Well, all the words that I use are in the dictionary.
I don't understand why you are arguing with me about my usage of language. I thought that you asked a respectful question (hence the response) and asked for information so that you may understand. Now you appear to be getting argumentative, why? Do you think that I'm being dishonest? That I would take all this time crafting meaningful and thoughtful responses just to promote some ego image game, or downright lie?
Whats really going on?

I'll answer this one question, until I feel better about continuing;


The definition that I offered for a rock varied from (and improved upon) the notion of a rock as presented in a dictionary of your choice. As the definition varied/added to the dictionary, the 'rock' that I am presenting is not the same notion of a rock as found in the dictionary. It is a whole different critter. That was the reason for the semi-quotes around the 'rock' that I was describing.
Perhaps you might consuly the dictionary regarding commonly accepted usages for the semi-quote. Perhaps that might help. That would cover much of what you ask. And we are off on a tangent hi-way anyway. I feel that I have sufficiently put forth effort to aid the understanding of someone who wishes to understand. I don't mind elucidating, but I need justify myself to no man.
And, with that, my discussion on my usage of language. I hope that you can get past the irritants, to the meat.
"The growth of a soul in man is as that of a pearl in an oyster, a result of irritation." -Plato


All perceptions are incomplete. I offered a complete (how's that, like italics better?) definition that is not based on any single incomplete perception/Perspective.


The question is too 'loaded' for me to respond.
I'm not saying that you 'should' do anything.


There are many Perspectives. We each are 'one' unique Conscious Perspective (of 'One Consciousness').
Read some of Bishop Berkeley's writings to get a bit of perspective of what I'm saying. The only evidence available, all of it, is that 'things' exist in the mind. A rock is a feature of the observed Universe.


Is that my sarcasm detector going off?


Yep, that's my sarcasm detector going off...


That would be an oxymoron. Linearity is time.


If you are asking this so that you can argue with me, my response is;
Nah, I was influenced by Chinese fortune cookies!
I hope that I am misinterpreting the 'attitude' that I am perceiving. You'll let me know?

The evidence is here, discover it and interpret it as you must. As I said, every Perspective is unique and there is it's polar opposite.


No, I 'think' so.


Show me the evidence that there are any such "parts of the universe", beyond your imagination, that is.


To fully define anything requires including the context of that 'thing'. The full context of anything, required for a complete definition/description, requires the entire Universe in said description. Everything is necessary to define anything in this tapestry of moments...
That seems to add up to 'one' from here.


That is ego, thinking oneself as 'autonomous', an 'island', 'in here' vs 'out there'. That is egoPerspective. The 'Self' which is the 'matrix' in which egoPerspective exists is Conscious Perspective.


Ok, so there's some food for thought.


One interpretation of QM (Copenhagen interpretation) says that "Consciousness is the Ground of All Being". Pretty mystical/metaphysical stuff...


Yet you completely ignore the definition that I offer. Perhaps because there is evidence of 'Consciousness' and there is evidence of 'Perspective' and there is evidence of 'Conscious Perspective', and what I offer is completely logical and rational?
You seem to be so heavily invested in your; "There is no evidence of soul, and every definition I've seen seems illogical." that you ignored my definition completely. Not as easy to dismiss?


I do fine, thanx anyway. What I offer is not for everyone. I don't really care that some don't care or arent able to understand. If someone is sufficiently able to understand, they can, as you have, ask questions to get into it furthr. If you don't like the apples, don't shake the tree. I communicate quite well, perhaps the 'problem' is in your ability to understand? Is that possible?
I am perfectly comfortable with my communication skills as they stand, but thank you for your interest.
And I'm done with that subject.


You are welcome.

nameless out

Nameless,

I apologize if I came off as sarcastic. I really do appreciate you trying to explain yourself, as I know it wasn't necessary. And my questions were sincere, even though they may not have appeared as such. Your answers were mind-boggling as you usual, but I'm going to read them slowly to try to understand

Thanks and be well,

Z

One interpretation of QM (Copenhagen interpretation) says that "Consciousness is the Ground of All Being". Pretty mystical/metaphysical stuff...

Which prominent physicist are you quoting?

As another prominent physicist, Wolfgang von Pauli, would no doubt have remarked, about what you wrote, "It is not that it is not true; it is not even false".

Thanx Z, I thought that I might well have been misinterpreting. I'm happy to be incorrect.
Peace

---------- Post added at 12:00 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:39 PM ----------


Are you seeking a fallacy from authority or are you actually going to do some studying?
Note the 'Copenhagen interpretation' referrence? Look it up. And note David Bohm...
Bridging science, philosophy, and cognition

Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book she had seen in the library by the world-renowned speaker on life subjects, Jiddu Krishnamurti. Bohm found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the seemingly-philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophical subjects and the state of humanity.


For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. So what. There is so much more evidence to examine and come to one's own thoughts besides the single quote from any source.
'Truth' comes from where it does, and is perceived by those who are capable.

Ya know, i write well thought out and honest replies to your constant nattering at everything that I say, you seem to ignore most of what I write (no response because you either cannot or will not or don't read my posts, and/or are incapable of specific refutations to specific points, or you just don't understand what I am saying other than that you 'don't like it').
What next...
This is getting tirsome, and seems fruitless. Perhaps I'll stick to bumpersticker sized replies to your one or two liners, or maybe just ignore them.
I think that we all get that you do not agree with anything that I might say. You needn't constantly express that. (Kinda feels like being stalked; I can't seem to say anything without you peeing on my post.
We understand.
You are not attempting to learn or understand anything, by your constant (annoying) questioning me.

Move on.

....the Never-Never Land which is your home.

I think that I'll give myself a present today and add you to my ignore list.
Bye bye...
nameless out

Imagine! Relying on a coherent world view. Who would ever do such a crazy thing! What has philosophy come to?!

If that was an attempt at sarcasm it was a poor one. You saw exactly what I meant by this description, that certain philosophers such as G E MOORE for example feel that any particularly theory such as a theory of philosophy of mind should only be considered true if it fits in with the most respected theories of the rest of reality (largely those derived from science) and this is I think a significant point to make for it is a contentious point. Is it right to deduct your own approach from the most common views of the nature of reality as opposed to using your own induction and then debating the likelihood that these theories of other aspects of reality are likely. This seems to be one of the main questions between analytic philosophy and so called continental philosophy. Myself I think that both are a little too polarised.

It is right, I think, to base your view on what is known to be true, or what is probably true, rather than on your own speculations devoid of any evidence. I would think that was the only sensible and intelligent approach in philosophy as well as in any other field.

yes, of course it is. The distinction here is that Moore in an excerpt I read seemed to suggest that he would be willing to bypass the decision making process deliberating the likelihood that the given theory of reality is true if it is seemingly supported by another theory. This is a very uncritical approach and this bares no greater empirical basis than the Cartesian approach. I myself am certainly not an advocate of the Cartesian approach but neither am I one to easily agree to a universal theory which is likely to have some affect on my own beliefs if I accept it, without understanding and deliberating this. This is my point, is it a good starting point to come up with your own theory by trying to fit in with a fluid coherent theory of the world, is it not better to admit that there is some contention over certain aspects. I'm seeing this seems to be overly uncritical.

Nor does perspectivalism force upon its adherent the position that there is no "objective" reality; it does seem to imply that our knowledge of it, however, is perspectival in nature. One could draw an analogy with the Kantian position that noumena are in themselves unknowable because they must be conditioned through transcendental filters to be knowable, and that we cannot go beyond these filters to determine if anything corresponds to that which is filtered.

I don't know what excerpt you read. And I certainly would not read excerpts to find out what a philosopher think, especially one excerpt. But I would agree that if a theory is supported by another well-established theory, then it is more likely that the supported theory is true, than if it were not so supported. Wouldn't you agree? Molecular theory, for instance, is supported by atomic theory. And that sounds fine to me.

It was from 'A defence of common sense' and it was his own writing not commentary, it was pretty explicit that this is what he meant. My opinion is that this is all well and true for science, science operates on a framework of probability and as such always has to abide by certain accepted truths. But the problem is that aspects of philosophy are not covered by science merely because they cannot be measured by scientific means and this is where one cannot be certain of commonly accepted theories and certainly you cannot base your own theory around theories that are not scientifically supported but are generally believed to be true.

Interesting, all my friends seem to have adopted this view.

I believe that it is possible for man to know the thing-in-itself, or any objective truth, but we would never know when we have it in grasp. My view is tinged with agnosticism but at another level, I guess.

I know the above paragraph sounds like I'm proposing an objective truth, but I'll say that it's the most reasonable proposition I've encountered so far. The more reasonable it is, the closer it is to objective truth.

But I suppose I'll expand on the "why" of it all. When we percieve, we must have a reference point; a stimulus. This stimulus is an external reality that exists outside of ourselves. It explains why we have similar perceptions of things, but they only differ because they are coloured by individual prejudice.

We cannot know when we have objective knowledge in grasp simply because there are many more possibilities we are not aware not, or simply cannot comprehend. To know whether we hold the real truth we must also be omniscient. We are not.

"I have been discussing the question about whether something can be called truth without being knowable and proved, with Kennethamy."

Well, something can be called anything you please. But suppose someone were to come up to you and say, "X is true, although I cannot know it is, nor can I prove it to you." Wouldn't we think to ourselves, this person does not know what "True" means?

And what if we use "true," or some equivalent expression in different ways depending on the circumstances. There are logical truths, for example, which are always so, and there are scientific truths which are probably true, or very likely true (scientific laws seem to operate like this).

If we define being true as being knowable and provable, then we have to examine what it means that something is knowable, and what we consider "proof," or true is just as empty as "being." And don't we have different criteria here, too, if we examine closely what we really mean in each instance? Could there be private truths ("I have a headache") and public truths (Washington was the first President). How do I know either of these statements is true, and how would I go about proving them?

Suppose, again, that someone utters "Z is true" and asserts it is knowable and provable, providing his reasons and warrants. We reject these out of hand, but assert "Z is true" and provide a different set of reasons.

Depends on the theory. You'd better give some examples of what you have in mind. I don't understand what your distinction between science and philosophy comes to. Why isn't what is good enough for science good enough for philosophy?

---------- Post added 07-04-2009 at 09:01 AM ----------

Who said anything about science not being good enough for philosophy, I'm a great believer in science so don't go putting words in my mouth. My point actually, was that the basic methodology of science rules out trying to solve certain questions that Philosophy does not on the whole rule out, such as the problem of other minds for example. Philosophy as a general practice does not rule this problem out on the whole, although some philosophers abide by the scientific approach and choose to avoid the question to a degree, Wittgenstein for example.

The problem of other minds (how we know that there are other minds than our own) is a philosophical question, and not, so far as I can see, a scientific question. What I meant was that the kind of knowledge and methodology used in science seems to me good enough for philosophy.
what other approach is there than what you call the "scientific approach", which can get answers to questions. That is, formulating hypotheses, and then, testing them? How did Wittgenstein avoid the question, and to what degree did he (and did he not)?

This is exactly what I said, if you look further up the page, I said some things can't be covered by science:

'It was from 'A defence of common sense' and it was his own writing not commentary, it was pretty explicit that this is what he meant. My opinion is that this is all well and true for science, science operates on a framework of probability and as such always has to abide by certain accepted truths. But the problem is that aspects of philosophy are not covered by science merely because they cannot be measured by scientific means and this is where one cannot be certain of commonly accepted theories and certainly you cannot base your own theory around theories that are not scientifically supported but are generally believed to be true.'

I'm not saying that a scientific approach is not good enough for philosophy I'm just saying that some things in philosophy can't be covered by scientific approaches for the very reason that we have agreed upon, such as those questions which are not 'a scientific question' as you said.

With reference to Wittgenstein I feel he somewhat avoided the question by diverting the question of knowing other minds to a question of expressing your own mind. That is by discussing the relationship between emotion, and the expression to others of that emotion through a common language, this was primarily used to dismiss the argument of a private language but to me it evades the question of other minds. This is from 'Philosophical Investigations'.