the means by which they communicated ideas. This language due
to its very nature was metaphysical. People used science founded of observation and log-
ic that had theory confirmed through further observation and language was its metaphysics.
It's likely this is how termites invented agriculture and and conditioning and beavers invented
water worlds for themselves. Humans were a little more clever but more importantly they
possessed the ability to pass knowledge from one generation to the next. Language was
the metaphysics of the ancient science. The ancient science in effect was built around the
human brain and the ancient people modeled all of nature around humanity.

This language looks very distinct from modern language. It has been misinterpreted ever
since the "tower of babel". No books survive from the first 1200 years of writing because
they couldn't be translated so they were simply discarded or allowed to disintegrate.
Post Reply