there are like 4 people in history who would be considered experts on the guy and they’ve spent most of their lives arguing over what he said.
the moralists want him to put god in there, the logicians want him to be the guy who summed it all up nice and neat, the aspies want him to be the great systemizer, the kids who sucked at word problems think he’s full of shit. he’s everything to everyone.
The point being…
World is in our head ([size=80]subjective[/size])…existence is outside our head ([size=80]objective[/size]).
We interpret the world and live in accordance with our interpretations.
If this is good, an accurate interpretation, then the consequences are expected; when it is not the consequences are always unexpected.
All is in flux, and chaos is not complexity…so a degree of the unexpected is always present, ergo free-will is necessary.
([size=80]when a tree falls in a forest and there’s no ear to hear it, there is no sound…but there are interactions, and energy waves that never reach an ear to be translated into sound[/size])
Existence is independent from perceptions, experiences of it.
Since we are also part of existence pur evolution of apriori methods of engaging, surviving, perceiving the world develop/evolve in relation to it.
Every niche survival and reproduction strategy evolving the method and degree that suffices for that particular survival and reproductive strategy.
A=A only symbolically…
In reality A is never the same as itself in the past…
All is in Flux - changes…all is energy.
A=A refers to the symbol…The symbol is equal to itself.
This is only necessary because the mind can imagine, synthesize, think all kinds of absurdities - it is not bound by space/time, so square/circles, ice/fire, unicorns can exist in it as abstractions with no external referents.
Logic is the harmonization of human abstractions with the natural order.
There is no ‘A,’ as there is no actual ‘1’; the symbol can refer to anyhting…so it refers to a continuum, a process, not a thing.
‘Thing’ is another way of saying ‘one’, or ‘A’…distinguishing a continuum within a range of space/time.
This continuum is reduced to a ‘thing’ - idea, concept, abstraction by noetically cutting it away from the background and extended space/time.
The mind freezes fluctuating, dynamic, existence into segments it can process, and store and use = representations - snapshots.
Everything about the representation is an interpretation of the present representing something about its pattern.
Since these apriori interpretations do not require conscious interventions - they are automatic, evolving through centuries of natural selection - they are as accurate an approximation of the perceived as necessary for the perceiving subject’s survival needs.
So carnivores, like canines, only see black/white, requiring no colour to survive; for foraging species, omnivores, like humans colour is essential.
The perceived has no colour…colour is how the mind interprets a particular vibration exposing something about the essence of the perceived, within a given space/time.
The essence of all that exists is dynamic.
Words mean whatever we define them as.
You can define “truth” in such a way that it would indeed be impossible to obtain for mere mortals like us… You can define truth such that it’s in conflict with pragmatism too.
But here you’re speaking as though your definition is a given and any other definition is “wrong” by fiat…
Keep in mind the arguments made by me in favor of pragmatism are independent of these language games.
There’s a simple solution: Since I don’t give a damn, We can stick to your definition of the word “truth” and I’ll use a different word “Useful”
And we can discuss what it is we’re actually doing when we pursue knowledge or create models of reality… are we getting “truth”, as you’ve defined it, or are we getting a useful map?
It’s not that pragmatist have confused truth with utility… it’s observing that in actual practice that’s what we’re doing, we’re making useful models and calling them “truth”.
You’re saying “in theory” we’re describing some facet of reality… but pretty much as you’d expect, the pragmatists doesn’t care to entertain your untestable hypothesis.
We don’t have direct access to reality to test it against our propositions… if we did we could never be wrong, we could only be lying.
This is the linchpin of this whole problem… how do we know if a proposition or model is “true”?
Well what we do is we test it… but more specifically we test the utility of it.
So for you to then say “because we tested it and it was useful, that’s how we know it is describing reality accurately” would be to confirm the pragmatist’s notion, but then add this additional non-sequitur of “therefor we know it’s true”
When in reality, we could still be wrong and proven to be wrong both logically as well as demonstrably, as attested to by nearly all of human history.
All we can test is useful… and that’s all we ever had, so it follows that anything we’ve ever called “truth” we’ve done so by virtue of it’s utility and NOT because we could correlate it to our unerring knowledge of reality.
Well, well…my job is done.
But the flip side to that argument depends on utilizing the meaning of reality, of how to achieve the most desirable outcome, that we are able to come up with to try to get that message out.
In fact, few people nowadays would go for a candy wrapped version, they most likely would go for a propagandist utilization of the best quipped ad campaign , making the argument salient and attractive broadly speaking
Most people would go for a 'candy-wrapepd version"…and would turn away from the bitterness.
Like drinking water after you’ve had a sweet…it tastes bitter…
Most people are sheltered, buffoons…delicate, weak, fragile…most, after so many generations of sheltering, are already atrophying and broken…
When they are gone…a return will commence.
Cycles.
You cannot ‘heal’ a Zombie who is convinced he is ‘healing the world’ when it is infecting it - Tikkun Olan…
True, broadly speaking, not considering another featured argument that pragmatism is an amalgam between utility and meaningful facts’. The play here hinges on wether this contientous generality, has some measure of fairness along with the fact, that by and large, the meaningfully managed advertised hype does able to manufacture products as candy wrapped, weather or not they are really sweeter .
Seeing them virtually with abhorring constancy, the fewer but less visible, are automatically and senselessly demoted as less desirable.
The pragmatic oasis of unrequited taste, goes contrary to the best utilization of desirability, and the point turns to an illusive apprehension of imagining the taste as really tasty and sweet to deceptions using less to create the deceptively real.
Elitist know true value, but they also know how mainstream profit beats the marketable by volume as opposed to quality.
After all who are we to argue?
Taste is a product of past coming in contact with presence.
Taste can be corrupted by organic mutations…
Taste expresses an organic need/desire whether this is constructive, destructive, or neutral.
Organ symmetries and proportionalities - inherited genetically - determines which needs/desires will be dominant more often.
Crucial when considering that ‘need’ is a consequence of temporal attrition - interactivity - experiencing lack, and ‘desire’ is the experience of excess energies, due to the consistent gratification of needs.
Tastes, therefore, are the consequence of organ hierarchies - changing over time - determining the needs that will most often require gratification and the desires that will require expunging.
Culture simply determine the preparation and presentation of the object of gratification.
Meaning is a term used to refer to inter-conenctivity…conventionally it means ‘purpose’, seeking an objective, a justification for life’s experience of existence as need/suffering.
It is true that you can take any word of your choice and assign to it any meaning you want. For example, you can take the word “truth” and attach to it the concept of tree. That would allow you to use the term “truth” in reference to trees without being wrong. For example, that would allow you to say “I planted a truth” without it being a nonsenical statement. Of course, the choice to change the meaning of words that already exist, and that are widely used, has its own set of consequences, often less desirable than the alternative, but there is nothing illogical about it.
But that’s not what philosophers have been trying to do. Instead, what they have been trying to do is to define the term “truth”. To define a term means to describe what that term means; it means to describe the concept that someone attached to it. A definition can take place if and only if a concept is attached to the term being defined. Otherwise, there is nothing to define.
When it comes to the word “truth”, prety much everyone attaches one and the same concept to it. It’s not something that only I do. Everyone does it. You do it. Pragmatists do it. Noone differs in this regard. Where people differ is how they describe the concept and with what accuracy.
That said, pragmatists did in fact make a mistake when they said the word “truth” means “useful belief”. It does not. It never did.
The actual concept that people attach to the word “truth” is captured by the sentence “a proposition that corresponds to the portion of reality it is describing”. That’s different from “useful proposition” which means “a proposition that can help someone attain their goals”.
To understand that “true” and “useful” mean two different things, consider the following:
If a proposition is true, it is not necessarily useful. A proposition that accurately describes the volume of a rock that is located on another planet in another galaxy is an example of a proposition that is of no use to you.
If a proposition is useful, it is not necessarily true. An example would be a false proposition that can be used to manipulate others into doing things that can help you attain your goals.
What makes a proposition useful is its truth value, i.e. the extent to which it corresponds to the portion of reality it is describing. It being true or false, by how much and in what ways, is what determines how useful it is.
I didn’t say we’re doing so “in theory”. I said that’s what we’re doing. Statements such as “This apple is red” are describing, accurately or inaccurately, the color of physical objects. They are not describing, accurately or inaccurrately, what should be done in order to attain a goal. And that’s extremely easy to test. Far easier than whether or not any given proposition is of use to someone or not.
It is possible to discover truth purely by chance. In fact, it is possible, but extremely difficult, to always be right, and never be wrong, by constructing your maps of reality by doing nothing but throwing a dice.
It’s considerably easier to do so with the combination of awareness and reasoning.
But Kant said that none of that is possible. He proclaimed that reality is unknowable, meaning that, no map of reality that can be imagined corresponds to reality.
There is a HUGE difference between testing the truth value of a claim and testing its usefulness.
If you want to test the truth value of a claim such as “Whenever you press X, you will get Y”, one way to do it is by pressing X as many times as possible and observing the result.
If you want to test how useful that claim is in relation to some goal, you will do it by attempting to attain that goal by employing that claim.
A theory that is false can be proven to be useful in relation to some goal. Quantum Mechanics is an example. It’s been proven that it can be used to develop highly advance technology, and yet, it’s very clearly false.
The reason the distinction between truth and utility is important is because truth is universally applicable, i.e. you can use it in any aspect of your life, whereas a useful belief is not necessarily so. When you promote to the general public the idea that QM is not merely a useful theory, but a true one, you are misleading everyone into thinking that QM can be used outside of its limited domain of application. As an example, many people have been misled into thinking that QM proves that the Law of Identity is false.
It very much does.
You just have to understand what statements such as “The apple John is eating is red” are saying.
Every statement is composed of two elements: a reference to a portion of reality it is describing ( “subject” ) and a description of that potion of reality ( “predicate”. )
In this case, the referenced portion of reality is the color of the aple that John is eating and the description of that portion of reality is “red”.
An apple is a physical object that exists outside of human minds. It’s not a perception. Apples can exist even if no minds exist. But what about their color? Is that a property that belongs to apples themselves or is it a property that belongs to visual perceptions of apples? The language reveals the answer. We say “The apple is red”. We don’t say “My [ or someone else’s ] perception of that apple is red”.
The color of an apple actually refers to how that apple would affect a designated group of people, such as trichromats, under specific cpnditions. This means that a red apple is red even if there is noone to observe it. And if you want to figure out whether or not the apple John is eating is red, you have to discover how it would affect trichromats if they observed it under specific conditions.
That said, the idea that physical objectd have no color is no more than confused nonsense. Arguing that physical objects have no color because one and the same physical object can be perceived as red by some and green by others is as silly as arguing that there are no truths because different people have different opinions.
The subject/object relationship is over some people’s heads.
The objective world exists…whether there’s a subject to perceive it or not…but the manner in which this experience, this perception, this interpterion of the existent is particular to the subject’s evolved nature.
When a tree falls in a forest it actually falls…and by falling interacts with its environment - the air for example.
It produces vibrations.
Are these sound?
No…not unless there is a organism that has evolved an organ that can interpret atmospheric vibrations into sound.
Same for vision…I see a fruit…it has a colour.
This indicates something about it…it is not accidental…like dark skin is not accidental…it exposes essence.
A vibration of light interacting with the energies of the fruit, striking the retina, converted to neural energies, transmitted to brain where it is reconverted to form, colour…
The colour is the subject’s interpretation of these interactive vibrations.
A banana is yellow, when it is ripe…and this hue exposes something about it, because all is interactive energy…this is interpreted by a seeing eye as a hue…the particular vibration becomes colour in the mind of the subject that has evolved to perceive this level of vibration.
The colour reveals something about the fruit, and its vibrations…its chemistry…the modification of tis patterns as it ripens, increasing sugars potassium etc. Every element has a particular pattern, interacting with light - also a pattern - in particular ways… and in combination synthesis with other patterns it has a particular way of interacting with light…and this interaction is transmitted to the organ of sight, where it is converted to a neural pulse, transmitted to a brain, where the data is processed as colour.
How this data is converted is particular to the host and its evolved methods of survival …its a priori methods of interpreting sensory data.
the object remains common…it exists independently form all interpretations…and its changing cycles are the essence of its existence as dynamic and interactive…but the how the subject interprets this object and tis dynamism is particular to it.
Colour, sound, smell, are all methods of interpreting objective reality.
The question challenging philosophers - and not gits - is what is this objective reality, outside subjective interpretations?
Kant said “thing-in-itself”…Schopenhauer said 'Will" and “matter” but not matter in the way a git understands it…as an indivisible, immutable, singularity, a thing.
Heraclitus claimed it is ‘fire’…all allegories of what can never be known since all subjects are limited to knowing only their interpretations of it.
I call it Energy, with patterns ([size=80]order[/size]) - and non-patterned ([size=80]chaotic[/size]) …and all the sensory categories - corresponding to particular sense organs - and so sound, colour, form, scent, texture, are all interpretations of these Energy patterns, using evolved a priori methods - automated - aprticualr to a species
Soe one species perceives the banana’s ripeness, its increase in particular nutrients - producing particular patterns, vibrations - in one way, and another interprets them in another.
So sound and colour are interpretations of patterned vibrations…and these are the essence of the existent, since all is interactive dynamic energy.
Energy is not what a ‘thing’ has, but thing is how the patterned energies are perceived.
And if this is over your head…then I cannot help you.
I will try not to be involved in this fruitless - pardon the pun - conversation with individuals that cannot grasp simple concepts.
Even their interpretations of my words are subjectively all theirs - determined by a shared genealogy, a shared culture, a shared language, but not a shared lineage, determining potentials - qualities.
In the end, we are all trapped within the limits of our inherited potentials.
Colors and sounds are programmed responses (experiences) to various waves (energy). Tastes, scents, and touch are programmed responses (experiences) to various chemicals (matter… also energy). The programming is in the genetic code we mess around with in hopes of decoding & reverse engineering… whilst denying & ignoring the Programmer (not subject to e=mc^2) in whose image we program… while saying things like, “The science is well known.”
#humblebeginnings
You are missing the point, Lorikeet.
There is indeed a difference between objective and subjective things. There is a difference between things that exist within minds ( such as visual perceptions of apples ) and things that exist outside of minds ( such as apples, trees, etc. ) But most of our words can only be used to represent objective things because we are primarily concerned with the world outside of minds.
The ppint is that statements such as “This apple is red” are talking about something that is objective, something that exists outside of minds, rather than something that is subjective, something that exists within human minds.
In order to understand that, you have to understand the language you are using. You have to understand what it means to say that a physical object is this or that color.
But you obviously have a serious trouble understanding what words mean ( and by extension, following what other people are saying. ) That’s why you constantly misuse words and contradict yourself.
Again:
To say that an apple is red is to say that the apple – the physical object, the thing that is out there, not anyone’s perception of it – is such that it would affect trichromats in a specific way under specific circumstances.
I doubt you know what the “point is”…
Sound, colour are how a subject interprets the dynamic interactive, objective world…
The rest is you lacking the mental flexibility to comprehend.
You now shift…after gamer’s intervention…made you doubt your idiocies.
Red is not what the object is…it is how your brain interprets a presence…as appearance.
It is not red…red is how your simple mind, has evolved to interpret a specific aspect of its nature, its presence…its vibrations, using light as a mediating energy.
Red is useful, not superficial…like black skin on a man is anything but irrelevant and a social construct…it says something about the object you are perceiving.
It reveals something about its continuum.
Nobody said all aesthetic interpretations are fantasies - man-child…they are how your mind - simple as it is - has evolved to interpret a specific vibration, energy, indicating something about the object…
The object is not actually red, it is red in your head…because this is how your mind interprets something about it.
Man-child…there is no sound without an ear to hear it…this does not mean there is no existent event…like a glass breaking…it means, man-child, there are interactions, vibrations your simplistic pathetic mind interprets as sound.
Words/symbols represent mental abstractions, ideas, sensations…interpretations. They are representations of representations.
Now fuck off…your arrogant simplicity irritates me.
And if and when this elusive immutable, indivisible, eternal ‘thing’ is discovered, be sure to notify me.
You have to understand that the term “color” is used in more than one way.
The word “color” can be used to refer to qualia. In that case, the term denotes something that is subjective, since the term “quale” is defined as something that exists within minds. A quale is merely a symbol that we use to construct our visual maps of reality. The 2D image that you see with your own eyes at every single moment, for example, is a visual representation of the world around you – it is a map of the world, not the world itself – that is made out of colored dots ( similar to how computer images are made out of pixels ) that we call “qualia”. These colored dots exist inside minds. If there are no minds, there are no colored dots.
But more frequently, the term “color” is used to refer to a property of physical objects. In that case, the term denotes something that is objective, something that exists outside of minds.
When people say “The apple is red”, they are NOT talking about qualia. They are NOT talking about how anyone perceives that apple. They are NOT saying “My perception is that the apple is red”. They are NOT saying “When I look at the apple, my brain builds a 3D model of it that is painted in red.” They are talking about the apple, the physical object, itself. Specifically, they are talking about one of its properties, that property being the property we call “color”. That’s what they are talking about. And that property actually refers to how that apple would affect trichromats in a number of situations.
One has to understan that when we say “This thing is X” we are not saying “This thing is letter X”. Instead, we’re saying “This thing can be represented by the symbol X”. When we say “That’s a cat”, we’re not saying “That’s a sequence of letters c-a-t.” Rather, we’re saying that what’s there can be represented by the term “cat”.
No.
Please.
It’s very clear that you and I are talking past each other. I’m not sure I have pinpointed where exactly we’re going astray but here’s a first pass to see if we can clear things up.
It seems to me you think when I talk about utility or “useful” I mean it in the colloquial sense and not in the philosophical sense.
Epistemology, that is to say what we consider “knowledge” itself has a specific utility, a specific function it serves… it’s not some random goal, it’s a very specific goal.
The goal is to generate a model of the world that let’s us anticipate, not just what we’re going to experience, but which actions have which consequences… I don’t think I need to explain why that’s important.
Let me illustrate my previous point using your example above:
What you’re doing there is called inductive reasoning… that is to say you are projecting a perceived pattern within a sample into an abstract general rule. like if you were testing the proposition of “all swans are white” you’d observe as many swans as you could and if you found no exception, you’d project that specific sample size into a general rule and say “all swans are white”.
In other words for you to confirm “because we pressed the button 1 billion times and got y every time, therefore it’s true that pressing x, gets you y” is equivalent to you insisting that it’s impossible for the next press of the button to result in anything but Y. And yet you don’t know that… you can’t know that.
Just because every swan you or I or anyone has ever seen has been white, doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a black swan out there… and maybe we’ll spot one tomorrow.
So clearly that test did not get you “truth”. TRUTH can’t be false, and therefore you can’t be wrong if you know truth… but truth isn’t what you got.
What it got you was an expectation that would serve you well in anticipating what color swans will be or what you should expect if you press x… at least thus far, pending new information.
That is a terrible example, the law of identity isn’t a force in the universe to be proven true or false by quantum physics or any other scientific endeavor. It is a prerequisite for human comprehension.
Logic governs language so that when we communicate, it’s comprehensible… QM whatever it’s findings, has no say in that.
You are seeing your own reflection, sensitive mind.
I’ll do so . . . as soon as I start thinking there are immutable, indivisible and eternal things out there.
Colour refers to a specific vibration.
I can have a green plant, a green car, a green grape, a green this or a green anything.
There are two types…an artificial covering, like green paint, or a naturally produce colour.
The naturally produce colour says something about the object…in combination with other aesthetic traits, and in reference to precedent, identifying a state.
Words are presentations of representations - words/symbols, written or volatized, are representations of mental experiences of the world…or of mental constructs referring to nothing in the world.
Colour represents the way homo sapient minds interpret a particular interaction between an object and light…both being dynamic - both being kinds or combinations of energies.
The energy is real, in that it exist independently form the mind; the manner in which it is interpreted, perceived, is subjective or part of how a species interprets this particular vibration or interaction of light with an object.
An object, like light, is not a thing…it is a synthesis of energy patterns, or a single energy pattern.
The interaction of light with this pattern, and then light with my sense organ, is converted - automatically, a priory - into a neural pulse, and then in the brain into an sensation, image, abstraction…
So red, in combination with a specific shape, texture, smell, etc. indicates something about the synthesis of energy patterns.
Depending on the acuity of my senses determines how detailed, differentiated…a yellow banana is not entirely yellow, but shades of yellow, or even other colours…
All is flux…and flux is a term referring to patterned and non-patterned energies, with different sequences, speeds, rhythms each type interpreted differently by the mind.
We could have said…all is fire…or all is water…though fire is more precise…or all is energy.
All is vibration…in a three dimensional model, or oscillation in a multidimensional model.
There is no ‘thing’ vibrating…there is simply vibration interpreted as a thing.