Adding insult to obfuscation does nothing to clarify your meaning or respond to my posting!

longknowledge

science does not have a monopoly on objectivity. It is not possible to tell whether ortega believes that space exists outside the body from what you have said of his scheme. ie that it is consistent with his scheme. Only that people 'think' there is space outside their body and that thought is consistent with his scheme.

1 To say that space outside the brain is consistent with ortega is very different to saying that

2 the belief in space is consistent with ortega.

I get the impression from you that statement 1 should be avoided rather than denied............. and the technique of avoidance is to always reword in terms of the statement 2, which is very different.

I guess in Portugal "insults" and "patronizing" have a different meaning than in the United States.

I sincerely wish you could indicate how your response has any bearing on my previous posting since you bothered to quote it in the first place.


:flowers:

To use pathfinder's example, as a person, I may experience a visual phenomenon that triggers a hypothesis that I am looking at the back of a woman, and I may even believe at that moment that my hypothesis is correct. But as a scientist I would want to collect more "data", that is have additional visual experiences to confirm or reject my hypothesis.

By the way, I've had several experiences of mistaking the gender of a person myself based on the visual phenomena of the type pathfinder describes, so I know that the hypotheses that occur to me are not always correct. However, both the visual phenomena and the hypotheses that occurred to me were part of my reality at the moment.

:flowers:

Originally Posted by Fil. Albuquerque
...That hypothesis that you thought through was correct given the data and perspective you had at the time...this perspective was allowed by the pan-object in the first place, given is Time\Space position in relation to the Whole, and specifically to yourself...it was but a function in the set of possible functions for the geometrical frame of any and all possible observations by other variables (things) or\and Subjects (Complex sub-System) in the Meta-System...

...an object reality (a function in the possible set of functions) multiplies as information of its condition travels in all directions through time and space, thus developing more perspective possibilities...its a pan-object...

...if a pan-object enters the mind of someone thus meeting a certain frame of need, its multi purpose information will be conditioned and restrained to the construction of a conceptual object who fits its owner frame of being and personnel circumstance of needing it in a given way...yet another possible appearance of the Meta-Object...

---------- Post added 03-13-2010 at 04:43 PM ----------

(...simply because I find those words anthropological self-centred "polluting" terms ultimately unnecessary, or with an hidden agenda...)

...Philosophy should not be about "Politics" or lobby scholar wars...

Science's so-called "objectivity" is based on the metaphysical assumption that there are "objects" that are part of a "physical reality" that is "external," to what is not always clear. This confusion is evident when you say first "outside the body" and then "outside the brain." However, both the body and the brain are considered by physicists to be part of so-called "physical reality" and therefore "external," again to what is not always clear.

In contrast, according to the phenomenological analysis performed by Ortega, "objects" are any phenomena that are "external" to the "subject," or the "I" that experiences them. But both the phenomena, the "objects," and the "I," the "subject," are "internal" to the "reality" that is "My Life." The term that Ortega uses for the aggregate of all the phenomena that the "I" experiences is "My Circumstance," indicating that these include all the phenomena experienced by "me." "My circumstance" includes all so-called "physical" phenomena, such as sensations, as well as so-called "mental" phenomena, such as ideas, dreams, etc.

Now so-called "cognitive" scientists posit that the sensations that we experience are caused by the posited "physical events" that exist in that "external" reality, that is also posited. However much evidence there is to justify this positing, it is still a positing. And since they distinguish between "physical" phenomena and "mental" phenomena, presumably "physical" phenomena exist "external" to the "mind."

As to "space," this concept is also a positing of the "location" of the "causes" of the "physical" phenomena that we experience, and we have seen that the meaning of this term has changed from the theories of Descartes and Newton to Einstein to those of the latest string theorists.

Ortega would say that the concept of "space," like all concepts, is a tool that human beings have used to explain the phenomena that occur to us, but that in the light of new data its usefulness may have become restricted.

:flowers:

Seems to me what Ortega is doing is defining EXIST. It is yet to be proven as to whether existence is a concept(invented in a mind via association or abstraction) or a discovered truth. .

First, can you give me an example of "an object reality (a function in the possible set of functions)," if possible in terms of the situation referred to by pathfinder, and an example of "information of its condition"?

How does the information of the condition of an object reality "travel"?

Where is the pan-object before it "enters the mind of someone"? Is this the same thing as the phenomenon known as a "thought occurring to someone"?

What is the mechanism by which a "pan-object" is "conditioned and restrained to the construction of a conceptual object who fits its owner's frame of being and personnel circumstance of needing it in a given way"?

What is the difference between a "pan-object" and a "Meta-Object"?

...I have answer this one already, but I can clarify... it is as potential logos, as an a priori set of possible functions to all potential receptors in the neighbourhood...yes has the thought occurring to someone...(this is why exactly I doubt the creativity of mind alone, or the term creativity at all, I find it dangerous and ultimately an unexplainable concept...Creativity ???)

.

That doesn't seem to me a hard question. The concept of existence is a concept, and we can often discover whether or not something exists. For instance, in the 19th century, we discovered that the planet Uranus exists.

longknowledge

As to "space," this concept is also a positing of the "location" of the "causes" of the "physical" phenomena that we experience, and we have seen that the meaning of this term has changed from the theories of Descartes and Newton to Einstein to those of the latest string theorists.

Ortega would say that the concept of "space," like all concepts, is a tool that human beings have used to explain the phenomena that occur to us, but that in the light of new data its usefulness may have become restricted.

Logos is the creative process, and learning is the infusion of the creative process with the individual mind. The mind can only learn through the process of learning, which is through language from the society; however, the society is made up of individual minds. Its quite an interesting circle.

Do black holes exist? If the answer is yes, then how we know they exist.

What difference does it make whether or not we know that other things exist, or how we know they do?

and that exactly illustrates the point i was making when i said ....

1 To say that space outside the brain is consistent with ortega is very different to saying that

2 the belief in space is consistent with ortega.

I get the impression from you that statement 1 should be avoided rather than denied............. and the technique of avoidance is to always reword in terms of the statement 2, which is very different.

I am aware that science is always positing all sorts of things, that are unfounded even by its own methods. fair enough. That includes space external to the body that encloses the brain.

But what i want to know is this. Is 1 (as compared to 2), consistent with ortega? I know 2 is, but i just cannot seem to get a confirmation or denial that 1 is consistent with ortega. IF SPACE EXISTS OUTSIDE THE BODY then does it undermine ortega, or make no difference? The reason i want to know is so that i can understand the possibilities within ortega's scheme. Is he rejecting space outside the brain as a fact (because it undermines his scheme), but insists that the belief in it is nevertheless a useful tool (and then perhaps goes on to say that there is so little difference between 1 and 2, that it is pointless to ask)?