The Real is Rational

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 08:57 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;150370 wrote:
In a sense, i can understand how you can be wrong. I mean, for 2000 years of mathematics from the Greek onward, the notion of "approximate infinite" is embraced, while the notion of "complete infinite" is laugh at. It is only in the light of Georg Cantor that complete infinite is revealed.

I am telling you that it is common to think of the entire set of integers all at once in contemporary mathematics. When people say Z( or the set of integers), they mean that as an infinite set. In fact, it is Cantor that developed a whole need area of mathematics know as set theory, and the theory of transfinite numbers.






This is ridiculous. If you don ` t believe there is an external world, then you don ` t believe i exist, or that the computer in front of you is really there. You can say they are all models, but a model has to be a model of something( which is not a model ). What you say here is very counterintuitive, and contradictory.

Philosophy is not a matter of belief as theology is... So what if we believe things exist beyond our sight exist??? We cannot properly conceive of infinites whether they be moral realities,or physical realities of great magnitude.. All of our concepts do not exactly reflect our realites, but only approximate the reality; but if we take some unknown, like time, or existence and project upon it what we know and with what we know presume we know all, then we do not talk sense of it, but only judge our own ignorance... It is pitiful...

We might learn and know -were we not so demanding of certainty without troubling to learn or know...Every concept should be a judgement of what we know, and should not be a demonstration of our ignorance... We cannot know of infinites...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 02:41 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;150494 wrote:
Correspondence is used to establish two sets with the same size as the natural numbers. He assumes the size of the natural integers to be infinite, and show that one can construct any higher order infinite by taking the power set of the set in question. The issue is directly related to the issue of infinites, because transfinite numbers are "complete infinities".

Yes, I know. I understand this. And it's beautiful. But this is a mathematical sort of infinity. It's similar to an infinite series. He only has to prove that correspondence is possible in theory. Because the set is infinite, no human could ever actually correspond the numbers one by one. And yes I understand power sets. Cantor is actually not that hard to understand, compared to some other mathematicians. Of course, I think he's great. Simplicity is part of the beauty.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 03:48 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;150494 wrote:

I am just trying to help you out. You most likely think you are talking sense, but you might not be. How might "concepts be limited"? Perhaps you mean "we can only have one concept at a time". We might have a concept of infinity, but it does not follow that infinity is finite , because that would be a contradiction, brother.

Like I said, man, it's a paradoxical concept, just like Kant's noumena. Are you familiar with this, or with the transcendental analytic? Honesty, I think you are missing what for me is the most crucial point, which is the nature of concept qua concept. Concepts are unities, essences. This makes them essentially finite. To the degree that we can use the concept noumena or infinity, we are dealing neither with noumena or infinity.

I'm sure you're a smart guy. The fact that you know Cantor is something I can respect and appreciate. But there is some magic in Kant and Hegel that one cannot get from Cantor or from mathematics in general. Logos and mathema are related but different at certain crucial points.

Believe me or not. That's your concern. But for me, the Hegel-Kant point is quite clear, but hard to express, exactly because it is a radical and beautiful point. Negative ontology/theology is as sublime as the math of Cantor. (Euler is my hero at the moment.)

Are you familiar with this book? I think it's a crucial book, if you truly care to understand my position. Critique of Practical Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think Hegel corrected some of its mistakes/limitations, but Kant opened the door. IMO, Hegel pretty much wrapped philosophy in the grand sense. The rest has been pragmatism. And the pragmatists are just renegade Hegelians.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 03:52 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;150494 wrote:

You said something about concepts are organized in a certain way. What organize the concepts? Is just another concept? if so, how does a concept organize other concepts?

Is a table a concept? Are numbers concepts? Do they have to be part of a mind?


We could use tree as a metaphor for concepts. "Animal" breaks down to cat, dog, mouse, etc. And each of these less-abstract concepts get us closer to the qualia. Dogs and cats reduce further to certain breeds. At some point we are using a proper name for our pet.

A concept like abstraction is the set that includes other sets, to speak in math terms. Hegel used the word Begriff. He thought of concepts as integrated into a system, as indeed they are. Infinity is the negation of finite. Negative prefixes have generally been crucial for philosophy. Ab-solute. Im-material. Unmoved mover. E-ternal. Etc.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 03:57 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;150494 wrote:

Is a table a concept? Are numbers concepts? Do they have to be part of a mind?


Let's use an example. If Frank sees a table, he sees a object, a singular entity. In physics terms, there is no real boundary between table and non-table. In qualia terms, it's just a blob of sensations amidst sensations. It's the concept that allows us to perceive the table as a table, as a singular object. THis touches the old old problem of universals. Problem of universals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The mind/matter dichotomy is also an old problem, but I think Hegel hacked it. There is no short-cut to seeing his argument. Not really. Subject is substance. He talks of this in the phenomenology. To merely say that all is one or that all is geist is a cheap and empty idealism. One must think it out, systematically. Hegel thought of himself as scientist. Sure, he made mistakes, but his essence is sound and sublime. I feel that Wittgenstein came to the same conclusions, but expressed it more tersely, and yet more obliquely.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 03:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo wrote:
Yes, I know. I understand this. And it's beautiful. But this is a mathematical sort of infinity. It's similar to an infinite series. He only has to prove that correspondence is possible in theory. Because the set is infinite, no human could ever actually correspond the numbers one by one. And yes I understand power sets. Cantor is actually not that hard to understand, compared to some other mathematicians. Of course, I think he's great. Simplicity is part of the beauty.


can you stop talking about "beautiful". What matters is if it is relevant, or not. It is relevant if you talk about "complete infinities". Here is my argument:

P1. We can understand, and grasp transfinite numbers.
P2. Transfinite numbers are "complete infinities".
-------------------------------------------------------
C: We can understand, and grasp "complete infinities".

This a valid argument, so if P1, and P2 is true, then C must also be true.

Quote:
Concepts are unities, essences.


Explain this to me. Essence is mostly applied to "kinds", or "concrete objects"


My feeling is that you don ` t really know what you are talking about. You can prove me wrong.
Quote:



I'm sure you're a smart guy. The fact that you know Cantor is something I can respect and appreciate. But there is some magic in Kant and Hegel that one cannot get from Cantor or from mathematics in general. Logos and mathema are related but different at certain crucial points.

Believe me or not. That's your concern. But for me, the Hegel-Kant point is quite clear, but hard to express, exactly because it is a radical and beautiful point. Negative ontology/theology is as sublime as the math of Cantor. (Euler is my hero at the moment.)

Are you familiar with this book? I think it's a crucial book, if you truly care to understand my position. Critique of Practical Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think Hegel corrected some of its mistakes/limitations, but Kant opened the door. IMO, Hegel pretty much wrapped philosophy in the grand sense. The rest has been pragmatism. And the pragmatists are just renegade Hegelians
.



It seems you have no substance at all. You know the names of people, and you know what they show, but can you articulate it? No. Can you give me their arguments? No. Essentially, you are like the rest of the population. Most people admire Einstein, but they hardly know a god damn thing about what he did.

Quote:
We could use tree as a metaphor for concepts. "Animal" breaks down to cat, dog, mouse, etc. And each of these less-abstract concepts get us closer to the qualia. Dogs and cats reduce further to certain breeds. At some point we are using a proper name for our pet.

A concept like abstraction is the set that includes other sets, to speak in math terms. Hegel used the word Begriff. He thought of concepts as integrated into a system, as indeed they are. Infinity is the negation of finite. Negative prefixes have generally been crucial for philosophy. Ab-solute. Im-material. Unmoved mover. E-ternal. Etc.


Engineers have a concept of the design of an airplane. Qualia is the subjective feeling when a conscious agent does something. How are they related? How is mathematical concepts related to Qualia?

Quote:
Let's use an example. If Frank sees a table, he sees a object, a singular entity. In physics terms, there is no real boundary between table and non-table. In qualia terms, it's just a blob of sensations amidst sensations. It's the concept that allows us to perceive the table as a table, as a singular object. THis touches the old old problem of universals. Problem of universals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



1. You said having sensation about a table, but sensation can only having meaning if there is someone to have the sensation in the first place.

2. You said that concepts is what allow us to perceive the table.

3. There had to be someone to have the concepts of the table( 1, and 2).

4. For someone to perceive the table, then the table must be separate from the agent that does the perceiving. ( from 2)

5. The table is part of the external world( from 4).

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 04:51 PM ----------

Fido;150532 wrote:
Philosophy is not a matter of belief as theology is... So what if we believe things exist beyond our sight exist??? We cannot properly conceive of infinites whether they be moral realities,or physical realities of great magnitude.. All of our concepts do not exactly reflect our realites, but only approximate the reality; but if we take some unknown, like time, or existence and project upon it what we know and with what we know presume we know all, then we do not talk sense of it, but only judge our own ignorance... It is pitiful...

We might learn and know -were we not so demanding of certainty without troubling to learn or know...Every concept should be a judgement of what we know, and should not be a demonstration of our ignorance... We cannot know of infinites...



Let ` s be specific. We do know sets with infinite cardinalities. we know that the numbers 1, 2, 3.... will continue on without end. How am i wrong when i claim:

1. we can know complete infinities.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:02 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;150605 wrote:
can you stop talking about "beautiful". What matters is if it is relevant, or not. It is relevant if you talk about "complete infinities". Here is my argument:

P1. We can understand, and grasp transfinite numbers.
P2. Transfinite numbers are "complete infinities".
-------------------------------------------------------
C: We can understand, and grasp "complete infinities".

This a valid argument, so if P1, and P2 is true, then C must also be true.



Explain this to me. Essence is mostly applied to "kinds", or "concrete objects"


My feeling is that you don ` t really know what you are talking about. You can prove me wrong. .



It seems you have no substance at all. You know the names of people, and you know what they show, but can you articulate it? No. Can you give me their arguments? No. Essentially, you are like the rest of the population. Most people admire Einstein, but they hardly know a god damn thing about what he did.



Engineers have a concept of the design of an airplane. Qualia is the subjective feeling when a conscious agent does something. How are they related? How is mathematical concepts related to Qualia?




1. You said having sensation about a table, but sensation can only having meaning if there is someone to have the sensation in the first place.

2. You said that concepts is what allow us to perceive the table.

3. There had to be someone to have the concepts of the table( 1, and 2).

4. For someone to perceive the table, then the table must be separate from the agent that does the perceiving. ( from 2)

5. The table is part of the external world( from 4).


I don't think you have the background to grasp what I'm saying. I mention names to honor the thinkers who have educated me. There's no short cut. If you think mentioning Kant is just name-dropping, I can't have a serious conversation with you. Not yet, anyway. Math is recent obsession. Philosophy has been my obsession for years now, and I have put the time in. It's that simple. Hegel is some difficult but brilliant stuff. To the degree that I understand Euler, Hegel is the Euler of philosophy. And yes it's going to sound strange. If you had a friendlier spirit about it, I would go to great lengths to make myself understood. But if this is just a d*ck-measuring contest, you don't really want to get my point. And implying any sort of insult is hardly going to motivate me, as it's an understatement to say that I don't need your understanding or approval to get on with life.(But this applies to anyone and everyone, so no insult is intended) No doubt, you're a sharp guy. I salute you for that. But have a little humility if you don't know Kant, because that's the equivalent of not knowing exponents or negative numbers in math-land. Philosophy has developed like any other human pursuit.. It's not just chatter, despite all the pretenders. And maybe we all start down the path as pretenders, for maybe ego drives us on.
I've been through the unfriendly argument phase already on this forum, and decided it was a waste. Not that we are at war, but still: the tone isn't right. And maybe I am guilty myself of a little arrogance. If so, I apologize. Perhaps we should take a break from this for now, and return to it later. I urge you to examine Kant's transcendental analytic, as it is crucial. Also his noumena. Unless you grasp these concepts (as I am sure you can), my points will indeed sound strange, maybe empty or silly. But then so did negative numbers and even zero at one point.

Please don't mistake this as some sort of weakness. I'm sure we both know quite well how to play the a**hole. I'm just trying to get beyond that, as I want this forum to be an entirely positive experience when I log on. After all, this is an expenditure of free time, and that is my favorite resource, excepting the health to enjoy it. Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:34 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;150605 wrote:




1. You said having sensation about a table, but sensation can only having meaning if there is someone to have the sensation in the first place.

2. You said that concepts is what allow us to perceive the table.

3. There had to be someone to have the concepts of the table( 1, and 2).

4. For someone to perceive the table, then the table must be separate from the agent that does the perceiving. ( from 2)

5. The table is part of the external world( from 4).

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 04:51 PM ----------




.


Is a table a concept? Are numbers concepts? Do they have to be part of a mind?

And if you ask him once again, is a table a concept, he will not reply to the question, he will simply spew the same gobbledygook (perhaps is a different form) he spewed previously. He cannot deal with cognition, only with feelings. And he deals with it by creating word salads.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 04:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo wrote:
I don't think you have the background to grasp what I'm saying. I mention names to honor the thinkers who have educated me. There's no short cut. If you think mentioning Kant is just name-dropping, I can't have a serious conversation with you. Not yet, anyway. Math is recent obsession. Philosophy has been my obsession for years now, and I have put the time in. It's that simple. Hegel is some difficult but brilliant stuff. To the degree that I understand Euler, Hegel is the Euler of philosophy. And yes it's going to sound strange.



What do i not get about Kant? I do know the difference between noumenon, and phenomena. According to Kant, our mind have built-in basic categories like space, time, spatial dimension that are built into our cognitive process that allow us to organize the incoming sense data. E.g: We can only imagine things being located in space, but space itself is not out there "in the world", but is a cognitive categories that help us organizes any coming information.

The German idealism comes in when stupid German philosophers start to doubt the need for a noumenon.

What exactly do i not know? Like i said before. You have no substance. You cannot articulate your views, and you don` t know the arguments concerning those views. Instead of focusing on the topic, all you seem to be concern with is on issue unrelated to the issue. Good for you.

Quote:
To the degree that I understand Euler, Hegel is the Euler of philosophy.


I frankly do not care if you know eular, or not. I am not impressed. You want to compare dick size, metaphorically specking, but i don` t. I have enough confidence.


Quote:
Please don't mistake this as some sort of weakness. I'm sure we both know quite well how to play the a**hole. I'm just trying to get beyond that, as I want this forum to be an entirely positive experience when I log on. After all, this is an expenditure of free time, and that is my favorite resource, excepting the health to enjoy it.


There is nothing emotional about it. If you cannot stand the heat, then don ` t engage in philosophy. As you can tell, i don ` t sweet talk, and i have zero tolerance for bullshit. You respect me by being intellectual honest.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 05:01 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;150620 wrote:
W
There is nothing emotional about it. If you cannot stand the heat, then don ` t engage in philosophy. As you can tell, i don ` t sweet talk, and i have zero tolerance for bullshit. You respect me by being intellectual honest.


Please don't mistake this as some sort of weakness. I'm sure we both know quite well how to play the a**hole. I'm just trying to get beyond that, as I want this forum to be an entirely positive experience when I log on. After all, this is an expenditure of free time, and that is my favorite resource, excepting the health to enjoy it.

What he is really saying is that any kind of critical thinking about these matters makes him unhappy since he cannot deal with it. So, don't do it. Just accept what he writes (whatever it means) and return some uncritical nonsense of your own. Why he thinks this way only he knows (perhaps).
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 05:02 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;150617 wrote:
Is a table a concept? Are numbers concepts? Do they have to be part of a mind?

And if you ask him once again, is a table a concept, he will not reply to the question, he will simply spew the same gobbledygook (perhaps is a different form) he spewed previously. He cannot deal with cognition, only with feelings. And he deals with it by creating word salads.


I don` t understand his attitude. I just was just trying to help him, but he keeps on making tangents.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 06:12 PM ----------

kennethamy;150624 wrote:
Please don't mistake this as some sort of weakness. I'm sure we both know quite well how to play the a**hole. I'm just trying to get beyond that, as I want this forum to be an entirely positive experience when I log on. After all, this is an expenditure of free time, and that is my favorite resource, excepting the health to enjoy it.

What he is really saying is that any kind of critical thinking about these matters makes him unhappy since he cannot deal with it. So, don't do it. Just accept what he writes (whatever it means) and return some uncritical nonsense of your own. Why he thinks this way only he knows (perhaps).


I am completely open to all points of view. I am not trying to mislead the guy to proving a point. I want to see his view from a more critical point of view, so that i can learn something about it myself. In any view, internal consistency is necessary for meaningful discussion. There is intuition in formulating a hypothesis, but analysis, and rigor is unemotional.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 07:20 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
All this is too funny...

"If you don't understand what I am saying.....here.....let me *drop* a name for ya...How about "Einstein"! That should make it clear!"
 
north
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 07:46 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;142396 wrote:
I struggled with this line at first. How is the real rational, when we are always still figuring out what reality is?


lack of depth of thought

Quote:
It now makes perfect sense to me, so I'm sharing my view on it, and encouraging a friendly discussion on the matter. Here's my view on it.


here we go

Quote:
The world as we know it is structured by human concept.


first mistake

if so ( not really ) then explain how the " Human concept " created the world with no knowledge on how anything works , from algae too galaxies
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 07:51 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
turing: (next time try not to steal a name you are unworthy of)

u = pretentious little d-bag. game over. welcome to ignore.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 08:52 PM ----------

north:

i have no time for little toadies, either. later, chump. join your master on my ignore list.
 
north
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 07:59 pm
@Reconstructo,
PM ----------

north:

Quote:
i have no time for little toadies, either. later, chump. join your master on my ignore list.


fine then in this thread we will no longer hear from you , no skin off my back
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 08:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
to re-open the perennial can-of-worms, the idea about representation being representaton of something indicates that the person making the argument doesn't really grasp the profound meaning of 'representation'. And indeed it is a difficult thing to grasp.

So - the naive idea is that we have 'the world' or 'objects', and then 'the perceiving subject' in whose mind 'the objects' are 'represented' by the likes of a 'concept' or 'an idea'.

If I were to say that there is no reality apart from the representation, the objection would be 'that is ridiculous. Are you saying the object is inside my mind'?

I think the way consciousness actually works is that it synthesizes sensory input and then arrays it in (as we acknowledged) our internally-generated sense of space-and-time. But it does much else besides that. It places it in sequence and in relation to other things, internally and externally. It makes judgements about it both in visual terms and 'what it means to me' and so on. This is the engine of consciousness. It is the result of a multi-billion year evolutionary process. We have the most sophisticated VR engine in the entire universe between our ears. So the fact that it can do this ought not to be trivialized.

Now this simulation is what the nature of human reality is. Whenever you appeal to 'the moon' or some object 'outside' us, you are nevertheless indicating something of which you and I can both appropriate as an object of experience and array as part of our collective VR environment.

So this idea of 'representation' is not nearly so obvious (or clueless) as many make it sound. The idea that it is saying that 'objects only exist within your mind' is also a representation. In that sense, everything is a representation. But it doesn't mean that it is an illusion or a phantasm in any gross or obvious sense. What I think it means, is that it is not what we take it to be. And for the time being, that is enough meaning to impute to the idea of the representation.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:00 pm
@Reconstructo,
What would reality be like, devoid of its intelligible structure? No objects. No relations between objects. No names. No thoughts. Nothing but a chaos of sensation. Utterly meaningless sound-light-feelies. I would say that you could call this real, but to name it is already to make it rational. Not in the numerical ratio sense, but in the sense of logical. To introduce concept is also to introduce reality. All that we can speak of as real, is already rational. But this is not the happy adjective rational that we use to praise prudence. This is just rational in the sense of structured-by-thought. And it's my contention that even a table is only a table because a concept organizes the sensations thereby associated. As we get to more complex notions like human identity, which indeed are quite real for us, we are especially deep in the rational. We live in abstractions. The intelligible structure of the world exists for us as a system of concepts AND as qualia, but this statement is swallowed up by the same system it tries to name. In my avatar, qualia are symbolized by the infinity sign. And the minus sign symbolizes the transcendental unity function. It creates an object by designating non-object. (Addition is subtraction, here, because it's not math but logic.) We can never speak of qualia minus thought, nor could we have generated thought w/o a world of qualia. As our logos is metaphorical at the root.

The plus sign symbolizes logos, and in this context, self-conscious logos, that understands itself as the collision of qualia and form of forms (transcendental unity). In terms of the trinity, only the son is real (logos), but the son deduces the peanut butter and jelly he is made of. Accident and essence. Qualia and unity/negation. :sarcastic:

Or Quality and Quantity.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:04 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;150659 wrote:
to re-open the perennial can-of-worms, the idea about representation being representaton of something indicates that the person making the argument doesn't really grasp the profound meaning of 'representation'. And indeed it is a difficult thing to grasp.


How so? If I have a representation of the moon, then what I am representing is the moon.

jeeprs;150659 wrote:
So - the naive idea is that we have 'the world' or 'objects', and then 'the perceiving subject' in whose mind 'the objects' are 'represented' by the likes of a 'concept' or 'an idea'.


Why is this "naive"? Is there a "less naive" way of looking at the matter?

jeeprs;150659 wrote:
If I were to say that there is no reality apart from the representation, the objection would be 'that is ridiculous. Are you saying the object is inside my mind'?
So this idea of 'representation' is not nearly so obvious (or clueless) as many make it sound. The idea that it is saying that 'objects only exist within your mind' is also a representation. In that sense, everything is a representation. But it doesn't mean that it is an illusion or a phantasm in any gross or obvious sense. What I think it means, is that it is not what we take it to be. And for the time being, that is enough meaning to impute to the idea of the representation.


"Objects exist only the mind"--says exactly that--"objects exist only in the mind." It doesn't mean the object exists both inside and outside the mind. That doesn't make sense.

"There is no reality outside the mind"--says exactly that--"there is no reality outside the mind" It doesn't mean reality exists both inside and outside the mind. That doesn't make sense.

Representations exist in the mind. But why should objects? And why should "reality" be only in the mind?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:06 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;150659 wrote:
to re-open the perennial can-of-worms, the idea about representation being representaton of something indicates that the person making the argument doesn't really grasp the profound meaning of 'representation'. And indeed it is a difficult thing to grasp.

So - the naive idea is that we have 'the world' or 'objects', and then 'the perceiving subject' in whose mind 'the objects' are 'represented' by the likes of a 'concept' or 'an idea'.

If I were to say that there is no reality apart from the representation, the objection would be 'that is ridiculous. Are you saying the object is inside my mind'?

I think the way consciousness actually works is that it synthesizes sensory input and then arrays it in (as we acknowledged) our internally-generated sense of space-and-time. But it does much else besides that. It places it in sequence and in relation to other things, internally and externally. It makes judgements about it both in visual terms and 'what it means to me' and so on. This is the engine of consciousness. It is the result of a multi-billion year evolutionary process. We have the most sophisticated VR engine in the entire universe between our ears. So the fact that it can do this ought not to be trivialized.

Now this simulation is what the nature of human reality is. Whenever you appeal to 'the moon' or some object 'outside' us, you are nevertheless indicating something of which you and I can both appropriate as an object of experience and array as part of our collective VR environment.

So this idea of 'representation' is not nearly so obvious (or clueless) as many make it sound. The idea that it is saying that 'objects only exist within your mind' is also a representation. In that sense, everything is a representation. But it doesn't mean that it is an illusion or a phantasm in any gross or obvious sense. What I think it means, is that it is not what we take it to be. And for the time being, that is enough meaning to impute to the idea of the representation.


Yes indeed. Thanks. And while the pragmatic deduction of an objective world "outside" us is entirely justified, from a practical and pragmatic point of view, the thing-in-itself of Kant is actually still part of the "model" or "representation" from a strict philosophical/logical point of view. But if we abolish the noumena, we have transcended both idealism and realism. The portrait and the face are one. Substance is subject. Smile
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:15 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;150661 wrote:
The plus sign symbolizes logos, and in this context, self-conscious logos, that understands itself as the collision of qualia and form of forms (transcendental unity). In terms of the trinity, only the son is real (logos), but the son deduces the peanut butter and jelly he is made of. Accident and essence. Qualia and unity/negation.

Or Quality and Quantity.

???

gbu;ukgsdife9433fb4f
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:22 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;150605 wrote:
can you stop talking about "beautiful". What matters is if it is relevant, or not. It is relevant if you talk about "complete infinities". Here is my argument:

P1. We can understand, and grasp transfinite numbers.
P2. Transfinite numbers are "complete infinities".
-------------------------------------------------------
C: We can understand, and grasp "complete infinities".

This a valid argument, so if P1, and P2 is true, then C must also be true.



Explain this to me. Essence is mostly applied to "kinds", or "concrete objects"


My feeling is that you don ` t really know what you are talking about. You can prove me wrong. .



It seems you have no substance at all. You know the names of people, and you know what they show, but can you articulate it? No. Can you give me their arguments? No. Essentially, you are like the rest of the population. Most people admire Einstein, but they hardly know a god damn thing about what he did.



Engineers have a concept of the design of an airplane. Qualia is the subjective feeling when a conscious agent does something. How are they related? How is mathematical concepts related to Qualia?




1. You said having sensation about a table, but sensation can only having meaning if there is someone to have the sensation in the first place.

2. You said that concepts is what allow us to perceive the table.

3. There had to be someone to have the concepts of the table( 1, and 2).

4. For someone to perceive the table, then the table must be separate from the agent that does the perceiving. ( from 2)

5. The table is part of the external world( from 4).

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 04:51 PM ----------




Let ` s be specific. We do know sets with infinite cardinalities. we know that the numbers 1, 2, 3.... will continue on without end. How am i wrong when i claim:

1. we can know complete infinities.

We presume of numbers what we must know is false about humanity.... We will some day end, so our numbers will too...And, you only have one number added infinitely to make all other numbers....As Aristiltle said, they numbers are all in some ratio with one; never the less, infintiy is assumed and not proved...

Let me reply some to the above... We do not need conceps to perceive reality. Every concept is a judgement, and knowledge is judgement... We do not need our concepts to perceive reality, but to recognize things in reaity, and to inform us of their nature...If the concept is truthful, and it informs us of the natture of the object, then the concept captures the esssence of the object...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:25 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;150670 wrote:
???

gbu;ukgsdife9433fb4f


Ok, so I waxed poetic. But I've written so much about this on this forum that I can't resist a new metaphor now and then.

Do you know this concept? Qualia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, the other part is asking yourself how this qualia junk is structured.
This is a simple starting point. Immanuel Kant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 10:27 PM ----------

Fido;150672 wrote:
..As Aristiltle said, they numbers are all in some ratio with one; never the less, infintiy is assumed and not proved...


Yes, potential infinity, which is really all we can process, even if we can satisfactorily prove theorems concerning such. An as you say, ratios in relation to the one. The one is the crux of it all.

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 10:30 PM ----------

Fido;150672 wrote:
... We do not need our concepts to perceive reality, but to recognize things in reaity, and to inform us of their nature..


Would you agree that an error is reality for the erroneous, while they remain in error? A man with an inaccurate concept will get a bloody nose, etc., and therefore edit his concept. I would just stress that the structure of reality and the concept are one and the same(IMO). I agree that we can perceive reality without concept, but never truly speak of it. As all meaningful speech is conceptual/rational. What think ye?

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 10:32 PM ----------

Fido;150672 wrote:
then the concept captures the esssence of the object...


What do you think about equating the concept and the essence? Is there a difference?
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 09:33 pm
@Fido,
Fido;150672 wrote:
We presume of numbers what we must know is false about humanity.... We will some day end, so our numbers will too...And, you only have one number added infinitely to make all other numbers....As Aristiltle said, they numbers are all in some ratio with one; never the less, infintiy is assumed and not proved...


So 2+2=4 is true now, but becomes false when we die because numbers cease to exist?

Fido;150672 wrote:
Every concept is a judgement, and knowledge is judgement...


The concept denoted by "Red" is a "judgement"? That's not right. Concepts are not judgments; rather, we make judgments using concepts.

"Knowledge" is a judgment? John has knowledge that Obama is the President. So John's knowledge is a "judgment"? That's not right.

John can still have knowledge that X, but not pass the judgement that X.
Likewise, John can make the judgment that X, without knowing that X.

Fido;150672 wrote:
We do not need our concepts to perceive reality, but to recognize things in reaity, and to inform us of their nature...


true.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 12/04/2024 at 04:36:40