The Prime Metaphor

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am

The Prime Metaphor

Post by Advocate » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am

There is no really good place to start so i'll just jump in at random, dripping axioms as necessary.

The state of reality is that of the state within which we can sense and verify. This is the human bubble. Anything beyond this bubble is speculative and can only be speculative. Verification can be one of two things, empirical probability - the realm of science, or logical necessity - the realm of philosophy. Both are subject to the limits of our bubble but logic may extend that bubble according to the precision of the definitions of the words used within it.

Outside the bubble is undifferentiated stuff. Inside it are specific things. First we sense, then we notice, then we differentiate those patterns into things according to whatever use we have for them. Internal and external uses are distinct and that is a boundary which cannot be crossed. Internal patterns may be correlates of external reality or may be only internally consistent. For external purposes we use language to represent those patterns and words mean whatever we say they mean.

The mind/body problem is a no problem - it's two different metaphors for the same thing, just as psychology can be deconstructed to biology which can be deconstructed to chemistry, etc. They are different levels of understanding. Conscilience is constantly occurring. All human knowledge is like patches on a globe, covering certain knowledge about reality according to certain purposes.

Those patterns which exist within the mind either correlate with natural, physical/material reality or are the same as fiction. Opinions may therefore be more or less true based upon how closely they match testable reality.

That's a good enough start. I'll add all the new things that come up as they come up. I've tried to work out with various people what it would mean to have solved metaphysics and no one can agree that it's possible much less that i could have done it so i'll just address all my main points here. Coming up in a new post: Some Metaphysical Questions (answered)

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: The Prime Metaphor

Post by ken » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:49 pm

Advocate wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am
I've tried to work out with various people what it would mean to have solved metaphysics and no one can agree that it's possible much less that i could have done it so i'll just address all my main points here. Coming up in a new post: Some Metaphysical Questions (answered)
Did you notice that I replied to you 11 days prior to your post here regarding that solving metaphysics is not just possible but has already been done?
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

I'm not being facetious and my ego is not involved.

Before i go there, let me ask you these questions:

a) What would it mean to have solved metaphysics? (I'll put my own answer in another post)
My reply was;
"It would mean metaphysics has been solved. But what was the supposed problem in or with metaphysics in the first place, which seemingly needed solving anyway?"
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

b) How could such a contention be supported, verified, proven, etc.
My reply was;
"With logical reasoning."
Advocate wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 pm

c) What are the implications for society?
My reply was;
"The implications will become obvious after the solution is provided, and understood, which will be a much better society, by the way."

It might not have been absolutely clear, but I clearly hinted that metaphysics has already been solved.

A day later I also wrote;
"If you have, what you are talking about, [regarding solving metaphysics] then there is nothing to challenge anyway. There may, however, be some things that might just need clarifying, for some."
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:51 am

But for your edification, The nature of existence, the meaning of life, the mind/body problem, the nature of math and logic, are all simple. Everything's simple when you look at it from the correct perspective.
To which I replied;
"I agree with this wholeheartedly."

I also wrote;
"That is great if you can explain ALL of this already. That will save me having to do it."

So, WHY here did you write, "no one can agree that [solving metaphysics] it's possible much less that i could have done it"?

Did you NOT read what I previously wrote, or did you NOT comprehend what I wrote?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests