Philosophy Now Forum

Consider some fish in a tank. Assume they have some primitive concepts like food, world, other fish, etc. Concepts they surely don't have are space-time curvature, speed of light, momentum, etc., i.e. the concepts physicists use to explain our world. And they will never have those concepts. So how can we determine that we are not like the fish in a tank? Sure our concepts are way way more advanced. But how do we know if our concepts are literally not nearly enough to figure things out? There could be concepts that are so far in advance of our current knowledge as to be like our concept of space-time is to some fish concept.

didn't work for Dukakis...

-Imp

Wait.... you think a fish has a concept of world? And you think the concept of world is pretty basic?

You clearly have no idea the brutal evolution that concept has in the history of philosophy, we went all over the place with it. One of the hardest problems I have in Greek is trying to figure out from various translation of authors what Aristotle was saying or a Stoic, pre Socratic, or later thinker was mumbling on about when referring to a world or cosmos or universe. Absolute pain in the ass, cause nobody agrees. Also the very different approaches to mapping both in visual maps and in periplus, how you calculate the size of things, including the universe.

This is one hell of a fish.

Many humans are still at the fish level, which is why we still have religion.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:19 am Many humans are still at the fish level, which is why we still have religion.

That's rather condescending towards the atheists isn't it?

Reality is a convoluted apparition of the truth..
We are like fish in a tank, the vast majority of humans are not aware that 'God' exists and is the backbone to all dimensions. (from > 20yrs of experience of this entity.)

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:16 am Wait.... you think a fish has a concept of world? And you think the concept of world is pretty basic?

You clearly have no idea the brutal evolution that concept has in the history of philosophy, we went all over the place with it. One of the hardest problems I have in Greek is trying to figure out from various translation of authors what Aristotle was saying or a Stoic, pre Socratic, or later thinker was mumbling on about when referring to a world or cosmos or universe. Absolute pain in the ass, cause nobody agrees. Also the very different approaches to mapping both in visual maps and in periplus, how you calculate the size of things, including the universe.

This is one hell of a fish.

One reason is because axioms, as measurement systems, synthesize through a form of modal realism.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:19 am Many humans are still at the fish level, which is why we still have religion.

That's rather condescending towards the atheists isn't it?

I rather walked into that one

Animals can think axiomatically, they just can't communicate it very well. I suspect when fish swim in schools (is it written schools, skools?) they have a bit to learn, even if much of it is instinctive based of the sensitivity of the pressure or electricity on the scales (I'm no marine biologist).

But the axiomatic awareness of a Octopus must be much higher. They are down there screwing around with all sorts of things.... and some do have some impressive language capacity in display. I'm guessing they can attain the same lever of communication that silent hunters can, or police forces when moving and communicating in silence.... when no agreed on terms for hand signals exist. If you wipe the concept of hand signals, just people watching one another, playing off one another, till the formation goes right..... then you may develop axiomatically.

I don't think the results however will ever approach them operating in unison like Ascepciodotus (largely forgotten philosopher) imagined abstract silly phalanx movements doing.... but they might learn from one another basic ways to avoid predators or get food.

Bears can rarely do this, but all bears speak Russian so that is probably why they are so stupid. A Octopus speaks a higher language (Japanese) so is capable of great things.... probably.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:44 am Cognitive closure

I agree with this. We need to evolve further.

Wow, talk about missing the point. Did anyone actually read my post? Hasn't anyone done thought experiments before? Geesh. Any serious people here that want to discuss my OP? I'm talking about how we know the limits of our own knowledge about the world by considering an analogy with fish in a tank.

Sorry Rustybert, to repent, I'm heading out behind the shed with a shotgun to kill myself. May better thinkers soon replace us here in this thread. Let's make it a collective suicide pack to make it up for Rusty.

Goodbye world.

RustyBert wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:39 pm Consider some fish in a tank. Assume they have some primitive concepts like food, world, other fish, etc. Concepts they surely don't have are space-time curvature, speed of light, momentum, etc., i.e. the concepts physicists use to explain our world. And they will never have those concepts. So how can we determine that we are not like the fish in a tank?

Hi RustyBert,

Although I have different metaphors for what you are implying, some of us have indeed determined that we are like fish in a tank – a great big round one as depicted below...



...with us swimming around on the inside, unable to see above and beyond the tank itself.

RustyBert wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:39 pm Sure our concepts are way way more advanced. But how do we know if our concepts are literally not nearly enough to figure things out?

They aren’t, because we haven’t.

RustyBert wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:39 pm There could be concepts that are so far in advance of our current knowledge as to be like our concept of space-time is to some fish concept.

To some of us, your statement above pretty much goes without saying. And anyone who doubts it is simply demonstrating the problem you are attempting to highlight by revealing their fish tank mentality.
_______

How do you know that is the case, what if they did figure it out and you just can't see it? You gotta acknowledge the possibility someone somewhere can solve the problem, even if you can't tell if they did or not.

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:35 am How do you know that is the case, what if they did figure it out and you just can't see it?

Figured what out?

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:35 am You gotta acknowledge the possibility someone somewhere can solve the problem, even if you can't tell if they did or not.

Solve what problem?
_______