Mathematics is an incorrect interpretation of a MESSAGE

[Walker]

...

Unlike you, I prefer to contemplate the concepts within a thread title, plus, I caught clues that meditation is in the air. These are the relevant topics of interest. Unless you're a gossip or a low-level teacher, the topics of interest are not roydop, not you, not me.


Therefore, I found a message in math that relates to human experience of the known, and the unknown, as a refutation to the thread-title premise. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed without having it spelled out.


In the long run, that portal into duality is the contemplative path to peace of mind, as distinct from the non-conceptual meditative path that leads to peace of mind that permits clear, steady contemplation.

A witness to another who is either in contemplation, or non-conceptual mediation, is likely to witness the same thing.


You may continue on with your whining about what others do. You have my permission, and it's obviously something you need to do, for whatever reason. However, I suggest you get with the program and contribute something relevant to philosophy, fella.

[Walker]

I didn’t watch roydop’s video.

TIme saved is time not wasted

A penny saved is a penny earned. I watched about two minutes of one of Roy's first posted videos of himself, posted on PN forums. I figure nothing's changed since then.

[Iwannaplato]

Unlike you, I prefer to contemplate the concepts within a thread title, plus, I caught clues that meditation is in the air. These are the relevant topics of interest. Unless you're a gossip or a low-level teacher, the topics of interest are not roydop, not you, not me.

We both focus on both people and topics, though here you couldn't even be bothered to read the topic, but you nevertheless want to make whining posts about me. And that you do both is clear in many of your posts to me, including the previous one and the one I am responding to here. And I notice you don't respond with this to Roydop who set the ball rolling in post 2 in this thread by insulting everyone because three days went by without a response. You might also notice that when Roydop is civil with me I discuss the substance of his post, as I have done on this topic in this or the other thread on this topic. IOW when some people make the focus on people, it doesn't matter to you. Even if they start the process and even more it is embedded in their approach. When others do, then you find interest in focusing on them.

So, your choices and what you focus on tells me more than your official position presented above. You don't actually have a problem with what a person takes as the focus. You are just another person defending team A and fighting team B.

You may continue on with your whining about what others do.

as you do.

You have my permission, and it's obviously something you need to do, for whatever reason.

Permission is an odd and irrelevant thing to bring up, but whining as you frame it is obviously something you need to do for whatever reason.

Along with jumping into discussions where you haven't even engaged with the actual topic.

However, I suggest you get with the program and contribute something relevant to philosophy, fella.

Which you've claimed to do but haven't in this thread. The afterthefact reference to meditation is also confused.

As said, when he's not insulting, I may critique him, but I do it on philosophical grounds, for example here....
viewtopic.php?p=624405#p624405

Notice that I read his linked document there'.

So, why don't you deal with your own hypocrisy.

But, as you would say, you have my permission (huh?) to go on entering discussions based on topics you haven't even read - despite the smarmy claim that this is what interests you - and whining about other people's behavior.

I may, of course, notice this and point it out.

[alan1000]

Mathematics is not the path of Truth, but of delusion

https://youtu.be/YU1_FKx_XH0

You seem to have enough faith in mathematics to post messages on the net, from where a great deal of highly-mathematical machine coding and programming is employed to reproduce your messages on our screens. Are you familiar with the binary numeric system, and it fundamental importance in computer science?

[Skepdick]

You seem to have enough faith in mathematics to post messages on the net, from where a great deal of highly-mathematical machine coding and programming is employed to reproduce your messages on our screens.

This is a philosophy forum. The pragmatic theory of truth (the one which equates Truth with Utility) is frowned upon.

It could be perhaps that the correspondence theory and the pragmatic theory serve verry different purposes.

The correspondence theory is about describing reality.
The pragmatic theory is about exploiting and interacting with it.

Are you familiar with the binary numeric system, and it fundamental importance in computer science?

Errr? What? Computation is not married to any particular number system.

You can do computations with a unary number system just fine, because every number-system is a computational theory.

[roydop]

I didn’t watch roydop’s video.

TIme saved is time not wasted

A penny saved is a penny earned. I watched about two minutes of one of Roy's first posted videos of himself, posted on PN forums. I figure nothing's changed since then.

You are correct. I still have no problems in life and spend most of my time abiding in/as Absolute Happiness

[promethean75]

Well I'm very sorry to hear that Roy and I hope that things get better for u.

[Iwannaplato]

This is a philosophy forum. The pragmatic theory of truth (the one which equates Truth with Utility) is frowned upon.

It is a philosophy forum, and it probably is generally frowned upon, I think, though I haven't seen that discussion taken up formally much. But given that it's a philosophy forum, it shouldn't be generally frowned upon, since philosophy itself has no particular stance on truth theories, and there seems to be some revival of pragmatic epistemology in philosophy.

It could be perhaps that the correspondence theory and the pragmatic theory serve verry different purposes.

The correspondence theory is about describing reality.
The pragmatic theory is about exploiting and interacting with it.

With the addd idea that describing reality isn't really knowing reality. Rather knowing is doing. And learning is doing. And knowledge is interactive ability, not some static 'the sentences in my brain match reality' which has alway struck me as an odd pride.

One horrific side effect of correspondence theory in philosophy discussions is the strange illusion that arguments lead to changes in belief, learning is through argument and accumulations of correct assertions - I mean, even such a clumpy field like pedagogical studies has known for decades that this is a bad way to teach children, for example, and has been trying to get teachers to move towards more problem-based learning approaches - and that if you can't demonstrate something with words on a screen then it isn't true.

[Skepdick]

It is a philosophy forum, and it probably is generally frowned upon, I think, though I haven't seen that discussion taken up formally much. But given that it's a philosophy forum, it shouldn't be generally frowned upon, since philosophy itself has no particular stance on truth theories, and there seems to be some revival of pragmatic epistemology in philosophy.

Prod and see for yourself.

Keep asking a (teleological) "why"? And observe the "philosophers" side-stepping the question with some vacuous rationalization.

With the addd idea that describing reality isn't really knowing reality. Rather knowing is doing. And learning is doing. And knowledge is interactive ability, not some static 'the sentences in my brain match reality' which has alway struck me as an odd pride.

Right. Preference for know-that over know-how is just another data-point towards the preference for the correspondence over the pragmatic theory.

One horrific side effect of correspondence theory in philosophy discussions is the strange illusion that arguments lead to changes in belief, learning is through argument and accumulations of correct assertions - I mean, even such a clumpy field like pedagogical studies has known for decades that this is a bad way to teach children, for example, and has been trying to get teachers to move towards more problem-based learning approaches - and that if you can't demonstrate something with words on a screen then it isn't true.

And yet... philosophy as practiced to this day is still structured around the practice of argumentation/arguing.

The whole field needs to rethink itself. Why? Because it doesn't work!

[Iwannaplato]

And yet... philosophy as practiced to this day is still structured around the practice of argumentation/arguing.

I don't think it's a problem, per se, that this is used. It's that it's viewed as THE way to learn/demonstrate. That's a real problem.

The whole field needs to rethink itself. Why? Because it doesn't work!

I think it's a bit like the film critics are making most of the films. If we look at the philosophers whose work lasts, they have these wild texts, at least many of them. They can be probing, exploratory, aphorisitic, Socratic, speculative and showing quite a bit of Deleuze's idea that

“philosophy is the discipline that involves creating concepts” .”
― Gilles Deleuze, What Is Philosophy?

[Agent Smith]

I intelligo ... how do we correctly interpret this so-called numerical message