Realism Vs Constructivism (/ second-order cybernetics) epistemology in the 21st century
Philip Baker
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
MB
>if you want a good
>characterization of the framing problem i suggest Daniel Dennet. the problem
>might be summarized as follows; how do you filter out all the irrelevent and
>extranous possible 'information' and get to the relevent actual information to
>the problem/task at hand. if a artefact had to 'tag' the irrelevant data as
>'irrelevent' at every discision point, it would never make a discision! this,
>at
>least as far as my understanding is concerned, is the 'framing problem'. it
>means that for an autonomous system to be viable in its environment it must be
>biased to certain information processing under certain conditions, that is, it
>must be able to attend to the relevent features of its environment in light of
>some goal. this is a tough cookie to crack; i.e., the 'fact' that my wall wont
>change colour whenever i am not looking at it is entirely irrelevent, however,
>i
>can at least imagine some situations under which this fact would be relavent.
PB
This is a complex set of related problems where the devil is in the
detail. They will be solved (if they are ever completely solved) by
detailed experimentation relating to the function of sensory organs and
brain and nerve function. They won't be solved by introspection or by
pondering on the ideas of Radical Constructivism.
PB
>>Radical constructivism as expounded by you appears much more radical
>>than Glasersfeld's exposition.
>
MB
>i believe the opposite is true. i suggest reading his 'the radical
>constructivist view of science' in 'the foundations of science' i think it was
>in Vol 6 (its available on the web) where he makes his 'radical' position quite
>clear.
>
PB
I have been reading "An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like it
Radical [by] Ernst von Glasersfeld [of the] Scientific Reasoning
Research Institute University of Massachusetts". I found it on the Web.
There are several other articles by him on the same site but I no longer
have the URL.
PB
>But whatever version of RC one considers
>>it does not appear to contain the kind of content from which some
>>specific methodology of problem solving could be developed nor should
>>one expect this of a philosophical theory.
>
MB
>i can understand why you would say such a thing without realizing that 'modern
>empiricism' (modern science) is a form of 'empiricism' which is a theory of
>knowledge and, by extension, a method for aquiring it. this is an important
>point; a theory of knoweldge is a theory of how to get it. this is not
>irrelevant, far from it. many people think that philosophy should be relegated
>to 'helping' solve the problems confronted by science, this is rediculous. this
>would only make sense if science had found the 'correct' method for acquiring
>knowledge (assuming such a thing exists). science would not exist in its
>present
>form without the critical work of epistemologists in the 17 th century (i.e.,
>Locke, Berkeley, Descartes etc) who were working towards providing science with
>a solid foundation.
PB
Berkeley was against the Enlightenment - at least many aspects of it.
Descartes is normally classed as a Rationalist. (He is hardly a British
Empiricist.) Descartes and Berkeley had one thing in common: they
believed that they are such entities as perceptions (ideas, impressions,
sense-data, sensibilia) and that these are contained in the mind. This
view still dominates RC.
MB
> they failed. science proceeded anyway, upon a rather weak
>foundation but produced results and we no longer felt the need to question its
>foundation. this is no longer the case, and once again we need to uproot these
>deeply entrenched assumptions and examine them in a critical light. not just
>for
>the progress of science, but also for the sake of ourselves because we should
>always make systems of thought and the systems in which they are implemented
>adapt to people instead of making people adapt to rigid systems of thought.
>there are many ethical reasons to challange a realists based science. science
>*will* continue to produce results but at what expense? scientific realism is
>an
>ideology like any other.
PB
If they failed and modern science started to bloom from around that time
to at least the present this rather shows that any such philosophical
foundation is redundant.
The ethical implications of RC worry me. It seems rather close to the
'collective solipsism' of the regime in Orwell's 1984.
[You have posted basically the same material to at least 3 NGs and are
conducting conversations in each independently of the others. What's
wrong with cross-posting?]
--
Philip Baker
http://textual.net/link.to/amazon/critical_thinking
http://textual.net/The_Doh_of_Homer
http://textual.net/access.gutenberg/George.Berkeley
nucleus
wrote:
Those implications are but mind boggling.
Effectively, it is a "philosophy" of 4th reich
or "new world order" as pronounced by that 2nd
derivative Freemason Bush, the senior.
When "viability" is defined as "whatever suits your interests",
then implications are simply mind gobbling
considering that "viability" is about the only
validity criteria in this entire theory
since they no longer recongnize the notions of
"true"/"false" or "correctness".
Anotherwords, there is no other notion of justification
beyond this "viability" thing.
>[You have posted basically the same material to at least 3 NGs and are
>conducting conversations in each independently of the others. What's
>wrong with cross-posting?]
Oh, interesting.
I that case, I'll repost my followups to the groups
you crossposted to assuming these are the groups
you are talking about.
nucleus
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>This post is addressing a spill of argument between David Longley and Eray
>>Ozkural. As I see it, both of them are seeking the best possible solution to
>>one and the same problem, but they approach it from different points of
>>view.
>>And this kind of argument happens pretty often. I still hope that both of
>>you, and others who had similar experience, sincerely wish to find the
>>'philosophy that shows us how a brain-like machine works.'
>>This means:
>>1) the current philosophy does not do the job
And never did
and can not possibly do so.
>>2) the work should be done in the realm of philosophy or similar kind of
>>approach
Well, at least you have to define your goals,
scope and domain of what is it you are trying
to accomplish.
>>3) it has something to do with ontology, worldviews, or Weltanschauung.
>>Since we are able to identify the problem, we can find the solution.
UNABLE to identify the problem.
>>Is there anyone who wants to take this path?
>>Mike
>below is a rough formulation of a philosophical orientation to human knowing
>which is called 'radical constructivism' or 'second order cybernetics'- it is
>not a theory of ontology (being) but instead a meta-theory of epistemology
and
>cognition. the leading proponents of this position are Earnst Von Glasersfeld
>and Earnst Von Foerster and the work of Maturana and Varela. it may be
>irrelevent, but i think not, especially when you take into consideration the
>scope of this position. i have posted it elsewhere.
>The fundamental explanatory shift from realism to constructivism is that
>‘phenomenon’ are no longer seen as ontologically given, that is, they are no
>longer seen as 'anchored' in some ‘mind-independent reality’, but rather
> brought
>forth by the mind itself through the very process of apprehension. therefore,
>constructivism does not 'root' its explanations of phenomena in some
>transcendental 'mind independent reality' (ontologically objective reality).
[Falling on his face right from the first step].
If you root everything in the mind,
one thing is certain,
sooner or later you'll commit suicide
one way or another.
Mind is just a part. Its main activity is to provide
for the physical aspects of the body, thus providing
the very physical framework.
But...
It does not and can not possibly include
those things that are the CORE aspects of your
existence, such as Love. That is WELL beyond mind.
Therefore, the rest of this theory, which I reviewed
nearly to the end of this article, is a theory of
gadget making essentially. At the VERY least it is
Vastly incomplete and profoundly delusional.
Again, there are no closed systems. Nor even your mind.
As to "infinite recursion", it is simply insane. Your
brain would fry within days if that were the case.
You'd simply go insane.
Very little, if anything, in this densely packed pseudo-theory
can be proven, and the very purpose of such theory is
unclear.
What is it for?
Anybody has a clue?
>Phenomenon are defined as objects and events which we isolate in our
>experiences, that is, the objects which we take as our subject are brought
> forth
>by the drawing of a distinction (a cognitive operation that realizes
cognition)
>which circumscribes the object by isolating it from the background of our
>experiences (the context in which the object is embedded).
First of all, "background of our experiences"
is virtually infinite and multi-dimensional.
Furthermore, those very objects are not separable
from that very "background as easily as it might seem.
In order for them to be separable,
you need to accept a delusion of a closed system,
which is simply an impossibility.
That is the FIRST crack in this "theory".
>Phenomenon, therefore, are 'system-relative constructions': cognitive objects
>which are brought forth by cognitive operations performed upon cognitive
> objects
Objects as such or these "cognitive objects"?
Is there exist anything beyond these
"cognitive objects"?
If there is, then you are beginning to fabricate
some fiction story.
If there is not, then you are but a delusional
lunatic.
Take your pick.
>(the 'performing of a distinction' is often demonstrated with two concentric
>circles where the inner circle is the 'object' and the outer circle is the
>'context'), that is, the mind is a 'operationally closed, self-referential
>system'
Not.
It is not a closed system.
There isn't a SINGLE example of a closed system
in the entire existence as it is simply impossible.
It is not 'operationally closed'.
Nor is it self-referential.
In order for it to be self-referential,
it needs to virtually contain the entire
existence. It can not even function if it is
merely a self-referential system.
Yes, there IS plenty of self-referential activity
in it, but it is just a tip of the iceberg.
For it to expand, it needs external "input"
from which it draws its identity, feeding
on various aspects of existence.
So, this is how concoctions are made out
of reality, which they apparently do not even
recognize as such, thus making this whole theory
a fiction story.
>- the perpetually acting components of the system refer only to
>themselves
Simply impossible.
>as the system interacts recursively with its own internal states
>(i.e., mental activity is the result of ongoing mental activity-
Again, "mental" aspect is but a part
and not the whole.
>hence the
>'iteration of consciousness' as the mind applies its own faculties to
itself).
This is simply insane.
This man does not have a clue as to what consciousness is.
Consciousness is outside the scope of mind
and not vice versa.
>all this means that the mind is an *epistemological* solipsist (as apposed to
> an
>'ontological solipsist') such that “we ourselves are the depositories of the
>evidence of the subject which we consider.” (for example, as you read what i
am
>saying, you cultivate your own understanding of what i now say, and gauge the
>varacity of these arguments upon consideration of your own personal
>experience)-that is, we cannot transcend the domain of our experiences, and,
by
>extension, we cannot divine the causes, through refinements of logic and
>abstractions of experience, necessary and sufficient for the appearences of
>things which we isolate in our experiential domain (nor can we even be sure
> that
>there are such a things as 'underlying causes' waiting to be discovered). it
is
>important to note that this position does *not* assert *or* deny the
existence
>of external reality,
Huh?
Are you a lunatic?
You can even conceive the possibility of denying
"external" reality?
>it is *not* a theory of 'being' but a theory of 'doing'
>(epistemology).
Well, so far, it looks like a theory
of horseshit making.
Whats the "goal" here, sire?
>this position is metaphysically agnostic and makes absolutely
> no
>ontological commitments about what exists independently of us).
Gnostic and agnostic is pretty much the same thing,
lil did you know.
>it is also
>important to note that although this position offers a different framework
for
>doing science in,
Are you nuts?
You simply framed yourself into a little box
and you simply have no chance to EVER get out of it.
Are you a Freemason, by ANY humble chance?
>it does *not* deny that science, as a human enterprize, is
>instrumental (constructivists *dont* deny that scientific theories help us to
>make predictions and control phenomena;
Which "phenomena" you wish to "control"?
The DELUSIONAL view of life
as you have it stored inside your lil scull?
>but what it does say is that science
>should not be carried out in a realist framework
Should science be carried out in a mental
masturbalist framework then?
>as it is nothing more than a
>pious hope to think that our theories 'reflect' reality or some part of it,
Yes.
But, if you think reality is only that which is contained
within your mind, then...
Nice trap thou.
> they
>are mental scaffolds that provide a viable means and way of thinking and
acting
>that allow us to acheive the goals we have choosen, whether it is to enable
us
>to design, build and lauch a telecommunications sattelite into a
geostationary
>orbit or simply avoid getting hit by a truck when crossing the road- nothing
>more and nothing less)
Yes.
But it depends on what kind of web you weave.
Get the drift?
>in this construal, it is of no surprise that mathematics is such a useful
>language for describing empirical observations when one considers that those
>observations were defined in mathematical terms.
Yes. An important point indeed.
>A thing is what it is by virtue of what we make it;
Make OF it. The entire existence is there
regardless of what YOU make OF it.
But the way you label it,
is entirely a different matter indeed.
>when we measure a theoretical entity
I like "theoretical entities". Looks like a woodoo
class here.
>with some piece of
>measuring equipment we define such entities as units of measurement
>('units' are human constructs);
> “properties are defined as invariants of measurement
>devices”,
Yes, they ARE. Arising from your current worldview
and underlying system of beliefs and limitations
you place upon yourselves, just as this very theory
represents.
Because this very theory is a "theory of limitations".
THAT is probably the best label for it.
>through operational definitions (i.e., “to measure means to compare
>two phenomena with each other, one of which already assigned with a
>dimension.”); that is, we define theoretical entities and there ‘essential’
>properties in observational terms- when we observe we define just what it is
we
>are observing. therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about
> independent
>properties, properties that are invariant and independent of our various
means
>and ways of measuring them (this applies in particular to quantum mechanics).
>Ordinarily, in the realist world view, ‘phenomena’ are ‘objectivised’ in that
>they are seen as ‘ontologically given’ (given by the evironment you might
say),
>that is, they are explained by recourse to some transcendental reality
>(metaphysical domain)- hence the distinction between ‘representation’ and
>‘reality’ (and the idea that knowledge ‘represents’ reality).
Knowledge does not and can not represent reality,
pretty much by definition.
Knowledge is your ATTEMPT to grasp it.
It forever changes.
But mountains and rivers remain.
So is the flower and the wind.
>In the
>constructivist world view, on the other hand, phenomena are seen as
>system-relative constructions which are no longer explained in terms of a
>transcendental reality,
"Transcendental reality" is a clever trick indeed.
It is pretty much the definition of Supreme Being.
So...
Whats cooking here?
>but instead are seen as viable constructions
What about "non-viable constructions" then?
Is there a place for them in this theory?
>built upon
>the basis of pre-existing constructs
Do these "pre-existing constructs" exist and
originate utterly within your mind then?
>which are organised hierarchical (you
> might
>say 'vertically intergrated' as they are built up over the course of
ontogenic
>development through learning),
Oh, they must be it seems.
That implies the entire existence
is UTTERLY contained within the mind.
Quite mind gobbling I might say.
Yes, you can bend it to even this extend.
No kwestion abouts its.
>and, as far as the cognitve system is concerned,
Cognitive is SUB-system, you see.
That is where yee shalt fall.
>these models ***are*** its environment, because the cognitive system is
>operationally closed
Lie.
Ouright lie.
A centerpiece of this entire system of delusion.
>as it interacts with its own internal states in a
> recursive manner
Blind following blind
will fall into ditch indeed.
That much is certain.
Yes, you can fabricate all these mental constructions
because you are compelled to make it all fit together.
But, just as you yourself claim,
ONLY within your own framework
[of delusion most profound].
>(ad infinitum).
Insane. You'd go mad within days.
>‘To know’, in this construal, is to be viable in an
>environment (to possess *viable* means and ways of thinking and acting that
>allow one to acheive the goals one happens to have chosen),
You mean "just to survive,
just to survive" song?
But just "to survive" for WHAT purpose?
You are and every single speck of sand
are forever "viable".
What is "inviable" then?
You have a definition for that?
>instead of
>possessing ‘true descriptions’ of ontologically objective reality.
What is 'true description'?
What is true?
>given the operational closure
Mind is not a machine, you fool.
It is open, even that it deals with limited aspects.
>and self-reference of the cognitive system
If that were the case,
you could never posess any intelligence.
I'd like to see a functioning model of this
pile of delusions.
Where does initial knowledge come from
and how new information is added
if all you have is self-referential monkey logic?
>(i.e.,
>the mind is an *epistemological* solipsist that interacts with its own
internal
>states recursively),
[In this dead loop of self-referential reasoning,
utterly contained by the mind aspect]
I wonder why do you need the entire existence
if it is all ALREADY contained within the mind?
What is the purpose of life then?
Is there such a thing on the first place?
>we cannot transcend the domain of our experiences;
Finally. The conclusion obsene.
Obsene as it gets.
Tellya one lil thingy,
if you can not "transcend" the domain of your experiences,
the whole life ceases to have any purpose.
You know why?
Guess.
>therefore,
Not necessarily. Is this a "substitution of identcals"
trick again?
>recourse to a transcedental reality does not make a whole lot of
>sense when explaining cognitive phenomenon-
Because your "cognition" is limited to the level
of mechanical sensors
and that is probably what you are trying to "prove" here.
So, you claim a man is but a machine?
> especially when one considers that
>experiences can be explained without such a metaphysical domain-
You can consider virtually anything you please.
But...
Depending on what you mean by "experiences",
some of it can not be explained by any other domain.
Just within the last 24 hrs.
there was a program on the idiot box, you call TV,
about one man who knows 97 languages. He is about
30-35 years old. He is being studied by the leading
experts in 6 countries and NONE of them have
an explanation of how this could be possible.
Not only he knows them all, but he knows them
FLUENTLY including the dialects.
Interestingly enough, he could not pass an English
exam in school.
Later on he had a near death experience.
Since then, he started exploding in learning languages.
Could your great theory explain this?
How?
>hence, realism is rationally indefensible and obsolete.
WOW!
I like that!
"Realism is rationally indefensible and obsolete.
You can go into a t-shit and a car sticker business
with these kinds of slogans, mr. agnostic.
I wouldn't be surprised you can make a lot of money
with it, mr. money making machine.
Anotherwords: Zig Heil!
Must be a German mind.
SO Aryan.
>Considering the fact that these ideas are relatively new (nothing is ever new
>under the sun- this orientation has its roots in scepticism) I was wondering
>if anyone had any comments, objections and criticisms as this explanatory
shift
>has the power to be the next copernican revolution
Wut?
>and opens the way to a whole
>new way of thinking about reality
But you flately DENY the very notion
of reality, sire.
>and doing science.
Huh?
Are you out of yer mind?
>below are some quotes
>which might help clarify this orientation, usually called 'radical
>constructivism' or 'second order cybernetics'.
>"a scientific practice that fails to question itself does not, properly
>speaking, know what it does.
True. Except not "question itself",
but question its roots and very purpose.
>embedded in, or taken by, the object that it takes
>as its object, it reveals something of the object, but something which is not
>objectivized since it consists of the very principle of apprehension of the
>object" Bourdieu
Must be bad translation or some mistake in qouting.
>"the understanding doesnt draw its laws from nature, it prescribes them to
>nature." Kant
This statement is an entrapment, a trick.
It does not answer anything.
Well, Kant was quite a character.
There is an interesting story about him
if I recall.
>"intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself" Piaget
>"the object of all science, whether natural science or psychology, is to
>co-ordinate our experiences and to bring them into a logical order" Einstein
Well, at least Einstein did not say something
stupid or kinky.
>mickeyd
nucleus
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>Hello Michael,
>>
>>"Mr Michael Bibby" <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:<bg2v8j$oja$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>>> The fundamental explanatory shift from realism to constructivism is that
no
>>> longer seen as 'anchored' in some ?mind-independent reality?, but rather
> brought
>>> forth by the mind itself through the very process of apprehension.
> therefore,
>>> constructivism does not 'root' its explanations of phenomena in some
>>> transcendental 'mind independent reality' (ontologically objective
reality).
>
>>
>>mind. I mentioned it on this group (you can use google groups to
>>search for it!)
>>
>>However, I take into account objective reality. It's called *the*
>>universe. I'm hoping that radical constructivism realizes that there
>>*are* physical phenomena without the attendance of an observer!!
>
>
>given what you say here, and below, i infer that you didnt read my entire
post
>before begining your responce. i sometimes do that also when i encounter
>something that seems, prima facie, to be unpalatable to the sensibilities;
>however, if you havent already i recommend that you read (re-read) the whole
>thing because you will see, hopefully (if i have articulated this position
well
>enough), that the assertion of observer independent qualities invites
>incontrovertible scepticism from which it is impossible you should ever
>extricate yourself. having said that, i appeal to your judgment to read this
>post before responding because i have 'distributed' my responces throught.
>That
>>kind of thinking might apply to the study of mental but it hardly
>>makes sense in physics.
>>
>>In physics, of course, it's useful to know that *every* fact
>>(observation of phenomena) depends on some cognitive bias: another
>>scientific theory, intuition, classification, etc. That cannot be
>>disputed. However, the *real* phenomenon exists in the real world.
>>That is not a "transcendental" concept at all, it is a very scientific
>>notion, maybe something certain minds cannot cope with....
>
>
>
>O.K now i am *****MADE****!!!
Good. Once you are mad, we can have a friendly chat
as you are no longer phoney.
And then?
>i cannot believe that you said that, i am *sick*
>of scientific realists seeing those who are not scientific realists as
>incredulous and unwilling to confront the brutish realities of our existence-
>this is absolute bullshit! it is attitudes like that (which i am almost
> becoming immune to) that inspire me to write anti-realist literature.
>this is a didactic, patronizing,
why be so defensive?
>condescending attitude (i.e., empirical methodologies have
>privaliged access to reality,
Not necessarily.
If you ask them what reality is,
your ear drums may be slightly popping.
They are on the same boat you are.
>and empirical science 'maps' reality),
Not reality, but MODEL of reality.
Not quite the same thing.
I am not even sure how many would even use
the very notion of reality
as it is one of the most uncomfortable notions.
It is ALL belief.
Now...
Is belief a reality?
Tough kwestion ain't it?
What is the scope and domain of reality?
Kinda +- infinity.
Gets tricky in a hurry.
Why don't you first try to define that very
reality as YOU are reffering to it.
Not only that, but it is but a centerpiece
of your entire argument, ain't it?
>something
>which is tantamount to saying that the bible is Gods will and that
>there is only one true interpretation of it!
Not necessarily.
>but i will push this aside (for the time being)
>and continue as this is simply a pathetic 'ad hominine' attack
Slow down. You may break your neck.
>(L. 'an attack upon the person and not what they say',
>i apolagise if i have missconstrued you)
>firstly, when you say "...the *real* phenomenon exists in the real world.
The very notion of phenomenon is already a tricky one.
Because YOU bulk both objects and events into it
and, from then on, treat them all in bulk.
This will only confuse issues and produce errors.
>That is not a "transcendental" concept at all, it is a very scientific
>notion..." what do you mean by 'real world'? if you mean 'a world that exists
>independent of we think and do' then that my friend *is* a transendental
>reality! by definition it is something that is transcendental to experience.
Not transcendental, but independent.
It is not a transcendental meditation class afterall.
> so,
>how do you know, considering that all you have access to are your
>own private experiences and the knoweldge which you have gleaned
>from your experiences, that such a transcendental world exists?
How do you know you are alive?
May be you are just a figment of someone elses imagination.
Heard od Indonesian shadow theatres?
>in other words, 'how can you transcend the
>domain of your expeirences'?
It is true that ALL we "know" is but our intrnal MODEL
of the world. But can you conceive that if the mankind
does not exist, the rabbits would not be there?
Yes, the way WE view rabbits is not the same the volves do.
But...
Is there a rabbit or is there not
regardless of wether you exist?
Is there a mountain, or is there not?
Are you saying you create them
as a figment of your imagination?
There is a nice story about some philosopher
who claimed he is not a body.
Some person took a large rock and threw it
at his leg. The philosophers shouted angrily:
what you are doing! You are hurting me.
But that other person said:
Well, but you are NOT your body,
so I am not hurting YOU.
>most realists seem to arrive at such a conclusion because we (including me)
>think act and operate 'as if' we were embedded in a world that exists
>independently of what we think and do.
Yes it does. INDEPENDENTLY.
Not transcendentally, but independently.
Rivers flow regardless of what you perceive
or what kind of labels or notions you attach to them.
> that is, the fact that we think in terms
>of such a reality is taken as reason to believe that such a reality exists
>(locke developed a circular argument along these lines "the fact that i have
>'ideas' [what we like to call 'sense data' or 'representations'] lets me know
>that there are 'things', because ideas are *of* things [i.e., the
>'intentionality of thought'], therefore things exist" (thats not a quote,
thats
>a paraphrase, but essentially that is what he said in his 'the pillars of
>hurcules' treatease)
Well. What we think as matter may turn out to be something
entirely different than what our frameworks indicate.
>so, the realist explains phenomena (objects and events which he isolates in
his
>experience) by 'grounding' his explanations of them in a physical substrate
or
>substratum.
Because you take this "materialist" view.
>of course this is a viable way of explaining phenomena, but we have
>absolutely *NO WAY* of 'checking' to see if such explanations are 'correct',
True. But what IS "correct" on the first place?
Do you think YOU are "correct"?
>that is, no amount of empirical testing can transcend observation;
What is this obscession with "transcending"?
You are part of life. You are part of this reality.
You are inseparable from it.
For what purpose you need to bring the God's view
into it? You can not possibly comprehend its scope
and domain, pretty much by definition.
Why do you need to "transcend" ANYTHING?
Just be as you are with all your illusions.
You can not possibly comprehend what reality is
no matter what kind of song you sing.
As to comprehend it, you need to be God,
omni-scient, omni-potent, omni-powerful.
You simply created this trap for yourself and,
naturally, you got trapped into all these
complications.
>"objectivity is the delusion
Indeed.
>that observations could be made without observers" (foerster).
Yes. It is built right into very sentence.
You need both, the observer and the observed.
>scientific realists (including Karl Popper) have no way of avoiding
>this kind of scepticism,
But WHERE is that "scepticism"?
>therefore, it is nothing more than a leap of faith to believe that
>our theories reflect ontic reality.
Indeed. They merely represent your current worldview
that forever changes.
>(Popper, in his 'conjectures and
>refutations' acknowledges this, albeit a bit grudgingly as he mentions it
only
>in passing in a small foot note).
A big deal.
Who is Popper? God?
Nope, just the same mortal,
full of imperfections and delusions,
just like anybody else.
But what does it indicate?
>radical constructivism says that if the observer was constituited differently
>then his observations would be constituted differently,
Yes.
>observations are 'system relative constructions'.
What "system" are you talking about?
Are we talking about machines?
First of all, that "system" is so complex
and so multidimensional, that you won't
find its "beginning" or the "end".
Secondly, and this is critical point.
It is not closed, not separable from its
"environment". It is but a part.
So...
What are you going to separate from what
and where? Starting at what point?
>where empiricism says that 'observations is the
>touchstone to objectivity'
PURE grade garbage.
The very notion of "objectivity" is but a delusion.
You need to trully "transcend" it all and be God like
in order to be trully "objective".
Except it would be an excersize in futility.
>the constructivist say that
>'observations are the touchstone to the observer'
Now you substituted the notion of reality
with a notion of observation.
>if they 'reflect' anything it is the observer that
>made them!
Yes, obvious to a 5 year old.
So what?
>>A physicist cannot afford the arbitrary relativism that might apply to
>>literary criticism! Neither can a computer scientist!!
>R.C is *not* mere relativism. an R.C based science would not hamper
empirical
>science.
Interesting. Why would you even bother?
You are seeking some kind of "scientific 'truth'"
however obsene it might turn out at the end.
Why would you care if your discoveries
hamper ANY establishment?
Are you trying to make a deal between
truth and a lie?
>RC simply says that "scientists define their theoretical entities in
>observational terms (i.e., through 'operational definitions'), that is,
> entities
>are defined as units of measurement (and those units are defined by
>incommensurable constructs- that is, units are human constructs) and
properties
>of theoretical entities are defined as invariants of measuring devices; all
of
>this and yet scientists *explain* and *define* such entities and their
>'essential properties' in terms of a transendental reality that exists
>independently of there means and ways of thinking and acting.
>this, the last, is perhaps the biggest problem with realist based
science!!!!!
But you think there is no "problem" with YOUR "science"?
Well, it is but the same delusion at the end.
Not to worry.
>an RC based science defines theoretical entities in terms of the means and
ways
>in which they are observed!
So what the funk does it change?
You think you can discover new "laws" as a result?
You have pretty much the same mind
and the same materialist view.
What you are saying with your theories
has been known for thousands of years.
1. Tamas.
The gross, the matter, the body.
2. Raja
The Mind, active.
3. Sattva.
Pure, beyond action.
This is from times of Raja Yoga by Patanjali,
the first scientific theory of life on record.
What you are saying here is old, old news,
and you haven't created ANYTHING original.
First of all, you are using the notion of mind.
But what IS mind?
Can you tell?
You seem to be using the terms reality, observation
and the mind interchangeably depending on what part
of the argument you are presenting.
But I bet you have no concept of
BEYOND observation,
BEYOND experience,
you see?
I bet you can not even BEGIN to comprehend it
as you seem to be totally wrapped up in this
illusory notion of mind,
not even suspecting there are things
WELL beyond it,
TRULLY "transcendental"
even though even that looks stupid.
How are you going to "measure" Love?
Joy?
Appreciation?
Innocence?
Silence?
Art?
You long how big is this list
of that, which UNQUESTIONABLY exist.
Yes, it does not exist without you,
but so you do not exist without that very essense
that is WELL beyond the mundane level of the mind.
It is either you see,
or you don't.
You've got NOTHING new.
WHATSOEVER.
Not even clear what you can make out of it
beyond these "theories".
Enough.
>>That's very easy to prove. Just because a fool thinks special
>>relativity is wrong and Newton's laws are sufficient means of
>>calculation doesn't make it wrong.
>
>
>did you know that the first lunar landing was done using Newtonian Mechanics,
>apparantly it was too much of a computational task to use relativity- but of
>course aristotolian meachanics was not up to the task ;). the idea that
> theories
>are 'falsifiable' can be traced back to Karl Popper (as far as i know). i,
> along
>with many other 'instrumentalists' (radical constructivism might be construed
> as
>a sort of 'radical-instrumentalism'), dont believe that *any* theory can be
>'disproven' (just as no [synthetic/inductive] theory can *ever* be proven,
>accept vacous analytic statements) and as long as it has a domain of
> application
>it is still viable within that domain.
>
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>__
>>Eray Ozkural
>>
>>
>
>mickeyd
nucleus
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>just a short post (im far to busy to enter into a long recapulation of
'counter
>arguments' but i should like to say one or two things
>firstly, most of your 'criticism' are implicitly addressed in my previous
>posting (it is pointless 'deconstructing' it without having read the whole
> thing
>first- i appologies for not stating this position clearly, it is a difficult
>position to orient people towards if they have never encounted constructivist
>epistemology).
Not sure whose criticism are you talking about.
>secondly, you said "your theory *proves* nothing" well of course it
doesnt!!!!
>HOW CAN I DO THE VERY THING THAT I SAY CANNOT BE DONE!
Well, then what you've got here is
"a tale told by the idiot
signifying nothing".
It has all been known for thousands of years.
You simply read the "wrong" books.
>further to this, this position is ****Not**** antirealism,
Yes it is.
Define reality first.
Unless you do so, no need to use it as a placeholder
to hold your entire system together.
>i do *not* deny the
>the esistence of an ontologically objective reality,
Not "objective". Man can not possibly know that level.
>i simply say that the mind
>of man (*MIND* not *BRAIN*
Good, I like that.
Then define the mind.
>i dont presuppose for one second that the mind is an
>'emergent property' of some 'physical substrate'
'emergent property' and 'physical substrate'
are all garbage.
We can not possibly know what is a "result" of what
on this level.
>because that is an
>*ontological* assumption, i dont make *any* ontological assumptions) is an
>operationally closed system (i.e., you might say that the mind is enclosed in
a
>private bubble of expeirence that is inpernetrable from the outside, that is,
>our private experiences are our own!)
One more time:
THERE
ARE
NO
CLOSED
SYSTEMS.
PERIOD.
CLEAR ENOUGH?
>therefore, we have no POINT OF REFERENCE,
>no ACCESS TO THE PHYSICAL WORLD (assuming it does exist) as our only access
to
>the physical world is through our EXPERIENCES OF IT!
And it signifies what then?
>we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing whether our experiences, and the
knowledge
>which we glean from our expeirences, 'reflects' something that is already
there
>(onotologically given).
Yes it does reflect.
But with distortions.
:---}
Enough.
>therefore, to explain our expeirences by appealing to
>something that we have absolutely no way of knowing (transcendental reality)
is
>completely and utterly insane, and rationally indefensible (except to say
that
>such a reality provides a usefull way of thinking and acting as we each
think,
>act and operate in terms of such a mind independent reality). to know, in
this
>epistemology, is not to have true descriptions of an objective state of
> affairs,
>but instead is to possess viable means and ways of acting in ones environment
>and acheive the goals one happens to have chosen (whether that environment is
a
>labatory setting or every day affairs).
>
>
>i have to run; "dont bit my finger, look where i am pointing" (foerster)
>
>mickeyd
nucleus
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>it is fustrating reply to all these miss-construals,
Huh?
>perhaps you will find many
>of your criticisms address in my post titled '**some answers**' as i have
>inserted some very telling quotes.
Nothing there.
>furthermore, you are asking me to define terms such as 'mind',
Yws.
>'reality'
Yes.
Otherwise I have no clue what are you talking about.
>and so
>on, as i said previously 'this is *not* an ontology,
I give a flying dead chicken what kind of label you
attach to what.
>it is a theory of 'doing'
This isn't even funny.
Btw, can you reduce the line length in your posts
to somewhere around 60 chars?
Do I have to explain why?
>not theory of 'being' ('to be'),
Put a period between sentences for god's sake.
To create a theory of being you must be out of yer mind.
>i define mind, when i take it as my object,
So, mind is an object?
Interesting.
And then?
>as
>a human-specific construct,
Not only human, lil did you know.
>but that is not to say that it is some kind of
>'category mistake',
What are you hiding behind with this
'category mistake' trick?
>but simply to say that *everything* is a human construct
>when taken as an object.
PURE grade crap.
Not interesting.
> however, AND THIS IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT AND CORE
>ESSENTIAL TO WHAT I AM SAYING: the mind is the context in which the object is
>embedded
NOT.
The LABEL for an object.
>(what so ever that 'object' it, what ever we take as our subject,
>*including* the mind itself!)
You have guts indeed.
So...
What is the difference between the observer
and the observed then?
Can mind be an observer and the observed
at the same time? Can it be the very object
of observation?
>this, the last, is an important point, hopefully
>it is not lost on you.
ALL I am seeing is that you are confused
and profoundly so.
>"dont bit my finger, look where i am pointing"
You are pointing to abyss
from what I am seeing.
>mickeyd
nucleus
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Do you have a problem with your newsreader?
It is not clear who are you replying to?
>>>i define mind, when i take it as my object,
>>So, mind is an object?
>o.k. you asked for a lesson in 2nd order cybernetics
Huh?
>and ill give it to you (if i dont loose my mind that is!
Good.
Just remember one lil thingy.
Before you can start theorizing about the mind,
especially it being an object,
youe posts, replies, formatting and general
cleanliness better be on the par with temple.
If you are sloppy as a pig
and can not see the problems with the way
you format your posts, strip nearly all the points
and it is not even clear WHO are you replying to
then...
What follows then?
Well, what follows is that your awareness
is on the level of Tamas, gross, unconscious matter.
When you touch the subjects of mind
and use them as some of your MAIN arguments,
better carry golden gloves with you.
>- the semantics of this kind of circular
>explanation are difficult untile you get used to it,
That is what I said and MANY times over,
you can eventually convince your mind
to believe ANYTHING literally,
to the point where black becomes white.
So...
Beware.
>if you are interested in
>these ideas i suggest you check out Glanville i.e.,
Nope. You just spill it out right here.
If I have to go to a library to follow up
on each individual request,
I'll be spending the rest of my life
in a library, eating all the garbage
I have no interest in
and that is a miserable trip.
Now, my position is that you should be able
to present your position in a single post,
at least the core ideas.
Zo...
>'the self and the other and the purpose of the distinction',
Oh, I like the notion of 'self'.
Eastern approach.
How bout no self?
Ever heard?
> he is most articulate in this area where i am
>not, but i will try non the less)
Try. Just don't break your teeth on it.
>when i take myself (the observer) as the observed, i switch roles between the
>'oberver' and 'that which is observed', but i am, non the less, still the
>observer, but i am not the observer that i was as i have included myself in
>myself, i am both the context and the object: the context is the recursion of
>the system (me) within which the system i study (me) is embedded. i, in a
> manner
>of speaking, give rise to myself. but i am not the i that i was
Nope. ANY way you look at it, that ego,
you call I, is still the same.
>(the system has
>undergone recursion you might say as it *applies* itself to itself and
>*includes* itself in itself)
Mind looking at the mind looking at the mind.
Familiar territory.
Slippery as it gets.
You'll break your teeth, I promise.
So, you have a problem here,
and not only one.
First of all, the observer can not be observed.
It is juat merely a confusion.
The observer must be outside of scope of the
observed. Otherwise, the very notion of observation
does not apply or it has to be revised.
Looks like this entire theory was developed
as a result of influence of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
What you got is something that was covered
a couple thousand years ago in India.
This is how it goes:
(Regarding self)
Who am I?
- The body
But who can observe the body?
(it can not be body as to observe,
you need something external to the observed)
- Ok, this is the Mind.
But how do you know it is mind?
(Again, to make a claim that it is the mind,
you need to be external to the mind)
So, WHO is that that is aware of mind?
(MUST be something)
- Well, it is something BEYOND the mind.
It is that which is AWARE of the mind.
Zo...
Mind can not observe the mind
in a large sense.
Yes, it LOOKS like it can,
but look at it first.
Mind can only observe the traces of its
own activity.
Just look at this very post of yours.
Looks like you are "observing" the mind
as you are talking about it.
But all you do (as a mind)
is to consider its sub-components,
and see the traces, the shadows of its
activity.
You need to add a notion of ego
and notions of self,
and once you do that,
you are in such muddy waters
that it'll take your entire life
to unscramble all these puzzles
and at the end
there is no guarantee
you'll EVER get "to the point".
Basically, what you are talking about
is Eastern idea of Enlightenment.
Thousands of years, the brightest minds
and true giants were wrestling with these
issues.
As a single example, Buddha Gautam,
spent MANY years wrestling with these very issues.
He visited nearly all famous masters on the land.
But nothing seemed to work. They all gave him something.
But, at some point, all of them had to say:
Sorry, this is all I know. I can not give you anything else.
You have to go somewhere else if you want more.
Eventually, he just gave up the whole trip
as it looked like an excersize in futility.
So, after MANY years of sleeping a couple of hours
a day, starving himself to death,
going through ascetism, purification
and anything imaginable,
nothing seemed to work.
So, for the first time in many years,
he just sat down by the tree
and allowed himself just to fall asleep
and slept and slept.
When he got up in the morning,
the whole life has changed.
When he opened his eyes,
every bush and every flower
were radiaring life.
Zo...
Get the drift?
The "bottom line" is:
You can not use mind to solve the mind "problem".
You can do ANYTHING you please
and you can convince you
that your mind is looking at itself
in infinitely recursive manner.
But all you have is:
MAYA it is called.
An illusion, a dream.
>>>but that is not to say that it is some kind of
>>>'category mistake',
>>What are you hiding behind with this
>>'category mistake' trick?
>i was trying to clarify my position and anticipate a responce,
>if it doesnt apply then it doesnt apply!
>>>but simply to say that *everything* is a human construct
>>>when taken as an object.
If you use the term object in such a loose manner,
it looses its meaning entirely.
You need to invent some new notion.
What you are saying is simply absurd.
If you use "everything",
then you can not exclude ANYTHING.
So, mountains, rivers, oceans and lions
are a 'human construct'
when taken as object?
Is it some kind of circus of the mad?
You are simply confused
with all these misinterpretations
and misrepresentations.
What you CAN say is:
Everything can be considered as object,
(but even that much is already invalid),
and it can have a representation in the mind.
Mind you representation,
some idea of it, some model of it,
distorted as it is.
But this is entirely different idea you see.
The PERCEPTION of "everything" is a human construct
I can swallow.
But this is not the same as
"*everything* is a human construct when taken as an object"
Or you can say:
The PERCEPTION of everything is a human construct
when taken as an object OF OBSERVATION.
>>PURE grade crap.
>>Not interesting.
Indeed. It is something so confused,
I doubt you'll ever get out of it.
>for example, when i take this letter [e] as my object, i distinguish it
against
>the background of my experiences -i perform an operation of distinction (you
>might say that i perform a cognitive operation upon a cognitive object)-
which
>is the context within which it is embedded.
The issue of differentiation is not a simple one.
>now, should i choose to make a
>further distinction within *that* object, then the (past) object become the
>(present) context within which the (present) object i study is embedded (ad
>infinitum).
Fine. But you have a little problem here,
the problem of illusion of time.
Existence is multi-dimensional
AND SIMULTANEOUS.
Ever heard?
About the toughest cookie to crack.
There is no past,
there is no present,
there is no future.
It is ALL simultaneous.
We can skip it for now
as it is simply mind gobbling.
It'll gobble your mind
yammy yam yammy
before you wink an eye.
But, nevertheless, it is so.
The ideas of the past are but reflections
in the present. It is FOREVER present
if you wish to fly were you claim.
So, the "context" of letter 'e'
is not the past [experiences].
It is your self, forever present.
Sure, you CAN say:
Everything BECOMES an object
while being considered
or perceived.
But you can not use 'IS OBJECT [created by the mind]'.
Subtle but perverse.
>>> however, AND THIS IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT AND CORE
>>>ESSENTIAL TO WHAT I AM SAYING: the mind is the context in which the object
is
>>>embedded
>>NOT.
>>The LABEL for an object.
>if thats how you distinquish it, then YES.
Scuze me. You had a fallacy of a statement.
You simply use the mind as though it was
that very 'transcendental reality'
of which you are so reluctant.
Your statement reads:
The existence is contained in the mind.
I say: LIE.
The IDEAS about existence ARE contained in the mind.
See the difference?
EVERY single dot and comma,
EVERY single word in this game
makes a difference between life and death.
You are walking on a mine field my friend.
But you are behaving in such a sloppy manner,
even by simply looking at your posts,
their formatting, the way you cut most of
your opponents arguments.
You'll get blown out of the water
the way you walk
and the way you talk
and the way you put your argument together.
>>>(what so ever that 'object' it, what ever we take as our subject,
>>>*including* the mind itself!)
>>You have guts indeed.
But you are talking about the MODEL
of existence
and not existence itself.
Just within the last 24 hrs.,
as it usually happens when I have some
importand argument,
I have heard the song with a line:
"Without you, I am just a sand
in the desert".
Do you see?
Well, what you have in your hands
is but the dust,
lil did you know.
Once you ommit Love from your equasion,
life becomes an excersize in futility.
The entire human experience,
no matter what you CONSIDER to be
an "object", "subject", the "observer" and the "observed"
are all but illusions.
"Dust falling into dust".
Because your entire life
looses its meaning.
Yes, certainly, you can excersize ANY kind
of an idea or any kind of model.
But where is LIFE in it?
Where is that correspondence with
that very REALITY,
regardless of wether you consider it
to be "transcendental" [to your mind games]?
>>So...
>>What is the difference between the observer
>>and the observed then?
>this is a good question, i am apprehensive about aswering it because
>there are a number of ways in which i might answer it.
> the observer is that which observers
>and the observed is that which is observed.
Obvious to a 5 year old.
And then?
>>Can mind be an observer and the observed
>>at the same time? Can it be the very object
>>of observation?
>yes and no.
Well, seems to be some progress here.
Ever heard of seven folded truth?
About 5-7 thousand years ago.
I mentioned it several times already here.
1. It IS
2. And it is NOT (at the same time)
3. And it is BOTH (at the same time)
4. And it is NEITHER (...)
5. And it is NONE of the above
6. And it is ALL included
Wonder if you could make up the 7th one.
Then he goes:
And now the Truth has been PERFECTLY spoken.
His name was Sankaracharya if I am not mistaken.
Zo...
You claim the "science" made some "progress"
and is ready to accept step number 2?
Wonder how many thousands of years is it going to take
before we get to the end
of what has been stated
at least 5 thousand years "ago"?
You like?
>as i said above, if the observer takes himself as the observed
Impossible.
Observer and the observed MUST be distinct.
Furthermore, the observer must be outside the scope
of the observed.
Anotherwords, you can not observe reality
or God or ANYTHING that is "transcendental",
using your own terms, to you.
You CAN observe some limited aspects
or "sub-components" of it.
But you can not observe it.
Your mind will simply explode.
Your eyes will simply be blinded
by that intensity.
The creation can not possibly know the purpose
of creator (no matter what that creation is).
>then
>he has included who he *was*
Not "who he WAS", but some ASPECTS,
some traces of his activity,
some reflections,
however distored they are.
There is an interesting view on this.
When you "observe" your "past",
you, thus, modify your "future".
You like?
Why?
Well, because at the moment of doing,
you have one perveption,
which corresponds to your overall "state"
in the "past".
But when you look at it NOW,
you are a different entity indeed.
Some things you did not see then,
and some "mistakes" you made then,
could be understood now.
So, looking at your "past" life experiences,
you are no longer bound by that blindness
and naivity of the "past"
and so your future is changed.
Zo...
It turns out that the past can modify
the future.
You like?
>(the observed/the object) in who he now *is* (the
>observer/the context), again, if you are interested i suggest Glanville,
I have a feeling he got all this from Maharishi.
>he is quite proficient at talking in circles
They ALL are.
>and applies his own concepts and categories to himself
>(this is a 'self-reflexive methodology'- i.e., the
>radical constructivists METHODOLOGICAL COROLLARY is:
>all explanations are necessarily circular
In a sense that you forever refer to your "past"
ideas and models and those, in turn,
were doing just the same,
back to "beginning of time".
About ALL you have is your own ideas
and MODELS of existence.
I do not even use term reality
as it is WAY to broad.
Your illusions are ALSO reality.
Your "errors" are also reality.
ALL that is, is a reality.
ANYTHING once conceived
becomes reality.
It may not be fully manifest
in objects as a result of further development,
but, nevertheless, it IS reality.
Furthermoe, once conceived,
it can NEVER dissapear.
It can never die.
It becomes incorporated
in multi-dimensional reality
of ALL THERE IS.
You wish to speak of RADICAL?
Ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
>as there is no external point of reference [Riegler, 2001])
Yes there is.
It is YOU!
It is that which is beyond the mind.
It is that which is forever silent.
It is that which is aware of all this drama.
It is that which is the essense of your very being.
Tathata.
The forth.
Turiya.
Except it is not "point of reference".
It is that inner craving
that propells you throughout your very life.
It is that toward which you intuitively crave for.
It is said to be a final state of physical exisence
of you as you know yourself.
It is a reality of
ALL
THERE
IS.
Are we done here?
Or you wish to teach me some more
of your "radicalism"?
I suspect this is pretty much ALL you've got,
even thou we hardly even started.
But I am glad you made at least this much progress.
It'll take some time thou
before you see the light of day,
but such is the nature of things.
Tathata (suchness)
Good luck with your trip.
Just remember a few things.
1. Existence is multi-dimensional
2. It is simultaneous (there is no time. It is but illusion)
3. There are no closed systems
(so 2nd law of thermodinamics does not apply)
4. There is something beyond the mind
right smack in the middle of your being
and it is yours to claim ANY time you are ready to claim it.
And a few points specifically regarding your interests
Reality is everything you know
including your own theories.
It is not "transcendental".
It is ALL wired into the Intelligence
forever expanding.
Therefore,
There is no "inner".
There is no "outer".
When you claim "it is all within my mind",
what you are intuitively saying is:
I AM GOD.
The entire existence is contained within me.
There is no beginning in me
and there is no end.
I am not separable from ANYTHING there is.
I am that infinite and unbounded Intelligence,
all pervading.
Just get that "ism" out of equasion.
It'll make you a slave
[of the gross, the matter, the dark]
:---}
>mickeyd
nucleus
>>> >All we really know is that our belief in the universe (and everything
>>> >else we "believe") has worked for us all our life so we are going to
>>> >stick with this belief until we find it doesn't work for us anymore.
>>>
>>> yes, so your probably asking "why challange this belief", ...
>>
>>I don't ask that. What this way of thinking shows us is that there are no
>>absolute facts about the universe we live in. As much as we like to think
>>that "science" tells is the "truth" about the universe, it doesn't. It
>>only helps us to improve the probability that our beliefs are correct.
>
>
>where you say "...helps us to improve the probability that our beliefs are
>correct. ..." i say 'it helps us to remain viable in our environment by
>providing viable means and ways of acting in our environment'.
And I say is:
Viable is but another delusion.
No matter which path you take,
you'll eventually come to the same place.
Inevitably so. Even if mankind ceases to be
and the whole life has to start all over again,
even though the consequences are direst,
the "wrong" branch of a tree we climed initially,
does not have to be traversed again.
It will simply wither away.
Regardless of this "viability" concept
you, as a mankind, forever had the ability
of "acting in our environment",
going back to the very beginnings.
It does not matter what kind of games you amuse
yourself with. No game is more "viable" then the
other. Yes, the kind of games the "scientists"
have played, eventually brought us all to see
our darkest days. In that sense, science is a
system of delusion largely, especially since
the days the "objectivity" was accentuated
to be a godhead of existence.
And so, we have but a couple of generations left
on our time clock.
Could we take a different path?
Nope, we couldn't, however unfortunate
this circumstance is.
Because if we could, we would.
Here we have come to see the MOST profound concept
on record, the concept of god and the concept of
the beast.
The concept of god, which you advocate,
is the concept of viability [of life as such].
It is the concept of affirmation,
of creativity. It is life GIVING.
The concept of the beast, whose sign is 666,
is the concept of non-viability of life.
Therefore, in its strange kind of "compassion",
its primary interest is to destroy all life.
Why, one might ask?
Well, because all life is full of limitations,
starting with your body and ending with futility
of all your attempts. At the end, you end up
swimming in misery and only the most idiotic
of your kind can manage to keep the phoney
smile on their sucky and dumb input holes
even in the midst of the misery, most profound.
And so they become the servants of the beast
regardless of wether they "know" it or not.
At this junction, the planet Earth is being
ruled by that very beast as he managed to
corrupt nearly every single human being.
The power of destruction is vastly "superior"
to the power of creation at this junction.
The whole life can be destroyed in just a wink
of an eye.
Yes, it is true that the most powerful and
influential people in your governments,
politics, "science", "business" or nearly
every place you look are satanists.
They serve the agenda of the beast.
Their resources are vast to the point of mindboggling.
From that standpoint, there seems to be no question
as to outcome.
But the game isn't quite over just as yet.
It has been said
that as long as there is just a few people left
who are still uncorrupt, things could be managed.
THAT is about the only case where "viability"
applies from what I can see.
Otherwise, it is all but a tale
told by the idiot
signifying nothing at the end.
>>Logic is just a tool created to help test for consistency in or beliefs for
>>example. All things we lump under "scientific method" are more of the
>>same. It's all just tools to help test for "correctness" of our beliefs.
>"viability" -this 'correspondence' notion of 'truth' is dubious and makes us
> all into metaphysicians as we cannot decide on, in principle, undecidable
> questions.
>this is how Foerster defines metaphysics, i think its an apt definition
because
>questions like 'is 1 an even or odd number' is obviously, in principle, a
>decidable question whereas questions of the order 'is X true' (where 'X' is a
>synthetic/inductive empirically defined statement) is, in principle,
> undecidable and therefore transcendental (metaphysical) in nature.
Well, in that case, there is no question you can "answer"
or is there?
The whole infrastructure of "science"
is infrastructure of futility.
The whole life becomes methaphysics, isn't it?
>>In the end, all we know is what our experience tells us. Tomorrow, we may
>>learn something new that will force us to change everything we know. So we
>>must always be open minded about even our most fundimential beliefs.
>>--
>mickeyd
nucleus
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <bga6c8$d92$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
>><s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mr Michael Bibby" <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>> news:<bg7hkg$gba$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>>>>>
>>>>> >Your views would have much better value in philosophy of art. (where
>>>>> >this kind of sloppy relativism actually makes sense)
>>>>>
>>>>> i find it hard to understand these kinds of remarks when one considers
> that
>>> RC
>>>>> and 2nd order cybernetics has so much to offer computational theory and
AI
>>> life
>>>>> (i.e., see Riegler 'does representation need reality', 'constructivists
>>>>> arteficial life and beyond', and others..) it *SOLVES* THE SYMBOL
> GROUNDING
>>>>> PROBLEM for crying out loud!- that is why i posted my origonal posting!
First of all, mr. mind student, do you see what I mean by poor
formatting? You see, lines start wrapping arond and are broken.
As a result, your otherwise lucid argument look like garbage
generator output.
Furthermore, if you argue your case and strip a majority
of arguments from your "opponents", it isn't clear what is
your motivation. All the context is gone. You omit some
argument and type several paragraphs of densely packed text
where several different ideas are not only separated,
but packed in a single sentence.
The quesion naturally arises and that is why Neil just
blew up I suspect:
Are you a conman or a profit,
pronouncing the holey [with holes] truth,
the very notion of which you deny on the first place?
As far as your argument and "evidence" goes,
I am not interested in alife. To me, it is a suicidal
excersize in futility. What is the point of trying
to make a vastly distorted copy of that which is
already there on the first place?
Oh, you mean it will help you to understand
how intelligence operates and what life is?
Well, I am not sure you have enough time left
on your clock of biological life.
So, from that standpoint, the whole alife effort
is a non-viable approach, or IS it?
First of all, look at the most important criterias
they use in this sub-idiotic alife?
Well, it is first "survival"
and second survival again,
only in the most agressive form of it
as expressed in destruction of other
"competing" entities.
Then you put this idiotic ideology of
"competition" into it, copying that
directly from failed economic models
of suckitalism.
Following that party line,
you put the concepts of "growth" into it,
pretty much as a result of those very economic
models of suckitalism that eventually lead
the "modern" societies to the abyss
of running out of natural resources.
Growth progresses at geometrical progression.
Finally, you do not put into it anything related
to about the most important criterias of
biological life such as joy, love, appreciation,
peace, gratitude, appreciattion of beauty
and on and on and on.
Sure, you'll probably claim that it is not YOU,
who is interested in alife, it is the other dude,
and yet you put it into your argument.
Tell me, what do you think of value of alife "research"?
What are your goals woth achieving to make it
a "vialble" something?
Where are you going with it?
What do you expect at the end if you "succeed"?
What do you expect to learn from it?
Now...
These are my arguments.
Better do not strip it all out
and give me the same lecture about your
"radical" 'ism', which is "indeed radical"
as Longley like to claim.
If you stip it all out, you are either
a dishonest man or a priest, who came here
to "teach" all mortals of a new religion
of not so "radical" ism.
Oh, your argument is likely to be:
Sorry, I have no time on all this.
But then: What are you doing here on the first place?
"Wasting your valuable time"?
Better go do your deep shit "research" then.
Why even bother with mortals that do not
realize reality is but a myth?
As far as "symbol grounding problem" goes,
what you are doing with that "research" is but
attempting to "dissasemble" the biological
intelligence. The question is:
For what?
You think you'll EVER be able to create a more
efficient model of Intelligence?
Or you think you can exceed the real,
and that is biological, Intelligence?
>>>>I think you guys should stay away from computational theories :)
>>>>
>>>>That symbol grounding problem is in fact a non-problem like the zombie
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>>Physical grounding is not a question. It's not like there is a mental
>>>>realm that is wholly separate from the physical, that's an absurd
>>>>dualist view.
>>>>
>>>>****************************************************************
>>>>In fact, whenever you say the ontological reality is a transcendental
>>>>domain of inquiry that cannot be reached by us (What, are you guys
>>>>bringing Kant back from the dead?) you are being DUALIST. And dualism
>>>>has been REJECTED by contemporary philosophy of mind. Dualism rates as
>>>>a WORSE theory of mind than identity theory.
>>>>*******************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>Maybe some obsolete philosophy took "symbol grounding" as a problem
>>>>because they had no clue how the brain was working.
>>>>
>>>>21st century. That's not a problem any more.
>>>>
>>>>They also didn't know what computation was, and it seems they still
>>>>don't.
>>>>
>>>>Does RC have solutions to particular problems in philosophy of mind?
>>>>Uh? Let's start: is the computational view of mind correct?
>>>
>>>there is no such thing as 'correct' in the RC repotoire,
>>
>>I like that.
>>
>>:---}
>>
>>>the correspondence
>>>theory of truth is replaced by one of 'functional fit' and 'viability'
>>
>>Functional fit I can swallow.
>>Viability seems a bit fishy.
>
>
>the concept of viability in a RC context is pretty simple "'to know' is not
to
>possess 'true descriptions of reality'
But what then?
Stuff your head with all sorts of bullshit,
none of which can be either proven or disproven
according to your own definition?
What is "knowledge" then?
I claim that "to know" is INDEED
to find as undistorted picture of reality,
as you can manage.
Not "true", but indistorted.
It is to know the very essense of existence
as expressed within your own being.
>but rather to possess means and ways of
>acting that allows one to attain the goals one happens to have chosen."
This is but a derivative of a suicidal ideology
of materialism.
What is "goal" on the first place?
Is it eventually reduceable to mere accumulation
of "objects", "power", "influence" and might?
As to "happens to have chosen",
what if one makes a "goal" to perfect killing
and anihilation?
Is it considered to be just as "viable",
as any other?
What if one makes a "goal" to control the world
and submit all to his will, might and delusions?
Viable?
You think you can just escape from these most
profound issues?
What if one makes a "goal" to grow as fast
as it gets, which eventually and inevitably
causes natural resources to run out
and environmant to collapse?
Viable?
Oh, you could "care less"?
Fine, so what do you expect the outcome of your
great "theory" would be?
Total happiness?
Global joy?
Conservation of resources?
What IS it, you lil fool?
>(GLasersfeld) i inserted this quote because it comes from the horses mouth.
Well, it depends on what that horse ate all its life.
Sure, when you get away from the familiar territory
of present worldview, you need to find some new tricks
to make it look valid, and so you try to bridge the
unbridgeable. Often, you invent some complicated
SOUNDING notions and try to put as many of them
in a single sentence, as you can manage,
hoping to keep the clueless deluded
dor as long, as you can manage.
But all this crap does not reconcile at the end.
Because it is all just as fake as your present
system of delusion.
You understand?
FAKE.
So, these horses go as far, as to claim
the "infinite recursion" in this self-referential
monkey logic, not even realizing that your mind
would simply exploded, fried if this were the case.
Then, since you no longer support the notion
of "true", "false" and make it sufficient to be
totally self-referential AND "infinitely recursive",
you can just put ANY delusion into it
and it still remains "viable" according to your
"goals" and they can be LITERALLY anything.
Is 4th Reich a "viable" concept?
- Indeeed. Because it allow one to achieve his goals?
Is New World Order a "viable" concept?
- Indeed.
Is service to the beast, whose sign is 666,
is "viable" concept?
- Oh, you betcha sorry tootoo it is!
Is elimination of majority of population
of the planet Earth, abused to the hilt,
with most vilent and destructive means
a "viable" concept?
- Better believe. On the grounds that it
will make the lives of those remaining easier
as resoures are not as exloited.
I can make a BOOK on most rotten and MOST
horrendous acts that will remain
PERFECTLTY "viable".
You see what you got yourself into,
mr. "radicalist", following someone elses "ism"?
RADICAL you wish?
CONSTRUCTIVISM you call it?
I call it DESTRUCTIVISM.
Argue if you wish.
Enough.
> this
>is an important shift in epistemology from the representationalist concept of
>knowledge to one of 'instrumentality' you might say. this way, we call a
spade
> a
>spade instead of taking that 'leap of faith' and saying that our knowledge
>structures approximate ontologically objective reality. the notion of
>'functional fit' is to be distinquished from 'structural fit' (which is a
>relatively common notion in cognitive pscyhology which state that there is a
>'structural' isomorphism between cognitive structures and physical
relations).
>'our theories, where they are viable, are viable because they are viable' (A
>implies B and B implies A) instead of saying, 'our theories are viable
because
>they approximate reality' (A implies B and B implies 'x'- where 'x' connotes
>somekind of external point of reference and thus breaks the circle)
>
>mickeyd
nucleus
"Mike" <chum...@rogers.com> wrote:
>To the only philosopher
Oh, I like that.
Thats a good start.
Looks like we've got a new kid in town.
Well, welcome to the domain of obsene.
And then?
>Mr. Michael Bibby,
>
>Your posting called for a perusal, which I did together with my friend,
>Evgeny Mesentsev. Here are some comments, objections and criticisms that you
>have asked for.
>
>Humble translator,
So far, your English is quite comprehandable.
>Mike
>
>M.B.
>
>The fundamental explanatory shift from realism to constructivism is that
>‘phenomenon’ are no longer seen as ontologically given, that is, they are no
>longer seen as 'anchored' in some ‘mind-independent reality’, but rather
>brought forth by the mind itself through the very process of apprehension.
>
>E.M.
>
>This difference seems unimportant for me. It is just developing the notion
>of something 'given': non-captiously taken 'given' is realism, while 'given'
>construed along some explicit rules is 'constructivism'. The notion of the
>'real' world in realism evolves in a different way. And phenomenological
>approach by Husserl reconciles this transition completely. There exist mind'
>s content; the problems of why and what is the next step.
>
>M.B.
>
>therefore, constructivism does not 'root' its explanations of phenomena in
>some transcendental 'mind independent reality' (ontologically objective
>reality).
>
>E.M.
>
> A phenomenon seen as 'independent from mind' can be as such only at the 2nd
>step of cognition (at the 1st step it is being construed). But if you claim
>that it does not gain 'independence from mind' after being construed, you
>are wrong.
Looks like we've got some heavy duty philosophy here.
>Is it not true that a mathematical object [Translator's note:
>there is a number of words also used in this sense, such as: 'thing',
>'phenomenon'. 'Object' seems to have a connotation of being a product of
>mind]
Then it would probably be 'mental object' to avoid confusion
of the original statement.
>(after having been construed) has some 'independent from mind'
>features, which are studied by Math?
Probably not. Because the very math is still but a product
of 'mind' and therefore is mere aggregation of 'mind objects'.
>And in this sense it is real. The
>hurdle here is in the notion of 'real' itself,
Yup. I asked this many time.
So far, all I hear is static.
>as well as in the notions of 'independence from mind'
Yup.
Even if you die and no longer exist,
all the other people can observe that
which is no longer observable by you.
In this sense, it is invalid to claim:
Once the observer is gone,
the observed is gone also.
Otherwise, the whole thing becomes pure subjectivity
excersize and, thus, inapplicable in 'general' terms.
Even if something is gone to the individual mind,
it is invalid to claim it is gone for ALL minds.
Otherwise, we fall back on Universal mind,
or mind of God effectively.
>at the study stage [step] and 'being construed' at
>the 1st step (let's call it 'ontologization'). Breakthroughs in science
>happen when someone thinks of [construes] new types of objects, new way to
>construe them. After which they [objects] turn into objective reality, which
>is studied by ordinary scientists.
Well, an interesting point here
is those new objects, before they were conceived,
are in fact 'outside' the scope of mind, so the theory breaks.
The question arises: Did we merely invent some abstract
objects or did we notice something in existence and,
as a result, created these new notions and new "objects".
The very notion of "object" is nasty,
unless we explicitly state "MENTAL objects",
in which case, the entire theory becomes
theory of mind, and, therefore is inapplicable
to anything external to this very mind.
ANY way you look at it, there are ALL sorts of problems.
>MB.
>
> Phenomenon are defined as objects and events which we isolate in our
>experiences, that is, the objects which we take as our subject are brought
>forth by the drawing of a distinction (a cognitive operation that realizes
>cognition) which circumscribes the object by isolating it from the
>background of our experiences (the context in which the object is embedded).
>Phenomenon, therefore, are 'system-relative constructions': cognitive
>objects which are brought forth by cognitive operations performed upon
>cognitive objects (the 'performing of a distinction' is often demonstrated
>with two concentric circles where the inner circle is the 'object' and the
>outer circle is the 'context'), that is, the mind is a 'operationally
>closed, self-referential system'- the perpetually acting components of the
>system refer only to themselves as the system interacts recursively with its
>own internal states (i.e., mental activity is the result of ongoing mental
>activity- hence the 'iteration of consciousness' as the mind applies its own
>faculties to itself). all this means that the mind is an *epistemological*
>solipsist (as apposed to an 'ontological solipsist') such that “we ourselves
>are the depositories of the evidence of the subject which we consider.” (for
>example, as you read what I am saying, you cultivate your own understanding
>of what i now say, and gauge the varacity of these arguments upon
>consideration of your own personal experience)-that is, we cannot transcend
>the domain of our experiences, and, by
>
>extension, we cannot divine the causes, through refinements of logic and
>abstractions of experience, necessary and sufficient for the appearances of
>things which we isolate in our experiential domain (nor can we even be sure
>that there are such a things as 'underlying causes' waiting to be
>discovered). It is important to note that this position does *not* assert
>*or* deny the existence of external reality, it is *not* a theory of 'being'
>but a theory of 'doing' (epistemology). this position is metaphysically
>agnostic and makes absolutely no ontological commitments about what exists
>independently of us).
>
>EM.
>
> As I see it, all the theses above are wrong in the following sense:
>
>1. There are two cognition stages (as seen roughly in the given
>context)
>
>a) object construing
Not sure if this is correct translation.
>b) object study
Is construe mean "to interpret, to explain, or to conceive"?
Depending on original language, both a) and b) may turn out
to be the same thing.
>2. The theory above mixes these two stages. We may put it very roughly
>this way: 'reality' is a result of a social contract or construing of this
>reality. So, one cannot get rid of the reality notion (being 'independent
>from mind')
Well, the author did not chose to define what he implies
by reality upon request.
This has to be defined and I suspect as soon, as it is done,
thing will begin collapsing.
The very term 'reality' is something that is not illusion.
In a broad sense, it does not even have to be physical objects.
Not only that, but the very ideas in the mind are also
reality, only unmanifest in a domain of physical objects
outside the mind itself.
So, this whole thing gets tricky in a hurry.
"Official" request:
Define reality first.
Then we talk more.
:---}
I am not a "philosopher".
I am just a cleaner here.
But I do a good job.
We'll clean the hell out of this thing.
I promise.
Only God will be left at the end.
>3. The notion of being (reality)
Huh?
Being meaning life?
Or existence, existing?
>is paired to the notion of mind [consciousness];
Mind is not consciousness.
Either this is mistranslation
or it is an outright delusion.
I'll clean this one VERY good, I promise.
Consciousness is outside the scope of mind.
It is that, which is the very underlying process
that brought mind into being. In that sense,
it is a "cause" of mind, even though I, personally,
deny the very notion of causality. Long subject though.
>if you deny one of them the other one does not make sense.
>But there is some utility with the 'constructivism' approach; these
>particular considerations allow us to sharply differentiate between the two
>stages of cognition (the ontological and the research ones). But the matter
>is within their relation to each other.
>
>MB.
>
> it is also important to note that although this position offers a different
>framework for doing science in, it does *not* deny that science, as a human
>enterprize, is instrumental (constructivists *dont* deny that scientific
>theories help usto make predictions and control phenomena; but what it does
>say is that science should not be carried out in a realist framework as it
>is nothing more than a pious hope to think that our theories 'reflect'
>reality or some part of it, they are mental scaffolds that provide a viable
>means and way of thinking and acting that allow us to achieve the goals we
>have chosen, whether it is to enable us to design, build and launch a
>telecommunications satellite into a geostationary orbit or simply avoid
>getting hit by a truck when crossing the road- nothing more and nothing
>less) in this construal, it is of no surprise that mathematics is such a
>useful language for describing empirical observations when one considers
>that those observations were defined in mathematical terms.
>
>EM.
>
> To sum it up: constructivists over-emphasize one of the stages
>(ontologization being artificial) in contrast to another (the study one).
Either there is a problem with translation,
or we have some things to cleanup here indeed.
To claim that very being is something artificial,
which does not "independently" exist outside the mind,
is bending it REAL good, unless you replace ontology
with conceptualization [of reality],
which is "indeed REAL".
:---}
Is this whole thing but a linguistic excersize
or are you actually trying to say something about LIFE.
If this is not about life,
sorry, I am not interested.
Because to me it is all but mental masturbation
of about and about and about.
But not IT.
>But we thank them for allowing us to distinguish between them. This is
>exactly how human reasoning progresses: a new approach appears, which
>stresses out one of the sides and thus makes it visible.
>MB.
>
> A thing is what it is by virtue of what we make it;
Nope. Your IDEA about "a thing", but not "thing" itself.
Otherwise, you'd have deny the very existence of matter.
Are you saying that your mental projections
created the Universe?
Do I hear static again?
>when we measure a
>theoretical entity with some piece of measuring equipment we define such
>entities as units of measurement ('units' are human constructs); “properties
>are defined as invariants of measurement devices”, through operational
>definitions (i.e., “to measure means to compare two phenomena with each
>other, one of which already assigned with a dimension.”); that is, we define
>theoretical entities and there ‘essential’ properties in observational
>terms- when we observe we define just what it is we are observing.
Define or CREATE?
To define is to create a mental "image" of that,
which already exists on the first place.
Sure, you can create some purely abstract definitions,
a fiction story of sorts. But that does not imply that
the mere fact you "defined" something, it implies that
something did not exist "before" you defined it.
Otherwise, this whole thing is but trickery.
As I asked before and heard static in return:
Is it some kind of a circus
for the mad?
Or are we talking about LIFE?
Is such a notion as "life" acceptable
in this theory?
>therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about independent
>properties, properties that are invariant and independent of our various
>means and ways of measuring them (this applies in particular to quantum
>mechanics).
Properties or "objects" themselves?
I thought you are talking about real life objects
and not mere mental constructions and their properties.
Regardless of what properties you attribute
to "objects", it does not imply that the objects
do not exist regardless of your descriptions [of them].
>EM.
>
> This only means that the properties under consideration cannot be
>ontologized with the help of old means.
I, personally, am not even interested in the issue
of wether we perceive "objects" "correctly",
in undistorted and "original" version.
This is UTTERLY irrelevant to the very core
of the argument.
By proving that your properties are somehow
not "correct", it doest not imply there is no
existence and no reality outside your mind.
I define reality as ISness.
It is UTTERLY irrelevant of what is "object"
[of consideration] in this respect.
Furthermore, I deny the very notion of "objective reality",
on the basis that this notion can only be comprehended
by the supreme being, the creator,
or infinite, all pervading intelligence.
Man can not possibly comprehend "objective reality".
ALL the statements, notions and theories ever made
are subjective, regardless of how many people agreed
as to their "objectivity".
>MB.
>
> Ordinarily, in the realist world view, ‘phenomena’ are ‘objectivised’ in
>that they are seen as ‘ontologically given’ (given by the evironment you
>might say), that is, they are explained by recourse to some transcendental
>reality (metaphysical domain)- hence the distinction between
>‘representation’ and‘reality’ (and the idea that knowledge ‘represents’
>reality).
>
>EM.
>
> This is so called 'vernacular' or 'naive' realism. I agree, this is exactly
>the way it goes. But the problem lies particularly in the relation between
>the notions of reality per se and reality in terms of knowledge/model of it.
Indeed. But repeatedly pointing out this very point
to the author is just like banging on the wall.
There is no one home it seems.
>In some respects reality is always a model.
Not reality itself, but the the IDEA about what it is.
No matter how distorted our views regarding existence,
we, nevertheless, can not deny the vey existence.
It is simply insane.
Again, is it some kind of linguistic trickery class?
>Yes, this is true. But there are
>two ways to make use of it: a) to elaborate on it b) to actually use it,
>which means accepting it as being real. And both of these ways are
>complimentary (subsidiary). Within the approach described, the way 'a' is
>constructivism, the way 'b' is realism.
Fine with me. If constructivism
is merely an excersize in comprehending
what the real thing actually is,
then you can go ahead and construct anything you like.
> Any of them without the other is wrong.
Then it is time to define what is "right"
and what is "wrong". I am kinda curious on this.
>Construing models does not make any sense without a chance to use the
>model in practice.
Yes, at least for this much.
But, this does not imply that all there is
in entire existence is your mental constructions.
>MB.
>
>In the constructivist world view, on the other hand, phenomena are seen as
>system-relative Óonstructions which are no longer explained in terms of a
>transcendental reality, but instead are seen as viable constructions built
>upon the basis of pre-existing constructs which are organised hierarchical
>(you might say 'vertically intergrated' as they are built up over the course
>of ontogenic development through learning), and, as far as the cognitve
>system is concerned,
>these models ***are*** its environment, because the cognitive system is
>operationally closed
No. It is not.
What do you imply by "operationaly closed"?
As I said MANY times over, there isn't a SINGLE example
of a closed system in entire existence,
be it "operationall", "functionally", "objectively"
or otherwise.
Your view of cognitive system is limited beyond comprehension.
>as it interacts with its own internal states in a
>recursive manner (ad infinitum).
There is ALL sorts of problems here.
>EM.
> As I see it, another mistake is rooted here. The objects of mind
>[consciousness] have some definiteness and structure, and this is an
>indication of being 'real', and a very important one. They also do not
>dependent on mind [consciousness]. Digit 5 does not depend on my mind, as it
>has some properties and a structure: it is simple, odd, etc, etc. The fact
>that it is construed does not deny its being independent from mind AFTER it
>was construed.
Again, ALL sorts of problems.
You can probably write a book on it,
so vast are the problems
and so illusory are the very concepts,
going as far, as being PURE grade fallacy.
>MB.
>
>To know’, in this construal, is to be viable in an environment (to possess
>*viable* means and ways of thinking and acting that allow one to achieve the
>goals one happens to have chosen), instead of possessing ‘true descriptions’
>of ontologically objective reality.
Again, a survivalist argument,
an "empty vessel" argument as I call it.
"Viability" of "achieving goals" is of limited utility.
I assume you are talking about life,
otherwise, this is but an excersize in futility.
Just "achieving your goal" simply means you are
some kind of machine.
Why?
Well, because what is "goal" on the fist place?
You can make a "goal" ONLY of something that
is ALREADY known, like "to make money",
"to become famous", or things like that.
But you can not make a "goal" of discovering
a theory of relativity. It is simply impossible.
Yes, once you are done with it,
you'll place a label on it "grand theory of relativity".
But when you were struggling with it,
you did not even know what will come out at the end.
Do you see the argument here?
The argument is simple enough:
ALL your "goals" are but an excersize in futility,
arising from a complex of inferiority.
But genuine discoveries of those undelying principles
and mechanisms of existence is exactly what you
call ‘true descriptions’.
You do not EVER trully create anything.
You merely discover that, which is already there
on the first place, unless you are involved
in purely abstract games.
You do not create that, which you latter on labled
as "gravitation", "energy" or ANY other "object".
You merely became AWARE of certain things
that were forever waiting to be found.
I don't like this "philosophical" high priest blabber.
Bring me your highest master.
We'll have a friendly chat with him.
One more time:
You can not avoid argument.
Otherwise, just get lost.
This is not quite a place to peddle bullshit
and delusions, nicely packaged with labels
attached "A Revolutionary Theory Of Radical Constructivism".
Cause that box goes right up your tootoo.
I hope I don't have to explain what that is.
>EM.
>Here I agree absolutely; I think that the gist behind the approach is simply
>rooted in critical viewing of the cognition [study] stages, and viewing
>cognition as consisting of two stages reconciles the problem.
You can agree all you want.
But it does not make truth out of lie.
>MB.
>given the operational closure and self-reference of the cognitive system
There is no and can not be
an "operational closure".
This is COMPLETE blindness.
First of all, cognitive system receives
beside "main information" the direct energy signals.
Very often, when I walk down the street
and someone looks at me either from the back or
from the side, I immediately turn my head toward them
and look them right into their eyes with a sword
of awareness.
Where is "operational closure"?
What are bluffing about here?
You need EVIDENCE?
Just make sure you really want it.
Retract this stuff.
This is my suggestion.
It does not matter to me what your theory states,
but you can not make truth out of a lie,
even if you, blind fool, do not even believe
in such a thing as "true"/"false".
It'll bite you one day,
and you never know when that day may come.
But it WILL come. Inevitably so.
Oki doki.
Thats enough.
Again, you either argue point by point
or get lost. Simply avoiding the argument
and cutting it out of your followups,
indicates your scientific honesty is
not up to snuff.
Zee ya later aligator.
>(i.e., the mind is an *epistemological* solipsist that interacts with its
>own internal states recursively), we cannot transcend the domain of our
>experiences; therefore, recourse to a transcendental reality does not make a
>whole lot of sense when explaining cognitive phenomenon- especially when one
>considers that experiences can be explained without such a metaphysical
>domain- hence,
>
>realism is rationally indefensible and obsolete. Considering the fact that
>these ideas are relatively new (nothing is ever new under the sun- this
>orientation has its roots in skepticism) I was wondering if anyone had any
>comments, objections and criticisms as this explanatory shift has the power
>to be the next Copernican revolution and opens the way to a whole new way of
>thinking about reality and doing science. below are some quotes which might
>help clarify this orientation, usually called 'radical
>
>constructivism' or 'second order cybernetics'.
>
>EM.
>
> General considerations. It's not easy to talk over epistemology out of some
>specific real-life cognition issues. As far as I am concerned, I would be
>most interested in tracking the whole cycle down: an issue, choosing the
>method, dissatisfaction with the old methods, coming up of the new one,
>solving the issue. Then comparison of the approaches makes sense. There is
>also a way to make our communication more structured and productive. For
>example, we can call together a group of people interested in developing
>thinking tooling and hold discussion sessions according to a beforehand
>designed and approved pattern. I would like to take these duties up on the
>condition that I think in Russian and it takes some time for Michael to
>translate my postings. And my answers as well.
>
>A possible schedule.
>
>1st stage: Looking for the issues which participants would like to discuss.
>
>2nd stage: working out a work pattern, e.g.: a) account of the issue b)
>account of the work methods c) applying the methods to the issue.
>
>Every step works this way: everyone proposes a wording, and then we discuss
>the wordings until we achieve some general comprehension or incomprehension
>(which is more valuable, as it will move us forward, while when all
>participants agree the content is empty).
>
>Any other patterns are acceptable. Let us discuss this.
>
>Evgeny
nucleus
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>2 of 2
>
>>MB.
>>
>> A thing is what it is by virtue of what we make it; when we measure a
>>theoretical entity with some piece of measuring equipment we define such
>>entities as units of measurement ('units' are human constructs); “properties
>>are defined as invariants of measurement devices”, through operational
>>definitions (i.e., “to measure means to compare two phenomena with each
>>other, one of which already assigned with a dimension.”); that is, we define
>>theoretical entities and there ‘essential’ properties in observational
>>terms- when we observe we define just what it is we are observing.
>>properties, properties that are invariant and independent of our various
>>means and ways of measuring them (this applies in particular to quantum
>>mechanics).
>>
>>
>> This only means that the properties under consideration cannot be
>>ontologized with the help of old means.
>>
>>
>> Ordinarily, in the realist world view, ‘phenomena’ are ‘objectivised’ in
>>that they are seen as ‘ontologically given’ (given by the evironment you
>>might say), that is, they are explained by recourse to some transcendental
>>reality (metaphysical domain)- hence the distinction between
>>‘representation’ and‘reality’ (and the idea that knowledge ‘represents’
>>reality).
>>
>>EM.
>>
>> This is so called 'vernacular' or 'naive' realism. I agree, this is exactly
>>the way it goes. But the problem lies particularly in the relation between
>>the notions of reality per se and reality in terms of knowledge/model of it.
>>two ways to make use of it: a) to elaborate on it b) to actually use it,
>>which means accepting it as being real. And both of these ways are
>>complimentary (subsidiary). Within the approach described, the way 'a' is
>>wrong. Construing models does not make any sense without a chance to use the
>>model in practice.
>
>
>i agree on your last point, however, we can model phenomena without using the
>concept of 'reality'. 'reality' provides us with a useful way to explain and
>describe how phenomena might arise. there is another way of describing how
>phenomena arise without resorting to an ontologically objective reality that
>exists independently of us. this is what RC and second order cybernetics
>provides us with, as we can explain and describe phenomena soley in terms of
> the
>cognitive processess of constructing the phenomena and construing the
> phenomena.
>this way, we dont need reality.
>
>this is important because there is no observation without an observer, the
>observer and the observered are mutually dependent on one another and it
doesnt
>make a whole lot of sense to think of the observer as a 'passive copying
>machine' he is far more than that, he is part of a *dynamic system* and not a
>passive observer. hence, the observer must include himself in his model for
it
>to be complete.
>
>
>>
>>MB.
>>
>>In the constructivist world view, on the other hand, phenomena are seen as
>>system-relative Óonstructions which are no longer explained in terms of a
>>transcendental reality, but instead are seen as viable constructions built
>>upon the basis of pre-existing constructs which are organised hierarchical
>>(you might say 'vertically intergrated' as they are built up over the course
>>of
>>
>>ontogenic development through learning), and, as far as the cognitve system
>>is concerned,
>>
>>these models ***are*** its environment, because the cognitive system is
>>recursive manner (ad infinitum).
>>
>>EM.
>>
>> As I see it, another mistake is rooted here. The objects of mind
>>[consciousness] have some definiteness and structure, and this is an
>>indication of being 'real', and a very important one.
>
>
>apprehendable by us, then i agree, of course they are 'sensible' to us, and
in
>that way they are 'real'.
>
>what i am saying here is that for us to 'deal' with an object is for us to
deal
>with our own internal states. the object *may* exist outside of us (and our
>'representation' of it) but there is no way for us to know because the mind
is
>an operationally closed system and all that we have access to are our own
>internal states. you might say that when we construe an object we are
changing
>states to an 'object state'.
>
>
>They also do not
>>dependent on mind [consciousness]. Digit 5 does not depend on my mind, as it
>>has some properties and a structure: it is simple, odd, etc, etc. The fact
>>that it is construed does not deny its being independent from mind AFTER it
>>was construed.
>
>
>phenomena which we isolate in our experiential field. that is, radical
>constructivism neither asserts or deny's the independent existence of
cognitive
>objects. we simply dont know and cannot know if 'things-in-themselves' exist
>independently of our experiences of them because we cannot step outside of
our
>experiences to find out. Glasersfeld, the leading proponent of RC says this
by
>saying that "we cannot transcend the domain of our experience".
Yes, we can.
Experience is a byproduct of a mind.
To make the claim you make is to imply that the mind
is ULTIMATE and FINAL aspect of your being and it is not.
CERATINLY not.
That is why I gave you the examples dating back thousands
of years ago. There is a "state" where your mind and your
ego ceases to operate. In that state there is no experience.
"The experiencer and experienced are gone".
And yet you are.
Undeniably so.
Experience implies evaluation of experienced.
It is an activity of the mind.
But there is a state where you are no longer
separate from the "outside" "reality".
It is possible to observe that very "experience",
and if it is so, it implies, there must be
something separate. Otherwise, there is simply
no way for you to observe your experiences.
Once you stop at the mind level,
you effectively stop on a machine aspect.
You as you are in that case is nothing more
than a machine. In essense, you become a utilitarian
gadget and the whole purpose of life is gone.
You are not a machine.
Once you become one that'll be the end of you.
> this applies
>equally to the platonic (objective) reality of mathematics and the 'observer
>dependent properties' of numbers. maybe they exist indenpendently of the mind
>but as much we cannot know. i might be repeating myself here, i just want to
>clarify this position as best i can.
>>MB.
>>To know’, in this construal, is to be viable in an environment (to possess
>>*viable* means and ways of thinking and acting that allow one to achieve the
>>goals one happens to have chosen), instead of possessing ‘true descriptions’
>>of ontologically objective reality.
>>
>>EM.
>>
>>Here I agree absolutely; I think that the gist behind the approach is simply
>>rooted in critical viewing of the cognition [study] stages, and viewing
>>cognition as consisting of two stages reconciles the problem.
>>
>>MB.
>>
>> given the operational closure and self-reference of the cognitive system
>i would be more than happy to discuss these, and related issues, at length.
and
>yes, it would be more productive to focus on specific issues and develop them
> in
>a structured and systematic way. we can do this, might i suggest, by giving a
>'realists' account of phenomena and compare and contrast it with a
>'constructivists' account of the same phenomena, or perhaps you have some
>suggestions or something else in mind here?
>
>also, please note that 'radical constructivism' is to be distinguished from
>other 'weaker' forms of constructivism (like social constructionism and
>constructivism more
>
>mickeyd
Mr Michael Bibby
i havent time to reply to your posts, if you do wish to offer some constructive
criticisms in a structured manner, please by all means do. perhaps you could
summarize your argument clearly, in point by point fashion, so that we can
disseminate each idea in a structured environment, otherwise, we will be here
forever! if you can find any apparant 'logical flaws' and internal
inconsistencies in the position i have presented then by all means re-present
them so that i, and others, can gauge the varacity of your arguments. i say all
this because although i do take time to come to this forum, i havent alot of
time.
mickeyd
Eray Ozkural exa
Would you be kind enough to explain exactly in what sense RC
contributes to philosophy of mind? I fail to see any significant
argument enhancing our understanding of basic problems. Please do such
in a structured manner without resorting to the history or origin of
constructivism for that is not the point of interest here. I believe
we are also not interested in extended discussions of epistemology or
ontology that do not relate to problems in philosophy of mind.
In addition, please do not fragment the threads for it makes viewing
harder than necessary. It is counter to netiquette. We are here for
information, not to witness one particular individual's presence.
If you have difficulty designating a starting point, I recommend
answering the following question:
Can a machine attain subjective experience as humans do? If so,
which kinds of machines have such properties?
Note that subjective experience is *not* considered to be equivalent
to consciousness. You may imagine it as the "sensory buzz" of being a
mind, ie. how the wine tastes. We are arguing what conditions are
necessary for it to exist at all.
Thanks,
"Mr Michael Bibby" <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:<bgl681$le1$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
nucleus
>attention nucleus,
>
>i havent time to reply to your posts, if you do wish to offer some constructive
>criticisms in a structured manner, please by all means do. perhaps you could
>summarize your argument clearly, in point by point fashion, so that we can
>disseminate each idea in a structured environment,
It is all done already. By now, you should have a good
idea what the arguments are.
>otherwise, we will be here
>forever! if you can find any apparant 'logical flaws' and internal
>inconsistencies in the position i have presented then by all means re-present
>them so that i, and others, can gauge the varacity of your arguments.
First, you need to define the very terms you use.
You've been asked for it several times.
All I hear is static so far.
What do you imply by mind?
What do you imply by reality?
What do you imply by "object"?
What do you imply by "experience"?
What do you imply by terms you use
in your arguments.
Unless you do so, I am not sure we are on the same
wavelenght.
That is what that other Russian guy suggested also.
You ignored his request as well.
As to your "mind observing the mind" argument,
there seems to be a violation of the very notion
of observation. The perceiver and the perceived
MUST be distinct.
As to your idea of "mind including the mind
in its 'experience', it looks like a trickery.
Mind USES its "knowledge" while experiencing
something, hopefully 'new' (else there is not
much purpose if it only deals with 'old').
But to claim it includes itself and going as far
as to claim "in infinitely recursive manner",
looks like a confusion, a trick of sorts.
If mind in every single "experience" has to
go thru infinite self-referential recursion,
you'd simply dead lock as at no point you'd
be able to make a SINGLE decision. Because,
in your scheme you need to continue this
recursion "ad infinitum".
So, again, not clear what you imply by this
recursion. Is it a recursion in historical
terms, or immediate terms as observation
occures.
Anotherword, as you defined your notions
so poorly, you may as well continue
stating basically ANYTHING you wish
and there is no possibility of any argument.
Specifically, because you deny the very notions
of "true"/"false". So, logic is not applicable.
To summarise, I view your ideology as a religious
dogma, unarguable in principle.
As you claim, your theory is self-contained
and self-referential. So, nothing external
to that theory can not possibly change your
argument.
At this point, the very possibility of an argument
with you seems to be an excersize in futility.
Zo...
"Do as thou wilt and so be judged".
That is a commandment.
To me, it is UTTERLY irrelevant that you
do not recognize the "transcendental" "reality".
"Do as thou wilt and so be judged"
can only be SEEN. It can not be argued.
Once you come upon certain maturity,
your HEART, which isn't even a component
of consideration in your theory, as are
other MOST fundamental aspects of human being,
will tell you.
>i say all
>this because although i do take time to come to this forum, i havent alot of
>time.
One more time: Then what are you doing here?
Can not you comprehend the simpliest thing
there is that your theory needs a LOT of
consideration and cross checking?
You think you just come here,
pronounce the holy word,
and all mortals are to fall to your feet?
I do not have much time to argue with someone,
who isn't even arguing and whose notions are
so vague and undefined, that you can not even
put the argument together.
If ALL the argument you have is that your
theory is utterly self-referential and it
does not recognize anything external,
then why don't you argue with yourself
or people woring on the same theory?
This thing is beginning to look simply rediculous.
WHO are you arguing with?
Those people, whose notions and definitions
you flately deny?
One more time: Is it some kind of a circus of the mad?
Enough.
>mickeyd
Mr Michael Bibby
ill post a reply tomorrow, right now, i am sick and not in the mood to even read
let alone write. peace out
mickeyd
Mr Michael Bibby
>In article <bgl681$le1$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
><s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>attention nucleus,
>>
>>i havent time to reply to your posts, if you do wish to offer some constructive
>>criticisms in a structured manner, please by all means do. perhaps you could
>>summarize your argument clearly, in point by point fashion, so that we can
>>disseminate each idea in a structured environment,
>
>It is all done already. By now, you should have a good
>idea what the arguments are.
>
>>otherwise, we will be here
>>forever! if you can find any apparant 'logical flaws' and internal
>>inconsistencies in the position i have presented then by all means re-present
>>them so that i, and others, can gauge the varacity of your arguments.
>
>First, you need to define the very terms you use.
>You've been asked for it several times.
>All I hear is static so far.
o.k., ive had a strong coffee and have recovered my wits (i wasnt really sick,
its just that i didnt get any sleet last night).
I understand where these equivocations that surround my language arise, I have
been mixing second order cybernetics with radical constructivism (both of which
have their own languages which are still, more or less, underdeveloped). ill
give some 'provisional definitions' here which might help to clarify.
>What do you imply by mind?
Mind; the mind constructs experiential reality in accordence with generic rules
and principles (knowledge structures which are built up over the course of
ontogenic development), the mind, as a concept, is a construction of the mind (a
viable construct you might say), that is, when the mind takes itself as its
object it distinguishes itself from itself, it is both the object and the
context in which it is embedded.
>What do you imply by reality?
Reality; I distinguish ‘transcendental reality’ from ‘experiential reality’
>What do you imply by "object"?
Object; that which is accessed (experienced) as it is 'brought forth' by the
performing of a distinction which cleaves it from the background of experience,
which is the context in which it is embedded
>What do you imply by "experience"?
Experience; all things which lie within the boundaries of the experiential
domain and are accessible to the experiencer
>What do you imply by terms you use
>in your arguments.
>Unless you do so, I am not sure we are on the same
>wavelenght.
>
>That is what that other Russian guy suggested also.
>You ignored his request as well.
>
>As to your "mind observing the mind" argument,
>there seems to be a violation of the very notion
>of observation. The perceiver and the perceived
>MUST be distinct.
are you telling me that you cannot 'perceive' yourself? i wanted to avoid this
discussion, because its a bit tricky (langauge wise- i did oversimplify this
corollary) but i will try to clarify. the observer may distinguish some features
or properties and isolate these aspects of himself from himself. i.e., he may
distinguish the boundary of his physical body and take that as the object of his
regaurd. surely that is not all there is to him, the physical boundary that
distinguishes him from his environment, it is but a part, a property which he
'brings forth' by drawing a distinction.
>
>As to your idea of "mind including the mind
>in its 'experience', it looks like a trickery.
>Mind USES its "knowledge" while experiencing
>something, hopefully 'new' (else there is not
>much purpose if it only deals with 'old').
see above
>But to claim it includes itself and going as far
>as to claim "in infinitely recursive manner",
>looks like a confusion, a trick of sorts.
i was merely characterizing the 'iteration of consciousness' i.e., think of the
rubber sheet analogy
>If mind in every single "experience" has to
>go thru infinite self-referential recursion,
>you'd simply dead lock as at no point you'd
>be able to make a SINGLE decision.
this is a miss construal. you might say that at any given moment the system is
in a state of equilibrium, but the system is dynamic such that it is in a
dynamic equilibirium of recurrent activity of the perpetually acting
components(until the system 'dissintigrates' as maturana and verala put it).
thus, the system continually changes states as each state gives rise to yet
another state in a recurrent manner, that is, it undergoes recursion. because
the perpetually acting components of the system refer only to themselves, the
system is said to be 'self-referential'. (there are also dimensions of
'self-organization' which i wont go into). perhaps this picture will resolve
itself if you think about thinking..., mental activity is always the result of
ongoing mental activity, mental activity always gives rise to further mental
activity: we interact with our own states in a recursive manner, or, to put it
differently, to deal with an object (any object) means to deal with ones own
states. that is what i personally love about these ideas (most of which are
borrowed from maturana and verala) as we are living systems and as such are
caught up in the perpetual dynamics of all that involves, every action
(mental/physical) dissapears with the very act that gave rise to it whilst
giving rise to something else in its place, that is, enaction is recurrent.
Because,
>in your scheme you need to continue this
>recursion "ad infinitum".
(again i was refering to the iteration of consciousness)
>
>So, again, not clear what you imply by this
>recursion. Is it a recursion in historical
>terms,
yes
or immediate terms as observation
>occures.
yes
>
>Anotherword, as you defined your notions
>so poorly, you may as well continue
>stating basically ANYTHING you wish
>and there is no possibility of any argument.
>Specifically, because you deny the very notions
>of "true"/"false". So, logic is not applicable.
yes, some proponents of RC are developing Peirces notion of 'abduction' to give
an account of synthetic knowledge. it is very useful;
the suprising fact (anomoly) 'A' is observed (case)
if 'B' were true then 'A' would be a matter of course (general)
therefore, there is reason to suspect that 'B' is true/viable (conclusion)
this is one model of how synthetic knowledge structures are built up.
>
>To summarise, I view your ideology as a religious
>dogma, unarguable in principle.
>As you claim, your theory is self-contained
>and self-referential. So, nothing external
>to that theory can not possibly change your
>argument.
there is nothing 'external to it' it can (at least in principle) encompass
everything that can be modelled. it is a system of thought that adapts to people
instead of making people adapt to a (rigid) system of thought. no faith or
denomination is excluded a-priori, i cannot think of any other systems of
thought that do that! basically it says that you can be a catholic, a realist
and so on, but this is a choice and therefore you are held responcible for
making that choice (instead of blaming reality).
>
>At this point, the very possibility of an argument
>with you seems to be an excersize in futility.
this is not an argument, i am 'orienting you' to a means and way of thinking, if
you dont believe that it is viable then thats o.k.
>
>Zo...
>
>"Do as thou wilt and so be judged".
>That is a commandment.
>
>To me, it is UTTERLY irrelevant that you
>do not recognize the "transcendental" "reality".
of course i recognize transcendental reality, i also think, act and operate in
terms of a mind independent reality (its a viable means and way of acting in
this world, whatever 'this world' is)
>
>"Do as thou wilt and so be judged"
>can only be SEEN. It can not be argued.
>Once you come upon certain maturity,
>your HEART, which isn't even a component
>of consideration in your theory, as are
>other MOST fundamental aspects of human being,
>will tell you.
dude, i am a romantic. i love percy bysshe shelley and believe, as did he, that
love is the core essentiallity of our existence. this view of things is not
discounted in a RC framework, quite the opposite, there is far more room for
such proclivities than in the existing realist based framework! incidently,
Shelley, probably *the* greatest of the romantic poets, could himself be
considered a Radical constructivist, mary shelley, in a foot note to his
brilliant essay 'on life' commented that percy shelly was a fan of berkeley
(who, despite his piouty and idealism, developed many key arguements which are
often used by RC).
dont get me wrong, its not a utopia, its just a very rugged, comprehensive
theoretical framework.
>>i say all
>>this because although i do take time to come to this forum, i havent alot of
>>time.
>
>One more time: Then what are you doing here?
>Can not you comprehend the simpliest thing
>there is that your theory needs a LOT of
>consideration and cross checking?
its not my theory, its my presentation of it, but YES. the feedback i have been
getting has proved most useful, at least to me. i intend on developing many of
these ideas more fully. i am using this forum as a means to that further that
end. every responce is an insight, although i can be scathing at times when
confronted by 'staunch supporters of realism'.
>
>You think you just come here,
>pronounce the holy word,
>and all mortals are to fall to your feet?
>
>I do not have much time to argue with someone,
>who isn't even arguing and whose notions are
>so vague and undefined, that you can not even
>put the argument together.
>
>If ALL the argument you have is that your
>theory is utterly self-referential and it
>does not recognize anything external,
>then why don't you argue with yourself
>or people woring on the same theory?
>
>This thing is beginning to look simply rediculous.
>WHO are you arguing with?
>Those people, whose notions and definitions
>you flately deny?
>
>One more time: Is it some kind of a circus of the mad?
>
>Enough.
>
>>mickeyd
>
>
mickeyd
nucleus
The quesion is not what it does, but what it IS.
This is probably a result of reading technical books.
What I have seen in vast majority of cases
is that when new chapter starts, instead of giving
basic definition of the subject, they start "explaining"
it in terms of "what it does". But you, as a reader,
are not there yet. First, you need to know what IS
it we are talking about. Then you can proceed to
"what it does" and "how it works".
>the mind, as a concept, is a construction of the mind
Nope. What it IS.
You have a problem here. Where does the mind start
after birth? Is it already given? Filled with notions,
concepts, beliefs and other paraphenilia?
It can not start with itself because first
you need to build something that will feed upon
itself as you describe here.
> (a viable construct you might say),
I have no idea. I may as well give you a list
of as "viable" things.
Again, 3rd reich and "new world order" are as
"viable" as any. Does it make it something
worth pursuing?
If the notion of 'viable' includes just about
anything you wish, as long, as it suits your
goals, whatever they are, then the very notion
of 'viable' is as good, as undefined.
I suspect it is but an artificial attempt
to fill the void created when you got away
from the concepts of 'true' and 'false'.
Interestingly enough, those concepts prevented
some obviously ethical consequences.
You can not simply state "new world order" is good,
because you had to use further considerations
and qualifications that could be eventually
verified with notions of 'true' or 'false'.
Once you got away from it, void was created.
So, some conman invented this idea of 'viable'
defined as 'whatever suits your interests'
and you thus plugged it in instead of 'true'
and 'false'.
I gave you plenty of examples of the most
outrageous examples that are neverhteless
'viable'. The quesion becomes: so, how do you
reconcile it all with life and 'progress'?
How?
Some lunatic may make a 'goal' to destroy all life
and it will fit PERFECTLY into the 'viable'
definition.
So, effectively, you give a blank check to next
or present fuehrer and he will be able to justify
just about ANY act on the basis that it is a scientific
approach, proved valid by this 'radical constructivism'.
This is the kind of 'science' they were involved
with in 3rd reich.
>that is, when the mind takes itself as its
>object it distinguishes itself from itself, it is both the object and the
>context in which it is embedded.
But how does it form?
Where does it start from?
As far as "takes itself as its object" [of consideration],
you have a problem. The observer and the observed
can not be the same. Otherwise, the whole notion
of observation falls appart.
>>What do you imply by reality?
>Reality; I distinguish ‘transcendental reality’ from ‘experiential reality’
But what IS the very notion of 'reality'?
Once you define that, you can distinguish further.
Before you can distinguish,
you need to define what do you distinguish from what.
Now you need to define "transcendental reality"
and "experiential reality".
>>What do you imply by "object"?
>Object; that which is accessed (experienced) as it is 'brought forth' by the
>performing of a distinction which cleaves it from the background of experience,
>which is the context in which it is embedded
Then it is fair to assume you view objects as mind constructs.
That implies that 'object' exist squarely within the mind.
So, objects are mental constructions.
Implication is:
Anything that exist beyond the mind
can not be trusted. In 'fact', it seems
NOTHING exists outside the mind according
to your view.
I claim, you gave a description of mental
representation and not the objects themselves,
regardless of how well we understand that
which we experience as objects.
In that case, are we talking about the individual
mind, or some universal mind, a 'mind' of 'transcendental'
entity, known as God or infinite intelligence?
If we are talking about the individual mind,
your definition is invalid, pretty much on its
face value as even though your individual mind
ceases to be and thus does not observe some object
[of physical reality or otherwise],
the other individual mind can, nevertheless
perceive such an object, even though their
views of the same object differ.
Now, if you are talking about the 'mind' of God,
then yes, your statement gains validity.
So...
There is no guarantee that two individual
entities will observe the same object and the very notion
of 'object' becomes fiction, unprovable in principle.
Because you used the term 'experienced'.
Once you did that, there is no longer a guarantee
that the object is anything else but the figment
of your imagination or a dream or drug induced
experience or some vision that occures under
highly stressful situations such as near death
experience.
So, the visions people experience during near
death experiences are valid objects?
Furthermore, if you observe your thoughs,
you should be able to see that the very boundaries
of 'objects' are not clearly defined.
It ripples from the central focusing point,
where 'objects' are more or less defined,
to the periferal area of your focus, where
you can hardly see the end of one 'object'
and the beginning of the other one.
In that sense, the more you move away from
the point of focus and attention to perifery,
the fuzzier the distinction.
Even at the very center of attention,
objects do not have a clear boundary
because they are multi-dimensional in nature.
They all have MULTIPLE aspects, and each aspect
has a different boundary. Some aspects are
on 'skin deep' level, while others stretch
as far, as infinity, and that is for the same
'object'.
Looks like your version need some MAJOR
revision. You seem to still operate in that
single dimensional framework of 'true' and 'false'.
>>What do you imply by "experience"?
>Experience; all things which lie within the boundaries of the experiential
>domain and are accessible to the experiencer
But what IS 'experience'?
How about this definition:
Experience is an event, 'objectifying'
the aggregate version of focus of attention.
It is that which validates all pertinent
information, fixing it as internal reality
that gets incorporated in the 'structure'
of the mind.
It is that momentary semi-stable state
where something is believed to hold valid.
Then what is 'experiential domain'?
Where are its boundaries?
I assume by 'experiencer' you imply the mind.
So, in your scheme, it is assumed that the man
is the mind?
Is there anything else beyond the mind,
or outside of its scope and domain?
[...]
>>As to your "mind observing the mind" argument,
>>there seems to be a violation of the very notion
>>of observation. The perceiver and the perceived
>>MUST be distinct.
>are you telling me that you cannot 'perceive' yourself?
Yes. It is but a confusion.
Now you need to define 'yourself',
its domain and its borders.
Mind can only perceive certain events
that are grosser than the mind itself.
It can perceive the body.
But it can not perceive the entire 'yourself'.
It is impossible.
First of all, 'yourself' is multi-dimensional
in nature. It has vast reserves of information
and 'knowledge' that can not be accessed
immediately and simultaneously.
Your mind would simply explode.
Yes, you can create some symbols,
you believe to be attributions of yourself,
such as 'smart', 'strong', 'beautiful', etc.
So you can claim "I perceive myself as smart".
But is it truly perception or but a fixed idea,
already 'stored' in the mind?
It can not perceive itself as a whole.
It can only perceive some specific properties
and events.
Just sit and observe 'yourself'.
What do you see?
Well, you see the 'hardware' level things essentially.
You can look at your body.
You can see how thoughts flow and words
form into sentences. But you can not even perceive
how those thoughs arise and a result of what.
The more you 'observe' yourself,
the more you realize it is something
that does not have a definite boundary.
It is not an object of ANY kind.
It is something that stretches virtually
to infinity.
The more you 'observe' yourself,
the more silent you become.
There comes the point,
where there is just NOTHING in your mind,
not a SINGLE idea,
not a SINGLE image,
not a SINGLE property,
and yet you are,
and UNDENIABLY so.
It is a state of UTTER silence.
With all your vast knowledge
and vast amount of events you experienced,
there is just a TOTAL silence.
Amazingly enough, ALL had these glimpses,
but very few even noticed them.
As you walk alone on a sea shore at night,
then...
As you look at the ocean in silence
and hear its sound,
then...
In Tibettan Tantra,
as you experience orgasm,
then...
Then the mind stops.
Only for a split second in the beginning,
but once you have this glimps,
and become aware of it,
from then on,
it becomes your 'property'.
You can never loose it, if you wish.
THAT is what 'yourself' truly is.
ALL available to anyone, wishing to claim it.
>i wanted to avoid this
>discussion, because its a bit tricky
Yes, tricky as it gets.
There is hardly anything trickier than this.
As I said before, mankind is struggling with these
issues for thousands of years. You claim to have
an answer. So...
Answer then.
>(langauge wise- i did oversimplify this
>corollary) but i will try to clarify. the observer may distinguish some
> features
>or properties and isolate these aspects of himself from himself.
Yes, some features, some properties,
but not the whole thing.
And they MUST be within the scope of mind.
They need to be SUB-components.
Otherwise, your whole argument breaks,
and this is about a CENTERPIECE of your entire theory.
According to 'rules' of observation I utilize:
The observer and the observed can not be the same thing.
The observer MUST be outside the scope and domain
of the obseved.
It MUST be external to the observed.
Otherwise, the very term 'observation' does not apply.
One of the MOST critical points.
To claim that mind can observe itself is but delusion.
It is not possible.
It can ONLY observe the events and properties.
If we assume that the mind's domain 'consists'
of 'objects' and 'events', which you bulked together,
which is a mistake in my view, then...
Then the mind can ONLY observe those.
But they can not 'observe' the mind
as they are internal components of it.
Mind is external to those. That is why it
can observe but they can not observe it.
The mind can not observe the mind as a whole.
It is simply an irreeconcilable violation of the
very principles of observation and identity as such.
The creation can not observe the creator,
whatever that creation is.
In order to observe the mind,
you need something external to it,
something outside its scope and domain.
>i.e., he may
>distinguish the boundary of his physical body and take that as the object of
> his regaurd.
Fine. But body is not the mind.
Is there a distinction between the body and the mind
in your view?
>surely that is not all there is to him, the physical boundary that
>distinguishes him from his environment,
Which is illusion on the first place.
I gave you a specific example out of my own
personal life and I have 100% certainty
that its is not an illusion.
The example is when someone looks at me with
intension, even from the back, I, utterly involuntarily,
look EXACTLY at where they are
and IMMEDIATELY into their eyes.
There isn't even a search to find them.
It is IMMEDIATE and precise.
Furthermore, my entire being immediately focuses
and my awareness is turned on at its peak rate.
Now, the quesion arises then:
Where is THEIR 'bondaries' and where is mine?
The very fact we both reached each other
is the evidence that the boundary is WELL
outside the scope of physical body.
There is PLENTY of other evidence on this.
About a generation ago there was a book published
in the USA called "Psychic discoveries beyond
iron curtain". It is jam packed with specific examples.
If you have access to milirary and intelligence archive,
you'll find PLENTY of evidence. I bet there is plenty
of other sources on it.
So, it becomes literally impossible to distinguish
"it" from "its envoronment" because nobody knows
where "true" boundaries are.
Mental projections can reach half the globe.
ALL been experimentally verified.
Kirlian photography clearly shows the aura
around the biological bodies.
Mothers often feel their children being
in a difficulty when those children are
somewhere else.
In that case, where is the boundary?
>it is but a part, a property which he
>'brings forth' by drawing a distinction.
Yes, but a PART, a property.
But part is not the whole.
THAT is my argument.
>>As to your idea of "mind including the mind
>>in its 'experience', it looks like a trickery.
>>Mind USES its "knowledge" while experiencing
>>something, hopefully 'new' (else there is not
>>much purpose if it only deals with 'old').
>see above
Yes, see above.
>>But to claim it includes itself and going as far
>>as to claim "in infinitely recursive manner",
>>looks like a confusion, a trick of sorts.
>i was merely characterizing the 'iteration of consciousness' i.e.,
>think of the rubber sheet analogy
Oh, now you wish to speak of nothing less than
CONSCIOUSNESS? Well...
Then you are in the domain, which you can not possibly
define as it is that, which is BEYOND the mind
and all your arguments stop on the boundary
of the mind as of necessity.
So, you can not possibly claim the 'iteration of consciousness'.
Would be interesting to see how you define that
and what else do you have to say about it.
>>If mind in every single "experience" has to
>>go thru infinite self-referential recursion,
>>you'd simply dead lock as at no point you'd
>>be able to make a SINGLE decision.
>this is a miss construal. you might say that at any given moment the system is
>in a state of equilibrium,
NOT. About the ONLY state of equilibrium
is when the mind ceases to operate
and all experience ceases.
It is known as PURE consciousness
where the perceiver and the perceived are gone.
>but the system is dynamic such that it is in a
>dynamic equilibirium of recurrent activity of the perpetually acting
>components
I do not see ANY 'equilibrium' here.
As I view it, about the only equilibrium there is
is when some new information is being assimilated
and reconciled within the system, but new information
did not arrive as yet, just for a sake of argument.
But such states are merely impossible
as multi-dimensional information flow is forever present.
So...
The system is NEVER at a state of equilibrium.
That much is cerain.
Secondly, your description fits into the MOST rudimentary
mechanical systems that forever operate in a circular
manner. So, effectively there is nothing new within
that system. It is a mere gadget, a motor of some sort.
Mind FOREVER deals with NEW information,
even if you happen to be in the "same" situation,
as it FOREVER considers new aspects of it.
Again, reality is multi-dimensional.
This implies that at ANY given junction,
that system is dealing with new information
and is FOREVER trying to reconcile the new
with the old, FOREVER being at a state of
dis-equilibrium.
>(until the system 'dissintigrates' as maturana and verala put it).
And even when the system 'dissintegrates',
you never know what lies beyond.
Again, it is multi-dimensional,
and we have but a pin hole sized glimps
as to what that system is.
>thus, the system continually changes states as each state gives rise to yet
>another state in a recurrent manner,
I do not see recursion here.
The notion of recursion arises out of confusion
as to what is what. It is but a byproduct
of confusion that the mind can perceive the mind.
Identity crisis.
> that is, it undergoes recursion. because
>the perpetually acting components of the system refer only to themselves,
Not.
Again, the same mistake.
Components can not refer to themselves.
They can ONLY refer to their SUB-components.
Otherwise, the very notion of observation
does not apply.
>the system is said to be 'self-referential'.
Not. This is the same thing.
It could be said to be hierarchical,
but not self-referential.
Again, the identity crisis.
>(there are also dimensions of
>'self-organization' which i wont go into).
Yes. That would be a tough cokie to crack.
>perhaps this picture will resolve
>itself if you think about thinking...,
You can not think about thinking.
You can only "think" of "objects" of thought.
Just try this little experiment.
Try to see how thoughts arise in your mind.
See how these words magically pop out one
after another and magically form the sentences.
In "fact", thoughts arise out of nowhere it seems.
Yes, you may focus on a particular issue,
but you are not in control.
Unless you practice this lil excersize,
I doubt you'll ever see the nature of it all.
>mental activity is always the result of
>ongoing mental activity,
Not.
Mental activity is a result of your being
focusing on some aspect. There is something
at the very root of this activity,
and that is not your mind.
It is that, which propells the mind.
It is something EXTERNAL to it,
and you have a blank page for it in your theory.
To claim what you claim is to claim
Guna number 2:
I AM the mind.
It is to claim that mind is ALL there is to a human being.
UTTER fallacy.
Again, the very Purpose of your existence ceses to be.
Brain is a mechanical gadget.
Sooner or later, a pretty good model of it
will be made.
But the difference between you and the mind
is obviously present:
You have the Impetus To Be that compels you to be.
It is reinforced by emotional domain,
joy, gratitude, love, compassion, playfulness,
beauty, joy of creative expression and so on.
You also have a Purpose to be
and that is to find your true nature
in this maze of life. It gives you energy
to seek.
The very mind mechanism is put into action by your being,
forever seeking "the answer",
forever trying to reconcile itself with that,
which you deny, reality.
I define reality as ALL THAT IS.
It is essentially ISness.
It is multi-dimensional AND simultaneous.
It is unbounded.
The borders are purely arbitrary.
Because we do not know ALL the aspects of our being.
There are energy fields we radiate and perceive
and there are aspects of our being
we do not even suspect exist.
We simply ignore it all
as a result of our delusionary models
of "materialism", naive as it is.
>mental activity always gives rise to further mental
>activity:
In that it modifies the very stucture of the mind
by including new aspects and components.
As soon as it happens,
our perception changes
and even if we look at some object or event
in the "past", we now view it differently
and so now we have to reconsider our "past"
to incorporate that new "knowledge",
and so we have to reconcile the entire
worldview at every given junction.
Except...
This recursion is not infinite.
It is limited in depth.
At about step number 2 or 3, it stops
at some reasonable approximation
and a probable degree of error
[of reconciliation].
Otherwise, just as I said,
your brain would simply fry.
First of all, there is no need for this
infinitely spinning process of 'self-evaluation'
and reconciliation.
Because even if we did so,
we would still have a distorted view of reality.
Because we are inherently limited.
That is what life in physical domain is.
We can not perceive any object or event
in all its multi-dimensional nature.
We grind it bit by bit, expanding our view of it.
We can not possibly come to certainty
that our "recursion" provided us with error free view.
So, your "equilibrium" is actually a point
where this "self-reference" ends and you accept
your new world view as "valid enough" for the purposes
you have chosen to pursue.
>we interact with our own states in a recursive manner, or, to put it
>differently, to deal with an object (any object) means to deal with ones own
>states. that is what i personally love about these ideas (most of which are
>borrowed from maturana and verala) as we are living systems and as such are
>caught up in the perpetual dynamics of all that involves, every action
>(mental/physical) dissapears with the very act that gave rise to it whilst
>giving rise to something else in its place, that is, enaction is recurrent.
>Because,
>>in your scheme you need to continue this
>>recursion "ad infinitum".
>(again i was refering to the iteration of consciousness)
>>So, again, not clear what you imply by this
>>recursion. Is it a recursion in historical
>>terms,
>yes
>or immediate terms as observation
>>occures.
>yes
Your brain would fry then.
:---}
To blame reality is to be an idiot.
Looks like you are stretching it REAL good here.
>>At this point, the very possibility of an argument
>>with you seems to be an excersize in futility.
>this is not an argument, i am 'orienting you' to a means and way of thinking,
> if you dont believe that it is viable then thats o.k.
Are you sure you have enough tools in your toolbox
to "orient" me?
>>Zo...
>>"Do as thou wilt and so be judged".
>>That is a commandment.
>>To me, it is UTTERLY irrelevant that you
>>do not recognize the "transcendental" "reality".
>of course i recognize transcendental reality, i also think, act and operate in
>terms of a mind independent reality (its a viable means and way of acting in
>this world, whatever 'this world' is)
>>"Do as thou wilt and so be judged"
>>can only be SEEN. It can not be argued.
>>Once you come upon certain maturity,
>>your HEART, which isn't even a component
>>of consideration in your theory, as are
>>other MOST fundamental aspects of human being,
>>will tell you.
>dude, i am a romantic. i love percy bysshe shelley and believe, as did he, that
>love is the core essentiallity of our existence. this view of things is not
>discounted in a RC framework, quite the opposite, there is far more room for
>such proclivities than in the existing realist based framework!
I did not even see it mentioned ONCE so far in your arguments.
ALL I see is the mind watching the mind watching the mind.
It is a trap to me.
I have not seen ANYTHING outside the mind in your argumentation.
I have not noticed even a TRACE of aroma of life in it.
To me, this entire theory is a theory of mind.
Good luck with that.
Surprises are forthcoming indeed.
>incidently,
>Shelley, probably *the* greatest of the romantic poets, could himself be
>considered a Radical constructivist, mary shelley, in a foot note to his
>brilliant essay 'on life' commented that percy shelly was a fan of berkeley
>(who, despite his piouty and idealism, developed many key arguements which are
>often used by RC).
>
>dont get me wrong, its not a utopia, its just a very rugged, comprehensive
>theoretical framework.
And just as any other, it works within its framework
and domain.
Except it found a trick to self-justify about anything
imaginable with this 'viability' concept
that is a profound delusion to me.
EVERY SINGLE THING is "viable".
Even your "mistakes".
ANYTHING can be justified
given enough cunningness and skill.
>>>i say all
>>>this because although i do take time to come to this forum, i havent alot of
>>>time.
>>One more time: Then what are you doing here?
>>Can not you comprehend the simpliest thing
>>there is that your theory needs a LOT of
>>consideration and cross checking?
>its not my theory, its my presentation of it, but YES. the feedback i have been
>getting has proved most useful, at least to me. i intend on developing many of
>these ideas more fully. i am using this forum as a means to that further that
>end. every responce is an insight, although i can be scathing at times when
>confronted by 'staunch supporters of realism'.
That is why I told you:
Watch that "ism" thing.
It'll blind you.
[...]
>mickeyd
Philip Baker
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>some proponents of RC are developing Peirces notion of 'abduction' to give
>an account of synthetic knowledge. it is very useful;
Peirce! That unequivocal realist.
"We have direct experience of things in themselves. Nothing can
be more completely false than that we can experience only our
own ideas. That is indeed without exaggeration the very epitome
of all falsity."
Mr Michael Bibby
>In article <bgnt4e$hfu$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Mr Michael Bibby
><s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>>some proponents of RC are developing Peirces notion of 'abduction' to give
>>an account of synthetic knowledge. it is very useful;
>
>
>Peirce! That unequivocal realist.
>
> "We have direct experience of things in themselves. Nothing can
> be more completely false than that we can experience only our
> own ideas. That is indeed without exaggeration the very epitome
> of all falsity."
>
correction, "peirce was unequivocally a Scotistic realist" (and by his own
admission) which is vastly different from direct realism or naive realism. but
this is a moot point, his logic system was vey comprehensive and has proved most
useful to many constructivists in accounting for 'synthetic knowledge' which are
considered 'illogical' by most logicians (i hate logicians! to me, excluding
illogicality from the outset is itself illogical)
mickeyd
Mr Michael Bibby
this, i thought, i made *perfectly* clear when i said "..this is a theory of
'doing' and not a theory of 'being'('to be')..." and further still "...this is
*not* an ontologicall theory..." and so on. i make no such commitments because i
cannot possibly make such commitments, this is pure speculative metaphysics.
>
>This is probably a result of reading technical books.
>What I have seen in vast majority of cases
>is that when new chapter starts, instead of giving
>basic definition of the subject, they start "explaining"
>it in terms of "what it does". But you, as a reader,
>are not there yet. First, you need to know what IS
>it we are talking about. Then you can proceed to
>"what it does" and "how it works".
>
>>the mind, as a concept, is a construction of the mind
>
>Nope. What it IS.
>
>You have a problem here. Where does the mind start
>after birth?
as much we cannot possibly know! i.e., the agency of drawing distinctions is
forever beyond cognition for it is only when a distinction is drawn is there a
cognitive entity.
Is it already given? Filled with notions,
>concepts, beliefs and other paraphenilia?
>
>It can not start with itself because first
>you need to build something that will feed upon
>itself as you describe here.
i am not going to use transcendental arguments of the sort used by Kant as this
is problematic. see above.
>
>> (a viable construct you might say),
>
>I have no idea. I may as well give you a list
>of as "viable" things.
>
>Again, 3rd reich and "new world order" are as
>"viable" as any. Does it make it something
>worth pursuing?
>
>If the notion of 'viable' includes just about
>anything you wish, as long, as it suits your
>goals, whatever they are, then the very notion
>of 'viable' is as good, as undefined.
? you seem to be reading *far* too much into this, open your copy of the O.E.D
and look up 'viable', go no further. to be viable in ones environment means to
possess (viable) ways and means of acting that allows one to obtain what ever
goals one happens to have chosen. this is a theory of 'knowledge' not of
'ethics', you seem to be comparing this notion of viability to Benthems notion
of Utility.
>
>I suspect it is but an artificial attempt
>to fill the void created when you got away
>from the concepts of 'true' and 'false'.
>Interestingly enough, those concepts prevented
>some obviously ethical consequences.
>You can not simply state "new world order" is good,
>because you had to use further considerations
>and qualifications that could be eventually
>verified with notions of 'true' or 'false'.
so the utility/viability of a means and way of thinking and acting is a function
of the truth or falsehood of those means and way? what are you saying. you dont
seem to wont to let go of this 'representationalist' notion of truth.
>
>Once you got away from it, void was created.
>So, some conman invented this idea of 'viable'
>defined as 'whatever suits your interests'
? this is *not* utilitarianism. again, its much like pragmatism in that it says
our theories are viable (for doing what we wont them to do) not because they
'represent reality' but simply because they are viable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<snip>
>As far as "takes itself as its object" [of consideration],
>you have a problem. The observer and the observed
>can not be the same.
forget aristotolian logic, re-read what i wrote in regards to this matter, to
summarize, you might say 'he takes but a part of himself and treats it in
isolation'.
Otherwise, the whole notion
>of observation falls appart.
>
>>>What do you imply by reality?
>
>>Reality; I distinguish ‘transcendental reality’ from ‘experiential reality’
>
>But what IS the very notion of 'reality'?
just that, a notion. (obviously we are *not* ont the same wavelength here).
again, i am not an ontologists or a metaphysician, so i have absolutely no idea
why you are asking this. when i use words like 'reality' i am refering to the
esoteric concept of 'reality' and noting more.
>>>What do you imply by "object"?
>
>>Object; that which is accessed (experienced) as it is 'brought forth' by the
>>performing of a distinction which cleaves it from the background of experience,
>>which is the context in which it is embedded
>
>Then it is fair to assume you view objects as mind constructs.
>That implies that 'object' exist squarely within the mind.
>So, objects are mental constructions.
>Implication is:
>Anything that exist beyond the mind
>can not be trusted.
trusted? what?
In 'fact', it seems
>NOTHING exists outside the mind according
>to your view.
i have said repeatedly, over and over and over again I AM NOT AN ANTIREALIST NOR
AM I AN ONTOLOGISTS, WHO KNOWS WHAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE MIND! I DONT, BECAUSE I AM
INSIDE THE MIND AND STUCK IN THE FIRST PERSON, THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE ACCESS
TO ARE THE 'APPEARENCES' OF THINGS AND NOT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.
<snip>
>There is no guarantee that two individual
>entities will observe the same object and the very notion
>of 'object' becomes fiction, unprovable in principle.
>
>Because you used the term 'experienced'.
>
>Once you did that, there is no longer a guarantee
>that the object is anything else but the figment
>of your imagination or a dream or drug induced
>experience or some vision that occures under
>highly stressful situations such as near death
>experience.
yes.
>
>So, the visions people experience during near
>death experiences are valid objects?
if it fulfils *their* (for their is no 'universal'-) 'criterion of validity'
then yes, i suppose.
>
>Furthermore, if you observe your thoughs,
>you should be able to see that the very boundaries
>of 'objects' are not clearly defined.
>It ripples from the central focusing point,
>where 'objects' are more or less defined,
>to the periferal area of your focus, where
>you can hardly see the end of one 'object'
>and the beginning of the other one.
you might say that this is the outter most extremity or 'perihpery' of the
context within which the objects we study are embedded.
>In that sense, the more you move away from
>the point of focus and attention to perifery,
>the fuzzier the distinction.
>
>Even at the very center of attention,
>objects do not have a clear boundary
>because they are multi-dimensional in nature.
>They all have MULTIPLE aspects,
only those aspects you distinguish and attend to, you perceive a 'gestalt', an
unbroken whole, that is, untile you 'break' it up into composite pieces by
drawing distinctions.
i have work to do, i might try to reply latter to the rest.
mickeyd
nucleus
Doing without that which does this 'doing'
is simply impossible.
WHO does that 'doing'?
WHERE does this doing directed?
Towards what?
Doing without a notion of object,
which implies is-ness, simply makes no sense.
> and further still "...this is
>*not* an ontologicall theory..." and so on. i make no such commitments because
> i cannot possibly make such commitments, this is pure speculative metaphysics.
Nope. It is not metahpysics as yet.
>>This is probably a result of reading technical books.
>>What I have seen in vast majority of cases
>>is that when new chapter starts, instead of giving
>>basic definition of the subject, they start "explaining"
>>it in terms of "what it does". But you, as a reader,
>>are not there yet. First, you need to know what IS
>>it we are talking about. Then you can proceed to
>>"what it does" and "how it works".
>>
>>>the mind, as a concept, is a construction of the mind
>>
>>Nope. What it IS.
>>
>>You have a problem here. Where does the mind start
>>after birth?
>
>as much we cannot possibly know! i.e., the agency of drawing distinctions is
>forever beyond cognition
Fine with me.
>for it is only when a distinction is drawn is there a
>cognitive entity.
I am not sure Chuang Tzu could be understood
and applied to scientific infrastructure.
We can attept to look at that statement
you presented except I'd need more context.
Just a single phrase won't do.
Your statement is a derivation of the quote
by Chuang Tzu you presented.
>Is it already given? Filled with notions,
>>concepts, beliefs and other paraphenilia?
>>It can not start with itself because first
>>you need to build something that will feed upon
>>itself as you describe in your theory.
>i am not going to use transcendental arguments of the sort used by Kant as this
>is problematic. see above.
>>> (a viable construct you might say),
>>I have no idea. I may as well give you a list
>>of as "viable" things.
>>Again, 3rd reich and "new world order" are as
>>"viable" as any. Does it make it something
>>worth pursuing?
>>If the notion of 'viable' includes just about
>>anything you wish, as long, as it suits your
>>goals, whatever they are, then the very notion
>>of 'viable' is as good, as undefined.
>? you seem to be reading *far* too much into this, open your copy of the O.E.D
>and look up 'viable', go no further.
I do not operate according to dictionary definitions.
>to be viable in ones environment means to
>possess (viable) ways and means of acting that allows one to obtain what ever
>goals one happens to have chosen. this is a theory of 'knowledge' not of
>'ethics', you seem to be comparing this notion of viability to Benthems notion
>of Utility.
I am saying you use 'viable' as a plug
to plug in the void created when you removed
'true'/'false'.
As I said before, even if you travel the
'wrong' path or make a 'mistake',
your experience is just as 'viable'.
It could turn out to be even more 'viable'
because, intuitively, you craved for that
direction in your expression, that was
crative, seeking for new aspects.
In this respenct, viability can not be
evaluated and determined. It simply
becomes meaningless.
This, in turn, implies that 'viability'
concept has a limited utiliy
and there are PLENTY cases
and MOST profound ones,
where it is simply becomes invalid,
'incorrect' or inapplicable.
So...
That plug is still leaking.
>>I suspect it is but an artificial attempt
>>to fill the void created when you got away
>>from the concepts of 'true' and 'false'.
>>Interestingly enough, those concepts prevented
>>some obviously ethical consequences.
>>You can not simply state "new world order" is good,
>>because you had to use further considerations
>>and qualifications that could be eventually
>>verified with notions of 'true' or 'false'.
>so the utility/viability of a means and way of thinking and acting is a
> function
>of the truth or falsehood of those means and way? what are you saying. you dont
>seem to wont to let go of this 'representationalist' notion of truth.
That is not what I am saying.
I am saying that once you remove 'true'/'false',
you simply short circuit the process
and are not obliged to make any further steps
for verification of validity of your approach.
That is equivalent to issuing a blank check.
From then on, you can justify literally anything
you please, as "any means that justify your goal"
becomes applicable to your approach.
So, you simply give a green light
to totalitarianism and give them the rope,
to hang on with a 'scientifically justified' label.
I wouldn't be in such a hurry to do so.
>>Once you got away from it, void was created.
>>So, some conman invented this idea of 'viable'
>>defined as 'whatever suits your interests'
>? this is *not* utilitarianism. again, its much like pragmatism in that it says
>our theories are viable (for doing what we wont them to do) not because they
>'represent reality' but simply because they are viable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder what happens if you remove the very
notion of 'viable'.
Will it all fall appart?
:---}
><snip>
>>As far as "takes itself as its object" [of consideration],
>>you have a problem. The observer and the observed
>>can not be the same.
>forget aristotolian logic, re-read what i wrote in regards to this matter, to
>summarize, you might say 'he takes but a part of himself and treats it in
>isolation'.
Well, this is a little better.
Sure, I can still ask:
Ah, but what constitutes that 'part'?
But I won't.
Because we are WAY to deep in the mud already.
>Otherwise, the whole notion
>>of observation falls appart.
>>>>What do you imply by reality?
>>>Reality; I distinguish ‘transcendental reality’ from ‘experiential reality’
>>But what IS the very notion of 'reality'?
>just that, a notion. (obviously we are *not* ont the same wavelength here).
>again, i am not an ontologists or a metaphysician, so i have absolutely no idea
>why you are asking this. when i use words like 'reality' i am refering to the
>esoteric concept of 'reality' and noting more.
Well, but how do I know you are not pipe dreaming?
>>>>What do you imply by "object"?
>>>Object; that which is accessed (experienced) as it is 'brought forth' by the
>>>performing of a distinction which cleaves it from the background of
> experience,
>>>which is the context in which it is embedded
>>Then it is fair to assume you view objects as mind constructs.
>>That implies that 'object' exist squarely within the mind.
>>So, objects are mental constructions.
>>Implication is:
>>Anything that exist beyond the mind
>>can not be trusted.
>trusted? what?
Meaning, we do not know if it exists
as you label it 'ontology' and throw it
into a garbage bin.
>In 'fact', it seems
>>NOTHING exists outside the mind according
>>to your view.
>
>i have said repeatedly, over and over and over again I AM NOT AN ANTIREALIST
> NOR
>AM I AN ONTOLOGISTS, WHO KNOWS WHAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE MIND! I DONT, BECAUSE I
> AM
>INSIDE THE MIND AND STUCK IN THE FIRST PERSON,
Nope. I claim that you are outside the mind.
Mind is but an aspect of you.
>THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE
> ACCESS
>TO ARE THE 'APPEARENCES' OF THINGS AND NOT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.
If you convince yourself of that,
then yes, no question about.
No one can convince you otherwise,
because you are not ready to accept
any other view.
I claim you have 'access' to that
which is beyond appearances.
But this is a long story and a 'wrong' subject
I suspect.
><snip>
>>There is no guarantee that two individual
>>entities will observe the same object and the very notion
>>of 'object' becomes fiction, unprovable in principle.
>>Because you used the term 'experienced'.
>>Once you did that, there is no longer a guarantee
>>that the object is anything else but the figment
>>of your imagination or a dream or drug induced
>>experience or some vision that occures under
>>highly stressful situations such as near death
>>experience.
>yes.
That implies you can not use the very term 'object'.
>>So, the visions people experience during near
>>death experiences are valid objects?
>if it fulfils *their* (for their is no 'universal'-) 'criterion of validity'
>then yes, i suppose.
[...]
>mickeyd
Philip Baker
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
MB
>>>some proponents of RC are developing Peirces notion of 'abduction' to give
>>>an account of synthetic knowledge. it is very useful;
PB
>>Peirce! That unequivocal realist.
>>
>> "We have direct experience of things in themselves. Nothing can
>> be more completely false than that we can experience only our
>> own ideas. That is indeed without exaggeration the very epitome
>> of all falsity."
MB
>correction, "peirce was unequivocally a Scotistic realist" (and by his own
>admission) which is vastly different from direct realism or naive realism. but
>this is a moot point,
PB
He may well have been, as opposed to being a Platonic realist. But we
are not talking about the reality of universals but of the reality of
the individual objects of everyday life.
MB
> his logic system was vey comprehensive and has proved most
>useful to many constructivists in accounting for 'synthetic knowledge' which
>are
>considered 'illogical' by most logicians (i hate logicians! to me, excluding
>illogicality from the outset is itself illogical)
PB
Do you hate casuists?
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Philip Baker" <ph...@thalasson.com> wrote in message
news:zcvkFABOvZM$Ew...@thalasson.com...
> In article <bgq32l$2r5$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, Mr Michael Bibby
> <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> writes
>>
> Do you hate casuists?
>
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Mr Michael Bibby
who am i to say what is and is not possible? how can i delimit the range of
possibilities. the fact of the matter is the i am caught up in the perpetual
dynamics of living, living is a 'process' it is kinetic not static. i am stuck
in the praxis of living.
>WHO does that 'doing'?
the doer. i do what i do and you do what you do. what is 'I' you might ask,
well, i might ask what is 'you'. the answer, in short, 'I' am 'I' and 'you' are
'you', i am the self and you are the other. you keep asking metaphysical
questions to someone is not a metaphysician, what do you expect in reponce
except for tautologies.
>WHERE does this doing directed?
>Towards what?
the doing of what is done in the doing of what is done!?
>Doing without a notion of object,
>which implies is-ness, simply makes no sense.
this simply makes no sense to me.
>> and further still "...this is
>>*not* an ontologicall theory..." and so on. i make no such commitments because
>> i cannot possibly make such commitments, this is pure speculative metaphysics.
>
>Nope. It is not metahpysics as yet.
>
>>>This is probably a result of reading technical books.
>>>What I have seen in vast majority of cases
>>>is that when new chapter starts, instead of giving
>>>basic definition of the subject, they start "explaining"
>>>it in terms of "what it does". But you, as a reader,
>>>are not there yet. First, you need to know what IS
>>>it we are talking about. Then you can proceed to
>>>"what it does" and "how it works".
>>>
>>>>the mind, as a concept, is a construction of the mind
>>>
>>>Nope. What it IS.
>>>
>>>You have a problem here. Where does the mind start
>>>after birth?
>>
>>as much we cannot possibly know! i.e., the agency of drawing distinctions is
>>forever beyond cognition
>
>Fine with me.
>
>>for it is only when a distinction is drawn is there a
>>cognitive entity.
>
>I am not sure Chuang Tzu could be understood
>and applied to scientific infrastructure.
i dont care. i am merely quoting him because he said what i wanted to say. if
that is not good enought then ill start quoting Spencer Brown; "draw a
distinction".
>We can attept to look at that statement
>you presented except I'd need more context.
>Just a single phrase won't do.
meaning is not a commodity which is shared. i can only orient you, i am doing
this not by what i say but the way in which i say it. the context is the
recursion of the system within which the system we study is embedded. this
system is an operationally closed, self-referential system. i cannot embed
myself in yourself. i can, however, orient you to different means and ways of
thinking and acting. i have made my point, make of it what you will. cultivate
your own understanding. (this is not merely a 'hand waving answer' as i am
trying, very hard, to emphasis my point by the way in which i am making my
point). dont abstract yourself too much, you'll get lost in thought!
think in every day terms. you might 'know' how to such and such and 'know' that
such and such. but what does it mean to 'know'? traditionally we think that to
'know' is to possess true descriptions of reality. call this the
'representationalist' notion of truth which is based on the dichotomy of
'representation' and 'reality'. however, as i have continually pointed out this
is problematic. as wittingstein said "in order to tell whether a picture is true
or false we must compare it with reality". this is precisely what i am saying we
*cannot* do. so, we must abandon this 'representationalist' notion of knowledge,
because truth values are incommensurable, and replace it with something else.
the knowledge structures that we glean from experience are useful because they
help us to bring our experiential reality into a logical order (this might sound
like a chicken egg problem; we assimilate experience into these knoweldge
structures which are abstracted from experience, this is not problematic when
you abandon the notion of unidirectional causality and replace it with one of
mutual dependence and circularity). we use this thing called knowledge to
'predict and control' phenomena, and being able to 'predict and control'
phenomena is a good skill to have. knowledge 'of the world' helps us to navigate
through it and enables us to manipulate it to our own ends (build shelters,
avoid preditors so on and so forth). therefore, to know is to possess means and
ways of thinking and acting that allow us to be *viable* in the world in which
we live. being *viable* means avoiding getting hit by buses and being able to
develop uselful technologies. this is not a 'plug' this is calling a spade a
spade, knowledge is useful, nothing more and indeed nothing less! again; to know
is not to possess true descriptions of reality but to possess means and ways
(codified in mental structures or 'schemas'-'theories') that allow us to attain
the goals we happen to have chosen, that is, they serve as means to some end.
it is that simple!
>
>As I said before, even if you travel the
>'wrong' path or make a 'mistake',
>your experience is just as 'viable'.
'wrong path' what is a 'wrong' path. i say, if a path is not viable then it is
not viable (in light of some goal/destination)
>It could turn out to be even more 'viable'
>because, intuitively, you craved for that
>direction in your expression, that was
>crative, seeking for new aspects.
>
>In this respenct, viability can not be
>evaluated and determined.
yes it can, through empirical testing. if X says (implies) that under condition
Y, P should be the case, and P is not the case under the condition Y, then X is
no longer viable in that condition as it is not the case that X in Y.
the suprising fact notP is observed under condition Y
if X was viable in condition Y then notP could not be the case in Y
therefore, there is reason for suspecting that X is not not viable in Y
call notP an anomoly (i.e., lets interpret the null hypothesis), call Y a field
of vality or domain of application and call X a knowledge structure, conjecture,
rule of thumb, law, theory, model or whatever blows your hair bakc.
that is so simple that i feel like a complete and utter idiot explicating it.
again, although viability is meant in a specific sense (in its epistemological
sense) it carries its usual meaning of 'workable, practical' etc. after all,
isnt it the job of scientists to produce workable solutions?
mickeyd
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:04 GMT
Article: 53
In article <dwHvOeAwWVL$Ew...@thalasson.com>, Philip Baker <ph...@thalasson.com>
wrote:
Those implications are but mind boggling.
Effectively, it is a "philosophy" of 4th reich
or "new world order" as pronounced by that 2nd
derivative Freemason Bush, the senior.
When "viability" is defined as "whatever suits your interests",
then implications are simply mind gobbling
considering that "viability" is about the only
validity criteria in this entire theory
since they no longer recongnize the notions of
"true"/"false" or "correctness".
Anotherwords, there is no other notion of justification
beyond this "viability" thing.
>[You have posted basically the same material to at least 3 NGs and are
>conducting conversations in each independently of the others. What's
>wrong with cross-posting?]
Oh, interesting.
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:09 GMT
Article: 55
>The fundamental explanatory shift from realism to constructivism is that
>?phenomenon? are no longer seen as ontologically given, that is, they are no
>longer seen as 'anchored' in some ?mind-independent reality?, but rather
> brought
>forth by the mind itself through the very process of apprehension. therefore,
>constructivism does not 'root' its explanations of phenomena in some
>transcendental 'mind independent reality' (ontologically objective reality).
[Falling on his face right from the first step].
But...
What is it for?
Anybody has a clue?
>Phenomenon are defined as objects and events which we isolate in our
>experiences, that is, the objects which we take as our subject are brought
> forth
>by the drawing of a distinction (a cognitive operation that realizes
cognition)
>which circumscribes the object by isolating it from the background of our
>experiences (the context in which the object is embedded).
First of all, "background of our experiences"
is virtually infinite and multi-dimensional.
Furthermore, those very objects are not separable
from that very "background as easily as it might seem.
In order for them to be separable,
you need to accept a delusion of a closed system,
which is simply an impossibility.
That is the FIRST crack in this "theory".
>Phenomenon, therefore, are 'system-relative constructions': cognitive objects
>which are brought forth by cognitive operations performed upon cognitive
> objects
Objects as such or these "cognitive objects"?
Is there exist anything beyond these
"cognitive objects"?
If there is, then you are beginning to fabricate
some fiction story.
If there is not, then you are but a delusional
lunatic.
Take your pick.
>(the 'performing of a distinction' is often demonstrated with two concentric
>circles where the inner circle is the 'object' and the outer circle is the
>'context'), that is, the mind is a 'operationally closed, self-referential
>system'
Not.
It is not a closed system.
There isn't a SINGLE example of a closed system
in the entire existence as it is simply impossible.
It is not 'operationally closed'.
Nor is it self-referential.
In order for it to be self-referential,
it needs to virtually contain the entire
existence. It can not even function if it is
merely a self-referential system.
Yes, there IS plenty of self-referential activity
in it, but it is just a tip of the iceberg.
For it to expand, it needs external "input"
from which it draws its identity, feeding
on various aspects of existence.
So, this is how concoctions are made out
of reality, which they apparently do not even
recognize as such, thus making this whole theory
a fiction story.
>- the perpetually acting components of the system refer only to
>themselves
Simply impossible.
>as the system interacts recursively with its own internal states
>(i.e., mental activity is the result of ongoing mental activity-
Again, "mental" aspect is but a part
and not the whole.
>hence the
>'iteration of consciousness' as the mind applies its own faculties to
itself).
This is simply insane.
This man does not have a clue as to what consciousness is.
Consciousness is outside the scope of mind
and not vice versa.
>all this means that the mind is an *epistemological* solipsist (as apposed to
> an
>'ontological solipsist') such that ?we ourselves are the depositories of the
>evidence of the subject which we consider.? (for example, as you read what i
am
>saying, you cultivate your own understanding of what i now say, and gauge the
>varacity of these arguments upon consideration of your own personal
>experience)-that is, we cannot transcend the domain of our experiences, and,
by
>extension, we cannot divine the causes, through refinements of logic and
>abstractions of experience, necessary and sufficient for the appearences of
>things which we isolate in our experiential domain (nor can we even be sure
> that
>there are such a things as 'underlying causes' waiting to be discovered). it
is
>important to note that this position does *not* assert *or* deny the
existence
>of external reality,
Huh?
Are you a lunatic?
You can even conceive the possibility of denying
"external" reality?
>it is *not* a theory of 'being' but a theory of 'doing'
>(epistemology).
Well, so far, it looks like a theory
of horseshit making.
Whats the "goal" here, sire?
>this position is metaphysically agnostic and makes absolutely
> no
>ontological commitments about what exists independently of us).
Gnostic and agnostic is pretty much the same thing,
lil did you know.
>it is also
>important to note that although this position offers a different framework
for
>doing science in,
Are you nuts?
You simply framed yourself into a little box
and you simply have no chance to EVER get out of it.
Are you a Freemason, by ANY humble chance?
>it does *not* deny that science, as a human enterprize, is
>instrumental (constructivists *dont* deny that scientific theories help us to
>make predictions and control phenomena;
Which "phenomena" you wish to "control"?
The DELUSIONAL view of life
as you have it stored inside your lil scull?
>but what it does say is that science
>should not be carried out in a realist framework
Should science be carried out in a mental
masturbalist framework then?
>as it is nothing more than a
>pious hope to think that our theories 'reflect' reality or some part of it,
Yes.
But, if you think reality is only that which is contained
within your mind, then...
Nice trap thou.
> they
>are mental scaffolds that provide a viable means and way of thinking and
acting
>that allow us to acheive the goals we have choosen, whether it is to enable
us
>to design, build and lauch a telecommunications sattelite into a
geostationary
>orbit or simply avoid getting hit by a truck when crossing the road- nothing
>more and nothing less)
Yes.
But it depends on what kind of web you weave.
Get the drift?
>in this construal, it is of no surprise that mathematics is such a useful
>language for describing empirical observations when one considers that those
>observations were defined in mathematical terms.
Yes. An important point indeed.
>A thing is what it is by virtue of what we make it;
Make OF it. The entire existence is there
regardless of what YOU make OF it.
But the way you label it,
is entirely a different matter indeed.
>when we measure a theoretical entity
I like "theoretical entities". Looks like a woodoo
class here.
>with some piece of
>measuring equipment we define such entities as units of measurement
>('units' are human constructs);
> ?properties are defined as invariants of measurement
>devices?,
Yes, they ARE. Arising from your current worldview
and underlying system of beliefs and limitations
you place upon yourselves, just as this very theory
represents.
Because this very theory is a "theory of limitations".
THAT is probably the best label for it.
>through operational definitions (i.e., ?to measure means to compare
>two phenomena with each other, one of which already assigned with a
>dimension.?); that is, we define theoretical entities and there ?essential?
>properties in observational terms- when we observe we define just what it is
we
>are observing. therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about
> independent
>properties, properties that are invariant and independent of our various
means
>and ways of measuring them (this applies in particular to quantum mechanics).
>Ordinarily, in the realist world view, ?phenomena? are ?objectivised? in that
>they are seen as ?ontologically given? (given by the evironment you might
say),
>that is, they are explained by recourse to some transcendental reality
>(metaphysical domain)- hence the distinction between ?representation? and
>?reality? (and the idea that knowledge ?represents? reality).
Knowledge does not and can not represent reality,
pretty much by definition.
Knowledge is your ATTEMPT to grasp it.
It forever changes.
But mountains and rivers remain.
So is the flower and the wind.
>In the
>constructivist world view, on the other hand, phenomena are seen as
>system-relative constructions which are no longer explained in terms of a
>transcendental reality,
"Transcendental reality" is a clever trick indeed.
It is pretty much the definition of Supreme Being.
So...
Whats cooking here?
>but instead are seen as viable constructions
What about "non-viable constructions" then?
Is there a place for them in this theory?
>built upon
>the basis of pre-existing constructs
Do these "pre-existing constructs" exist and
originate utterly within your mind then?
>which are organised hierarchical (you
> might
>say 'vertically intergrated' as they are built up over the course of
ontogenic
>development through learning),
Oh, they must be it seems.
That implies the entire existence
is UTTERLY contained within the mind.
Quite mind gobbling I might say.
Yes, you can bend it to even this extend.
No kwestion abouts its.
>and, as far as the cognitve system is concerned,
Cognitive is SUB-system, you see.
That is where yee shalt fall.
>these models ***are*** its environment, because the cognitive system is
>operationally closed
Lie.
Ouright lie.
A centerpiece of this entire system of delusion.
>as it interacts with its own internal states in a
> recursive manner
Blind following blind
will fall into ditch indeed.
That much is certain.
Yes, you can fabricate all these mental constructions
because you are compelled to make it all fit together.
But, just as you yourself claim,
ONLY within your own framework
[of delusion most profound].
>(ad infinitum).
Insane. You'd go mad within days.
>?To know?, in this construal, is to be viable in an
>environment (to possess *viable* means and ways of thinking and acting that
>allow one to acheive the goals one happens to have chosen),
You mean "just to survive,
just to survive" song?
But just "to survive" for WHAT purpose?
You are and every single speck of sand
are forever "viable".
What is "inviable" then?
You have a definition for that?
>instead of
>possessing ?true descriptions? of ontologically objective reality.
What is 'true description'?
What is true?
>given the operational closure
Mind is not a machine, you fool.
It is open, even that it deals with limited aspects.
>and self-reference of the cognitive system
If that were the case,
you could never posess any intelligence.
I'd like to see a functioning model of this
pile of delusions.
Where does initial knowledge come from
and how new information is added
if all you have is self-referential monkey logic?
>(i.e.,
>the mind is an *epistemological* solipsist that interacts with its own
internal
>states recursively),
[In this dead loop of self-referential reasoning,
utterly contained by the mind aspect]
I wonder why do you need the entire existence
if it is all ALREADY contained within the mind?
What is the purpose of life then?
Is there such a thing on the first place?
>we cannot transcend the domain of our experiences;
Finally. The conclusion obsene.
Obsene as it gets.
Tellya one lil thingy,
if you can not "transcend" the domain of your experiences,
the whole life ceases to have any purpose.
You know why?
Guess.
>therefore,
Not necessarily. Is this a "substitution of identcals"
trick again?
>recourse to a transcedental reality does not make a whole lot of
>sense when explaining cognitive phenomenon-
Because your "cognition" is limited to the level
of mechanical sensors
and that is probably what you are trying to "prove" here.
So, you claim a man is but a machine?
> especially when one considers that
>experiences can be explained without such a metaphysical domain-
You can consider virtually anything you please.
But...
Depending on what you mean by "experiences",
some of it can not be explained by any other domain.
Just within the last 24 hrs.
there was a program on the idiot box, you call TV,
about one man who knows 97 languages. He is about
30-35 years old. He is being studied by the leading
experts in 6 countries and NONE of them have
an explanation of how this could be possible.
Not only he knows them all, but he knows them
FLUENTLY including the dialects.
Interestingly enough, he could not pass an English
exam in school.
Later on he had a near death experience.
Since then, he started exploding in learning languages.
Could your great theory explain this?
How?
>hence, realism is rationally indefensible and obsolete.
WOW!
I like that!
"Realism is rationally indefensible and obsolete.
You can go into a t-shit and a car sticker business
with these kinds of slogans, mr. agnostic.
I wouldn't be surprised you can make a lot of money
with it, mr. money making machine.
Anotherwords: Zig Heil!
Must be a German mind.
SO Aryan.
>Considering the fact that these ideas are relatively new (nothing is ever new
>under the sun- this orientation has its roots in scepticism) I was wondering
>if anyone had any comments, objections and criticisms as this explanatory
shift
>has the power to be the next copernican revolution
Wut?
>and opens the way to a whole
>new way of thinking about reality
But you flately DENY the very notion
of reality, sire.
>and doing science.
Huh?
Are you out of yer mind?
>below are some quotes
>which might help clarify this orientation, usually called 'radical
>constructivism' or 'second order cybernetics'.
>"a scientific practice that fails to question itself does not, properly
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:13 GMT
Article: 56
In article <bg5jpp$ap6$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>Hello Michael,
>>
>>"Mr Michael Bibby" <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:<bg2v8j$oja$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>>> The fundamental explanatory shift from realism to constructivism is that
>>> ?phenomenon? are no longer seen as ontologically given, that is, they are
no
>>> longer seen as 'anchored' in some ?mind-independent reality?, but rather
> brought
>>> forth by the mind itself through the very process of apprehension.
> therefore,
>>> constructivism does not 'root' its explanations of phenomena in some
>>> transcendental 'mind independent reality' (ontologically objective
reality).
>
>>
And then?
why be so defensive?
the very notion of reality
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:17 GMT
Article: 57
In article <bg586i$j83$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>just a short post (im far to busy to enter into a long recapulation of
'counter
>arguments' but i should like to say one or two things
>firstly, most of your 'criticism' are implicitly addressed in my previous
>posting (it is pointless 'deconstructing' it without having read the whole
> thing
>first- i appologies for not stating this position clearly, it is a difficult
>position to orient people towards if they have never encounted constructivist
>epistemology).
Not sure whose criticism are you talking about.
>secondly, you said "your theory *proves* nothing" well of course it
doesnt!!!!
>HOW CAN I DO THE VERY THING THAT I SAY CANNOT BE DONE!
Well, then what you've got here is
"a tale told by the idiot
signifying nothing".
Yes it is.
Good, I like that.
Then define the mind.
One more time:
PERIOD.
CLEAR ENOUGH?
:---}
Enough.
>i have to run; "dont bit my finger, look where i am pointing" (foerster)
>
>mickeyd
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:18 GMT
Article: 58
In article <bg7i3h$o3o$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>it is fustrating reply to all these miss-construals,
Huh?
>perhaps you will find many
>of your criticisms address in my post titled '**some answers**' as i have
>inserted some very telling quotes.
Nothing there.
>furthermore, you are asking me to define terms such as 'mind',
Yws.
>'reality'
Yes.
Otherwise I have no clue what are you talking about.
>and so
>on, as i said previously 'this is *not* an ontology,
I give a flying dead chicken what kind of label you
attach to what.
>it is a theory of 'doing'
This isn't even funny.
Btw, can you reduce the line length in your posts
to somewhere around 60 chars?
Do I have to explain why?
>not theory of 'being' ('to be'),
Put a period between sentences for god's sake.
To create a theory of being you must be out of yer mind.
>i define mind, when i take it as my object,
So, mind is an object?
Interesting.
And then?
>as
>a human-specific construct,
Not only human, lil did you know.
>but that is not to say that it is some kind of
>'category mistake',
What are you hiding behind with this
'category mistake' trick?
>but simply to say that *everything* is a human construct
>when taken as an object.
PURE grade crap.
Not interesting.
> however, AND THIS IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT AND CORE
>ESSENTIAL TO WHAT I AM SAYING: the mind is the context in which the object is
>embedded
NOT.
The LABEL for an object.
>(what so ever that 'object' it, what ever we take as our subject,
>*including* the mind itself!)
You have guts indeed.
So...
What is the difference between the observer
and the observed then?
Can mind be an observer and the observed
at the same time? Can it be the very object
of observation?
>this, the last, is an important point, hopefully
>it is not lost on you.
ALL I am seeing is that you are confused
and profoundly so.
>"dont bit my finger, look where i am pointing"
You are pointing to abyss
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:20 GMT
Article: 59
In article <bg7rha$i65$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Do you have a problem with your newsreader?
It is not clear who are you replying to?
>>>i define mind, when i take it as my object,
>>So, mind is an object?
>o.k. you asked for a lesson in 2nd order cybernetics
Huh?
What follows then?
So...
Beware.
Zo...
Zo...
Zo...
Get the drift?
The "bottom line" is:
>>>but that is not to say that it is some kind of
>>>'category mistake',
>>What are you hiding behind with this
>>'category mistake' trick?
>i was trying to clarify my position and anticipate a responce,
>if it doesnt apply then it doesnt apply!
>>>but simply to say that *everything* is a human construct
>>>when taken as an object.
If you use the term object in such a loose manner,
Or you can say:
The PERCEPTION of everything is a human construct
when taken as an object OF OBSERVATION.
>>PURE grade crap.
>>Not interesting.
Indeed. It is something so confused,
Ever heard?
It is ALL simultaneous.
Subtle but perverse.
>>> however, AND THIS IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT AND CORE
>>>ESSENTIAL TO WHAT I AM SAYING: the mind is the context in which the object
is
>>>embedded
>>NOT.
>>The LABEL for an object.
>if thats how you distinquish it, then YES.
Scuze me. You had a fallacy of a statement.
You simply use the mind as though it was
that very 'transcendental reality'
of which you are so reluctant.
Your statement reads:
The existence is contained in the mind.
I say: LIE.
The IDEAS about existence ARE contained in the mind.
See the difference?
EVERY single dot and comma,
EVERY single word in this game
makes a difference between life and death.
You are walking on a mine field my friend.
But you are behaving in such a sloppy manner,
even by simply looking at your posts,
their formatting, the way you cut most of
your opponents arguments.
You'll get blown out of the water
the way you walk
and the way you talk
and the way you put your argument together.
>>>(what so ever that 'object' it, what ever we take as our subject,
>>>*including* the mind itself!)
>>You have guts indeed.
But you are talking about the MODEL
Do you see?
>>So...
>>What is the difference between the observer
>>and the observed then?
>this is a good question, i am apprehensive about aswering it because
>there are a number of ways in which i might answer it.
> the observer is that which observers
>and the observed is that which is observed.
Obvious to a 5 year old.
And then?
>>Can mind be an observer and the observed
>>at the same time? Can it be the very object
>>of observation?
>yes and no.
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:24 GMT
Article: 60
In article <bga65d$l42$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>"Mr Michael Bibby" <s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
Otherwise, it is all but a tale
told by the idiot
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:26 GMT
Article: 61
In article <bgav62$9fa$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <bga6c8$d92$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
Now...
For what?
>the concept of viability in a RC context is pretty simple "'to know' is not
to
What is "knowledge" then?
You understand?
FAKE.
RADICAL you wish?
CONSTRUCTIVISM you call it?
I call it DESTRUCTIVISM.
Argue if you wish.
Enough.
>somekind of external point of reference and thus breaks the circle)
>
>mickeyd
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:29 GMT
Article: 62
In article <tmAWa.22827$4UE....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"Mike" <chum...@rogers.com> wrote:
>To the only philosopher
Oh, I like that.
Thats a good start.
Looks like we've got a new kid in town.
Well, welcome to the domain of obsene.
And then?
>Mr. Michael Bibby,
>
>Your posting called for a perusal, which I did together with my friend,
>Evgeny Mesentsev. Here are some comments, objections and criticisms that you
>have asked for.
>
>Humble translator,
So far, your English is quite comprehandable.
>Mike
>
>M.B.
>
>The fundamental explanatory shift from realism to constructivism is that
>?phenomenon? are no longer seen as ontologically given, that is, they are no
>longer seen as 'anchored' in some ?mind-independent reality?, but rather
>brought forth by the mind itself through the very process of apprehension.
>
>E.M.
>
>This difference seems unimportant for me. It is just developing the notion
>of something 'given': non-captiously taken 'given' is realism, while 'given'
>construed along some explicit rules is 'constructivism'. The notion of the
>'real' world in realism evolves in a different way. And phenomenological
>approach by Husserl reconciles this transition completely. There exist mind'
>s content; the problems of why and what is the next step.
>
>M.B.
>
>therefore, constructivism does not 'root' its explanations of phenomena in
>some transcendental 'mind independent reality' (ontologically objective
>reality).
>
>MB.
>
> Phenomenon are defined as objects and events which we isolate in our
>experiences, that is, the objects which we take as our subject are brought
>forth by the drawing of a distinction (a cognitive operation that realizes
>cognition) which circumscribes the object by isolating it from the
>background of our experiences (the context in which the object is embedded).
>Phenomenon, therefore, are 'system-relative constructions': cognitive
>objects which are brought forth by cognitive operations performed upon
>cognitive objects (the 'performing of a distinction' is often demonstrated
>with two concentric circles where the inner circle is the 'object' and the
>outer circle is the 'context'), that is, the mind is a 'operationally
>closed, self-referential system'- the perpetually acting components of the
>system refer only to themselves as the system interacts recursively with its
>own internal states (i.e., mental activity is the result of ongoing mental
>activity- hence the 'iteration of consciousness' as the mind applies its own
>faculties to itself). all this means that the mind is an *epistemological*
>solipsist (as apposed to an 'ontological solipsist') such that ?we ourselves
>are the depositories of the evidence of the subject which we consider.? (for
>example, as you read what I am saying, you cultivate your own understanding
>of what i now say, and gauge the varacity of these arguments upon
>consideration of your own personal experience)-that is, we cannot transcend
>the domain of our experiences, and, by
>
>extension, we cannot divine the causes, through refinements of logic and
>abstractions of experience, necessary and sufficient for the appearances of
>things which we isolate in our experiential domain (nor can we even be sure
>that there are such a things as 'underlying causes' waiting to be
>discovered). It is important to note that this position does *not* assert
>*or* deny the existence of external reality, it is *not* a theory of 'being'
>but a theory of 'doing' (epistemology). this position is metaphysically
>agnostic and makes absolutely no ontological commitments about what exists
>independently of us).
>
>EM.
>
>b) object study
"Official" request:
:---}
> it is also important to note that although this position offers a different
>framework for doing science in, it does *not* deny that science, as a human
>enterprize, is instrumental (constructivists *dont* deny that scientific
>theories help usto make predictions and control phenomena; but what it does
>say is that science should not be carried out in a realist framework as it
>is nothing more than a pious hope to think that our theories 'reflect'
>reality or some part of it, they are mental scaffolds that provide a viable
>means and way of thinking and acting that allow us to achieve the goals we
>have chosen, whether it is to enable us to design, build and launch a
>telecommunications satellite into a geostationary orbit or simply avoid
>getting hit by a truck when crossing the road- nothing more and nothing
>less) in this construal, it is of no surprise that mathematics is such a
>useful language for describing empirical observations when one considers
>that those observations were defined in mathematical terms.
>
>EM.
>
> To sum it up: constructivists over-emphasize one of the stages
>(ontologization being artificial) in contrast to another (the study one).
Either there is a problem with translation,
or we have some things to cleanup here indeed.
To claim that very being is something artificial,
which does not "independently" exist outside the mind,
is bending it REAL good, unless you replace ontology
with conceptualization [of reality],
which is "indeed REAL".
:---}
Is this whole thing but a linguistic excersize
or are you actually trying to say something about LIFE.
If this is not about life,
sorry, I am not interested.
Because to me it is all but mental masturbation
of about and about and about.
But not IT.
>But we thank them for allowing us to distinguish between them. This is
>exactly how human reasoning progresses: a new approach appears, which
>stresses out one of the sides and thus makes it visible.
>MB.
>
> A thing is what it is by virtue of what we make it;
Nope. Your IDEA about "a thing", but not "thing" itself.
Otherwise, you'd have deny the very existence of matter.
Are you saying that your mental projections
created the Universe?
Do I hear static again?
>when we measure a
>theoretical entity with some piece of measuring equipment we define such
>entities as units of measurement ('units' are human constructs); ?properties
>are defined as invariants of measurement devices?, through operational
>definitions (i.e., ?to measure means to compare two phenomena with each
>other, one of which already assigned with a dimension.?); that is, we define
>theoretical entities and there ?essential? properties in observational
>terms- when we observe we define just what it is we are observing.
Define or CREATE?
To define is to create a mental "image" of that,
which already exists on the first place.
Sure, you can create some purely abstract definitions,
a fiction story of sorts. But that does not imply that
the mere fact you "defined" something, it implies that
something did not exist "before" you defined it.
Otherwise, this whole thing is but trickery.
As I asked before and heard static in return:
Is it some kind of a circus
for the mad?
Or are we talking about LIFE?
Is such a notion as "life" acceptable
in this theory?
>therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about independent
>properties, properties that are invariant and independent of our various
>means and ways of measuring them (this applies in particular to quantum
>mechanics).
Properties or "objects" themselves?
I thought you are talking about real life objects
and not mere mental constructions and their properties.
Regardless of what properties you attribute
to "objects", it does not imply that the objects
do not exist regardless of your descriptions [of them].
>EM.
>
> This only means that the properties under consideration cannot be
>ontologized with the help of old means.
I, personally, am not even interested in the issue
of wether we perceive "objects" "correctly",
in undistorted and "original" version.
This is UTTERLY irrelevant to the very core
of the argument.
By proving that your properties are somehow
not "correct", it doest not imply there is no
existence and no reality outside your mind.
I define reality as ISness.
It is UTTERLY irrelevant of what is "object"
[of consideration] in this respect.
Furthermore, I deny the very notion of "objective reality",
on the basis that this notion can only be comprehended
by the supreme being, the creator,
or infinite, all pervading intelligence.
Man can not possibly comprehend "objective reality".
ALL the statements, notions and theories ever made
are subjective, regardless of how many people agreed
as to their "objectivity".
>MB.
>
> Ordinarily, in the realist world view, ?phenomena? are ?objectivised? in
>that they are seen as ?ontologically given? (given by the evironment you
>might say), that is, they are explained by recourse to some transcendental
>reality (metaphysical domain)- hence the distinction between
>?representation? and?reality? (and the idea that knowledge ?represents?
>reality).
>
>EM.
>
> This is so called 'vernacular' or 'naive' realism. I agree, this is exactly
>the way it goes. But the problem lies particularly in the relation between
>the notions of reality per se and reality in terms of knowledge/model of it.
Indeed. But repeatedly pointing out this very point
to the author is just like banging on the wall.
There is no one home it seems.
>In some respects reality is always a model.
Not reality itself, but the the IDEA about what it is.
No matter how distorted our views regarding existence,
we, nevertheless, can not deny the vey existence.
It is simply insane.
Again, is it some kind of linguistic trickery class?
>Yes, this is true. But there are
>two ways to make use of it: a) to elaborate on it b) to actually use it,
>which means accepting it as being real. And both of these ways are
>complimentary (subsidiary). Within the approach described, the way 'a' is
>constructivism, the way 'b' is realism.
Fine with me. If constructivism
is merely an excersize in comprehending
what the real thing actually is,
then you can go ahead and construct anything you like.
> Any of them without the other is wrong.
Then it is time to define what is "right"
and what is "wrong". I am kinda curious on this.
>Construing models does not make any sense without a chance to use the
>model in practice.
Yes, at least for this much.
But, this does not imply that all there is
in entire existence is your mental constructions.
>MB.
>
>In the constructivist world view, on the other hand, phenomena are seen as
>system-relative ?onstructions which are no longer explained in terms of a
>transcendental reality, but instead are seen as viable constructions built
>upon the basis of pre-existing constructs which are organised hierarchical
>(you might say 'vertically intergrated' as they are built up over the course
>of ontogenic development through learning), and, as far as the cognitve
>system is concerned,
>these models ***are*** its environment, because the cognitive system is
>operationally closed
No. It is not.
What do you imply by "operationaly closed"?
As I said MANY times over, there isn't a SINGLE example
of a closed system in entire existence,
be it "operationall", "functionally", "objectively"
or otherwise.
Your view of cognitive system is limited beyond comprehension.
>as it interacts with its own internal states in a
>recursive manner (ad infinitum).
There is ALL sorts of problems here.
>EM.
> As I see it, another mistake is rooted here. The objects of mind
>[consciousness] have some definiteness and structure, and this is an
>indication of being 'real', and a very important one. They also do not
>dependent on mind [consciousness]. Digit 5 does not depend on my mind, as it
>has some properties and a structure: it is simple, odd, etc, etc. The fact
>that it is construed does not deny its being independent from mind AFTER it
>was construed.
Again, ALL sorts of problems.
You can probably write a book on it,
so vast are the problems
and so illusory are the very concepts,
going as far, as being PURE grade fallacy.
>MB.
>
>To know?, in this construal, is to be viable in an environment (to possess
>*viable* means and ways of thinking and acting that allow one to achieve the
>goals one happens to have chosen), instead of possessing ?true descriptions?
>of ontologically objective reality.
Again, a survivalist argument,
an "empty vessel" argument as I call it.
"Viability" of "achieving goals" is of limited utility.
I assume you are talking about life,
otherwise, this is but an excersize in futility.
Just "achieving your goal" simply means you are
some kind of machine.
Why?
Well, because what is "goal" on the fist place?
You can make a "goal" ONLY of something that
is ALREADY known, like "to make money",
"to become famous", or things like that.
But you can not make a "goal" of discovering
a theory of relativity. It is simply impossible.
Yes, once you are done with it,
you'll place a label on it "grand theory of relativity".
But when you were struggling with it,
you did not even know what will come out at the end.
Do you see the argument here?
The argument is simple enough:
ALL your "goals" are but an excersize in futility,
arising from a complex of inferiority.
But genuine discoveries of those undelying principles
and mechanisms of existence is exactly what you
call ?true descriptions?.
You do not EVER trully create anything.
You merely discover that, which is already there
on the first place, unless you are involved
in purely abstract games.
You do not create that, which you latter on labled
as "gravitation", "energy" or ANY other "object".
You merely became AWARE of certain things
that were forever waiting to be found.
I don't like this "philosophical" high priest blabber.
Bring me your highest master.
We'll have a friendly chat with him.
One more time:
You can not avoid argument.
Otherwise, just get lost.
This is not quite a place to peddle bullshit
and delusions, nicely packaged with labels
attached "A Revolutionary Theory Of Radical Constructivism".
Cause that box goes right up your tootoo.
I hope I don't have to explain what that is.
>EM.
>Here I agree absolutely; I think that the gist behind the approach is simply
>rooted in critical viewing of the cognition [study] stages, and viewing
>cognition as consisting of two stages reconciles the problem.
You can agree all you want.
But it does not make truth out of lie.
>MB.
>given the operational closure and self-reference of the cognitive system
You need EVIDENCE?
Oki doki.
Thats enough.
Zee ya later aligator.
>(i.e., the mind is an *epistemological* solipsist that interacts with its
>own internal states recursively), we cannot transcend the domain of our
>experiences; therefore, recourse to a transcendental reality does not make a
>whole lot of sense when explaining cognitive phenomenon- especially when one
>considers that experiences can be explained without such a metaphysical
>domain- hence,
>
>realism is rationally indefensible and obsolete. Considering the fact that
>these ideas are relatively new (nothing is ever new under the sun- this
>orientation has its roots in skepticism) I was wondering if anyone had any
>comments, objections and criticisms as this explanatory shift has the power
>to be the next Copernican revolution and opens the way to a whole new way of
>thinking about reality and doing science. below are some quotes which might
>help clarify this orientation, usually called 'radical
>
>constructivism' or 'second order cybernetics'.
>
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:35 GMT
Article: 63
In article <bgi2bn$l4p$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>2 of 2
>
>>MB.
>>
>> A thing is what it is by virtue of what we make it; when we measure a
>>theoretical entity with some piece of measuring equipment we define such
>>entities as units of measurement ('units' are human constructs); ?properties
>>are defined as invariants of measurement devices?, through operational
>>definitions (i.e., ?to measure means to compare two phenomena with each
>>other, one of which already assigned with a dimension.?); that is, we define
>>theoretical entities and there ?essential? properties in observational
>>terms- when we observe we define just what it is we are observing.
>>therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about independent
>>properties, properties that are invariant and independent of our various
>>means and ways of measuring them (this applies in particular to quantum
>>mechanics).
>>
>>EM.
>>
>> This only means that the properties under consideration cannot be
>>ontologized with the help of old means.
>>
>>MB.
>>
>> Ordinarily, in the realist world view, ?phenomena? are ?objectivised? in
>>that they are seen as ?ontologically given? (given by the evironment you
>>might say), that is, they are explained by recourse to some transcendental
>>reality (metaphysical domain)- hence the distinction between
>>?representation? and?reality? (and the idea that knowledge ?represents?
>>reality).
>>
>>EM.
>>
>> This is so called 'vernacular' or 'naive' realism. I agree, this is exactly
>>the way it goes. But the problem lies particularly in the relation between
>>the notions of reality per se and reality in terms of knowledge/model of it.
>>In some respects reality is always a model. Yes, this is true. But there are
>>two ways to make use of it: a) to elaborate on it b) to actually use it,
>>which means accepting it as being real. And both of these ways are
>>complimentary (subsidiary). Within the approach described, the way 'a' is
>>constructivism, the way 'b' is realism. Any of them without the other is
>>wrong. Construing models does not make any sense without a chance to use the
>>model in practice.
>
>
>i agree on your last point, however, we can model phenomena without using the
>concept of 'reality'. 'reality' provides us with a useful way to explain and
>describe how phenomena might arise. there is another way of describing how
>phenomena arise without resorting to an ontologically objective reality that
>exists independently of us. this is what RC and second order cybernetics
>provides us with, as we can explain and describe phenomena soley in terms of
> the
>cognitive processess of constructing the phenomena and construing the
> phenomena.
>this way, we dont need reality.
>
>this is important because there is no observation without an observer, the
>observer and the observered are mutually dependent on one another and it
doesnt
>make a whole lot of sense to think of the observer as a 'passive copying
>machine' he is far more than that, he is part of a *dynamic system* and not a
>passive observer. hence, the observer must include himself in his model for
it
>to be complete.
>
>
>
>>
>>MB.
>>
>>In the constructivist world view, on the other hand, phenomena are seen as
>>system-relative ?onstructions which are no longer explained in terms of a
>>transcendental reality, but instead are seen as viable constructions built
>>upon the basis of pre-existing constructs which are organised hierarchical
>>(you might say 'vertically intergrated' as they are built up over the course
>>of
>>
>>ontogenic development through learning), and, as far as the cognitve system
>>is concerned,
>>
>>these models ***are*** its environment, because the cognitive system is
>>operationally closed as it interacts with its own internal states in a
>>recursive manner (ad infinitum).
>>
>>EM.
>>
>> As I see it, another mistake is rooted here. The objects of mind
>>[consciousness] have some definiteness and structure, and this is an
>>indication of being 'real', and a very important one.
>
>
>if you are saying that phenomena (cognitive objects/objects of the mind) are
>apprehendable by us, then i agree, of course they are 'sensible' to us, and
in
>that way they are 'real'.
>
>what i am saying here is that for us to 'deal' with an object is for us to
deal
>with our own internal states. the object *may* exist outside of us (and our
>'representation' of it) but there is no way for us to know because the mind
is
>an operationally closed system and all that we have access to are our own
>internal states. you might say that when we construe an object we are
changing
>states to an 'object state'.
>
>
>
>They also do not
>>dependent on mind [consciousness]. Digit 5 does not depend on my mind, as it
>>has some properties and a structure: it is simple, odd, etc, etc. The fact
>>that it is construed does not deny its being independent from mind AFTER it
>>was construed.
>
>
>>MB.
>>To know?, in this construal, is to be viable in an environment (to possess
>>*viable* means and ways of thinking and acting that allow one to achieve the
>>goals one happens to have chosen), instead of possessing ?true descriptions?
>>of ontologically objective reality.
>>
>>EM.
>>
>>Here I agree absolutely; I think that the gist behind the approach is simply
>>rooted in critical viewing of the cognition [study] stages, and viewing
>>cognition as consisting of two stages reconciles the problem.
>>
>>MB.
>>
>> given the operational closure and self-reference of the cognitive system
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:38 GMT
Article: 64
In article <bgl681$le1$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
<s403...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>attention nucleus,
>
>i havent time to reply to your posts, if you do wish to offer some constructive
>criticisms in a structured manner, please by all means do. perhaps you could
>summarize your argument clearly, in point by point fashion, so that we can
>disseminate each idea in a structured environment,
It is all done already. By now, you should have a good
idea what the arguments are.
>otherwise, we will be here
>forever! if you can find any apparant 'logical flaws' and internal
>inconsistencies in the position i have presented then by all means re-present
>them so that i, and others, can gauge the varacity of your arguments.
First, you need to define the very terms you use.
You've been asked for it several times.
All I hear is static so far.
What do you imply by mind?
What do you imply by reality?
What do you imply by "object"?
What do you imply by "experience"?
What do you imply by terms you use
in your arguments.
Unless you do so, I am not sure we are on the same
wavelenght.
That is what that other Russian guy suggested also.
You ignored his request as well.
As to your "mind observing the mind" argument,
there seems to be a violation of the very notion
of observation. The perceiver and the perceived
MUST be distinct.
As to your idea of "mind including the mind
in its 'experience', it looks like a trickery.
Mind USES its "knowledge" while experiencing
something, hopefully 'new' (else there is not
much purpose if it only deals with 'old').
But to claim it includes itself and going as far
as to claim "in infinitely recursive manner",
looks like a confusion, a trick of sorts.
If mind in every single "experience" has to
go thru infinite self-referential recursion,
you'd simply dead lock as at no point you'd
be able to make a SINGLE decision. Because,
in your scheme you need to continue this
recursion "ad infinitum".
So, again, not clear what you imply by this
recursion. Is it a recursion in historical
terms, or immediate terms as observation
occures.
Anotherword, as you defined your notions
so poorly, you may as well continue
stating basically ANYTHING you wish
and there is no possibility of any argument.
Specifically, because you deny the very notions
of "true"/"false". So, logic is not applicable.
To summarise, I view your ideology as a religious
dogma, unarguable in principle.
As you claim, your theory is self-contained
and self-referential. So, nothing external
to that theory can not possibly change your
argument.
At this point, the very possibility of an argument
with you seems to be an excersize in futility.
Zo...
"Do as thou wilt and so be judged".
That is a commandment.
To me, it is UTTERLY irrelevant that you
do not recognize the "transcendental" "reality".
"Do as thou wilt and so be judged"
can only be SEEN. It can not be argued.
Once you come upon certain maturity,
your HEART, which isn't even a component
of consideration in your theory, as are
other MOST fundamental aspects of human being,
will tell you.
>i say all
>this because although i do take time to come to this forum, i havent alot of
>time.
One more time: Then what are you doing here?
Can not you comprehend the simpliest thing
there is that your theory needs a LOT of
consideration and cross checking?
You think you just come here,
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:41 GMT
Article: 66
In article <bgnt4e$hfu$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
The quesion is not what it does, but what it IS.
This is probably a result of reading technical books.
What I have seen in vast majority of cases
is that when new chapter starts, instead of giving
basic definition of the subject, they start "explaining"
it in terms of "what it does". But you, as a reader,
are not there yet. First, you need to know what IS
it we are talking about. Then you can proceed to
"what it does" and "how it works".
>the mind, as a concept, is a construction of the mind
Nope. What it IS.
You have a problem here. Where does the mind start
after birth? Is it already given? Filled with notions,
concepts, beliefs and other paraphenilia?
It can not start with itself because first
you need to build something that will feed upon
itself as you describe here.
> (a viable construct you might say),
I have no idea. I may as well give you a list
of as "viable" things.
Again, 3rd reich and "new world order" are as
"viable" as any. Does it make it something
worth pursuing?
If the notion of 'viable' includes just about
anything you wish, as long, as it suits your
goals, whatever they are, then the very notion
of 'viable' is as good, as undefined.
I suspect it is but an artificial attempt
to fill the void created when you got away
from the concepts of 'true' and 'false'.
Interestingly enough, those concepts prevented
some obviously ethical consequences.
You can not simply state "new world order" is good,
because you had to use further considerations
and qualifications that could be eventually
verified with notions of 'true' or 'false'.
Once you got away from it, void was created.
So, some conman invented this idea of 'viable'
defined as 'whatever suits your interests'
and you thus plugged it in instead of 'true'
and 'false'.
I gave you plenty of examples of the most
outrageous examples that are neverhteless
'viable'. The quesion becomes: so, how do you
reconcile it all with life and 'progress'?
How?
Some lunatic may make a 'goal' to destroy all life
and it will fit PERFECTLY into the 'viable'
definition.
So, effectively, you give a blank check to next
or present fuehrer and he will be able to justify
just about ANY act on the basis that it is a scientific
approach, proved valid by this 'radical constructivism'.
This is the kind of 'science' they were involved
with in 3rd reich.
>that is, when the mind takes itself as its
>object it distinguishes itself from itself, it is both the object and the
>context in which it is embedded.
But how does it form?
Where does it start from?
As far as "takes itself as its object" [of consideration],
you have a problem. The observer and the observed
can not be the same. Otherwise, the whole notion
of observation falls appart.
>>What do you imply by reality?
>Reality; I distinguish ?transcendental reality? from ?experiential reality?
But what IS the very notion of 'reality'?
Once you define that, you can distinguish further.
Before you can distinguish,
you need to define what do you distinguish from what.
Now you need to define "transcendental reality"
and "experiential reality".
>>What do you imply by "object"?
>Object; that which is accessed (experienced) as it is 'brought forth' by the
>performing of a distinction which cleaves it from the background of experience,
>which is the context in which it is embedded
Then it is fair to assume you view objects as mind constructs.
That implies that 'object' exist squarely within the mind.
So, objects are mental constructions.
Implication is:
Anything that exist beyond the mind
can not be trusted. In 'fact', it seems
NOTHING exists outside the mind according
to your view.
I claim, you gave a description of mental
representation and not the objects themselves,
regardless of how well we understand that
which we experience as objects.
In that case, are we talking about the individual
mind, or some universal mind, a 'mind' of 'transcendental'
entity, known as God or infinite intelligence?
If we are talking about the individual mind,
your definition is invalid, pretty much on its
face value as even though your individual mind
ceases to be and thus does not observe some object
[of physical reality or otherwise],
the other individual mind can, nevertheless
perceive such an object, even though their
views of the same object differ.
Now, if you are talking about the 'mind' of God,
then yes, your statement gains validity.
So...
There is no guarantee that two individual
entities will observe the same object and the very notion
of 'object' becomes fiction, unprovable in principle.
Because you used the term 'experienced'.
Once you did that, there is no longer a guarantee
that the object is anything else but the figment
of your imagination or a dream or drug induced
experience or some vision that occures under
highly stressful situations such as near death
experience.
So, the visions people experience during near
death experiences are valid objects?
Furthermore, if you observe your thoughs,
you should be able to see that the very boundaries
of 'objects' are not clearly defined.
It ripples from the central focusing point,
where 'objects' are more or less defined,
to the periferal area of your focus, where
you can hardly see the end of one 'object'
and the beginning of the other one.
In that sense, the more you move away from
the point of focus and attention to perifery,
the fuzzier the distinction.
Even at the very center of attention,
objects do not have a clear boundary
because they are multi-dimensional in nature.
They all have MULTIPLE aspects, and each aspect
has a different boundary. Some aspects are
on 'skin deep' level, while others stretch
as far, as infinity, and that is for the same
'object'.
Looks like your version need some MAJOR
revision. You seem to still operate in that
single dimensional framework of 'true' and 'false'.
>>What do you imply by "experience"?
>Experience; all things which lie within the boundaries of the experiential
>domain and are accessible to the experiencer
But what IS 'experience'?
How about this definition:
Experience is an event, 'objectifying'
the aggregate version of focus of attention.
It is that which validates all pertinent
information, fixing it as internal reality
that gets incorporated in the 'structure'
of the mind.
It is that momentary semi-stable state
where something is believed to hold valid.
Then what is 'experiential domain'?
Where are its boundaries?
I assume by 'experiencer' you imply the mind.
So, in your scheme, it is assumed that the man
is the mind?
Is there anything else beyond the mind,
or outside of its scope and domain?
[...]
>>As to your "mind observing the mind" argument,
>>there seems to be a violation of the very notion
>>of observation. The perceiver and the perceived
>>MUST be distinct.
>are you telling me that you cannot 'perceive' yourself?
Yes. It is but a confusion.
>i wanted to avoid this
>discussion, because its a bit tricky
Yes, tricky as it gets.
There is hardly anything trickier than this.
As I said before, mankind is struggling with these
issues for thousands of years. You claim to have
an answer. So...
Answer then.
>(langauge wise- i did oversimplify this
>corollary) but i will try to clarify. the observer may distinguish some
> features
>or properties and isolate these aspects of himself from himself.
Yes, some features, some properties,
>i.e., he may
>distinguish the boundary of his physical body and take that as the object of
> his regaurd.
Fine. But body is not the mind.
Is there a distinction between the body and the mind
in your view?
>surely that is not all there is to him, the physical boundary that
>distinguishes him from his environment,
Which is illusion on the first place.
>it is but a part, a property which he
>'brings forth' by drawing a distinction.
Yes, but a PART, a property.
But part is not the whole.
THAT is my argument.
>>As to your idea of "mind including the mind
>>in its 'experience', it looks like a trickery.
>>Mind USES its "knowledge" while experiencing
>>something, hopefully 'new' (else there is not
>>much purpose if it only deals with 'old').
>see above
Yes, see above.
>>But to claim it includes itself and going as far
>>as to claim "in infinitely recursive manner",
>>looks like a confusion, a trick of sorts.
>i was merely characterizing the 'iteration of consciousness' i.e.,
>think of the rubber sheet analogy
Oh, now you wish to speak of nothing less than
CONSCIOUSNESS? Well...
Then you are in the domain, which you can not possibly
define as it is that, which is BEYOND the mind
and all your arguments stop on the boundary
of the mind as of necessity.
So, you can not possibly claim the 'iteration of consciousness'.
Would be interesting to see how you define that
and what else do you have to say about it.
>>If mind in every single "experience" has to
>>go thru infinite self-referential recursion,
>>you'd simply dead lock as at no point you'd
>>be able to make a SINGLE decision.
>this is a miss construal. you might say that at any given moment the system is
>in a state of equilibrium,
NOT. About the ONLY state of equilibrium
is when the mind ceases to operate
and all experience ceases.
It is known as PURE consciousness
where the perceiver and the perceived are gone.
>but the system is dynamic such that it is in a
>dynamic equilibirium of recurrent activity of the perpetually acting
>components
I do not see ANY 'equilibrium' here.
As I view it, about the only equilibrium there is
is when some new information is being assimilated
and reconciled within the system, but new information
did not arrive as yet, just for a sake of argument.
But such states are merely impossible
as multi-dimensional information flow is forever present.
So...
The system is NEVER at a state of equilibrium.
That much is cerain.
Secondly, your description fits into the MOST rudimentary
mechanical systems that forever operate in a circular
manner. So, effectively there is nothing new within
that system. It is a mere gadget, a motor of some sort.
Mind FOREVER deals with NEW information,
even if you happen to be in the "same" situation,
as it FOREVER considers new aspects of it.
Again, reality is multi-dimensional.
This implies that at ANY given junction,
that system is dealing with new information
and is FOREVER trying to reconcile the new
with the old, FOREVER being at a state of
dis-equilibrium.
>(until the system 'dissintigrates' as maturana and verala put it).
And even when the system 'dissintegrates',
you never know what lies beyond.
Again, it is multi-dimensional,
and we have but a pin hole sized glimps
as to what that system is.
>thus, the system continually changes states as each state gives rise to yet
>another state in a recurrent manner,
I do not see recursion here.
The notion of recursion arises out of confusion
as to what is what. It is but a byproduct
of confusion that the mind can perceive the mind.
Identity crisis.
> that is, it undergoes recursion. because
>the perpetually acting components of the system refer only to themselves,
Not.
Again, the same mistake.
Components can not refer to themselves.
They can ONLY refer to their SUB-components.
Otherwise, the very notion of observation
does not apply.
>the system is said to be 'self-referential'.
Not. This is the same thing.
It could be said to be hierarchical,
but not self-referential.
Again, the identity crisis.
>(there are also dimensions of
>'self-organization' which i wont go into).
Yes. That would be a tough cokie to crack.
>perhaps this picture will resolve
>itself if you think about thinking...,
You can not think about thinking.
You can only "think" of "objects" of thought.
Just try this little experiment.
Try to see how thoughts arise in your mind.
See how these words magically pop out one
after another and magically form the sentences.
In "fact", thoughts arise out of nowhere it seems.
Yes, you may focus on a particular issue,
but you are not in control.
Unless you practice this lil excersize,
I doubt you'll ever see the nature of it all.
>mental activity is always the result of
>ongoing mental activity,
Not.
I AM the mind.
>mental activity always gives rise to further mental
>activity:
In that it modifies the very stucture of the mind
Except...
>we interact with our own states in a recursive manner, or, to put it
>differently, to deal with an object (any object) means to deal with ones own
>states. that is what i personally love about these ideas (most of which are
>borrowed from maturana and verala) as we are living systems and as such are
>caught up in the perpetual dynamics of all that involves, every action
>(mental/physical) dissapears with the very act that gave rise to it whilst
>giving rise to something else in its place, that is, enaction is recurrent.
>Because,
>>in your scheme you need to continue this
>>recursion "ad infinitum".
>(again i was refering to the iteration of consciousness)
>>So, again, not clear what you imply by this
>>recursion. Is it a recursion in historical
>>terms,
>yes
>or immediate terms as observation
>>occures.
>yes
Your brain would fry then.
:---}
>>Anotherword, as you defined your notions
To blame reality is to be an idiot.
Looks like you are stretching it REAL good here.
>>At this point, the very possibility of an argument
>>with you seems to be an excersize in futility.
>this is not an argument, i am 'orienting you' to a means and way of thinking,
> if you dont believe that it is viable then thats o.k.
Are you sure you have enough tools in your toolbox
to "orient" me?
>>Zo...
>>"Do as thou wilt and so be judged".
>>That is a commandment.
>>To me, it is UTTERLY irrelevant that you
>>do not recognize the "transcendental" "reality".
>of course i recognize transcendental reality, i also think, act and operate in
>terms of a mind independent reality (its a viable means and way of acting in
>this world, whatever 'this world' is)
>>"Do as thou wilt and so be judged"
>>can only be SEEN. It can not be argued.
>>Once you come upon certain maturity,
>>your HEART, which isn't even a component
>>of consideration in your theory, as are
>>other MOST fundamental aspects of human being,
>>will tell you.
>dude, i am a romantic. i love percy bysshe shelley and believe, as did he, that
>love is the core essentiallity of our existence. this view of things is not
>discounted in a RC framework, quite the opposite, there is far more room for
>such proclivities than in the existing realist based framework!
I did not even see it mentioned ONCE so far in your arguments.
ALL I see is the mind watching the mind watching the mind.
It is a trap to me.
I have not seen ANYTHING outside the mind in your argumentation.
I have not noticed even a TRACE of aroma of life in it.
To me, this entire theory is a theory of mind.
Good luck with that.
Surprises are forthcoming indeed.
>incidently,
>Shelley, probably *the* greatest of the romantic poets, could himself be
>considered a Radical constructivist, mary shelley, in a foot note to his
>brilliant essay 'on life' commented that percy shelly was a fan of berkeley
>(who, despite his piouty and idealism, developed many key arguements which are
>often used by RC).
>
>dont get me wrong, its not a utopia, its just a very rugged, comprehensive
>theoretical framework.
And just as any other, it works within its framework
and domain.
Except it found a trick to self-justify about anything
imaginable with this 'viability' concept
that is a profound delusion to me.
EVERY SINGLE THING is "viable".
Even your "mistakes".
ANYTHING can be justified
given enough cunningness and skill.
>>>i say all
>>>this because although i do take time to come to this forum, i havent alot of
>>>time.
>>One more time: Then what are you doing here?
>>Can not you comprehend the simpliest thing
>>there is that your theory needs a LOT of
>>consideration and cross checking?
>its not my theory, its my presentation of it, but YES. the feedback i have been
>getting has proved most useful, at least to me. i intend on developing many of
>these ideas more fully. i am using this forum as a means to that further that
>end. every responce is an insight, although i can be scathing at times when
>confronted by 'staunch supporters of realism'.
That is why I told you:
librarian
Date: 21 Oct 2003 21:28:51 GMT
Article: 69
In article <bgq4hl$bit$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Mr Michael Bibby"
Doing without that which does this 'doing'
is simply impossible.
WHO does that 'doing'?
WHERE does this doing directed?
Towards what?
Doing without a notion of object,
which implies is-ness, simply makes no sense.
> and further still "...this is
>*not* an ontologicall theory..." and so on. i make no such commitments because
> i cannot possibly make such commitments, this is pure speculative metaphysics.
Nope. It is not metahpysics as yet.
>>This is probably a result of reading technical books.
>>What I have seen in vast majority of cases
>>is that when new chapter starts, instead of giving
>>basic definition of the subject, they start "explaining"
>>it in terms of "what it does". But you, as a reader,
>>are not there yet. First, you need to know what IS
>>it we are talking about. Then you can proceed to
>>"what it does" and "how it works".
>>
>>>the mind, as a concept, is a construction of the mind
>>
>>Nope. What it IS.
>>
>>You have a problem here. Where does the mind start
>>after birth?
>
>as much we cannot possibly know! i.e., the agency of drawing distinctions is
>forever beyond cognition
Fine with me.
>for it is only when a distinction is drawn is there a
>cognitive entity.
I am not sure Chuang Tzu could be understood
and applied to scientific infrastructure.
We can attept to look at that statement
you presented except I'd need more context.
Just a single phrase won't do.
Your statement is a derivation of the quote
by Chuang Tzu you presented.
>Is it already given? Filled with notions,
>>concepts, beliefs and other paraphenilia?
>>It can not start with itself because first
>>you need to build something that will feed upon
>>itself as you describe in your theory.
>i am not going to use transcendental arguments of the sort used by Kant as this
>is problematic. see above.
>>> (a viable construct you might say),
>>I have no idea. I may as well give you a list
>>of as "viable" things.
>>Again, 3rd reich and "new world order" are as
>>"viable" as any. Does it make it something
>>worth pursuing?
>>If the notion of 'viable' includes just about
>>anything you wish, as long, as it suits your
>>goals, whatever they are, then the very notion
>>of 'viable' is as good, as undefined.
>? you seem to be reading *far* too much into this, open your copy of the O.E.D
>and look up 'viable', go no further.
I do not operate according to dictionary definitions.
>to be viable in ones environment means to
>possess (viable) ways and means of acting that allows one to obtain what ever
>goals one happens to have chosen. this is a theory of 'knowledge' not of
>'ethics', you seem to be comparing this notion of viability to Benthems notion
>of Utility.
I am saying you use 'viable' as a plug
to plug in the void created when you removed
'true'/'false'.
As I said before, even if you travel the
'wrong' path or make a 'mistake',
your experience is just as 'viable'.
It could turn out to be even more 'viable'
because, intuitively, you craved for that
direction in your expression, that was
crative, seeking for new aspects.
In this respenct, viability can not be
evaluated and determined. It simply
becomes meaningless.
This, in turn, implies that 'viability'
concept has a limited utiliy
and there are PLENTY cases
and MOST profound ones,
where it is simply becomes invalid,
'incorrect' or inapplicable.
So...
That plug is still leaking.
>>I suspect it is but an artificial attempt
>>to fill the void created when you got away
>>from the concepts of 'true' and 'false'.
>>Interestingly enough, those concepts prevented
>>some obviously ethical consequences.
>>You can not simply state "new world order" is good,
>>because you had to use further considerations
>>and qualifications that could be eventually
>>verified with notions of 'true' or 'false'.
>so the utility/viability of a means and way of thinking and acting is a
> function
>of the truth or falsehood of those means and way? what are you saying. you dont
>seem to wont to let go of this 'representationalist' notion of truth.
That is not what I am saying.
I am saying that once you remove 'true'/'false',
you simply short circuit the process
and are not obliged to make any further steps
for verification of validity of your approach.
That is equivalent to issuing a blank check.
From then on, you can justify literally anything
you please, as "any means that justify your goal"
becomes applicable to your approach.
So, you simply give a green light
to totalitarianism and give them the rope,
to hang on with a 'scientifically justified' label.
I wouldn't be in such a hurry to do so.
>>Once you got away from it, void was created.
>>So, some conman invented this idea of 'viable'
>>defined as 'whatever suits your interests'
>? this is *not* utilitarianism. again, its much like pragmatism in that it says
>our theories are viable (for doing what we wont them to do) not because they
>'represent reality' but simply because they are viable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder what happens if you remove the very
notion of 'viable'.
Will it all fall appart?
:---}
><snip>
>>As far as "takes itself as its object" [of consideration],
>>you have a problem. The observer and the observed
>>can not be the same.
>forget aristotolian logic, re-read what i wrote in regards to this matter, to
>summarize, you might say 'he takes but a part of himself and treats it in
>isolation'.
Well, this is a little better.
Sure, I can still ask:
Ah, but what constitutes that 'part'?
But I won't.
Because we are WAY to deep in the mud already.
>Otherwise, the whole notion
>>of observation falls appart.
>>>>What do you imply by reality?
>>>Reality; I distinguish ?transcendental reality? from ?experiential reality?
>>But what IS the very notion of 'reality'?
>just that, a notion. (obviously we are *not* ont the same wavelength here).
>again, i am not an ontologists or a metaphysician, so i have absolutely no idea
>why you are asking this. when i use words like 'reality' i am refering to the
>esoteric concept of 'reality' and noting more.
Well, but how do I know you are not pipe dreaming?
>>>>What do you imply by "object"?
>>>Object; that which is accessed (experienced) as it is 'brought forth' by the
>>>performing of a distinction which cleaves it from the background of
> experience,
>>>which is the context in which it is embedded
>>Then it is fair to assume you view objects as mind constructs.
>>That implies that 'object' exist squarely within the mind.
>>So, objects are mental constructions.
>>Implication is:
>>Anything that exist beyond the mind
>>can not be trusted.
>trusted? what?
Meaning, we do not know if it exists
as you label it 'ontology' and throw it
into a garbage bin.
>In 'fact', it seems
>>NOTHING exists outside the mind according
>>to your view.
>
>i have said repeatedly, over and over and over again I AM NOT AN ANTIREALIST
> NOR
>AM I AN ONTOLOGISTS, WHO KNOWS WHAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE MIND! I DONT, BECAUSE I
> AM
>INSIDE THE MIND AND STUCK IN THE FIRST PERSON,
Nope. I claim that you are outside the mind.
Mind is but an aspect of you.
>THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE
> ACCESS
>TO ARE THE 'APPEARENCES' OF THINGS AND NOT THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES.
If you convince yourself of that,
then yes, no question about.
No one can convince you otherwise,
because you are not ready to accept
any other view.
I claim you have 'access' to that
which is beyond appearances.
But this is a long story and a 'wrong' subject
I suspect.
><snip>
>>There is no guarantee that two individual
>>entities will observe the same object and the very notion
>>of 'object' becomes fiction, unprovable in principle.
>>Because you used the term 'experienced'.
>>Once you did that, there is no longer a guarantee
>>that the object is anything else but the figment
>>of your imagination or a dream or drug induced
>>experience or some vision that occures under
>>highly stressful situations such as near death
>>experience.
>yes.
That implies you can not use the very term 'object'.
>>So, the visions people experience during near
>>death experiences are valid objects?
>if it fulfils *their* (for their is no 'universal'-) 'criterion of validity'
>then yes, i suppose.
[...]
>mickeyd