Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Objectivity of the Senses
Building a better metaphysics
Print Objectivity of the Senses | |
|
Aetixintro
banned  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 12, 2008 Location: Near Oslo, Norway Total Topics: 56 Total Posts: 694 |
 #11
Isn't there something called "neutral" lighting? Surely, black cats exist! What is it you want to make a point of? I bet you have experienced your life-world tangling with other people's life-world and that between you that you share. Isn't this "a poly-istic functional foundation to actually observe reality"? I don't know exactly what you mean by that, btw. Also, I rather say "confirmation". Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#12
You see. The way I look at understanding things is not exactly 'reductionist'. I normally apply an expansionist system then reduce it down to meaning. The problem why I haven't got beyond here is that you could claim that terminology in itself fullfills this system. I see that it is extremely similar - but I am not sure if it is equivilant. For maths, we get: A function B = C For terminolgoy: C = A function B The sub-clause is that there is in existence a math system which dictates that occassionally A must always precede B in order for you to get the answer C. Expanding terminology seems to abide by the same ruling. When you expand C so that you have A function B - you can end up at a valid truth that isn't C. The next generation math that doesn't exist has to do with how Turing machines work. It essentially states that for any A function B is not a direct function A to B. What is happening is A is being affected by function AND function is affecting B. That's where I am stuck at. Switching back to terminology this means that a simple monistic value where you claim that green is 'C' no longer works because the sub-divisions of 'green' and 'c' do not neccessarily contain the same base values. Green could be A and B while 'c' could be "B and D". The term 'and' is substituted for 'function' since I cannot tell if green and color arrise from the same original function. NB: For those that want more info on the turing machine: What I am essentially stating is that if you have a turing machine that turns one product into another product, the function(T) is actually two functions. Turing therefore equals A -> F(t1 and t2) -> B For simplicity - I assume that A and t1 are the relevant functions. At the moment this results in one of them "if you have two variables that you can't define, then you cannot solve." Function T1 gives you set at1 which must be applied to function t2 to end up wit product B. Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#13
PS: I'm not claiming that there is anything wrong with making a statement where we mutually agree that color is this. I just disagree that this agreement is reality. (or truth of existence.) Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#14
Let's run a better propositional to examine the problem. Instead of Color -we will run the terminology for cup. (The one owned by Banno... if you want to be specific of possession.) We'll start with your definition. Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
Aetixintro
banned Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 12, 2008 Location: Near Oslo, Norway Total Topics: 56 Total Posts: 694 |
#15
I'll point to the object of a cup and I say this is a cup, Banno's cup if there are circumstances that call for the fact that it's Banno's cup. With the case of colour: We both identify correctly the colour in issue and we can use a method that confirms this. Our language has this word and our reality contains this method. Effectively we both use the word for this colour in each others' life-worlds and still you refuse to call it "reality"? If so, can I call you a skeptic? Are you arguing for the position of a skeptic? Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#16
Without rigidly defining what a cup is? Tsk... I don't argue for a position of a skeptic. The most reductionist form of my argument is: Knowledge is disproof. A different way to state this is: We cannot split hairs with rigid terminology. Because we cannot split hairs we cannot differentiate the difference between the attributes that define an object or function. "cup and cup" can exist within a rigid terminology but "cup and a cup" cannot. Any action of cup within rigid terminology is automatically disproven by cup. Yet we can place cup and cup beside each other in reality. This disproves the location of cup. Therefore rigid terminology cannot define reality. Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
Aetixintro
banned Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 12, 2008 Location: Near Oslo, Norway Total Topics: 56 Total Posts: 694 |
#17
Usually documents allow for drawings and pictures and I think therefore that it might not be necessary for "rigid terminology to define reality". The documentation should however spark an idea and interest. I find the fact that we learn from one another and rather obviously cross pathways are strong suggestions that we live in common reality. This is not exhaustive as argument, but it will suffice for now. Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want |
|
CygnusX1
Aspirant  Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 01, 2009 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 23 |
#18
Our perceptions are inaccurate and subjective, our thoughts and ideas about these are subjective, and the notion of the Self that contemplates these things is also subjective. So, objectively, nothing is real at all – is this valid truth? Yet… you are correct there must be some kind of common understanding we possess to discuss and debate thoughts and ideas and colours and even maths, although I don't think you may label this or anything we appear to agree on as objectivity. It can be labelled as phenomena at best, language and confusion at worst. You know even a dolphin, a dog, or even that black cat will understand you if you shout loud enough? What is real? Heck.. I don't know, who does?. Best thing to do is to start back at Descartes square one – "I am, I exist?" and subjectively work your way backward from "I"…and see what happens and if anything objective turns out? As far as the maths and that rather intelligent bloke Turing is concerned you lost me at A function!! Yet as I recall Green is a causal effect of mixing Yellow and Blue, so to posit… G = Y + B, yet Y does not equal G – B… and B does not equal G – Y. (hmm... or maybe it does? - gee my maths is soo bad) Yet a different way to look at this without the maths.. is that Blue and Yellow have the potential to become Green, and Green possesses both the qualities of the former – so inherent in every effect is the cause, but inherent in every cause is the potential of its effect? Spock : "To be or not to be, that is illogical captain" 
Edited by CygnusX1 on Aug 29, 2009 - 7:13 AM You are neither earth, water, fire, air or even ether. For liberation know yourself as consisting of consciousness, the witness of these. [The Song of Ashtavakra (Ashtavakra Samhita) Chapter 1.3] |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#19
A function is actually a function affecting Set A.  It is somewhat confusing - I don't think we have any math symbols to express what I am stating. The closest direct analagy is a meat grinder.All I can tell you is to get a meat grinder. And then grind meat that isn't alive. You get all this chunky stuff. Now.. turn the handle the other way. Mmm... you don't get your original meat back do you? That's the problem with the Turing Machine. Traditionally we look at these problems as claiming some form of inverse function to acquire the original 'set'. In the case of the Turing Machine it seems that that doesn't work. I actually 'completed' a full PvNP equation. Unfortunately it tells me how many divisions there are in the number 'infinite' and resembles zeno's paradox. Now. Back to wording explanation. I love the cup example. It is so much easier to understand the problem of rigid terminology. So, let's say we did define exactly what 'cup' is. One of the things that wouldn't be there is color. Because 'red' is an attribute of the actual object 'cup' and is not in the rigid terminology - all forms of red cups cannot be considered cups. This is the problem of rigid terminology. In order to get to the 'a priori' system - we almost always end up using mutual agreement instead of a proper analysis of the problem. As in the example of using wavelengths for determining color - the actual wavelength is completely irrelevant to what a color is. Due to the fact that 'color' must also be percieved visually. Due to the similarity between rigid terminology to scientific method - changes of observer should not affect what is being observed. Yet a dog percieving the wavelength that we would call 'green' would see grey. Because we can observe what the dog percieves without altering it - the idea that color can be explained wholly through wavelengths is inaccurate for use as 'a priori'. Edited by Cadrache on Sep 1, 2009 - 11:30 AM. Reason: wrong keystroke for making an emoticon. Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
|
Cadrache
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 09, 2006 Location: AB, Canada Total Topics: 107 Total Posts: 3080 |
#20
My personal opinion at the moment CygnusX1 is that we are able to divide things up. If we were not able to degrade the purity of the understanding of everything - humans could not communicate. Words the wiser become the name you do not know. - Some guy with a surname Blanchard. _____________________________________________ For Wit to happen; one must first play in shadows. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.