Kurt wrote:Why don't you write a book for us to study, can I suggest a title "mein kampf"
Thanks thanks, but too much ADHD, can't write a book, even tho I really wanted to.
Actually tryed to have my ADHD diagnosed officially, but the doc was talking about it when it was called "DAMP" here in Denmark, thus I had to guess based on her assumed age, her lack of intellect, lack of updating herself on her psychology, etc ..I concluded she was educated doctor 1983 which was spot on, it was merely a lucky shot, but she didn't believe me and thought I had spyed on her.
Tsk.
I'm a brilliant analyst, just that when I get my points through, noone believes me.
ADHD here in Oz is massively misdiagnosed if you sneeze you can be deemed so. Then it's all about treating the symptoms with medication and very little thought to developing coping mechanisms.
One question though, is English your first language
Kurt wrote:One question though, is English your first language
No, danish is my first language, tho my misspelling and stuff should only be bad aesthetic, not really impacting meaning or truth.
I'm only asking because this might have something to do with some of the negative comments you are receiving.
Both my parents are German and have been living in an English speaking country for more than 50 years. But they still try to structure sentences like in German. When you do this it can sometimes come across to an English speaking person as being abrupt or arrogant. It's only because Dutch and German talk in more absolute terms where English is a much softer language that can be much more descriptive depending on structure and grammar used. I would suspect that when you communicate face to face this is not an issue but utilising text only can cause misunderstanding to what you are trying to say.
Kurt wrote:I'm only asking because this might have something to do with some of the negative comments you are receiving.
Both my parents are German and have been living in an English speaking country for more than 50 years. But they still try to structure sentences like in German. When you do this it can sometimes come across to an English speaking person as being abrupt or arrogant. It's only because Dutch and German talk in more absolute terms where English is a much softer language that can be much more descriptive depending on structure and grammar used. I would suspect that when you communicate face to face this is not an issue but utilising text only can cause misunderstanding to what you are trying to say.
No, it has nothing to do with xenophobia or anything in that direction.
It's when not-so-bright-people doesn't have anything intelligent to say and wants revenge for me bursting their bubble, then their only weak point to pick at, is my grammar, because they can't defeat me intellectually.
It's because I bursts bursts bubbles in a very brutal manner, been in a administration and quality department where I acted like a total asshole, not something you gain friends from, but it's VERY efficient, specially when you have to deal with very arrogant leaders, but one has to know what's one is doing, else one be 1 head shorter.
If you domp leaders contribution to the internal newsletter, because they'r 5 min late past deadline, they ofc get furious and wants my sorry ass fired, but when the big boss gets his proofing ON TIME for the first time in 14 years, and the task usually takes 8 h and I cramp it down to 2-3h and efficiently only ½ h, then all the negative voices suddenly are silent.
One example is in your last sentence were you used the word "truth" in relation to science.
No scientist would use the word "truth" and if he did then it would be thought that he considers himself a God. In place of "truth" he or she might say " my observations show".
I hope this helps as I do have empathy for your situation as I still have to correct my parents every now and then so they don't come across to others as abrupt.
Kurt wrote:I'm only asking because this might have something to do with some of the negative comments you are receiving.
Both my parents are German and have been living in an English speaking country for more than 50 years. But they still try to structure sentences like in German. When you do this it can sometimes come across to an English speaking person as being abrupt or arrogant. It's only because Dutch and German talk in more absolute terms where English is a much softer language that can be much more descriptive depending on structure and grammar used. I would suspect that when you communicate face to face this is not an issue but utilising text only can cause misunderstanding to what you are trying to say.
No, it has nothing to do with xenophobia or anything in that direction.
It's when not-so-bright-people doesn't have anything intelligent to say and wants revenge for me bursting their bubble, then their only weak point to pick at, is my grammar, because they can't defeat me intellectually.
It's because I bursts bursts bubbles in a very brutal manner, been in a administration and quality department where I acted like a total asshole, not something you gain friends from, but it's VERY efficient, specially when you have to deal with very arrogant leaders, but one has to know what's one is doing, else one be 1 head shorter.
If you domp leaders contribution to the internal newsletter, because they'r 5 min late past deadline, they ofc get furious and wants my sorry ass fired, but when the big boss gets his proofing ON TIME for the first time in 14 years, and the task usually takes 8 h and I cramp it down to 2-3h and efficiently only ½ h, then all the negative voices suddenly are silent.
Ok just trying to help, sounds like you might need a job where you are your own boss.
People with ADHD can be more driven to achieve but can also be more distructive in a workplace. Be careful as in most cases in the end the workplace will normally win out.
This is one of those posts that actually speaks to something meaningful. Groovy.
>The reality each of us experiences can be interpreted to support many different beliefs, but there can only be one set of facts that are actually true.
Perspective is the answer. There is but one truth and potentially infinite perspectives on it. We reach have physical, cultural, and psychological filters in-between us and Actuality, and Reality is our consensus experience. There are also potentially infinite ways to tell The Truth.
>Within a correct interpretation of reality each true fact would necessarily coincide, and relate to the next, but the truth of each when considered in isolation, or in relation to statements which are false, may become disputable. So it would seem that the task of any individual who attempts to reveal the truth about reality, would require him to correctly assimilate multiple facts, the truth of which can only be known, when they are contemplated in relation to each other.
Each fact can be defended without the whole framework but it does have to hit bottom at experience itself.
>So what are these fundamentally significant facts, and how do we know what is or isn't important when considering the nature of reality?
The universe is an infinitely recursive meta-mõbius and answer to philosophy is like the answer to physics or consciousness or economics or any intractable problem; an understanding or set of maxims that best leads to actionable certainty.
You can find those ideas, as a package deal, at tiny.cc/TheWholeStory (in the process of formatting and organizing)
>I believe there are some obvious questions with which to start, such as, the nature of physicality,
We are embodied beings and space is the correlation of our external and internal (proprioceptive) experience.
>and the nature of mental events, but I think it can be seen that the definitive answer to each of these questions, will in part relate to each other, and therefore could collectively be seen as a version of the hard problem of consciousness.
I can't parse "the nature of mental events" as a meaningful question. Most questions about consciousness are actually how? questions - empirical.
>Another question I think would contribute to a concise understanding of reality, is the existence of positive and negative emotional states. If we can understand firstly how objective and subjective phenomena relate, and secondly why and how that relationship varies, then it may become possible to speculate on why and how the reality of events exists.
Objectivity is replicability. Subjectivity is a black box scenario. Several of your questions have touched on a central theme i'll get to later. I'm not sure mental events can be as distinguishable as you'd like.
>These are just two of my own suggestions, I know there are many more possibilities and that others may disagree with me on the above two, so I would like to hear from anyone who has an opinion.
>It's not my intention to answer these questions here on this thread, I would simply like to hear any suggestions as to what questions are significant. So for any posts genuinely suggesting a fundamentally significant question, I will start further threads with the purpose of exploring those questions.
The significant questions are the ones answered directly at tiny.cc/TheWholeStory. You're completely tight that everything can be understood in relation to everything else. It has taken me a long time to figure or how to organize the typical divisions of philosophy in a way that works. But not everything requires everything else. Truth questions requires some part of epistemology and metaphysics. Practical wisdom is contingent and much more complicated.
If you're ever in this forum anymore, hit me up, i'd like to get your opinions on it. It's feature complete but poorly formatted so far.
>I agree, thus, I believe the beginning of knowing what is “true” and what is “reality” is starting with comprehensive definitions of “truth” and “reality” as you have indicated you believe also.
>My questions:
1- What is a comprehensive definition of “truth”?
2- What is a comprehensive definition of “reality”?
Reality is consensus experience and truth is a bespoke version of that. The semantic point is, these definitions help solve the most philosophical problems.
Actuality is the universe we cannot access by way of senses or instruments or understand by way of logic. In Actuality there is only undifferentiated stuff. In reality there are "things", which are bespoke sets of attributes and boundary conditions overlayed on the physical world or describing the relationships between other concepts.
Knowledge is justified belief.
Faith is unjustified belief.
Wisdom is of two kinds; truth and practical.
<Would you like to know more?>
Edit: The cohesiveness mentioned in the op comes into play here. There may be plenty of other definitions that solve epistemological questions just fine but when you start rolling in metaphysics or ethics, not being entirely precise across the spectrum will get messy real fast.
>I would like to make a few comments that may or may not be entirely relevant to Existence/Reality, Time and Truth. It seems that the question of existence can be seen in two lights, or more, one of 'absolute reality' - "does a particular object or idea exist in a physical sense in the real world. And does the object exist as I perceive it. I would like to point out, for what it's worth, that all perception is history. Everything that we perceive of the 'outside' world is of the past, the only thing that is now, for any individual is the current thought in your mind. So the argument comes down to 'did that object or event exist in the past, as we remember it. To support this statement, I would point out that when you stub your toe, it takes a finite amount of time for the nerve signals to reach, and be processed by your brain, so the true statement would be "I just stubbed my toe a fraction of a second ago." The other supporting point is that the speed of light, though very fast, is finite and there is a slight amount of time for the light to travel from the object to your eye and then as a nerve impulse to be processed by your brain. The incredible speed of light has caused no end of confusion where another poster insists that vision is instantaneous. FYI, if you could induce a beam of light to travel in a curved path around the earth, it could make 7 and 3/4 orbits in one second, that's so fast as to seem instantaneous. To illustrate the point further, the light from the Sun takes 8.5 minutes to get to the Earth. The light from the constellation the 'Big Dipper' takes 75 years to get to the Earth. For all we know some or all of those stars could have blown up 50 years ago and they no longer exist in reality. We can't know what is real 'now' we can only assume that reality is what we perceive. I suggest that we make a few assumptions and let different aspects of the discussion go where it will.
>Sometimes when I want to make a post like this in response to another post, I need to step away from the computer. In this case it was to the piano and I played 'Clair De Lune', I can play all the notes in the right order, just not as fluently as I would like.
The past is remembered experience and the future is anticipated experience. Time is experienced (measured, usually) change. Change is the universal substrate of the universe and time, space, matter, energy, mass, gravity, entropy, and causality, are all aspects of it.
[quote="James Markham" post_id=155543 time=1388599676 user_id=9153]
I've looked through the replies on this thread, and I think there are three suggestions of significant questions, they are
1. What is the nature of consciousness?
2. What is the nature of knowledge?
3. What is the nature of existence?
So as I said in the original post, it's now my intention to create threads on each of these subjects, along with any other future suggestions that are significantly different to the above three.
[/quote]
Without first defining what you mean by "the nature of", you're not going to get any further. There's a semantic answer - how the words are typically used. There are potentially infinite answers to what the given attributes and boundary conditions of the things should be, depending on purpose.
Based on my understanding of what the questions are asking for, consciousness is a feedback loop in an advanced theory of mind, knowledge is justified belief, and existence is merely isness. {There's no such thing as non-existence except in a metaphorical sense. Everything exists, including concepts (As concepts), or more to the point, every "thing" exists because they are patterns in the mind (material ones of which correspond to our external sensory experience).}
[quote=Felasco post_id=155592 time=1388627678 user_id=8408]
It's perhaps helpful to recall that "the truth" is not actually the truth, but a collection of symbols about the truth.
As example, while it's the truth that my screen name is Felasco, the screen name Felasco is not actually me, but a symbolic concept in the reader's mind which points to the real me.
This seems important because the symbolic version of the truth will be affected and distorted by the properties of the symbol creating system.
As example, it seems the first thing a scientist would want to do is understand the equipment they are using to make their observations, and then account for any distortions that equipment may introduce in to the data. If they don't do this, then they'll never know how well their data represents the real world the data points to, ie, how true their data really is.
It seems that philosophers, unlike scientists, are largely uninterested in the equipment they are using to make their observation and process their data.
[/quote]
You are a cohesive set of attributes that is more than physical and includes what you call yourself. To others, you are the continuity of their experience of you.
James Markham wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:52 am
The reality each of us experiences can be interpreted to support many different beliefs, but there can only be one set of facts that are actually true. Within a correct interpretation of reality each true fact would necessarily coincide, and relate to the next, but the truth of each when considered in isolation, or in relation to statements which are false, may become disputable. So it would seem that the task of any individual who attempts to reveal the truth about reality, would require him to correctly assimilate multiple facts, the truth of which can only be known, when they are contemplated in relation to each other.
So what are these fundamentally significant facts, and how do we know what is or isn't important when considering the nature of reality?
I believe there are some obvious questions with which to start, such as, the nature of physicality, and the nature of mental events, but I think it can be seen that the definitive answer to each of these questions, will in part relate to each other, and therefore could collectively be seen as a version of the hard problem of consciousness.
Another question I think would contribute to a concise understanding of reality, is the existence of positive and negative emotional states. If we can understand firstly how objective and subjective phenomena relate, and secondly why and how that relationship varies, then it may become possible to speculate on why and how the reality of events exists.
These are just two of my own suggestions, I know there are many more possibilities and that others may disagree with me on the above two, so I would like to hear from anyone who has an opinion.
It's not my intention to answer these questions here on this thread, I would simply like to hear any suggestions as to what questions are significant. So for any posts genuinely suggesting a fundamentally significant question, I will start further threads with the purpose of exploring those questions.
I'd agree with your analysis.
My suggestion for the crucial question would be 'Who Am I?' For a formal metaphysical question the most useful might be 'Why are all extreme metaphysical theories logically absurd?
If you can answer either of these then you'll have answered most other philosophical questions.
My suggestion for the crucial question would be 'Who Am I?' For a formal metaphysical question the most useful might be 'Why are all extreme metaphysical theories logically absurd?
If you can answer either of these then you'll have answered most other philosophical questions.
[/quote]
To yourself you are the continuity of your experience. where the boundaries of that experience lie is a separate question. Body dysmorphia or hallucinogens, for example. To others you are the continuity of their experience of you (see Phineas Gage as a counter-example). You have a life after death in that sense - to others.
Most ideas are wrong because they fail to account for something relevant. Most philosophical ideas are wrong because they aren't taken to their logical extreme to check for inconsistencies. Metaphysics is also subject to compatibility with epistemology particularly. If someone had a theory of metaphysics without an epistemology to match, the chance of them being wrong is much higher.
I don't think you're right that this entails answering most other philosophical questions but it is drawn from a framework that does: tiny.cc/TheWholeStory, and i'd be interested in talking with you about it, if you still interact with this forum.
