Misconceiving Truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re:

Post by HexHammer » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:25 pm

@enry quirk
name of a city is a consensual placeholder ('we agree to call this conglomeration of buildings, and what supports those buildings, a city...and we'll call that city, Cleveland).
Uhmm you totally missed what I wrote.

In danish it's "København", in english it's "Copenhagen" thus my deeper point has NOTHING to do what you just wrote.
My deeper point is different countries will write the same city name in different ways, thus creating confusion.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:40 pm

"My deeper point is different countries will write the same city name in different ways, thus creating confusion.'

In other words: different groups of folks will apply different placeholders (or variations of the same placeholder) to a commonly viewed phenomena thus (possibly) creating confusion about what any of these folks refer to.

So: when you say "Sometimes truth is very relative and subjective" you're wrong because -- again -- in your example of "København"/"Copenhagen" it is not the phenomena (the ordered collections of wood, steel, concrete, etc.) that's in question but only the placeholders used to describe or identify the phenomena.

That is: the "confusion" is not about what's real (or true) but only about the symbols used to describe what's real (or true).

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:45 pm

Hex,

Perhaps what's confusing you is my use of 'Cleveland' (in my take of your example) instead of København"/"Copenhagen".

I hope the post above clears things up for you.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re:

Post by cladking » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:03 pm

henry quirk wrote:
cladking,

I don't follow.

Can you explain more simply?
Do you mean this?
Indeed!

Any angle is 90 degrees if seen from the proper perspective.

It is language confusing the issue and forcing a perspective from an infinite distance. This isn't natural to people. Seeing things from the inside is more natural.

Or to express it poetically; maybe we think we know so much more than we really do because when you look at things from so far away you'll only see what you know. So much work is required to see we don't waste our time seeing that which we don't understand.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re:

Post by HexHammer » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:29 pm

henry quirk wrote:"My deeper point is different countries will write the same city name in different ways, thus creating confusion.'

In other words: different groups of folks will apply different placeholders (or variations of the same placeholder) to a commonly viewed phenomena thus (possibly) creating confusion about what any of these folks refer to.

So: when you say "Sometimes truth is very relative and subjective" you're wrong because -- again -- in your example of "København"/"Copenhagen" it is not the phenomena (the ordered collections of wood, steel, concrete, etc.) that's in question but only the placeholders used to describe or identify the phenomena.

That is: the "confusion" is not about what's real (or true) but only about the symbols used to describe what's real (or true).
Now that you delude youself with such certainty, then tell me what this means 义勇军进行曲

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:02 pm

Wyman wrote:
Scientific claims are about posited entities that may or may not exist in the world. The validity of these entities will be confirmed or rejected based on the scientific method. Absolute truths are like any other universal claim to reality. They can never be proved or disproved.
Well put. I would like to assign certain people - a la Bart Simpson's school teacher - to write this 100 times on the blackboard.
Keep in mind that "will" in this case indicates futurity. Either that or "confirmed" must be replaced.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:11 pm

According to an on-line translator: "义勇军进行曲" is "March of the Volunteers", (the name, the symbol, the placeholder for) the national anthem of the People's Republic of China.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:13 pm

Clad,

You wrote: "Now I believe that just as a computer has more in common with a picture of a computer than it has with transistors, diodes, resistors, etc, that computer language is a sort of metaphysical language that operates it. Where once the computer had to be rewired for each process now the language itself effectively rewires it. This is very similar to the way animal brains operate which have a natural wiring which gives rise to a natural metaphysical language. The human metaphysical language collapsed and we've been groping for truth ever since."

I'm not getting things like "the human metaphysical language collapsed".

The whole passage makes no sense to me.

Can you explain more (and, more simply)?

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re:

Post by HexHammer » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:21 pm

henry quirk wrote:According to an on-line translator: "义勇军进行曲" is "March of the Volunteers", (the name, the symbol, the placeholder for) the national anthem of the People's Republic of China.
Yes, only IF you have a translator at hand you can know the meaning of a word, but sometimes the meaning is counterintuitive and subtle which the translator doesn't convey.

"forfordelt" If you can get the true meaning of this, I'll shut up for now.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re:

Post by cladking » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:47 pm

You wrote: "Now I believe that just as a computer has more in common with a picture of a computer than it has with transistors, diodes, resistors, etc, that computer language is a sort of metaphysical language that operates it. Where once the computer had to be rewired for each process now the language itself effectively rewires it. This is very similar to the way animal brains operate which have a natural wiring which gives rise to a natural metaphysical language. The human metaphysical language collapsed and we've been groping for truth ever since."
I think the problem might be that it is already too simple and what's needed is an elaboration or a means to tie it to known referents.

Computers now days begin life as a drawing and this drawing is transcribed to a different much smaller medium much like a camera's picture is reduced in size. This is eventually copied and encased in a bit of plastic until wired into the grid. Computers used to not be "programmable". When a different equation or function was needed it was simply rewired to reflect this new function. The language of programming is made to be "understood" by the computer that follows the rules of the language.

I'm defining a "metaphysical language" as one that carries the rules within itself. It is a language which reflects the natural logic of the way something like a computer or a rabbit is wired. I am contending that humans once had a metaphysical language which was the basis of an ancient science but that language became overly complex as more was learned so it collapsed. This is very difficult to see from the perspective generated by modern language. We name things and when we look we see those things that are named. An accountant sees the costs of things in a picture and a physicist sees the forces acting on one another. Metaphysical language is more prone to name processes than things. Metaphysical language uses words with only one possible meaning where in modern language every utterance is gobbledty gook until word definitions are deduced by context. This happens so automatically most people just don't notice it or notice that it frequently goes awry.

I believe much of the rootlessness and other problems people experience is caused by our divorce from our natural wiring. We have an inability to distinguish truth from facts because of the disconnect between our thought and the way the brain is wired. Imagine the difficulty you'd have if you told your computer to display Cleveland on the screen. You might not understand when it balked at formatting issues.

Most of the problems with modern language can be mitigated by simply identifying them.

The truth is out there.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Re:

Post by cladking » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:50 pm

You wrote: "Now I believe that just as a computer has more in common with a picture of a computer than it has with transistors, diodes, resistors, etc, that computer language is a sort of metaphysical language that operates it. Where once the computer had to be rewired for each process now the language itself effectively rewires it. This is very similar to the way animal brains operate which have a natural wiring which gives rise to a natural metaphysical language. The human metaphysical language collapsed and we've been groping for truth ever since."
I think the problem might be that it is already too simple and what's needed is an elaboration or a means to tie it to known referents.

Computers now days begin life as a drawing and this drawing is transcribed to a different much smaller medium much like a camera's picture is reduced in size. This is eventually copied and encased in a bit of plastic until wired into the grid. Computers used to not be "programmable". When a different equation or function was needed it was simply rewired to reflect this new function. The language of programming is made to be "understood" by the computer that follows the rules of the language.

I'm defining a "metaphysical language" as one that carries the rules within itself. It is a language which reflects the natural logic of the way something like a computer or a rabbit is wired. I am contending that humans once had a metaphysical language which was the basis of an ancient science but that language became overly complex as more was learned so it collapsed. This is very difficult to see from the perspective generated by modern language. We name things and when we look we see those things that are named. An accountant sees the costs of things in a picture and a physicist sees the forces acting on one another. Metaphysical language is more prone to name processes than things. Metaphysical language uses words with only one possible meaning where in modern language every utterance is gobbledty gook until word definitions are deduced by context. This happens so automatically most people just don't notice it or notice that it frequently goes awry.

I believe much of the rootlessness and other problems people experience is caused by our divorce from our natural wiring. We have an inability to distinguish truth from facts because of the disconnect between our thought and the way the brain is wired. Imagine the difficulty you'd have if you told your computer to display Cleveland on the screen. You might not understand when it balked at formatting issues or acquiring source.

Most of the problems with modern language can be mitigated by simply identifying them.

The truth is out there.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:52 pm

forfordelt = at a disadvantage, yes?

Yes, I agree: you do seem disadvantaged... ;)

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:57 pm

"I'm defining a "metaphysical language" as one that carries the rules within itself."

I'd call that 'meta-language'.

I'm time-pressed, Clad, so I'll save further comment till tomorrow.

Thanks for the explanation.

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Gee » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:02 pm

Sappho de Miranda;

I apologize for taking so long to respond.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:
Gee wrote:Well, I don't do science, I do philosophy. Specifically I study consciousness. Decades of study have produced my definition of consciousness as a "self-balancing chaos, motivated by want, in perpetual motion". Some physics people at a science forum noted that my definition could also be applied to matter, so I think that ordinary observation and perception can have some merit.
I don’t 'do' science either Gee. And to be perfectly frank with you, I don't 'do' Philosophy. Nor do I 'do' Law, Psychology, Neurology, Mythology, Mathematics or any other discipline. I 'do' think however upon all those disciplines and many others not mentioned. I 'do' read within those disciplines and many others not mentioned. I 'do' learn the skills I need to think about those disciplines and many others not mentioned. I 'do' explore and re-evaluate my thinking with likeminded people .
These are the same reasons why most of us are here. I stated that I don't do science, but do philosophy, because I believe that the two disciplines require a different mind-set and methodology to do them correctly. When one mixes the methodologies of a scientific study of knowns with a philosophic study of unknowns, one can end up with a great deal of garbage and Misconceived Truth. I suspect that this is why the disciplines separated in the first place.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:As to consciousness, I'm rather impressed with the thinking of Dan Dennett, even though his philosophical thinking is founded in cognitive science. He would argue and rather persuasively that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion.

I wonder though how you feel about the philosophies of Dan Dennett given that you don't 'do' science?
Dennett is difficult for me to understand. I watched a video about his book, Consciousness Explained, where the speaker stated that if one follows all of the thinking in that book and applies it, then Google should be conscious. As far as we know, Google is not conscious.

Then consider that Dennett is a philosopher, not a scientist, but he has adopted science's definition of consciousness as conscious thought -- produced by a brain. But the philosophical definition of consciousness is awareness -- no actual thought or brain required. If you go to the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and look up consciousness, the first explanation and level of consciousness is sentience. All life is sentient, this is not disputed by anyone, but all life does not have a brain and thought. An example of this would be trees, as they have no brain, no thought, yet they are aware. So in studying cognitive science, Dennett is studying conscious thought, not consciousness. This is very misleading.

If Dennett argues that consciousness is illusion, then he is stating that it is different from matter which would make him a dualist -- which I am sure he would deny, as being a dualist is not popular at this time. But if you think about it, the only difference in stating that consciousness is illusion or stating that consciousness is souls and "God" is belief. One accepts the "illusion", the other does not, but it is still dualism.

I can not make up my mind if Dennett is a wannabe scientist or a wannabe philosopher. So, I can not say that I am pleased with him.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:With regard to Descartes, I note that the quote you provide supports the idea of movement so we are on the same page after all. I am curious however to know what perpetual motion means to you . . .
A very brief explanation would be in an understanding of ecosystems. If you look closely at a forest, what you will find is thousands of different species attacking other species or fighting for dominance. One would think that eventually someone would win, but it does not happen. We have learned that if we remove or add a specie, we can actually damage and potentially destroy the ecosystem. This is because the ecosystem is self-balancing. Now when we discuss balance, one may think of a teeter-totter, or a scale, but when these things are in balance they stop. An ecosystem's balance is based on motion. If some or all of the species stopped, the ecosystem would die. So the ecosystem perpetuates itself through constant motion and can last for thousands of years, maybe tens of thousands. This is just one example, but seems to be a common theme in all life and consciousness.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:though and how Descartes 'may deny a large body of cause and effect' given that idea?
I've lost you here. You will have to explain what you mean in order for me to answer you.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:Are you suggesting that consciousness is not of this 'energy' to which you refer. If not, what is it?
I am not up for the Nobel Prize. (chuckle) Anyone who can answer that question would be.
Sappho de Miranda wrote:As a side note, Descartes also taught that the one thing we cannot question and so can never doubt is that I exist. I don't know if you exist mind... but I do know without a doubt that I think, therefore, I am.
Descartes was a brilliant, rational, logical man, who taught us a great deal about rational thought. But that was before Freud taught us that the rational aspect of mind is only part of our minds, and a small part at that. It was also before psychology taught us that we don't even have the rational aspect of mind until we are around seven years of age. And it was before we learned that a brain is actually a processor, which processes thought and allows for choice.

So it looks like maybe you can't think without a brain, so you would need a body, so after you die, you would not be. But Descartes was a religious man, so he believed in the afterlife. Maybe if he lived today, he would realize that consciousness is what we think, but it is also more -- it is what we think, know, and remember, and also how we feel, our emotions, and our awareness.

G

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re:

Post by HexHammer » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:29 pm

henry quirk wrote:forfordelt = at a disadvantage, yes?

Yes, I agree: you do seem disadvantaged... ;)
Complete mistranslation, it has nothing to do with the meaning of the saying.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests