Why are paradoxes considered profound?

...you are so fun ! one got to recognize your talent...
...you pull always the same trick but I never grow tired...

Trick ? I took that point to be self-evident 20 years prior to reading Maturana, who as you know rejected "information" as being a valid concept for living (autopoietic) systems.
Anybody with research experience in perception will know the problems of categorizing "a stimulus". To get the flavour, read for example, Green and Swets classic work on "Signal Detection Theory" involving manipulation of the pay-offs for observers. And note that work only involves detection. Recognition is an even bigger problem when considered as an algorithm.

So instead of keep pressing forward, you suppose such justify´s the poring of some magic dust upon the problem is it ? algorithms and functions are everywhere it does n´t take a giant leap of faith to keep looking for a solution regarding some difficulty´s on the field, its all quite natural...your position as I see it compares to disagreeing Newton physics for its incompleteness and thus running to God´s arms longing for salvation...have it your way, there´s room in town for all kind of wako beliefs...

For ****'s sake Fil, shut the **** up.

...are you feeling well ? so what does this mean, I can´t reply to someone who is addressing me on a specific matter without getting a warning ???
Haven´t see you address anybody else for doing exactly the same...keep your cool or bug of ! Who in the hell do you think you are talking to kido ? If you did pay some attention a couple of posts back you would see that the derailing of the thread was n´t started by me...your judging ability is as green as your posts is n´t it ? I guess you still must learn what public space means after all...

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If you can't discuss something without being condescending then why bother? It was you who derailed the thread with your tone, it's not about content.
Okay, i shouldn't have said shut the **** up - sorry - but it is getting very irritating; I've already pm-ed you asking you to stop being aggressive on my threads because it makes me not want to read them: I thought you were going to try and respect that. Now I'm dragged into it.
What's the point of calling my posts 'green'? I explicitly told you in my PM that I am here to try and learn and not try and show and 'beat' a load of strangers. If you don't like my posts because of their said 'greenness' then don't comment on my threads. OH WAIT. Actually that's exactly why you're posting, isn't it?
If you're so much cleverer than me and fresco and Cy and JL and all the other people you're trying to talk down to then why don't you go somewhere where you can talk to people who will actually help you learn.

Learning isn't an attractive prospect to one who thinks he knows everything. I think you, fresco and JL show remarkable restraint in dealing with Fil. Far more than I have been able to. There is just something about a condescending, arrogant know-it-all that makes me react.

Care to take a look on who started negatively criticizing who on every thread around with the naive realist slogan ? do that...your pals are the ones everywhere around the forum constantly engaging in criticism upon others opinions and generally using always the same discourse..., instead of debating the issues and the points of view at hand, I have been confounded with materialists with positivists even with theism and fanaticism gratuitously, only because my opinions don´t appeal to certain tastes...it seams only fair that if I am engaged it is my natural right to reply and defend my position as my good name...in this matter you are not just equivocated, you are all the way down wrong in your judgement...yes I am reactive, yes I am blumpt and passionate in my points of view, essentially not because I am dogmatic which I am not, but because honestly there was n´t in so far a sufficient convincing argument which would appeal sufficiently to my reason to make me change my mind...the guys you are siding with get all offended because they receive exactly the same treatment they are trying to impinge on others with the adding demerit of very poor justification...I rather take some criticism from a reasonably informed "Setanta" clone any day then having to digest a never ending poring of obscure social concepts hardly intelligible and naturally resistant to any attempt of analysis...our species is analytical by definition, philosophy is analytical by definition science equally...I just wonder why in the hell are they not writing a literary book or some soap opera elsewhere...I mean what in the hell were they expecting ? Agreement in a philosophy forum ??? Do you really believe knowledge comes out of pacific agreement ? that is precisely why I said you were being "green"...the guy who just replied to you Cyr is bringing once again the perfect example on poor gratuitous provocation...I have finished talking with him yesterday after he having the nerve of making a ignoramus sad accusation on me who hardly deserved any reply...and yet here he is once more getting on my nerves...do me a favour, and before jumping out on people, open your eyes to the facts !

No, I certainly do not and I haven't advocated anywhere that I think this to be the case. Nor do I 'side blindly' with anyone. I say if I agree with a point sometimes, but other times I do not, but this does not mean that I am not thinking critically about it. I explicitly do not want everyone to agree if this will result in banal acceptance of 'truths' and will not lead on to further debate, but equally, I do not think your contributions are useful when they are also insulting. In fact I think its unintelligent; if your views are as good as you say they are then you should be able to express them without being rude.


Yes, philosophy is analytical, but analytical philosophy has limits. That is what the others were trying to point out to you in the previous posts.

Tell me about it. It's funny how some people really get to you on here when you don't even know them. Like, I really can't stand Chai2.

1 - So what ? the world has limits even if without frontiers...I like to think the limits of analysis are established by people´s stupidity or on the potential length/scope exhaustion of an inquiry...

2 - I think you get it wrong regarding what they think of analysis, their position, on close inspection, does not defend the limits of analysis, rather its total worthlessness, concerning matters of fact, which is what analysis proposes itself to achieve in the first place...yet still they naturally have to live with it and parasite its undeniable practical use in everyday life (you see analysis works !)...it seems a perfect example of demagoguery and hypocrisy to me...

Your second point isn't clear. I don't think anyone would disagree that analysis is of a fundamental value to every day life and is necessary for navigating reality.

I liked this though:

Ironically, this makes me a hypocrite also, I guess.

Don't pay the attention whore. It only encourages her.

Deconstructivists did get it right concerning the phenomenological experience off property´s on objects resulting of interactions, but they also get it wrong when oblivious to the fact that objects themselves are equally the result of a layer down of systemic interactions, and thus that they have a form in themselves, even if such form is worthless until a new interaction is established from which yet another layer of effects is build again...in here "observation", a biological trait, is replaced by interaction or function which is a more universal denominator for the phenomena...colours as the result of interaction from base colours are a good illustration for the purpose..."foundationalism" and objectivity are saved and still property´s can be the result of relative interactions in between different systems with subjective local results but with objective causes...analysis on algorithmic interactions should provide the abstract objective form of things without active property´s in themselves...

...this kind of reasoning illustrates why I cannot be confounded nor to the "left" nor to the "right" regarding philosophical issues, my position is often elsewhere on classical frames of reference...

Are you acquainted with recent discussions of colour perception. (Varela et al) ?

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QY4RoH2z5DoC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Varela+colour&source=bl&ots=1UJ8-pC5FJ&sig=oAmOIQKCvutfNL6uwFrChJBiQa8&hl=en&e

Is Fil a girl or a boy?

...yes colour for us is also the result of our interaction with their base algorithm...I did n´t mentioned that in the example above because I would be particularising one form of relation with humans... is that what you where preparing to argue about ?

1 - ...well you did grab the opportunity as I expected...
2 - ...boy

...things in themselves, cannot be known directly given what we can know of them is always constrained to a relation with our specificity...but even if through our specificity filter, I believe we can still keep adding further systems to the interaction in order to constrain an ever more objective knowledge on a particular system operable potential...
...the same principle applies to our own specific form of observation/interaction which can be technologically enlarged/enhanced...its called cybernetics !