9
   

are you happy in false realitly?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2014 11:05 am
@JLNobody,
Agreed. Kant did not dismiss noumena, only our access. The dismissal seems to have gone in stages via the phenomenologists ...Husserl who "bracketed" it, ...and Merleau-Ponty (Phénoménologie de la perception 1945) who rejected it. According to the pragmatist Rorty, Heidegger and Wittgenstein separately threw linguistic spanners (die Kehre) into any claim by philosophers for epistemological or ontological authority largely leaving the field open to cognitive psychology.

NB. Merleau-Ponty's work formed one basis for embodiment theorists such as (the Buddhists) Fransisco Varela and Eleanor Rosch. Simplistically they argue that human ideas of "reality" are a function of the human body. Rosch has experimentally investigated aspects of Wittgenstein's "categories" along these lines.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2014 12:55 pm
@fresco,
Wow Fres, thanks, it's not everyday….

http://onelook.com/?w=noumena&ls=a
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2014 01:10 pm
@fresco,
I do agree with you that the "human" characteristic is limited to the human body's functions.

Though, I don't believe it's "limited", in the sense that it emerged from the human body - instead, I say the Universe is subconsciously "human". Love can be found in animals. Even the tarantula can love you.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 12:13 am
@dalehileman,
noumenon (singular) = Ding-an-Sich = "Thing in Itself".

The later phenomenological point (Nietzche/Heidegger/Merleau-Ponty/ Kuhn/ Maturana) is that "thinging" or segmentation of experience into "events" or "objects" is a human activity involving socially transmitted language which co-ordinates mutual interactions with respect to human needs.
Thus "things" have no independent existence. Like the ancient "humors of the body", or "phlogiston" they may come and go as epistemological paradigms evolve. The phrase "human needs" implies a species specific "universe" evoked by a common physiology and perceptual apparatus.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 05:14 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

noumenon (singular) = Ding-an-Sich = "Thing in Itself".

The later phenomenological point (Nietzche/Heidegger/Merleau-Ponty/ Kuhn/ Maturana) is that "thinging" or segmentation of experience into "events" or "objects" is a human activity involving socially transmitted language which co-ordinates mutual interactions with respect to human needs.
Thus "things" have no independent existence. Like the ancient "humors of the body", or "phlogiston" they may come and go as epistemological paradigms evolve. The phrase "human needs" implies a species specific "universe" evoked by a common physiology and perceptual apparatus.


You and Nietzche, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Kuhn, Maturana...KNOW THIS HOW????

Or are you all guessing that it is so...because your particular belief system requires it of you?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 06:18 am
Frank's platitude is the vacuous knee-jerk response of a naive realist who indicates, as always, that he does not understand that his simplistic usage of the words "know" and "is" have already been semantically delimited by the covert assumptions of his own "belief system".

The aforementioned embodiment theorists (at Berkeley) have experimentally pushed forward our understanding of the process of "cognition" following the spectacular failure of "realist"(informational) IT modelling.

Such recent "advances in understanding" are part of the process of epistemological evolution which Kuhn called " scientific revolutions".

In general, epistemology is about our human preoccupation with prediction and control. It is a dynamic area, subject to shifting, and completely antithetical to a facile desire for "certainty" or absolute static "is-ness".
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 06:36 am
That is Fresco's way of saying, "I do not know, I am just guessing and so are all the others, but I do not want to actually say that, because it would injure my fragile ego."

Yup...Fresco using lots of words to say almost nothing.

Fresco, for the most part, does not post to inform...or to share opinions. He posts comments intended to show what a genius he is by using arcane wording and complicated phraseology.

He ought really to reflect on what Einstein said: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."


0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 06:56 am

Quote:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Einstein

Quote:
Every experiment destroys some of the knowledge of the system which was obtained by previous experiments.
Heisenberg

Quote:
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Feynman

Quote:
Everything that can happen, does happen
Cox
timur
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 07:28 am
F.Apisa wrote:
using arcane wording and complicated phraseology.


Admitting you know nothing about language while being an anti-intellectual, are you?

carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 08:03 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Why are all the crazies picking on Einstein? This has been quite a fad of late.


Did you notice that the only "genius" who's face is always used in movies, magazines, books of all kind is Einstein?

Did you notice that his good for nothing theories are the ones mentioned very often for any reason in the news of all kind?

Why these people "push too hard" the spreading of this past century "fade"?

The reason for this propaganda is very simple.

The dude Einstein and his theories are just crap to the square and all the propaganda is a "cover up" to prevent the ridiculous.

By brainwashing people showing Einstein as a genius and his theories as valid when confronted against physical reality, this propaganda is covering shame, because scientists by lots, politicians, the entire media, even the Queen of England were tricked by the fraudulent but famous theory of Relativity and his inventor.

In case you don't know much about physics but you believe that this dude Einstein was a genius (a dude catalogued as have been retarded, autistic or as having ADD) and his theories as validated, well, you are just another victim of this immense campaign of cover up.

I just remind people to be aware and review Relativity to show how invalid it becomes when confronted to physical reality.

Going back to topic.

I must add that some posters here are correct with respect to illusions and what is going on in "reality" when a phenomenon happens and the event might be seen in certain way that guide us to interpret it erroneously.

Another point to be considered is the difference between "physical reality" and other "realities". Physical reality is what is we perceive with our senses. When we can't perceive it by any means, whatever we think that exists it becomes a hypothesis.

The problem for many, is as well to live happy when confusing hypothesis as physical reality.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 08:41 am
carloslebaron wrote:
Physical reality is what is we perceive with our senses.

The Gamma waves of your brain have no physical reality to me..
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 09:15 am
@timur,
"Physical reality" tends to imply what appear to be persistent or repetitive states of affairs which involve the five senses directly, or indirectly via transducers (such as radio wave detectors). Pragmatically, we tend to think of such states as observer independent, but the categorization of "statehood" ( such as "the color green", or "the hardness of rock") is obviously dependent on a hypothetical standard observer whether present or not. Such observer dependent states should not be confused with the realists' word "properties" which implies that there exist "objects " possessing them. Those who actually contemplate the issue might conclude, as others already have, that "properties" amount to statements of our expectations about our interactive relationships with aspects of "our world".

It is the abstract persistence of words like "rock", which tends pragmatically to be interpreted as the concrete persistence of "a thing". But in essence, all is in flux including us, and the molecules of "the rock". What actually persists is our confidence in "the rock" as part of a state of affairs in which "a rock" can be potentially utilized (as a hammer, a weight, a missile etc). (Reference: Heidegger Zuhandenheit " Ready to Hand"). Thus "being" always implies the process of dynamic inter-activeness NOT static "is-ness".
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 11:50 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

F.Apisa wrote:
using arcane wording and complicated phraseology.


Admitting you know nothing about language while being an anti-intellectual, are you?





Why are you supposing I know nothing about language, Timur. I certainly know enough to have had an op ed sized piece published in the New York Times...and a full page MyTurn in Newsweek Magazine. And op ed pieces in newspapers throughout the country.

Fact is, I am proficient in English...and manage to get people like you all riled up whenever I want.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 11:52 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:


Quote:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Einstein

Quote:
Every experiment destroys some of the knowledge of the system which was obtained by previous experiments.
Heisenberg

Quote:
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Feynman

Quote:
Everything that can happen, does happen
Cox


You get your jollies posting almost incomprehensible gibberish in A2K, Fresco. And you pretend that your guesses about REALITY are spot on.

Frankly, your pretentiousness is funny as a cartoon.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 11:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
Sure..

In your dreams..
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 12:03 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:

Sure..

In your dreams..


Nope. No dreams involved, Timur.

Your assertion that I know nothing about language is an absurdity on its face. But you are asserting it mostly because you are frustrated by that fact that I own you.

Hey...no problem. You'll come to grips with it eventually. You will be right here for me whenever I want you...and won't be able to do anything about it. Wink
timur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 01:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Boasting again, Frank?

http://i62.tinypic.com/2czspl0.jpg

You know, after a while, especially when senility begins downing on you, the mind loses its elasticity and you begin repeating those old saws.

You are there, Frank..
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 01:23 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:

Boasting again, Frank?

http://i62.tinypic.com/2czspl0.jpg

You know, after a while, especially when senility begins downing on you, the mind loses its elasticity and you begin repeating those old saws.

You are there, Frank..


No boasting or bragging. I own a beat up old car also...but telling you that I do is not boasting or bragging.

You will be here for me when I want you, Timur.

Live with that.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 01:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
No, Frank, it's the other way around.

You cannot help trying to have the last word..

You are too predictable.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2014 01:44 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:

No, Frank, it's the other way around.


Nope...it is exactly the way I said it was, Timur.

Quote:
You cannot help trying to have the last word..


You decided to come into a discussion and disagree (unpleasantly) with something I said.

I am rebutting your attack.

I am not trying to have the last word...I can guarantee that I WILL have the last word under those circumstances.

And you will be here to take a battering before the end comes.

For that, I thank you.


Quote:
You are too predictable.


Okay...so you should stop jutting your chin out, Timur.

But...you also are predictable...and the chin will continue to be stuck out.

I love ya for doing so.

I look forward to our discussions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
The 10 Most Destructive Americans - Discussion by coldjoint
Deportation Bus - Discussion by gungasnake
The reality of time - Question by dalehileman
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 02:03:24