@Fido,
Is that your concept of quasi concepts ?
I suppose you believe there are real ideas and concepts no matter what they report or can carry...to start a disagreement you must first agree on something otherwise you will end up talking with a wall...concepts and definitions exist because they have a purpose beyond communication on proper terms...you see communication imply´s something to be communicated...one thing about functionality and truth that must be said, it just requires an optimal intersection for whatever purpose fits, not necessarily a perfect correlation...optimal intersection reports true facts...
I will give an example that often is presented in the wrong way:
It certainly is true that the phenomenal sun of our experience goes around the earth literally, that is something as sun light and sun heat perform a continued line of contact with the earth soil n water that result in a circumference...we can observe it because its true ! That in turn does not imply that such "sun" cannot later be accounted to the cosmic Sun that we came to know later on with astronomy...now the first "sun" is not an illusion its a fact !
@Fil Albuquerque,
In fact I have no problem to admit that phenomenally whatever I observe is true and it is happening, my difficulty comes later when trying to find the correct context of what such truth reports !...This small distinction makes a huge difference when taking sides on whether to follow the arguments of naturalists or idealists...Naturalism although not perfect never loses track on what is relevant to retain...on my perspective it requires a better IQ, but hey I am being subjective here !
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Is that your concept of quasi concepts ?
I suppose you believe there are real ideas and concepts no matter what they report or can carry...to start a disagreement you must first agree on something otherwise you will end up talking with a wall...concepts and definitions exist because they have a purpose beyond communication on proper terms...you see communication imply´s something to be communicated...one thing about functionality and truth that must be said, it just requires an optimal intersection for whatever purpose fits, not necessarily a perfect correlation...optimal intersection reports true facts...
I will give an example that often is presented in the wrong way:
It certainly is true that the phenomenal sun of our experience goes around the earth literally, that is something as sun light and sun heat perform a continued line of contact with the earth soil n water that result in a circumference...we can observe it because its true ! That in turn does not imply that such "sun" cannot later be accounted to the cosmic Sun that we came to know later on with astronomy...now the first "sun" is not an illusion its a fact !
That the sun rises and sets never meant to most of the people who thought thus that the sun went around the earth... That was actually the belief of more advanced people... In any event, we have a lot of moral form, transcendent concepts, which are no more than quasi concepts when compared with true concepts that are the definition of finite objects in our physical reality, which is to say all that Kant in my understanding said we could know, as finite knowledge... But it has been awhile... If he didn't say it, then I did....
@Fido,
You are addressing Ptolomeu´s conception of the world for scholars, while I was simply and merely speaking of the far older intuition that we have when we look into the sky...your quick lesson serves nothing on that regard...as for quasi concepts that sort of abstraction does n´t make any sense....what you mean is that people have a salad of beliefs, and on that we certainly agree...
Thought experiment...
Say I am standing in a certain place, looking at a certain landscape. What I see is assimilated into the rest of my reality. I see through the lens of my physiology, my experience and my expectations. What I perceive is reality.
Then another stands in that same place, looking at the same landscape. This one does not have any senses to detect what I know as sound. It's visual range starts higher up the spectrum than mine, but also far exceeds what I am capable of perceiving. The density of this creature is such that we do not experience the same things as being solid, liquid and vapor. This creature may be seeing something completely different from me, since it is seeing throught he lens of it's physiology, experience and expectations. But what it perceives is reality.
Now, reality is objective in that when we observe, it is the same phenomenon we observe, but it is subjective in that the experience of the observation is filtered through the subjectivity of the observer.
I think that "reality" should be defined in such a way. It should be understood as experience, as there simply is nothing beyond experience we can classify as "reality". There are merely the imagined states of how things would be if we were not here to experience them. The great flaw in that way of thinking, it seems to me, is to assume that "thingness" and "physicality" are qualities of a universe independent of observation, when in fact "thingness" and "physicality" are impressions and interpretations of what we experience in the human situation.
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
You are addressing Ptolomeu´s conception of the world for scholars, while I was simply and merely speaking of the far older intuition that we have when we look into the sky...your quick lesson serves nothing on that regard...as for quasi concepts that sort of abstraction does n´t make any sense....what you mean is that people have a salad of beliefs, and on that we certainly agree...
The Greeks had Helios driving a flaming chariot across the sky, and then, presumably going home for a bath, supper, and tube with the folks... The idea that he was at work all the time going around and around never entered their minds...
@Cyracuz,
When the larger part of reality is beyond our reach, we cannot have it as object, and cannot honestly consider it as finite and so cannot define it at all...Consider, Sy, that even of finite objects our ability to say what they are and how they work is extremely limited, but the ability to say something of them essentially true, even if by way of analogy is the beginning of knowledge... All our knowledge, as knowledge is in the sum of our forms of the physical world... Moral forms, transcendent forms which go beyond physical forms all transcend knowledge without adding to knowledge or improving upon it, and for that reason I say they are only quasi- the approximation of -forms...
I suppose a blind person as a partially different relation with water then I do and yet there are n´t that many blind folks who believe water is n´t the same...ain´t that a big mystery of nature eh ?
@Fil Albuquerque,
I I were left in the desert dying of thirst with 50 idealists I would guess I would be the lucky guy to grab the only bottle of water left in the field...you know why ? while the other guys would be debating that my bottle is not your bottle I in turn would make a run for it...now, is that a quasi wise move ?
@JLNobody,
...quasi Quasi...damned keyboard !...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
I I were left in the desert dying of thirst with 50 idealists I would guess I would be the lucky guy to grab the only bottle of water left in the field...you know why ? while the other guys would be debating that my bottle is not your bottle I in turn would make a run for it...now, is that a quasi wise move ?
I am not an idealist, but I do know we need to form an idea of realtiy before we can turn it toward our survival... As far as quasi ideas; it is enough to keep them from being turned toward our destruction, and if you think of it, the many who have died for quasi ideas is out of all proportion to their value...
@Fido,
What idea of reality ??? are n ´t you defending that there´s no such thing as a reality ??? How the heck can we have an idea of something that does n´t exist ? precisely from there you n your pals go on about these quasi ideas on about a quasi reality...I suppose it never occurred to you to prompt an infinite regression on quasi quasi quasi ideas and so on...further down that road we will end up with quasi quasi "observers", with multiple quasi quasi "personality's" inside a quasi quasi "mind" portraying quasi quasi "concepts" upon a quasi quasi "reality" or "world"...hell !!!
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:Whatidea of reality ???are n ´t you defending that there´s no such thing as a reality ???
ironically , Fil you defend reality but in the " nature of time " thread you relate to computers !!!
Quote: How the heck can we have anidea of something that does n´t exist ? precisely from there you n your pals go on about these quasiideas on about a quasireality...I suppose it never occurred to you to prompt an infinite regression on quasi quasi quasiideas and so on...further down that road we will end up with quasi quasi "observers", with multiple quasi quasi "personality's" inside a quasi quasi "mind" portraying quasi quasi "concepts" upon a quasi quasi "reality" or "world"...hell !!!
@north,
No kidding...how does that change anything ?
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote: No kidding...how does that change anything ?
on this thread or the other ?
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote: you pick n chose...
both , I'll leave it to you which is first
@north,
Quote:ironically , Fil you defend reality but in the " nature of time " thread you relate to computers !!!
I suppose you are aware that computers are real, as virtual worlds are real virtual worlds...
