“As a model of a complex system becomes more complete, it becomes less understandable*. Alternatively, as a model grows more realistic, it also becomes just as difficult to understand as the real-world processes it represents”[/i]
By any of it’s constituent parts yes* [they are lesser than the whole being formed or the whole, and may only form part of the entire expression]. But the completing however impermanent, is the forming of wisdoms. Not all knowledge is information based, but to be expressed must be. This doesn’t mean as we always seem to assume, nothing has happened! The mind has reached some manner of crescendo concerning something, as like with the Tao, there is a king of know by which e.g. A skilled man can measure a thing, the ‘whole’ marries to, or roughly to another such ‘whole’ in the world, and it is known in that manner and not in terms of knowledge/information.
Here’s a neat trick. Before I clicked this thread it didn’t exist because I wasn’t observing it a la Browser. But then how did I know what was in it? I musta remembered. But what am I remembering, an idea or an experience or what?
Can I perceive a memory and if so, would that mean there are two kinds of Lockean/Humean sense data. How does memory ‘impress’ itself upon the sensory organs if that is the case. You are saying two things when you say I perceive an idea and I perceive a thing. Here’s how it works. When you perceive a thing, you are also in a pre-reflective cogito state- you are aware that you are aware because the experience is tangible. But when you perceive only a thought or idea you are only in the pre-reflective cogito and not experience; there is nothing but language here and no object of experience, no kind of external sense data. You are the words in your head… not something else that stands back and perceives them.
The limits of my language are the limits of my words- Wittgenstein
There is nothing outside of text!- Derrida
It is because philosophers are bewitching the word ‘exist’ when they say the phrase ‘it doesn’t exist if I don’t see it’.
There are only a couple ways this can make any sense.
First, you would have no conception of what it was in question…what’s existence was in question, unless you had foreknowledge of it existing. When a person says ‘X doesn’t exist’, they are either referring to nonsense tautologically (blue unicorns don’t exist) or they are specifying a place and time where something isn’t, or that something is gone, or that something has changed. When the solipsist says ‘X does not exist unless I perceive it’, he is running in a linguistic circle to wit. He can’t say the tree doesn’t exist when he doesn’t perceive it. He cannot possibly know that. And it would take far more argument to prove this position than just accept the world and its appearance is very real and very independent of our observation of it. And regarding the meaningful uses of the word ‘exist’, they are simple and unphilosophical.
First, a dodoton doesn’t exist. Well no shit. No philosophy needed here to know this.
The bank account no longer exists. Check.
His feelings don’t exist for her. Check.
I exist over here. Check.
His brown coat no longer exists. Check.
Give me any sentence with the phrase ‘exist(s)’ or ‘doesn’t exist’ in it and make it meaningful. Please. I beg of you.
Being exists and becomes.
Now show me an instance of that in time and space. Point to an object that changes as we look at it and I promise you its ‘being’ doesn’t exist and become whatever the fuck that means, because only things exist and become.
…
Anyway ‘the world does not exist when I don’t perceive it’ is the probably the number one heavyweight champion of all philosophical nonsense.
Your trick only works if ‘no un-perceived things exist’, but clearly they do.
You can also be in a wisdom-knowing place [as post above]. The first perception would be the most vivid, if the whole picture is more vivid then you know that first. This is why we all perceive ourselves to be in the world formostly. Then the skilled artisan or artist, philosopher etc, will then perceive the the next set down, the wholes of the parts. Then it perceives the parts.
Being the words in your head is like way to sober for me. Seriously though, it’s a matter of focus…
There would be degrees and locations of focus accordingly;
World sphere [the greater perceived sphere] of perception - this is the greater whole you experience in an on-going sense [unless disturbed], this is what makes us desire peace [because it is ultimately empty [what whole is] and so you will get some sense of this in the experience of the formless whole].
Greater spheres of perception - these are the large conceptual objects. Probably better for me to not attempt to formulate them more being so varied, and that they can be formed in an ‘off the cuff’ fashion. This suggests to me an essentially empty conceptual object, and one being stretched and shaped into the given entity. Then word associations are being formed in an on-going process/s. This would be the third tier of perception.
Placing ones focus in the text places you more into the world. It is an epi-centralisation [probably necessary] of the focus into the region of the mind where language is centred. This pertains to the third level of the perception, and is why our society appears to be intellectually misunderstanding what information and thinking really is. This reality for scientists is formed from a focussed consciousness largely centralised in this third sphere.
I don’t know so much with ‘being’, it seams to be the same but focused differently in people relative to their skills and focal locations. I largely agree with the essence of your complaint against solipsists though.
Sry, i was attempting to draw the visuals in my mind ~ categorising awareness, perception and focus into different sphere’s. For me that clarifies things, but i understand that others don’t think so visually.
the paradox to me seemed to also be drawing spheres, but it’s focus is in language and so it doesn’t see what isn’t language.
Browser is right. Everyone fails, though most are only right in parts, but not in the comparative ischaemic basis that matters most here: you are comparing ideas for a valid reality, but your comparative functions have a dependency upon each other… as they have a mutual dependency of parts, some must process facts before the other, meaning some functions are more deeply rooted and used more often than others. As your positioning different arguments that are partially valid, it suggests the mind processes information via a root structure, and that there is likely (presumably) a central root to this all.
What is a root structure:
Browser struck damn near the primary starter cell in his analysis, while everyone else is pussyfooting around about what is real several levels further down.
Its not your fault, your YouTube professors and pop philosophy professors failed you, what they presumed to be a cutting edge theory is, infact, quite ancient. I’d like to thank Zoot for giving me the heads up the discussion was heading this way in the derrypoo thread, wouldn’t of scronge up my Arius Didymus text if not for him earlier today (Cezar thanks you too hehehe)
Arius Didymus is presenting what we call in modern times Dual Process Theory. Guys like Williams James played around with it to the present. Nietzsche played with it too, but kept trying to put the square pegs in the round holes, and the shit wouldn’t fit, in emphasizing the how over the why. This produced a few generations of idiot savants, who leaned more to the idiot than the savant.
So… obviously Arius Didymus isn’t cutting edge neuroscience, but he showed how the Stoics built upon the neurological theories of the Cynics in regards to impulses, and his gives evidence of the earliest concept of individual cranial nerves linking brain regions (arrows aiming to distinct targets, and the targets coordinating virtues/capacities, and these virtues mutually support one another).
Zeno’s basic theory the Dual-Process theory in that he presented the characteristics of the Good/Worthy against the Bad/Worthless. Basically, I’ve determined some Cynic with ADHD really fucking pissed Zeno of Citrium off, forcing him to quite Cynicism and start Stoicism, completely built around the idea that worthless jumpy fuck couldn’t join in turn. I have a good idea too who that is… but I think I’ve revealed enough lost secrets lost in the sands of time tonight. Basically, his Worthy-Worthless Synopsis closely parallels the definition of a dual process theory, with the worthless being ignorant and unable to coordinate their virtues. So instead, we pact them up on The Ship of Fools for Foucault for fawn over them.
If the concrete spacial reality of a thing isn’t unified, but can be separated and effected if the brain isn’t able to coordinate its “virtues”, does it always have a full existence? Can other modes of reasoning that are dependent upon this duality confirm the reasonability a thing unseen exists merely upon abstract learned knowledge, if they can’t see it or get that gut feeling “Yes, this is”.
Its all just cells in the head, a tree of feedback loops slipping the stuff knowledge is interpreted and affirmed by.
Would someone like Browser be in a better conscious position to confirm and explore the roots of this duality in reality that someone like Derrida, who is so far to a isolated extreme that his reality only exists as far as he can read it on paper, without reference to memory or intuitions, emotional reactions or imaginative reflections? All this depends on the what-where dualism inherent in the ventral and dorsal stream of consciousness.
Remember… William James said Consciousness is like breathing… its not static, but in huffs and puffs, just appears to be stable. We are here, at the roots if all appearance, where what is real is created.
Browser… you are a fucking genius for figuring this all out. Absolutely brilliant, I’m sure a French school of philosophy will pop up around your insights.
Everyone… all eyes on Browser, for he is about to tell us all how reality operates, how the world works, the shit the soul is made of, how alalectic proofs are determined via perception. Its all up to you. You can solve Philosophy once and for all here.
(A hint: Is Arius Didymus’ assumption that all the virtues are equally aware, and active, and are exactedly coordinated correct? Which of the posters dismissing you are most prone to this assumption themselves in regards to how cognition works? m.youtube.com/watch?v=nBB2bPwKWVg )
You’re obfuscating Ferg. All this technical shit does not save Browser’s argument. There are so many contradictions in this crap I don’t even know where to start. It’s the kind of thing you just walk away from.
This has nothing to do with whether or not an unperceived thing exists. As I said before, you will run into infinitely more difficulties trying to prove your perception creates the objective material world, than you would by just assuming I am sitting here even if you don’t see me.
You know what your problem is? You are TOO smart, and you can’t turn those afterburners off and slow the fuck down.
Browser keeps running in circles; his sensory organs receive sense data from an object, giving him the ability to perceive it. So the object doesn’t exist until Browser perceives it. But then the sense data of the object also wouldn’t exist until he perceived it. But then the sense data of the sense data of the object wouldn’t exist until he perceived it. Ad infintum.
Don’t respond with a million word post and seven links. I won’t read it. Give me a paragraph. Don’t leap, just step.
Hear that Browser… he got upset at it getting too technical and accused me of being too smart. Means he is seriously spooked, and yesterday he was so confident. He is practically writing your reply for you, see?
Fits in rather well to what I listed above. He can sense the end game coming.
I sit uncomfortable in my case between the Theoria/Theosis axis… doesn’t always relate to form or language, and the product of this thought can hold the place of a name for a thing linguistically without being verbally represented by a word.
A lot of people think you either must have word or image for thought, or a synthesis of the two, but I experience more than this.
For example, I am a very awkward balance between OCD and Apraxia, especially Ideo-Kenetic Apraxia.
In Idea-Kinetic Apraxia, especially in my youth, I would completely fail in processing word commands. You could say "go get my purse (mom) and I would hear the verbalization, but the meanings would come a bit off in terms of having meaning, and slightly distant. So I wouldn’t stand there, I would do something. Something important enough to be commanded, something worthwhile of a command, hopefully that command. Basically, I was guessing… and failing. I might grasp Purse, and know I needed to do something to purse. Perhaps she wanted her purse secured? Or a G.I. Joe soldier sticking his gun and upper body our of the pocket and placed somewhere, or maybe she wanted me to check on her money, or get something out of the purse and not the purse itself.
Constant questioning. One step foreword at a time… and something of consequence will occur.
I have no idea how many times I fucked everything I was ever asked to do up in my youth.
I also was a klutz, not paying attention to my body, and would run after the stuff I think I was told to get, and smack something off a object. Apraxia. We all get it, but I really had it.
Add to this, I had OCD. Intense attention to details to the point I would be driven to nonstop tantrums till incapacity in trying to force a motor function. All my attention would be thrown into it. It wasn’t just my motor functions, but also my imagination. I had so many nights I couldn’t sleep because I would start imagining a idea, such as a mechanical motion, and could increase its repetitions, but never decrease. It would go on for days. The Ideo-kenetic side of me was unaware of how to control both aspects.
It wasn’t until I was three I became fully aware of the phenomena, and started having success in controlling my imagination, and years later my motor skills. My 20s my ability to coordinate my apraxia issues.
Why? The theorist that has the highest understanding of INTJs isn’t much aware of this phenomena, I asked him about it a while back, was stumped. Its not that it doesn’t fit, just undermined some assumptions. Here is a basis, dumbed down version of his idea (not specific to the above)
He is aware of the very large amount of neurological networking that the personality type is based upon:
I would fall under Contributor INTJ in his system. But my exact contrast between OCD and Ideo-Apraxia does not.
Why? Cause his theory, like Arius Didymus, presumes a drive to link up Virtues/regions of the brain. Unlike Arius Didymus, he is damn well aware it isn’t all triggered in a coordinated flood at once, but as a christian typologist who inherited a tradition descended from Didymus (and isn’t aware of it, I never told him) he carries the presumptions it must for some reason be unified.
My personality type doesn’t have to unify itself. I could still be sitting here in my 30s having people screaming into my ears thinking I was deft, despite hearing just fine, giving blank stares in return of confusion. I could be crashing into walls, or hyperfocusing my attention on things to the point of madness, closing the outside world incidentally (but not intentionally).
I’ve seen guys go through life like this, some pass themselves off as autistic, as it seems similar… until they loosen up and very apparently come off as not autistic.
I more or less just had to get used to unifying enough aspects of myself at a very early age that I could put my OCD and absurdly active imagination into use in controlling my body. I was a “soldier” always, well past the point kids grow out if that… mechanized movements, ridgid and boring. As being different, and obtusely militant as a kid, it caused school yard issues, and fights. Discovered I was quite the coward in one on one confrontations, and fell apart. Also found I could imagine myself as something hard, and slam the SOB like a rock or log… but not much follow up, and one on one fights usually failed. But I did very well in lopsided fights against me. Why? Stumped me for the longest time. I went from an inept regimented child into a creature of beauty, full of flexibility and finesse. I could see where I had to be, and several steps ahead of everyone else… and had a overwhelming drive to overcome and succeed. Against many, a lion, against one, a coward. I thought I was unique, but later on found out it was a shared trait of the type.
Over time, you just learn to rope aspects together. I found I was always projecting ideas into language, could never recall their names, but could define them in exacting detail. I couldn’t visualize them always either. Just reference… I knew it was there, just didn’t know the word or his to coin it. Heck, I couldn’t even talk right, took me forever to learn to do that… no thanks to any tutor I ever had. Rote memorization doesn’t create awareness.
So in my mind, I have things… they very much fall in the things category, that are void of thought or image. As a philosopher of my type, I can gravitate towards this awareness. I can see a civil war battle, and see the OCD effects on unit discipline, but also the Ideo-kenetic inefficiencies on a scale of detail no one else can see. I can point (the invisible thingness) to the visual and geometric aspects, specify and point logically to the breakdown in orders and SOP, and military doctrine equally, using both aspects in both hemispheres of my personality, but what is unconscious to most everyone else. I know from my failures in training the inherent difficulties in training others, but am also I tuitively aware of how to make it work in impossible cases… cases others can’t solve. Its unconscious for them, but I’ve always consciously experienced it.
More or less realigns everything you do. I’ve completely dropped mist of the imaginative pretense (did become a cynic, its what they do, hyper analyze such things) as I discovered simple ways to walk… much more efficient and secure than the average person… and can logically scale security and avoidance of risk and defence into it on a scale, from the individual to the macriscake, such as traveling overwatch to mass movements in a city. Refugee migrations are a interest to me on a theoretical scale. To understand this phenomena, you would go to a writer like Miyomoto Musashi.
Likewise, I’m much better at moving aspects of myself. I come off as stiff, due to my efficiency (and resistance to reinjuring my knee) but oftentimes surprise people by how quick and complex my motions get. I once dragged a safe across a room alone that 4 much stronger guts failed to do, using just my body. I understood its center of gravity, and scooted it by corners little by little away from this, tilt it on its axis, swing, wobble walk it…
I can also create things from my environment, a natural artistic creative impulse. Doesn’t always translate to skill to execute, but its always inventive and unique.
Ah-ha
Eureka
Ahhhhhhhhh
Eaaaaaahhhhhh
Ahhhh
These are all non words, highly expressive, resulting from neither image or linguistic thought. Same for 'tsk sounds. Linguists just recently discovered English users heavily saturate the English language with these near inaudible sounds, so much to the point we only thought tribes in aftrica had languages built around them… now we know were deeply dependent too, its a invisible aspect of our language. Why invisible? Shouldn’t we of been more consciously aware of this before, especially given the interest in language philosophers? I’m always aware of the space a word holds in the sentence, even if not aware of the word. Has that invisible spot.
And Zoot, the incomprehension lies on your end, as I obviously am aware of what I am saying, and can define it to minutia of infinite scales, and explain how the parts depositionally relate.
I am neither too smart, or not smart enough to understand myself, I am right at my level.
Your inability to understand me doesn’t translate to a lower level of intelligence as a result, just means your unable to track and meaningfully assemble all the parts of me thoughts, or maintain your attention span long enough to figure out all the aspects needed for comprehension.
This isn’t wrong, or something to be ashamed of, as this is a state that exists at times in all of us. I simply don’t write in a manner aimed at facilitating your approach to knowledge.
Its okay, as there is a trickle down effect… people respond and focus on a aspect of my ideas that need clarification, or comparison to their own, we follow suit, and the familiarity and need for technical details decrease… or the formal complexity and rigidity of thought. We go from this:
to this
to this
Each personality type emphasises inductive and deductive reasoning differently (see my gold chart above).
I can bounce around over a wide swath of that naturally, and do all kinds of freaky shit with it. As your not my type, your bound to get only some of the information. Furthermore, as you smoke the chronic while viewing the forum (sometimes, not only) even less than normal.
I suppose we can break down you inability to understand me to this formula:
(A) If a understandung exists, then it can be proven to understood.
(B) If a understandung is unrealized, then it can’t be proven to exist.
Given: A Understanding x is not understood.
Prove: x isn’t understood.
x is not understood (Given)
x can’t be proven to be understandable. (Modus Ponens on (B) and (1))
x can’t be understood. (Modus Tollens on (A) and (2))
Therefore by universal generalization, (C) if a thing is not understood, then it doesn’t exist.
As far as your mindset is concerned Zoot, this is the case. I cannot prove to you that I am comprehending my own ideas, and understand them, as you can’t. However, you are projecting your own operating features upon mine.
How does this give us information about unperceived things, as far as cognition is concerned?
I provided the answer in the icon above, the song literally states the answer, the chart explains it variations.
How much easier do I gotta make it without outright stating it. We can’t do science without this.
The premise of this post is simply answering the age old question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?”. I believe the author of this post is trying to say that existence is dependent on an observer.
If a thing is unperceived, ONLY possibly it cannot be proven to exist. But why deal in certainties?
But there are other ways besides our senses in which to perceive something. We have our imaginations which can bring forth the concept of it, and in so doing, we find a way through our intelligence and reflection, to bring into “our” existence what always existed but hadn’t been revealed to us.
A star in a far away galaxy waiting to be revealed cannot be perceived but with the aid of a strong Hubble telescope we now know that it exists.
But for someone engaging in certainties, even that is ludicrous, considering what we now know and despite what we now know.
Especially, when discovered galaxies may be perceived existing, only as remnants of mere light rays originating billions of years ago , with the galaxies no longer there.
But aren’t those remnants of light still beautiful to behold?
That star whose light has burned out - does it still not exist if we are seeing its light coming to Earth - until that final flicker dies.
Logic can prove or disprove an existence without sensory perception.
First I saw that 10 pennies were alone in the jar when
The lid was closed on the jar such that nothing could escape.
I can’t see the contents of the jar, yet still
I know that the pennies are still there.
More exacting detail can be included into that scenario/syllogism such as to make it impossible that the pennies are not still in the jar, but the point should be clear. Knowledge (and even perception) comes only through reasoning.
