Ultimate Reality

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:03 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:47 pm Logic, mathematics, and language do not exist ontologically (materially or physically).
You just said that they do.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:03 pm Programs are physical
You took that out of context. The whole sentence is, "Programs are physical as implemented in physical memory and digital logic, but the programming language only has meaning to human consciousness."

If I had known you just looking for a way twist my meaning for the sake of argument I would have said, "Programs are physical as implemented in physical memory and digital logic, but the programming language only has meaning to human consciousness, which meaning is not physical by psychological." I admit I made the mistake of believing you would know the difference between the physical and psychological (or epistemological).

If you knew what you were doing it is dishonest. But even if you were being disingenuous, I wouldn't call you on it but I would wonder if you knew the harm you were doing to yourself defending a view by that method--which of course is no defense.

I do not care if you agree with my view, and will answer sincere questions, but have no interest in debate.

I've already answered all your repeated questions as well as I can. If that is not good enough, then it's not good enough. The horse is dead.
Skepdick
Posts: 5014
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:43 am It doesn't matter what the sentence means, because it is only the sound that makes the system perform.
The sound/words distinction appears to be one without a difference in the context of this argument.

If I ask my wife to turn on the lights and she does. My words "Honey, please turn on the lights" are ontological and causal.
If I ask Google home to turn on the lights and it does. My words "Google, please turn on the lights" are ontological and causal.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:59 am "Meaning," is not an ontological concept and only pertains to the epistemological.
So when I ask my wife to turn on the lights it doesn't mean anything?

The absurdities philosophers defend!
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 5014
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:25 am You took that out of context. The whole sentence is, "Programs are physical as implemented in physical memory and digital logic, but the programming language only has meaning to human consciousness."
I didn't take it out of context. You are the one who went on a tangent.
We were discussing whether languages are physical/material/ontological. Is ontology contingent upon meaning?

It seems to me you are attempting to draw a distinction without a meaningful difference between "programs" and "programming languages". Are they not the same concept in your mind?
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:25 am I've already answered all your repeated questions as well as I can. If that is not good enough, then it's not good enough. The horse is dead.
Is it good enough for you that your argument fails to account for the ontological nature of language?
Is it good enough for you that your argument fails to account for how non-physical/non-material existent like logic, mathematics and language can be the cause of physical consequences?

If you are happy with those contingencies in your argument, then the horse is dead indeed.

And if the horse is dead, then I shall invoke Richard Rorty and the contingency of selfhood.
Rorty proposes that each of us has a set of beliefs whose contingency we more or less ignore, which he dubs our "final vocabulary". One of the strong poet's greatest fears, according to Rorty, is that he will discover that he has been operating within someone else's final vocabulary all along; that he has not "self-created". It is his goal, therefore, to recontextualize the past that led to his historically contingent self, so that the past that defines him will be created by him, rather than creating him.
Your argument doesn't need to be good enough for me. It needs to be good enough for you.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 »

Alex wrote:
In a night time dream you seem to experience objects - they arent real right ? They are mind made - what if its the same with waking reality ?
The contents of a dream may or may not be real but the dream itself as the manifestation of a brain state is however very much real
If waking reality is mind dependent why would every functioning mind experience the same one instead of individually different ones
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
We were discussing whether languages are physical / material / ontological
Languages are conceptual frameworks for communicating thoughts between human beings
They originate with thoughts but manifest themselves physically with symbols [ written word ]
and speech [ spoken word ] And mathematics is also a language just like any other language is

Your wife is more linguistically advanced than Alexa is so therefore understands the subtlety of language much better than she does
Alexa is programmed to respond to an algorithm whereas your wife is not programmed at all even if they can both turn out the lights
Skepdick
Posts: 5014
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:10 pm
Skepdick wrote:
We were discussing whether languages are physical / material / ontological
Languages are conceptual frameworks for communicating thoughts between human beings
They originate with thoughts but manifest themselves physically with symbols [ written word ]
and speech [ spoken word ] And mathematics is also a language just like any other language is

Your wife is more linguistically advanced than Alexa is so therefore understands the subtlety of language much better than she does
Alexa is programmed to respond to an algorithm whereas your wife is not programmed at all even if they can both turn out the lights
None of that gets you any closer to comitting to the yes/no question.

Is language ontological ?

If you commit to "no" you are going to have to account for the causal aspect of non-ontological phenomenon which puts you squarely in the land of mysticism.

Trying to explain away contingencies in your belief system produces more contingencies.

Which is why we are seeing all of the mental gymnastics and deflections unfold.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders »

AlexW wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:55 am In a night time dream you seem to experience objects - they aren't real, right? They are "mind made" - what if its the same with waking "reality"?
Dreams and hallucinations are not "just made up" by the mind or anything else. The physical is all there is to be conscious of. When we are awake we are conscious of the physical by means of the entire neurological system. When asleep or when the neurological system is compromised by fever, drugs, or some other problem, what we are conscious of is still the physical, but the source is only that aspect of the neurological system which makes memory possible.

Memory is a physical function and one of the better understood functions of the brain. All that can be remembered, however, is what we are originally conscious of by direct perception. It is remembered material that dreams and hallucinations are made of.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:48 pm The contents of a dream may or may not be real but the dream itself as the manifestation of a brain state is however very much real
If waking reality is mind dependent why would every functioning mind experience the same one instead of individually different ones
That's very good.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:10 pm Languages are conceptual frameworks for communicating thoughts between human beings
Language is the human means to knowledge. Communication is a secondary use of language. One must know something before they can communicate it.

Not a criticism, just an observation.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:50 am Is language ontological ?
I'm going to answer this question because others may also be confused by it.

Ontology describes and identifies those aspects of existence which exist independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, whether anyone knows what its nature is or not. It is not contingent on anything else.

Without human beings there is no language, no knowledge, no science, no history, no art, no medicine, and no philosophy. They are all contingent on human beings for their existence. If it were possible for human beings to be eliminated from existence all of those things would not exist, and it would not matter.

Obviously, the answer to your question is: language is not ontological.

I think you may believe "ontological" means "existing." I blame all the crackpot philosophers for that. Metaphysics describes existence, which includes the ontological, as well as everything else that exists. Language might rightly be called metaphysical or "real," but it is not ontological or material.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
Is language ontological ?

If you commit to no you are going to have to account for the causal aspect of non ontological phenomenon
Language is not ontological because it is not a fundamental aspect of existence as it is conceptual rather than phenomenal
Concepts come from the phenomenal [ thoughts are produced by the brain ] but they are not regarded as being ontological

What exactly is non ontological phenomena ? It sounds like an oxymoron for is not all phenomena ontological by definition ?
So can you give an example of non ontological phenomena that actually exists and what prevents it from being ontological ?
Skepdick
Posts: 5014
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:48 pm Ontology describes and identifies those aspects of existence which exist independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, whether anyone knows what its nature is or not. It is not contingent on anything else.
Precisely! The software which runs your computer. The software which runs your phone. It exists. independently of your consciousness of it.

It's all language. And It's all ontological.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:48 pm Without human beings there is no language, no knowledge, no science, no history, no art, no medicine, and no philosophy. They are all contingent on human beings for their existence. If it were possible for human beings to be eliminated from existence all of those things would not exist, and it would not matter.
I agree with you. ALL KNOWLEDGE is created. Including ontological knowledge.
And if it were possible for human beings to be eliminated from existence then the very concept of "ontology" would be one of those things which goes with us.

Or as Quine answers the ontological question. What exists? Everything.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:48 pm I think you may believe "ontological" means "existing." I blame all the crackpot philosophers for that. Metaphysics describes existence, which includes the ontological, as well as everything else that exists. Language might rightly be called metaphysical or "real," but it is not ontological or material.
And I think you are a crackpot for thinking non-material things exist.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:30 pm And I think you are a crackpot for thinking non-material things exist.
I don't know why you think I care what you think, but you are not alone. A lot of people call me a crackpot.
Skepdick
Posts: 5014
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 2:42 pm I don't know why you think I care what you think, but you are not alone. A lot of people call me a crackpot.
You are a crackpot because you take philosophy seriously, ignoring the pragmatic nature of all distinctions.

Nothing personal.

Your taxonomy is only one of many conceptual schemes possible.
Skepdick
Posts: 5014
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Ultimate Reality

Post by Skepdick »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:46 am Language is not ontological because it is not a fundamental aspect of existence as it is conceptual rather than phenomenal
Concepts come from the phenomenal [ thoughts are produced by the brain ] but they are not regarded as being ontological
OK. Well - you've chosen to put your foot in your mouth.

How does a non-ontological phenomenon have measurable and empirical consequences?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:46 am What exactly is non ontological phenomena ? It sounds like an oxymoron for is not all phenomena ontological by definition ?
So can you give an example of non ontological phenomena that actually exists and what prevents it from being ontological ?
Isn't that what I am saying?!?!?!

If all phenomena are ontological then why are you saying that language isn't?
Post Reply