The Half-life of Facts.

@Jack of Hearts,

Huh . . . i had never thought about that. Fresco must be a resurrection man.

0 Replies

@Jack of Hearts,

Not at this point in the history of medical technology. I have already excluded it pages back.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Watch my lips !... ....I am saying that the word reality is NOT USED in potentially non-controversial contexts....and that MEANING IS USE. Any other consideration of the meaning of the word "reality" is vacuous because of the INFINITE NUMBER OF STATEMENTS we might make about "what is the case".

Fresco, that is technoblather...and nonsense.

There is nothing vacuous about the use of the word "reality" the way I used it...even if this closely held tenet of yours is correct.

It conveys an idea.

I do not know what is going on with you or anyone else out there (I can make guesses)...but I know something is happening here...with me. I exist...and I exist and function in what you might conceive of as the "naive realist's" reality.

But one thing is certain...I (this thing operating the thing doing the typing)...is here sensing, experiencing and supposing.

Whatever that REALITY happens to be...whatever IS...simply IS. And please, do not go into that counter-intuitive stuff at this point, because I am a golfer...and every golfer understands and appreciates the implications of counter-intuitive manifestation. The mechanics of the game are about as counter-intuitive as can be.

By the way, I can use the word "reality" in a potentially non-controversial context. "The word reality is spelled r e a l i t y." “In the A2K forum, Fresco and I have a disagreement about the use of the word reality.”

If in fact, you are of the opinion that my comments and observations are not welcome because I am not smart enough to deal with what you are suggesting here…I might respectfully call to your attention that the regulars at A2K probably number less than 30…half that in the more contentious areas of discussion…and perhaps you ought to take your discussions to a place where there are fewer people like me (and the majority here)…one of the philosophy forums.

Personally I think you are not actually discussing philosophy…or you would be much more welcoming of “lay” perspectives. You seem more interested in discussing what “philosophers” have to say about it…and that should more properly be done in a philosophy forum. Here, you have to contend with us morons.

So specific to your environmental hypothetical, I ask again: Are you saying that there CANNOT BE A REALITY on what actually is contributing to the processes...independent of any negotiations or positions of negotiation?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You didn't watch my lips Frank. Tough !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You didn't watch my lips Frank. Tough !

Apparently you have not been watching mine!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I've been watching yours say the same thing for ten years !

Remember ( Wink

) that Newton's highly successful paradigm was based on the assumption of the existence of an observer independent reference frame in which "time" was an absolute. Einstein overthrew that one, and put Newton's system and the meaning of "time "in its place, as a local one "which worked for everyday purposes". I am no more an Einstein than you are a Newton but the story is significant at several levels with respect to the issues on this thread.

Quite frankly, I get a bit fed up with being one of the few here who attempt to illustrate their points with a bit of creative analogy, especially when responses to my efforts tend to be met by hecklers without an original thought in their heads. As one of my colleagues once quipped "Presentation can be like casting pearls before swine. The pearls are sometimes artificial, but the swine are always real".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I've been watching yours say the same thing for ten years !

Remember ( ) that Newton's highly successful paradigm was based on the assumption of the existence of an observer independent reference frame in which "time" was an absolute. Einstein overthrew that one, and put Newton's system and the meaning of "time "in its place, as a local one "which worked for everyday purposes". I am no more an Einstein than you are a Newton but the story is significant at several levels with respect to the issues on this thread.

Quite Frankly, I get a bit fed up with being one of the few here who attempt to illustrate their points with a bit of creative analogy, especially when responses to my efforts tend to be met by hecklers without an original thought in their heads. As one of my colleagues once quipped "Presentation can be like casting pearls before swine. The pearls are sometimes artificial, but the swine are always real".

You will have to take the former up with someone who does not present any original thoughts rather than with me...

...and the latter with any swine who happen to be bothering you rather than with me.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

By the way...for the philosophy part of your participation here, you really are at the wrong forum.

Try this one:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

If you want to talk about an urge to screw a Volkswagen...this is the right place.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

So lets get this straight. You are asserting that my reference to the widely held view that "biological paradigms" cannot be cited to support "cognitive paradigms" is sham philosophy ?

In the interest of being concrete, let me focus on your sham philosophy. First you invoked our common (biological!) physiology as one reason we (cognitively!) agree on things. When I pointed out that our common physiology was shaped by evolution, a reality independent of our consciousness, you chided me for using biological paradigms to explain cognition. In other words, you are the one who first cited a biological paradigm to support your cognitive paradigm. My response consistently remained within the biological paradigm. And when this didn't work out for you, you accused me of mixing paradigms. That is sham philosophy.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Now you should know that I wouldn't put you in the "swine category" despite the lack of originality. I was talking in general terms.

Thanks for that link. Hmmmmm. Maybe I should leave some of you guys to your word salad, but that would be deserting some of the more enlightened members. I'll give it some thought.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Now you should know that I wouldn't put you in the "swine category"...

I would certainly hope not! Wink

Quote:

...despite the lack of originality.

A friend of mine once said of me, “You do things to make things right the way no one else can.”

She was correct. I’ve always had a knack for doing that…and for changing subjects (particularly contentious subjects) in segues that would amaze a sorcerer.

I dare to suppose that is a display of “originality” in me.

Quote:

Thanks for that link. Hmmmmm.

It is a very good site.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Is it worth spelling it out to "a proud reductionist"? Probably not, but here goes anyway.

1. Physiology appears to be necessary for cognition but cannot account for it.
2. Insofar as we appear to have similar cognitive processes we can point to common physiology as a partial explanation of that. For example we have similar species specific limits to operative range of our sense organs which operate at the boundaries of perception. And we have similar vocal apparatus which appears to be a requirement for the acquisition of complex human language.
3. Hardware specifications may account for sub-cognate interactions with "the world" as in other species. These interactions may be consider automatic or non-controversial resulting in perhaps in the label of common qualia per species, but such qualia may or may not become the focus for higher level cognitive processes (software) and indeed may be "suppressed" according to higher level needs. (Green and Swets reference)
4. So the other aspect which partially accounts for our agreements as to "what is the case" is at the level of common cognitive needs expressed through a common language for which the dynamics of social forces rather than physiological functions are significant. (I am fond of stating that the "reality of God" is never discussed in the common language of believers. It is non-controversial)

So I have not "mixed paradigms". I have clearly separated them in terms of necessity and sufficiency. And I do not intend my hardware/software analogy to be taken too literally as this might imply an unjustifiable computer-esque interpretation of cognition which has failed in AI

3 Replies

@Thomas,

As an afterthought it occurs to me that you may be citing "evolution" as mechanism for the transmission of social dynamics. For example an "altruism gene" has been suggested to account for some aspects of social behavior. The significant issue here is whether behavior genetics is extendable to all of what we call "cognition". With the demise of "behaviorism" (late 50's) in the shadow of "cognitive science" that route seems impassable.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Sez you !

Just negotiating my reality, man.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Is it worth spelling it out to "a proud reductionist"? Probably not

Definitely not, considering your own spelling abilities demonstrated in this thread.

fresco wrote:

Insofar as we appear to have similar cognitive processes we can point to common physiology as a partial explanation of that.

Insofar as we cannot cite biological paradigms to establish cognitive ones, you cannot point to physiology at all. If it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply, not even partially. And yet you applied it.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Posture on by all means.

I was even going to offer you the possible compromise of an alternative biological paradigm in which "cognition" equates to "the general life process", but I can see you are not up to it.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I don't see why anyone would offer a realist a compromise about reality. To a realist, reality is what it is, no matter what we compromise to believe about it. Why would you even expect me to bother? Of course I'm not up for it!

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

4. So the other aspect which partially accounts for our agreements as to "what is the case" is at the level of common cognitive needs expressed through a common language for which the dynamics of social forces rather than physiological functions are significant. (I am fond of stating that the "reality of God" is never discussed in the common language of believers. It is non-controversial)

An important factor explaining why human beings succeed in 'negotiating what is the case' in at least SOME cases, is that they first and foremost agree that there IS an objective reality on which to agree. This hypothesis is necessary for the negotiation to work. It forces the deliberants to seek evidence backing one theory or another within that COMMON, OBJECTIVE REALITY they agree must exist.

The reason you cannot negotiate anything with, say, modern US Republicans is precisely that they are post-modern constructivists: they actively suppress evidence of global warming or ignore the effect of a government shutdown on the economy because they believe in an ideology that includes a very post-modern focus on spin, alternative perceptions and propaganda at the expense of facts and science. "Scientists just want more GW funding", they say. I mean, ideologues have always denied reality but even the Communists respected science, by and large. Our contemporary paid-for GW deniers and"think tank" operatives deconstruct scientific discourse with glee, abusing of how nothing is ever certain in science to justify doing nothing... We live in the age of negotiated reality on crack. But it's a fake negotiation, a con-job.

What you say about the way we negotiate consensus is true of course, and has always been true. But the only reason it works is because we agree as a start that reality exists objectively. No jury of hard-core constructivists could ever arrive at a verdict.

0 Replies

So far, I have not read anything to dissuade me that we simply use the words "reality" and "fact" for what dynamically works for us, and as we change, our world changes and what works changes. We may be tempted to assume (like Newton) that there is some sort of independent fixed reference frame called "reality" but that is all it is...an assumption.

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

We may be tempted to assume (like Newton) that there is some sort of independent fixed reference frame called "reality" but that is all it is...an assumption.

You are trying to dazzle people with jargon that some of them understand and you don't. Newton did not assume that there is a fixed reference frame. He assumed there is no fixed reference frame, that all inertial frames of reference are equal.

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know