Thinking is part of reality

coberst,

Quote:

The fact that you of all people would reference Karl Popper even by proxy of referencing someone else is hilarious. You are the most obscurantist individual I have come across in ages and you pretty much exemplify what Popper described as the tendency of some individuals "to utter the most meaningless trivialities in the most impressive sounding language".

There are plenty of reasons why thoughts should be regarded as part of reality. Perhaps Neutral Monism is correct. Perhaps the mathematical truth of evolution gives us some level of confidence in our ability to discern reality, since this human faculty has prevented us from on the whole killing ourselves.

It seems to me the gist of the article is that human actions are predicated on human thought, therefore regardless of whether a given thought is true of false it influences reality. Why is this novel or significant? What is there to discuss about this?

FROM ANOTHER FORUM

I am particularly interested in your reply to that "monism" point.

0 Replies

framed in the proper context, what isn't part of reality?

psychosis isn't reality, for instance, but certainly does occur in reality. star trek isn't reality, but it occurs on television, and affects the lives of people who see it, if only by taking up time- and often in other ways. cell phones are part of our reality, and may not have been as soon if not for trek commuicators. doesn't life imitate art often enough to consider art part of reality?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

coberst,

Quote:
The fact that you of all people would reference Karl Popper even by proxy of referencing someone else is hilarious. You are the most obscurantist individual I have come across in ages and you pretty much exemplify what Popper described as the tendency of some individuals "to utter the most meaningless trivialities in the most impressive sounding language".

There are plenty of reasons why thoughts should be regarded as part of reality. Perhaps Neutral Monism is correct. Perhaps the mathematical truth of evolution gives us some level of confidence in our ability to discern reality, since this human faculty has prevented us from on the whole killing ourselves.

It seems to me the gist of the article is that human actions are predicated on human thought, therefore regardless of whether a given thought is true of false it influences reality. Why is this novel or significant? What is there to discuss about this?
FROM ANOTHER FORUM

I am particularly interested in your reply to that "monism" point.

I do not comprehend the monism reference.

My general reply is to speak about the importance of Descartes to our traditional view of reality.

I was educated in engineering but also had some interest in philosophy. My first philosophy course was Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy". I suspect this is an introductory course for most students studying philosophy. Descartes has left Western tradition with a gigantic legacy that only now is this legacy being undermined by cognitive science.

Descartes goes through a sequence of analysis in an effort to find an absolute truth upon which to build his philosophy. He settled on "Cogito, ergo sum". "I think therefore I am". The conclusions of this series of analysis by Descartes have set the course, more or less, of Western philosophy. What are the fateful conclusions derived from the work of Descartes?

"I am, I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist...But what then am I? A thing that thinks."

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every kind of thing has an essence that makes it the kind of thing it is.
The way each thing naturally behaves is a consequence of its essence.

Descartes knows he exists because he thinks. Because he exists he has an essence. He assumes nothing else causes his thinking but his essence. Conclusion: thinking must be at least a part of the human essence.

"Just because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing."

"It is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely, and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it."

To have reached that last conclusion Descartes must assume an additional:

The Folk Theory of Substance and Attributes
A substance is that which exists in itself and does not depend for its existence on any other thing.
Each substance has one and only one primary attribute that defines what its essence is.

The following is what his introspection has made him "see":

There are two kinds of substance, one bodily and the other mental.
The attribute of bodily substance is extension in space.
The attribute of mental substance is thought.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

framed in the proper context, what isn't part of reality?

psychosis isn't reality, for instance, but certainly does occur in reality. star trek isn't reality, but it occurs on television, and affects the lives of people who see it, if only by taking up time- and often in other ways. cell phones are part of our reality, and may not have been as soon if not for trek commuicators. doesn't life imitate art often enough to consider art part of reality?

There are many theories of truth but the correspondence theory of truth is part of our common sense here in America (I restrict my statements to America because I do not know other nations; however, I am convinced that such is true in all nations).

"Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols." (Quickie from Wiki) This theory implies that there is a reality and that our task is to recognize that reality. Truth is a representation that we create in our mind indicating what reality really is.

Most Americans fail to recognize that thinking and reality are inseparable.

0 Replies

coberst, i think some people are probably too hard on you, but that being prefaced, i have no idea at all what you were trying to say just now.

it made enough sense before, i just thought it missed a larger point.

0 Replies

coberst,

Your reply is significant because it indicates your lack of familiarity with modern movements such as structuralism and post-structuralism (Piaget, Foucault, Derrida etc). You will find, for example, that even today's students of "media studies" are well versed in these movements which examine "reality" as psychological or sociological construction. Quite frankly straight "Cartesian Dualism" went "out" philosophically around the time of the ascendence of relativity over Newtonian mechanics (except perhaps for the rectionary movement of the logical positivists). Your thesis about "what is taught" may be valid up to high school level for less able students, but it has the pedagogical status of "alchemy" thereafter.

0 Replies

naturally, you were the one i was surprised to see hadn't replied yet Smile

hey, fresco.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

coberst, i think some people are probably too hard on you, but that being prefaced, i have no idea at all what you were trying to say just now.

it made enough sense before, i just thought it missed a larger point.

I think that you must keep in mind that the ideas I present in these forums are generally very complex. To comprehend them requires a great investment of time and mental energy. My few words are intended to make the reader conscious of what I consider to be important ideas. My post can, at best, stir your curiosty so that you will go to the books or to Google to discover the meaning of these complex ideas.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

coberst,

Your reply is significant because it indicates your lack of familiarity with modern movements such as structuralism and post-structuralism (Piaget, Foucault, Derrida etc). You will find, for example, that even today's students of "media studies" are well versed in these movements which examine "reality" as psychological or sociological construction. Quite frankly straight "Cartesian Dualism" went "out" philosophically around the time of the ascendence of relativity over Newtonian mechanics (except perhaps for the rectionary movement of the logical positivists). Your thesis about "what is taught" may be valid up to high school level for less able students, but it has the pedagogical status of "alchemy" thereafter.

You are correct. I know very little about these systems of thought that you mention. My curiosity has not penetrated those movements. My last days in college, when I was getting an MA in philosophy while working, ended in 1971. I doubt that everything I learned in school has turned to alchemy in the last 35 years.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think that you must keep in mind that the ideas I present in these forums are generally very complex. To comprehend them requires a great investment of time and mental energy.

well that's fine, but i usually have no problem with your posts. maybe this one is much, much trickier than usual.

0 Replies

coberst,

Quote:

You are correct. I know very little about these systems of thought that you mention. My curiosity has not penetrated those movements

WHY NOT ?

This is what I don't understand about you coberst. You raise potentially interesting issues such as the one here, but you don't seem to have any idea about either the current "state of play" or even the historical background (e.g, Hegelian monism, or Kant's notions of the a priori). And what exacerbates matters is that you lay claim to an MA in philosophy.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

coberst,

Quote:
You are correct. I know very little about these systems of thought that you mention. My curiosity has not penetrated those movements

WHY NOT ?

This is what I don't understand about you coberst. You raise potentially interesting issues such as the one here, but you don't seem to have any idea about either the current "state of play" or even the historical background (e.g, Hegelian monism, or Kant's notions of the a priori). And what exacerbates matters is that you lay claim to an MA in philosophy.

I have studied Kant, in fact my Master's thesis was a study of the difference between the a priori concept of Husseral and Kant. Do not ask me to explan that matter, that was done 35 years ago and it no doubt was stupid then. Many young people get all bent out of shape when I quote a book that was written 40 years ago. I write that off as just a normal passage of the young. We all pass through that stage.

I do vaguly remember looking into the concepts of structeralism etc. As I recall these are all related to literary criticism and I quickly dismissed them. Perhaps I am in error. Would you give me a brief reason why I should examine these concepts.

0 Replies

coberst,

You raised the issue of the relationship between "thought" and "reality".

Kant (and later Heisenberg) argued that "reality" can never be accessed directly but was prey to the (biological) substrates surrounding "perception". Furthermore he implied that perception was active, not passive and projected a priori "structure" onto "the world". Piaget followed on with his concept of "adaptation" where a particular "internal state" was receptive to particular "external states" which in turn would trigger a shift to succession of new reciprocal internal -external state equilibria such that "reality" lay at the dynamic interface between the two. In essence "reality" lay neither within nor without. Along came linguistic structuralists such as Chomsky who mirrored Piagets "active stages of cognition" with the concept of universal stages of "language acquistion" with respect to grammatical form, which some claimed "shaped" the structure of thought for homo sapiens. Add to this the socially parochial nature of linguistic "content" (see the Sapir Whorf hypothesis) and you have the theoretical basis for the social construction of "reality". Foucault (et al) pursued this with respect to a political agenda such that seemingly "factual" statements like "Its a girl" on the birth of a child were seen as reifications of gender issues and a delimitation of "future reality" for that child.

A second branch of structuralism may be attributed to the work of Thomas Kuhn with respect to his work the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Here the "organism" is a "scientific community" which projects paradigmatic thinking onto "the world". Like the Piagetian "individual" such a community undergoes "paradigm shifts" in its active dealings with "the world" such that "reality" is constantly shifting its ground in an epistemological spiral involving modification of concepts and re-directed observation.

Lastly "thinking" is a nebulous concept. It is the name we give for an interactive process NOT one which is self contained or free from biological or social constraints. The philosophical significance of the cogito is merely one to kick against.

0 Replies

Coberst, someone somewhere in these threads accused Fresco of being philosophically lazy (presumably because he gave us technical insights without going to great lengths to explain them to us), and you just accused him of obscurantism.
Let me ask you: who has gone to such lengths to explain so much to you in these forums? Just because Fresco does not talk down to us, that does not make him an obscurantist. The material he shares with us is obscure to us depending on our level of preparation. He offers us stimulation and guidance in our efforts to elevate ourselves, if such efforts exist.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Coberst, someone somewhere in these threads accused Fresco of being philosophically lazy (presumably because he gave us technical insights without going to great lengths to explain them to us), and you just accused him of obscurantism.
Let me ask you: who has gone to such lengths to explain so much to you in these forums? Just because Fresco does not talk down to us, that does not make him an obscurantist. The material he shares with us is obscure to us depending on our level of preparation. He offers us stimulation and guidance in our efforts to elevate ourselves, if such efforts exist.

I am what I call a self-actualizing self-learner. My studies are guided by my questions to myself, which in turn are guided by my curiosity. I am an advocate of studying disinterested knowledge.

The world is filled with things to study and we must have a means for deciding what to focus our attention upon.

When Fresco suggests a domain of knowledge for study I examine that suggestion and then examine my list of things I MUST learn soon and I discover that there is no more room on my list. Everyday when I finish breakfast and I finish my breakfast reading I leave the kitchen with at least three things that I must write about that day, I do not have the time and energy to do it all.

I do not remember speaking of Fresco as being an obscurantismist but I just do not have the ability to follow those things that he is interested in.

0 Replies

Coberst, sometimes my limitations (knowledge or intelligence) limit my ability to follow his points. But whose fault is that?

0 Replies

coberst,

What is that "must write" all about ?

The suspicion which I have voiced before is that this is some form of self justificatory "defense" to a hypothetical accusation of "idleness", associated which the joys of retirement. "Writing" ="Material Work"? Perhaps you also dress this up as "a mission to educate (idle) others".... in other words a Freudian type "projection" of educating the "idle self".

Forgive my amateur psychology, but your simultaneous postings on multiple forums do not seem to be "educating" anybody. Why not simply join some extra-mural groups and engage in the cut and thrust of real-time debate over "structured" course material? I can trace many of my own links to memorable materials presented to me on such courses.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

coberst,

What is that "must write" all about ?

The suspicion which I have voiced before is that this is some form of self justificatory "defense" to a hypothetical accusation of "idleness", associated which the joys of retirement. "Writing" ="Material Work"? Perhaps you also dress this up as "a mission to educate (idle) others".... in other words a Freudian type "projection" of educating the "idle self".

Forgive my amateur psychology, but your simultaneous postings on multiple forums do not seem to be "educating" anybody. Why not simply join some extra-mural groups and engage in the cut and thrust of real-time debate over "structured" course material? I can trace many of my own links to memorable materials presented to me on such courses.

I do not wish to educate anyone. I wish to make people conscious of important ideas in the hope that they will become self-learners and go to the books for more info.

0 Replies

(a) That IS education !

and

(b) What evidence have you that you've actually transmitted what you think are "important ideas" ? Most people simply do not read lengthy quotations, for example, and you are signally reticent in debating points arising.

0 Replies

Thinking is part of reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know