Fresco's Dilemma

Fil, when it comes to matters philosophical, i disagree with you 99.9999% of the time, but when you are sardonic -- i always appreciate it. i hope that you're not a politician, but otherwise, in real life, i'm sure you're a gem -- but i really hope you're are not a politician.

I rarely contribute to the phil forums anymore, but i thought i'd write a brief thing on this, just to do it. I assume that this thread was prompted by the forum contributions exchanged in the "On the existence and objectivity of Abstract Entities" thread. Those posts put me in stitches when i read them, partly because i knew they would be an incitement to just something like this thread. Bravo,

Disagreeing or not I miss your presence around as I like much of what you have posted...ain't the world ironic ?
But eventually maybe we speak a more similar language then what you think...we just express it in different ways...oh and don't worry I am not in politics, I think that probably suits more the diplomat type, it is a far to polluted, to loud place for someone like me...you see, while I am loud in defending my philosophical beliefs, when they are what I actually believe, I am far more careful in deciding on others life's, although one could well argue that philosophy and politics are never to far...besides I am not the type of pro-active leader modern leadership requires, more like laissez faire laissez passer, not in vogue these days...
Glad you stop by !

...your presence just remind me of letting you know that regarding last time we spoke my vision on what works goes as follow :
...what exists (Being) establishes what works and that "function" can very often seem highly dysfunctional...a bit like the difference between complex geometry and classic geometry...again, hope you don't give up on this forum just yet...

Hey, Fil, I was editing this post when you replied to the one above...I'm a slow typist, and an even slower self-editor. My original post in this thread was incomplete, and not particularly substantive. This post completes my "thoughts" -- damn me for a shoddy thinker.

Fil, when it comes to matters philosophical, i disagree with you about 99.9999% of the time, but when you are sardonic -- i always appreciate it. i hope that you're not a politician, but otherwise, in real life, i'm sure you're a gem -- but i really hope you're not a politician.

i rarely contribute to the phil forums anymore, but i thought i'd write a brief thing on this, just to do it. i assume that this thread was prompted by the forum contributions exchanged in the "On the existence and objectivity of Abstract Entities" thread. Those posts put me in stitches when i read them, partly because i knew they would be an incitement to just something like this. Bravo, Fil, seriously -- bravo. Non-sarcastic lulz.

i'm also still a little amused by Fresco's continued posting of Maturana links, mostly because i don't think that his cheerleaders (like Cyr), despite their enthusiasm, have read beyond them.

i can't pretend to be party to Fresco's thoughts when he posted his replies to you in the "Abstract Entities" thread, but they seem to fall under three main categories:

The first, and the least likely, seems to follow Bishop Berkeley's thought, that every mental "impression" is the product of the "observer". Berkeley, ultimately, wasn't a solipsist, because he thought that "reality" required an "omniscient" observer, ie the divine (who observed all of the other observers). i don't think that Fresco is a follower of Berkeley, however, because he fails to posit a deity, or arch-observer.

He might also be posting something about a radical post-Hegelien-neo-Kantianist position, also unlikely, that involves a totally unknowable "thing-in-tself" reality in conjunction with an independently evolving consciousness. That is to say that all of the "known" world is a product of shared-yet-irrepairable-interpretation and something else, and despite that something else's existence.

Or he might be suggesting the more Derridean/Borgian, a-not-so" New Refutation of Time", solution to the problem provided: the question of "reality" is perpetually post-dated. That is, the question of an "Abstract Entity's" "reality" is a perpetual future problem. The presumption of existence, in terms of consequence, always assumes the present projection of "evidence". Thus the idea of "history" is caught up in a repetitive question for "past" (ie new) answers...paradox, paradox, two wrongs make a right...

. . .

The question at hand seems to me to be about the epistemological value v. the ontological value of "certainty." Fresco seems to mis-value "certainty" as an ontological factor. For example, certainty is a future-oriented, subjective value; it's available only on the basis of gathered evidence, and the use value of certain practical assets, and it serves to dismiss past assumptions. However, establishing this level of certainty also requires effacing experience --which includes both the mistaken assumptions and the newly arrived at results. That is to say, that experiment erases the "other" evidence of experience...the continuum between the two is relegated (if one believes "the certain" to be the same as "being") to non-existence -- and existence is thus placed in the subjective, yet-noncontextual, perpetually pragmatic future.

The problem is that "certainty" has no ontological value. Meanings can be certain, in the moment -- if one is willing to project them thus, but the value of the same is not. The use of a word depends on both the meaning and the value -- each of which may be measured on some abstruse, theoretical gradient -- and both depend upon an otherwise invisible pivot -- an uncertain observer-inclusive reality, perhaps?

Wittgenstein admitted that certain things cannot be spoken of -- of what could he not been speaking of? I'm not certain; what could they be?

. . .

i know that this whole post comes off as terribly antagonistic, and i can't deny that I find some of the problems that i've, perhaps mistakenly, perceived above troublesome. Obviously, i'm poking fun at Fresco's citations; but i do respect the mind that suggests them. i don't expect a response, but i'll be interested to see if anything worthwhile happens in this thread.

@Fil:
"Does the mind that minds all minds who not comprehend themselves comprehends itself ? or is it the world ?
How should Fresco solve this problem ?
Anybody up for helping him out ?"

I dunno -- but if the mind that minds all minds fails to comprehend itself, does that mean that it fails to comprehend the world? And even if so, might it still comprehend some portion of itself, even as it makes up some portion of the world?
Why should he?
Yep, why not?

Phtttttttttttt...Boy, i'm a ridiculous bastard...

Razzleg, one good thing that may come from this thread is the sincere request that you continue to participate in our philosophy forums. Thanks for an excellent and constructive post.

@Fil:


Hi, first things first to the remaining I will reply later...

No...you see the world also contains self imagery and observation...I never opposed some of the things rationalists and Idealists defend, namely interpretation...but who is interpreting ? and how does it really look like ? my question with it is about control or more abstractly set size...When I say I believe in reality and not in mind that is because I don't believe in free will although I accept awareness...the thing is if I throw myself out of the window and imagine I am a bird I certainly will not fly...

Certainty is not a future oriented subjective value although perceptively is framed in those terms quite often...Certainty is about whether the world makes sense and is a self relational entity with its parts or not, and we, just as an ant are part of the world...your way of talking about it puts certainty at transcendental length and yet measurement works fine to an extent...you make it sound like a coincidence...but perhaps you are wrong.
I see certainty framed like one can see high and low resolution photography...equally there are high and low resolutions questions...certainty is not about an infinite question matching reality at some point...there are no infinite questions...rather certainty is between a finite in scope meaningful question, itself a reduction of reality, matching a portion of the phenomena in reality, that is, representative set compression, pattern gathering ...you see neither a low nor an high resolution photo are lies (nor a camera is a subject)...they just can be more or less informative...questions are not right and wrong, rather they frame more or less information relations...questions also have a context beyond which they make no sense...certainty happens when a limited in scope question matches a limited in scope answer, or a limited, or local phenomena...when both achieve symmetry...people have this very wrong impression about the truth being something like an omnipresent ensemble impression of the world...while I believe truth is just about the right order the world can be framed from a certain point...if I see the world from the moon I am certain what I see is not about all what is going on in the world...but I like to believe given I am in the moon what I see is a truthful part of the world...if I ask perspective moon like questions about the world they are not wrong nor they are incomplete...they just ask about what they see, which is real is happening, is valid and deserves a matching answer, something with similar resolution...framing what I see, as off world, as a personnel construction, as being me against the world, and then in terms of being right and wrong, is almost Christian like reasoning...what I see if in the world , if a portion of the world, is valid, and deserves a fitting interpretation...that is what I gather, deserves to be rationalized. Its not wrong nor incomplete it simply has its rightful place.When we ask a five inch question about the universe, it certainly is because there is a five inch perspective of it, and a five inch phenomena going on, no matter if such phenomena can fit bigger sets for bigger questions and look like an entirely different pattern...certainly is not because we are constructing a "new world" or a "fake world", rather we are just a pattern limited extent with pattern limited experiences...

If Fresco is a pattern in the world and not the world what Fresco sees or comprehends of himself is also a reduced pattern of himself and not the entirety of himself...Fresco better be the world if Fresco wants to really know Fresco...so, again...can Fresco comprehend himself ?
You see the question was serious although it was framed like a joke...Fresco has no way of knowing if he is a mind, or a pattern in the world he experiences as a mind...

fresco's cheerleaders?

Just so you know, I go my own way. Fresco and I just happen to be moving in the same general direction.

...the problem also being as soon as Fresco concludes he is the reality, either mind or the world, not much matter, he can no longer justify himself through himself...there's a reset in the system, and a loop start over...bang, infinity in a finite frame is born !

...its funny, minds are worlds, countless self s, lots of characters and experiences, and worlds as a system are much like minds...the problem is not about the name, but about knowing which concept is more fit or more complete, and essentially about knowing what controls what...to my view, "World" is more abstract, more generalist, and less prone to magic self indulging belief that I am in control...as long as I keep running from cars in the road and not able to fly as much as I imagine I am a bird, I like to think of myself as a set among sets rather then the set of all sets...

Take "no longer" out of the sentence...it induces an error in interpretation...it wasn't meant to look like that...things cannot justify themselves was the intention...

Of course it has ontological value...it matches an experience...the problem goes in knowing what the experience itself matches...as someone said mistakes are still true mistakes...phenomenally they are an object matching a certain local context of information assembly in the subject...such representation doesn't come out of the blue...what we are wondering is how a given pattern, a perception, fits other patterns, or imitates them at a lower resolution, how its resolution matches the resolution of those patterns...its not supposed to be a photocopy...knowledge is not all Being, although a valid part of being, itself an object in Being, it captures aspects of reality and not projects them...I am convinced the experience of the knower is itself a valid part of the world, and not an off world constructed UFO...that in turn simply means that a "mistake" in perception is justified...itself an object... itself a pattern in the world...but how can it correspond if smaller you wonder ? and I ask you how big was the question ? What prompted the size of the question was not itself a true perceptional object ? Those this mind that mind is the origin of everything ? No we don't know what the **** "mind" is...be we can be certain at least "world" intends to mean much more.

Of course it has ontological value...it matches an experience...the problem goes in knowing what the experience itself matches...as someone said mistakes are still true mistakes...phenomenally they are an object matching a certain local context of information assembly in the subject...such representation doesn't come out of the blue...what we are wondering is how a given pattern, a perception, fits other patterns, or imitates them at a lower resolution, how its resolution matches the resolution of those patterns...its not supposed to be a photocopy...knowledge is not all Being, although a valid part of being, itself an object in Being, it captures aspects of reality and not projects them...I am convinced the experience of the knower is itself a valid part of the world, and not an off world constructed UFO...that in turn simply means that a "mistake" in perception is justified...itself an object... itself a pattern in the world...but how can it correspond if smaller you wonder ? and I ask you how big was the question ? What prompted the size of the question was not itself a true perceptional object ? Those this mind that mind is the origin of everything ? No we don't know what the **** "mind" is...but we can be certain at least "world" intends to mean much more.

Of course it has ontological value...it matches an experience...the problem goes in knowing what the experience itself matches...as someone said mistakes are still true mistakes...phenomenally they are an object matching a certain local context of information assembly in the subject...such representation doesn't come out of the blue...what we are wondering is how a given pattern, a perception, fits other patterns, or imitates them at a lower resolution, how its resolution matches the resolution of those patterns...its not supposed to be a photocopy...knowledge is not all Being, although a valid part of being, itself an object in Being, it captures aspects of reality and not projects them...I am convinced the experience of the knower is itself a valid part of the world, and not an off world constructed UFO...that in turn simply means that a "mistake" in perception is justified...itself an object... itself a pattern in the world...but how can it correspond if smaller you wonder ? and I ask you how big was the question ? What prompted the size of the question was not itself a true perceptional object ? Does this mean that mind is the origin of everything ? No we don't know what the **** "mind" is...but we can be certain at least "world" intends to mean much more.

Of course it has ontological value...it matches an experience...the problem goes in knowing what the experience itself matches...as someone said mistakes are still true mistakes...phenomenally they are an object matching a certain local context of information assembly in the subject...such representation doesn't come out of the blue...what we are wondering is how a given pattern, a perception, fits other patterns, or imitates them at a lower resolution, how its resolution matches the resolution of those patterns...its not supposed to be a 1/1 scale photocopy, it just demands symmetry for completion...knowledge is not, all Being, although a valid part of being, itself an object in Being, it captures aspects of reality and not projects into them, there is no opposition...I am convinced the experience of the knower is itself a valid part of the world, and not an off world constructed UFO, but from there it doesn't follow it has control upon it...it simply means that a "mistake" in perception is justified...itself an object... itself a pattern in the world...but how can it correspond to anything else but itself if smaller you wonder ? and I ask you how big was the question ? What prompted the size or the scope of the question was not itself a true perceptional object ? there must be a perspective point prompting a question...it can be a machine needs not be a subject...Does this mean that mind is the origin of everything ? No, we don't know what the **** "mind" is...but we can be certain at least "world" intends to mean much more.

Certainty or readiness can be described ontologically as an active map marker of confirmation for integrated tasking on a Bio system on which symmetry between expectancy and functionality meet together, through a check list on which an algorithmic connection is established relating input calculus with output responses...
Certainty does not define assurance onto the full nature of any enquired system onto itself but only the functional mapped points of interest that meet or intersect with the similar mapped expected output model or simulation based on previous observations and acquired knowledge. It refers to an assembled system simulation that algorithmically intersects functional extensions of an X not fully described unknown system external to consciousness or to focus...
What this all means is that enquiry has no limitless extension or focus onto the real object but rather that it is limited or circumscribed to the modelling on which it operates those functional extensions of a true object...Its not the case then that "what works" works as a miracle, but rather that the model has captured correctly operative aspects of reality !

I hope Raz that my last post can clarify what previously I was trying to convey and that evidently was inextricably entangled...

I just noticed that there are 4 duplicates of an edited post...no clue on how it happened...

Frankly, Razzleg, I try to follow Cryacuz and Fresco-at least as best I can.