10
   

What is the Virtue of Admitting Ignorance?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You forgot to cut and paste this bit.
Quote:
As usual you appear to be incapable of understanding that point.
And do us all a favor by not wittering about "intuition =guess". Read a chunk of Wittgenstein if you want to understand the folly of that equals sign.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:24 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Re: MattDavis (Post 5261576)
Okay. Our differences seem to lie in what we see to be the transcendent substrate,
For me that is the macro- or social level ( despite the implications of the prefix "sub") In Gestaltist terms, the whole determines the parts. Particles etc at the micro-level are intuited to fulfill functions specified at higher levels. I am technically arguing that what we call "reality" is ultimately a social concept and its details are evoked to fulfill human social needs. (including fragmented "selves" having internal conversations with each other) .


Hummm...and what if you are as wrong as Ptolemy was about the structure of what the ancients thought was the universe?

You are way out near Pluto...until you learn that your last sentence should have read:

I am technically arguing that what we call "reality" MAY ultimately BE a social concept WITH its details evoked to fulfill human social needs. (including fragmented "selves" having internal conversations with each other)...AND THEN AGAIN, MAYBE NOT .
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
As usual you appear to be incapable of understanding that point.
And do us all a favor by not wittering about "intuition =guess". Read a chunk of Wittgenstein if you want to understand the folly of that equals sign.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:27 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5261586)
You forgot to cut and paste this bit.
Quote:

As usual you appear to be incapable of understanding that point.
And do us all a favor by not wittering about "intuition =guess". Read a chunk of Wittgenstein if you want to understand the folly of that equals sign.


Sorry about that Fresco. I thought that was just one of those gratuitous insults you throw in from time to time.

So let me deal with it:

Fresco...no need to comment on this because I am sure this is just one of those gratuitous insults you throw in from time to time.

Thanks for calling my omission to my attention, Fresco.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
As usual you appear to be incapable of understanding the point.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:33 pm
@fresco,
I understand the point...but it doesn't agree with your point...so you have to suppose I do not understand it.

So tell me, is there "a separate world out there"...and if your guess is that there isn't...why are you guessing that way?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:35 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Cant well all just get along? Smile You are such a bully Frank. "just kidding.

I think that both of you have much to offer but someone does have to be wrong here and who knows maybe it is all of us. Idea

It would be nice if Fresco would take more time in explaining himself where someone as slow as me "Who also has an interest in this, would be able to understand his view point. Please Fresco break it down as elementary as possible and include any links that you have available for us to research. Thanks. Very Happy
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:36 pm
Any other infinite loop you 2 guys are willing to pull to amuse myself a bit further ? Wink
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:36 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Not to get off the topic of bickering...
Frank was my (most recent) explanation more to your liking?
The most recent one regarding congruence of perspectives (deduction and induction)?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:40 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
Frank was my (most recent) explanation more to your liking?
The most recent one regarding congruence of perspectives (deduction and induction)?


Did you address it to me? Link me to it...and I respond immediately.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sir!
Yes sir! Laughing
http://able2know.org/topic/207906-32#post-5261524
These conversations do get all jumbled together Sad

MattDavis wrote:

Matt wrote:
It seems at least intuitive that if both "guesses" lead to agreements. Maybe be they are a bit better than "just guesses".


Frank A wrote:
I agree. IF both "guesses" lead to agreement, MAYBE they are a bit better than "just guesses."

Truly I do< Matt.

But, on complex questions about REALITY, it seem more likely to me that it may be indicate that some of the deduction and induction has been fudged. It seem more likely to me that "an end" was sought...and the deduction and induction was contrived to achieve that end.

I wonder...could you give an example of both inductive and deductive avenues leading to "there is no self"..."there are no gods"..."there is a soul"..."existence is eternal and infinite."

Let's see if we can any clear route...or if there is a bit of fudge in the way.

This is important.

I don't mean to dodge your question with regard to self and reality, but to answer that is something I don't claim to be able to do, and I suspect doing so would require much more time than A2K would allow.

I will, If you'll permit me, provide an example of the intuitive principle I eluded to however:

When looking at something in terms of evaluating its truth there are (at least) 2 different ways of looking at it.

1. Dualism.
One might say if this thing is "true" then it must be "not false", and conversely if this thing is "false" then it must be "not true".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

2. Non-dualism or Trans-dualism
One might say there are true things and there are false things but something does not have to be only one or the other. "True" does not necessarily mean "not False". "False" does not necessarily mean "not True".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle

Historically mathematics in general and number theory in particular took the dualist track. They accepted as their ASSUMPTION dualism. After many centuries of deduction they arrived at some paradoxes. The strongest (in my opinion) is demonstrated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. This proves that the dualism assumption leads to a proof of something like non-dualism or trans-dualism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Now historically science has taken the inductive track. Phenomena have been granted some validity (by assumption). They don't (at least anymore) make the assumption of the excluded middle in truth value. This has lead to models of reality (paradigms) that contain things like wave-particle duality (actually a non-duality).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Both paths have lead to a rejection of simple dualism.
But by making both (opposite) assumptions we have been lead to the same conclusion.
This (I think) is more profound than "a guess".
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:54 pm
@MattDavis,
Matt you are way to smart, Kinda. I hope that you do not end up like some of the other smart people, "in an institution in the future. Smile
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 01:57 pm
@reasoning logic,
Laughing Thanks (I think?)
Are you planning on reporting me to such an institution? Drunk
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:00 pm
@MattDavis,
Okay...so this was actually a question about a post in another thread.

Let me see...

...your explanation is complex...and when I read it, my reaction was that not all the "if's" were included.

But the bottom line is: Despite the argument you make here, I still see any assumptions about the REALITY to be guesses.

There is nothing in the material you present that persuades me otherwise.

If you honestly see some part of the argument as being a substantiation that one can make reliable statements about the nature of the Ultimate REALITY...you are going to have to do it slowly and more thoroughly.

Honestly, Matt...the entire of the thesis seems (I do not mean to be rude here) contrived to make it seem that a logical, reasonable assessment of REALITY can be made.

I just do not see it.

I am not suggesting that we not explore REALITY to the best of our ability...but to make statements such as Fresco regularly makes, for instance, seems to me to be an impediment to reasonable investigation.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
What I am saying there is:

It is okay to say "We really do not know"...but this (x) is a possibility.

That is not how things are being presented here.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:05 pm
RL...Matt...we've had our differences, but I think both you guys are trying to discuss this stuff reasonably.

Fresco is another matter altogether.

To borrow a phrase from Paul Krugman, Fresco talks the way he thinks dumb people think smart people talk. I seldom thing Fresco is trying to add to understanding...I almost always think Fresco is trying to impress people.

Anyone who is impressed by him or his postings...simply does not understand knowledge...and how it is imparted and shared.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I simply meant it as a demonstration that by "merely guessing" we can in a sense disprove dualism of truth values.
If you assume dualism it leads you to non-dualism.
If you assume non-dualism....stop.
But the non-dualism pre-assumption glosses over a lot of structure. It is accurate but not precise.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:05 pm
@reasoning logic,
RL You are a receptive respondent. I have no problem expanding my interpretation of philosophical trends for your benefit and intelligent criticism As for Frank's "understanding", we've all been waiting ten years or more for evidence of it ! Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:06 pm
@MattDavis,
I gotta think this series of sentences over a bit.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I simply meant it as a demonstration that by "merely guessing" we can in a sense disprove dualism of truth values.

I acknowledge that I am not able to understand exactly what you mean here, but I can say this: I almost NEVER am attempting to “prove” or “disprove” anything when it comes to questions like REALITY. I readily acknowledge that I do not know what the REALITY is…so I am not a dualist or a non-dualist. I DO NOT KNOW…and either position could be the REALITY…and both could easily be wrong.

Quote:
If you assume dualism it leads you to non-dualism.


I’ll listen to the argument for that. I cannot accept it as an assertion.


Quote:
If you assume non-dualism....stop.

Ditto, above.



Quote:
But the non-dualism pre-assumption glosses over a lot of structure. It is accurate but not precise.

For you to suggest that the non-dualism assumption is accurate…leaves me cold. You are begging the question here.
 

Related Topics

Epistemology question - Question by surfaceair
Mathematical Mapping Theory of Truth - Discussion by PeteOlcott
EPISTEMOLOGY AND METPHYSICS - Question by ECCE HOMO
Science and morality - Discussion by Briancrc
Toward the Unification of Epistemology - Discussion by Ellok Latrom
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Reality! - Question by Cyracuz
The Half-life of Facts. - Discussion by fresco
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/10/2021 at 09:05:28