Wood and Chair question

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:

Sounds good except for the problem of there being no such thing as ancient science.

Sure there was, I've rediscovered it and how it worked.

It was the science cavemen used to claw their way out of the caves. It was used by hunter/ gatherers to survive and then it invented agriculture and cities. There was a single universal language that was the metaphysics of their science and all new learning and discovery was added to the language. Nature was assigned human characteristics and even time was subdivided into the lenght of the human heartbeat; one second, and the year was determined accordingly. Each aspect of nature was studied and then given human characteristics and then this "god" appeared in the language. Humans think in language so they could apply all their knowledge to every problem. Gods were not defined because they didn't think this way. Gods were "named". Each name excluded concepts until the gods' names excluded every concept exxcept what it actually was.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:

Sounds good except for the problem of there being no such thing as ancient science.

Sure there was, I've rediscovered it and how it worked.

It was the science cavemen used to claw their way out of the caves. It was used by hunter/ gatherers to survive and then it invented agriculture and cities.
My son also discover that type of "science" when he was 10 years old. He made a spear fashioned from a rod and a piece of metal shard he found. He told me he was going hunting. in order to discourage him I suggested he try some target practice. A hay bale was suggested. Naturally he did not know anything about velocity, gravity and parabolas, but it didn't take him long to figure out that you had to aim high.
cladking wrote: There was a single universal language that was the metaphysics of their science and all new learning and discovery was added to the language. Nature was assigned human characteristics and even time was subdivided into the lenght of the human heartbeat; one second, and the year was determined accordingly. Each aspect of nature was studied and then given human characteristics and then this "god" appeared in the language. Humans think in language so they could apply all their knowledge to every problem. Gods were not defined because they didn't think this way. Gods were "named". Each name excluded concepts until the gods' names excluded every concept except what it actually was.
I've got nothing against the idea of God or Gods, but the concept of God is not part of science.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:54 am, edited 4 times in total.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Systematic wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: Sounds good except for the problem of there being no such thing as ancient science.
Yeah, no one ever studied nature in ancient times.

Yes. Exactly right.

If one group of humans were superstitious then another group who studied nature would always eat their lunch.

Until the invention of agriculture superstition always resulted in death and anihilation.

The language became too complex and failed.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
I've got nothing again the idea of God or Gods, but the concept of God is not part of science.

We mistranslate the ancient word "neter" as "god". Ancient people were never superstitious.

Neter meant "natural phenomenon" and the gods were "natural phenomena". Every individual was a scientist. Every individual was expected to contribute to the degree he could.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
I've got nothing again the idea of God or Gods, but the concept of God is not part of science.

We mistranslate the ancient word "neter" as "god". Ancient people were never superstitious.

Neter meant "natural phenomenon" and the gods were "natural phenomena". Every individual was a scientist. Every individual was expected to contribute to the degree he could.
I think we mistranslate the world 'science'
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
I think we mistranslate the world 'science'

They didn't have the word "science" because from their perspective the feminine progeniture of human progress was invisible. It was the logic of their metaphysical language that gave rise to human progress but they couldn't see the logic in language from the inside.

Indeed, they specifically said that human progress had no mother. They saw language as the father but not the logic which was its mother. In a very real way you could say that to the ancients life itself was science. It was the magic of scientific observation that made society and life possible. Our science is observation > experiment but their's was observation > logic.

1271a. If Thot comes in this his evil coming;
1271b. do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of "thou hast no mother."
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote: It was the magic of scientific observation that made society and life possible. Our science is observation > experiment but their's was observation > logic.
That's why the former is metaphysics and the latter is science.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
cladking wrote: It was the magic of scientific observation that made society and life possible. Our science is observation > experiment but their's was observation > logic.
That's why the former is metaphysics and the latter is science.

I'm using the first definition for "metaphysics". It is the means by which knowledge (science) is gained.

They are both science. The former is the science used by all of God's creatures other than humans for the last 4000 years.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
I'm using the first definition for "metaphysics". It is the means by which knowledge (science) is gained.
Not all knowledge is necessarily science. That's the point I am making. As you say, metaphysical knowledge can be gained through observation and the application of logic. This process is especially relevant when it comes to Aristotelian metaphysics. Metaphysics can also establish knowledge without the need for observation. For example, Descartes 'cogito'

Science has a different methodology.
cladking wrote:
They are both science. The former is the science used by all of God's creatures other than humans for the last 4000 years.
There are many creatures that venture into my backward by way of flight, stealth (foxes) straying (dogs), or burrowing. Some creatures actually stay and wait for me to feed them. I could try and explain to these animals the elements of the scientific method. I could do this until I am blue in the face, but they would never understand science.

Cladking, please re-read your sentence and think about it for a bit. It makes no sense.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
Not all knowledge is necessarily science. That's the point I am making. As you say, metaphysical knowledge can be gained through observation and the application of logic.
I agree. All knowledge is visceral and visceral knowledge can come from many sources including the mere "muscle memory" that underlies some great skill. Visceral knowledge is as much an "art" as a science.
This process is especially relevant when it comes to Aristotelian metaphysics. Metaphysics can also establish knowledge without the need for observation. For example, Descartes 'cogito'
I strongly disagree. It's always garbage in garbage out. In Descartes' case it's language in language out and the language just happens to be garbage like all modern language.
There are many creatures that venture into my backward by way of flight, stealth (foxes) straying (dogs), or burrowing. Some creatures actually stay and wait for me to feed them. I could try and explain to these animals the elements of the scientific method. I could do this until I am blue in the face, but they would never understand science.
Animals don't understand the nature of experiment so can never understand modern science. They do understand observation naturally and their science is based on this and the logic of nature encoded in their brains largely as language. Humans lost this logic when the ancient language failed so we've codified it in math and allow reality to determine what we learn from science by its effect on experiment. Modern science generates a great deal of technology but little understanding. We believe we understand because of the confused language that underlies our means to interpret experiment and the illegitimate extrapolation of theory (experiment) to nature.

I think therefore I am is mere claptrap. You can't think at all without language and modern language has to be taught to us. Animals, babies, and ancient man didn't need to think themselves into existence. Beavers didn't need to learn modern science to invent dam building.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

cladking wrote: Humans lost this logic when the ancient language failed so we've codified it in math and allow reality to determine what we learn from science by its effect on experiment.
Animals and humans (once studied) nature directly as scientist/ observers. Now humans do it indirectly through experiment. We were forced to study it indirectly by the loss of our natural language which was metaphysical in nature. You can't directly observe nature and process the results in confused language. It's NOT garbage in garbage out, it's bad programming.

So now we see all of reality only through the extrapolation of its effects on experiment. Those who see through religion are seeing a confused version of the results of 40,000 years of ancient science. Both perspectives color all of reality and hides what we don't know because it's all transmitted and understood largely on the basis of modern language.

I'm not sure how to say this so people can understand but I know I'm still failing. Animal languages are perfect for communication but are necessarily very simplistic.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

Ginkgo wrote:
Not all knowledge is necessarily science. That's the point I am making. As you say, metaphysical knowledge can be gained through observation and the application of logic.
cladking wrote: I agree. All knowledge is visceral and visceral knowledge can come from many sources including the mere "muscle memory" that underlies some great skill. Visceral knowledge is as much an "art" as a science.
If you are agreeing that all knowledge isn't necessarily science then you are actually disagreeing with my response.

cladking wrote: I strongly disagree. It's always garbage in garbage out. In Descartes' case it's language in language out and the language just happens to be garbage like all modern language.


Animals don't understand the nature of experiment so can never understand modern science. They do understand observation naturally and their science is based on this and the logic of nature encoded in their brains largely as language.
Animals don't have a language, they don't do science and they don't do metaphysics because no animal has ever asked a question. In other to do science or metaphysics one has to start with a question. Do you know of any animal that has ever asked a question?
cladking wrote: Humans lost this logic when the ancient language failed so we've codified it in math and allow reality to determine what we learn from science by its effect on experiment. Modern science generates a great deal of technology but little understanding. We believe we understand because of the confused language that underlies our means to interpret experiment and the illegitimate extrapolation of theory (experiment) to nature.

I think therefore I am is mere claptrap. You can't think at all without language and modern language has to be taught to us. Animals, babies, and ancient man didn't need to think themselves into existence. Beavers didn't need to learn modern science to invent dam building.
If you are saying that modern languages are confused then you have created a unsolvable paradox for yourself by simply posting your response. In other words, by telling me that language creates confusion, you quickly need to add the proviso; "except of course for the language I am using in this posting." I am of course assuming that you believe your response to be intelligible.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
If you are saying that modern languages are confused then you have created a unsolvable paradox for yourself by simply posting your response. In other words, by telling me that language creates confusion, you quickly need to add the proviso; "except of course for the language I am using in this posting." I am of course assuming that you believe your response to be intelligible.

You're starting to get it. You're the very first.

Language is confused. I can say almost exactly what I mean but no one will understand exactly what I say. Each person gets a different meaning and the more dissimilar to the status quo an utterance the greater the divergence in percieved meaning will be. Modern language is adequate for thought because we each know what we ourselves mean when we think. In some ways modern language is actually superior to ancient language for thought. The problem comes when we try to communicate and especially if we try to communicate novel ideas.

I keep calling for refinements in language and education so that such ideas can be communicated. An "understanding" of modern science without a good understanding of metaphysics is not only impossible but it's exceedingly dangerous but scientists are not trained in metaphysics very well. Everyone should be more aware of the weaknesses in language and this goes a million times over for diplomats. Almost all wars probably have at least a small element of misunderstanding at their core. Even a scientist with a proclivity for experiment invention and understanding current theory would work better with others if he were better able to understand the weakness of language and communication. We understand theory in terms of language and we don't even realize our understanding is different than others because they hear and see what they expect in our words.

There is no "unsolvable paradox" once the problem is recognized. It is merely a matter of redressing the specific causes of confusion. There are no problems in modern language that can't be mitigated and some can be eradicated.

Of course you can't understand exactly what I mean here and of course if you did you wouldn't be in total agreement with every single point. But this shouldn't stop us from finding the common ground that used to exist with all of humanity. This shouldn't stop us from trying to recognize and address the issues that have all seven billion of us going in different directions. This shouldn't stop us from avoiding our extinction at our own hands as human knowledge becomes capable of exterminating ourselves. This shouldn't stop us from solving issues like the unified field theory and progressing in the third millineum even if it requires ancient language and an updated version of ancient science to do it.

Confusion is an acquired state for man and we can overcome it.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
If you are saying that modern languages are confused then you have created a unsolvable paradox for yourself by simply posting your response. In other words, by telling me that language creates confusion, you quickly need to add the proviso; "except of course for the language I am using in this posting." I am of course assuming that you believe your response to be intelligible.

You're starting to get it. You're the very first.

Language is confused. I can say almost exactly what I mean but no one will understand exactly what I say. Each person gets a different meaning and the more dissimilar to the status quo an utterance the greater the divergence in percieved meaning will be. Modern language is adequate for thought because we each know what we ourselves mean when we think. In some ways modern language is actually superior to ancient language for thought. The problem comes when we try to communicate and especially if we try to communicate novel ideas.

I keep calling for refinements in language and education so that such ideas can be communicated. An "understanding" of modern science without a good understanding of metaphysics is not only impossible but it's exceedingly dangerous but scientists are not trained in metaphysics very well. Everyone should be more aware of the weaknesses in language and this goes a million times over for diplomats. Almost all wars probably have at least a small element of misunderstanding at their core. Even a scientist with a proclivity for experiment invention and understanding current theory would work better with others if he were better able to understand the weakness of language and communication. We understand theory in terms of language and we don't even realize our understanding is different than others because they hear and see what they expect in our words.

There is no "unsolvable paradox" once the problem is recognized. It is merely a matter of redressing the specific causes of confusion. There are no problems in modern language that can't be mitigated and some can be eradicated.

Of course you can't understand exactly what I mean here and of course if you did you wouldn't be in total agreement with every single point. But this shouldn't stop us from finding the common ground that used to exist with all of humanity. This shouldn't stop us from trying to recognize and address the issues that have all seven billion of us going in different directions. This shouldn't stop us from avoiding our extinction at our own hands as human knowledge becomes capable of exterminating ourselves. This shouldn't stop us from solving issues like the unified field theory and progressing in the third millineum even if it requires ancient language and an updated version of ancient science to do it.

Confusion is an acquired state for man and we can overcome it.
Confusion is the beginning of wisdom. It's better to be unsure than shitsure. Looking around at the world, I'd say the people would benefit from more confusion, far too many are complacent and shitsure about things.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Melchior »

Petals wrote:Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals
Natural vs artificial or man-made. What is so hard about this?
Post Reply