The Half-life of Facts.

@parados,

Perhaps. But what if there are many perceivers negotiating between them and working together to form the most accurate perceptions? It could be argued that this is what we are doing.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You are not going to get passed Frank's insistence that "truth" and "reality" are simplistic absolutes. Our position is that both are alterable positions about "what works". Our challenges are equivalent to assertions of "what works better".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Surely the extrapolation to 3 dimensions or more is obvious ! And passing "go" does not radically alter the board. (No hotels lost)

So your opening premise of hotels having a half life was faulty. OK.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Minimally, the same species can start with the same boards. Culture/language acquisition leads to differential board development. Reality is never absolute but agreement is common.

And that is because you, as GOD, have decreed it to be so?

Or is this just another of your guesses pretending to be divine revelation?

0 Replies

@fresco,

I suspect you are right. But it is kind of strange, because he has already admitted that there is no factual basis for these absolutes.
That means he is assuming them.
But he seems unaware of that, and insists on them on the basis that 'it cannot be any other way', because our language dictates it (the semantic farce about 'whatever is... that is what is').
Generally I tend to think of assumptions people mistake for facts as beliefs, but Frank doesn't do those, so it has to be something else.

2 Replies

It seams to me the natural conclusion a rational Fresco (if there was one) would take from his own premisses is that they claim nothing and aim at nothing, unless of course he takes them as real premisses within "languaging". But then, his point is absolutely and precisely against any real-"ness" and "isness" in whatever medium one chooses to invoke...

...one can't help but smile at the paradox... Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Perhaps. But what if there are many perceivers negotiating between them and working together to form the most accurate perceptions? It could be argued that this is what we are doing.

Then we are nothing more than a group of blind men attempting to describe an elephant. The elephant still exists no matter how much we fumble around trying to describe it.

0 Replies

More, I wonder if Fresco, according to his own credo, also believes he can erase his specific perception at point X in time on what he had today for lunch ? Are those perceptions real perceptions that the subject Fresco had on his own lunch ? Or are they in the least subject to be erased by future social agreement ? Laughing

...you see the strong point is that while Fresco can try to tackle and counter the Cartesian "I" in the "I think therefore I am", (which could be further developed to an I experience therefore I am) he cannot tackle and counter the "isness" of the perceptions themselves...

...I don't even need to go out of the experiencing itself, subjective or not, to still be able to make an argument for objectivity...and this is precisely why my take against his position is the strongest in the room !

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I suspect you are right. But it is kind of strange, because he has already admitted that there is no factual basis for these absolutes.
That means he is assuming them.
But he seems unaware of that, and insists on them on the basis that 'it cannot be any other way', because our language dictates it (the semantic farce about 'whatever is... that is what is').
Generally I tend to think of assumptions people mistake for facts as beliefs, but Frank doesn't do those, so it has to be something else.

Stop with the pretend naivete, Cyracuz.

The absolute that I have been talking about all along is...that whatever IS....IS.

And that is the case no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig you are trying to sell.

Whatever REALITY IS...that is what it IS.

And all the word games you and Fresco are playing do not amount to a hill of beans.

But continue to take the position that you are right despite the obvious. Oliver Hardy was one of my favorites!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

By the way, Cyracuz...there is no "belief" in there no matter how hard you try to make it seem there is. Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

More, I wonder if Fresco, according to his own credo, also believes he can erase his specific perception at point X in time on what he had today for lunch ? Are those perceptions real perceptions that the subject Fresco had on his own lunch ? Or are they in the least subject to be erased by future social agreement ?

...you see the strong point is that while Fresco can try to tackle and counter the Cartesian "I" in the "I think therefore I am", (which could be further developed to an I experience therefore I am) he cannot tackle and counter the "isness" of the perceptions themselves...

...I don't even need to go out of the experiencing itself, subjective or not, to still be able to make an argument for objectivity...and this is precisely why my take against his position is the strongest in the room !

From where does it follow that subjective experiences, the experiencing, is not an objective fact only because we (the society) lack knowledge about those subjective experiences ? Objective facts don't require (true) knowledge !!!

0 Replies

@parados,

Those hotels are constantly being refurbished.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Are you man enough to honestly and decently tackle n counter my argument against your position ? Or are you suffering from poor eye sight or selective vision ? Laughing

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Those hotels are constantly being refurbished.

You haven't spent much time playing Monopoly if you think that.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

A significant understated issue here is that we are stuck with language to argue about language. That is why some philosophers (notably Heidegger and Derrida) have resorted to neologisms whilst others (notably Maturana) have deflated language to "languaging". A third aspect is of course a move towards esotericism or meditative practices which attempt to transcend language in the domain of "the ineffable". (Interestingly, Varela, a co-worker of Maturana tried to combine aspects 2 and 3).

One thing seems obvious however and that is the problematic status of the English verb "to be". Even on a strictly linguistic basis it is significant that other languages (Spanish for example) have different verbs for different connotations of "to be". And when we look at philosophy the distinction between "being" and "beings", together with much discussion about"predication" have been sources of fragmentation into distinct schools of thought. Thus, all statements involving the word "is" become targets for potential deconstruction and disagreement especially if the user is unable to justify its usage.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Yes the distinction between ser (etre, being) and facere (build)...we have the right distinction indeed.

1 Reply

@parados,

Monopoly is a discursive analogy which may help with the understanding of the concept of state transitions in perception and cognition. (The details of the particular game are not significant).

Analogies operate as useful introductions to more technical renderings. In this case the references are to Piaget's "Genetic Epistemology" (in psychology and philosophy) and Von Foerster's "Second Order Cybernetics" (in systems theory). Both of these, together with some approaches to linguistics can involve partial usage of mathematical formalisms such as "finite state machine theory"

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I was thinking of ser and estar.( Facere not relevant to this point)

This looks fun:
http://theseriousandthefrivolous.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-verb-to-be-in-different-languages.html

1 Reply

@fresco,

You mean "dasein" "ser ai"(being there) = "estar" être ...but I referred to your account on facts "facere" (to build).

My order:

Being>Being there>to build
Isness>Dasein>Function

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Olivier adequately answered your silliness about "the established order." As for America, as it happens, i live in Canada. I'm not really enthralled by the Canadian regime, but that just points ot the arrogance, the hubris and the "out-of-touch" nature of governments in the industrial democracies. Much like academic philosophers and their toadies.

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know