The Problem of Self

With a huge grin on his face he bows back...ever so happy that his little attempt at humor was accepted as such!

Joe.

My lack of satisfaction has its academic origins in Quantum Physics and Philosophy of Language and is fuelled by frustration at the continued proliferation of perrnicious religious belief systems.

You are already aware of my scepticism of the utility of applying "normal logic" in these areas based to some extent on my reading of genetic epistemology.

I'm sorry but I dont think your other Q/A's are significant from this position.

The old adage "What do they know of England who only of England know ?" might make my comments on "the box" self explanatory. (I would cite Wittgensteins rejection of his own Tractatus on conventional logic in support of my own claim that I am not wishing to be condescending to you)

Later edit:
Sorry I did mean to reply to your first Q.
"Time as a Psychological Construct" is an accepted concept in quantum physics.

BTW, Joe, would you not say thats prediction "turns out" to be knowledge when it is affirmed by experience?

Prediction is one way of determining knowledge.

There is no question of whether a hypothesis is knowledge BEFORE it is affirmed (or not falsified). Knowledge is a state of mind more than it is a condition of the world which we mind.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Deluding myself about what?

Reality.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In fact, why don't you ask it of me?

OK Frank, how do you know if you're not suffering from a delusion?

Frank: Your post made me laugh out loud, especially at this point:

Quote:

With a huge grin on his face he bows back...ever so happy that his little attempt at humor was accepted as such!

I'm glad you and I are on the same wavelength. Have you checked out my "Truth: Objective or Subjective?" thread yet? I realize that a) I've probably already asked, b) You probably posted and I just don't remember, and c) that it's a topic you would find futile, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. I think we're getting somewhere we can all agree on there.

Frank, I think I know your answer to Joe's question of how you know you are not deluding yourself. You don't know. You are guessing.
To answer your question to me. I AM guessing in a way. It's a conclusion based on experience--often the experiences amount to "soft" evidence, "facts" that move me subjectively, but not "hard" enough to move a sceptic or embarrass one with a closed mind. But I do not think people can do without knowledge, whether based on hard facts (this is usually the case with relatively trivial knowledge) or soft facts. We must speculate because of tne need for meaning and the pragmatic need for a theoretical basis for practical action (cf. John Dewey). That's why you've elevated your "I don't know" to the status of divine truth.

Despite your Foucault reference which may have some communicative merit, that coffin lid is sure screwed down well !

Hummm...so you have questioned how I know 2 + 2 = 4....and how I know what name is on my birth certificate...

...and now you are asking me if I am deluding myself when I say: "I do not know the nature of REALITY.

Well...allow me to respond with an acknowledgement.

I have been deluding myself.

I thought you were a serious poster attempting to deal reasonably with the issue being discussed.

It was a delusion.

You are simply a person engaged in sophistry.

Frank,

What's a "good response" ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Hummm...so you have questioned how I know 2 + 2 = 4....and how I know what name is on my birth certificate...

...and now you are asking me if I am deluding myself when I say: "I do not know the nature of REALITY.

Well...allow me to respond with an acknowledgement.

I have been deluding myself.

I thought you were a serious poster attempting to deal reasonably with the issue being discussed.

It was a delusion.

You are simply a person engaged in sophistry.

Let me respond in a manner that I know you'll appreciate:

Cut the bullshit, Frank.

You feel free to criticize others on their lack of any basis for their claims of knowledge, yet when questioned yourself you retreat into a familiar combination of pouting and insults.

It's almost enough to make one feel sympathy for fresco and the other non-dualists.

Really, Frank, at your age I would have thought that you'd have forsaken these silly playground tactics.

You've claimed that you know your own name, yet you claim not to know the nature of reality.

Well, either you know or you don't: you can't know a thing yet not know anything.

You can't claim to know what you know if you base your claim on your bare assertion that you know.

Now, I have a suspicion that your claims of knowledge are very similar to mine, but if you refuse to allow anyone to subject those beliefs to the same kind of scrutiny that you'd direct at others' claims, then you are admitting that you have no interest in a fair dialogue.

And if that's the case, then, as with fresco, I'll simply ignore any further posts that you may submit, on the assumption that you are unwilling to enter into a reasonable discussion.

Just answer me this simple question: does understanding your conclusions require accepting your premises?

That shouldn't necessitate too much cross-box communication. If you refuse to answer, then I'll know that you have no interest in maintaining any kind of dialogue, and I can ignore any further posts from you.

Joe,

I have in essence said what I want to say in my post to "all".

blah blah blah blah etc.

Joe, you asked fresco why he was disattatisfied with traditional concepts of objective reality and he answered that it has its origins in Quantum Physics and the Philosophy of Language.

For what it's worth, I find it very interesting that Tywvel and I have a similar disatisfaction, but one with origins in the literature and practice of mystical philosophy. It seems that "objective reality" (as seen from the perspective of naive realism) is rejected from the past (ancient mystical philosophy) and from the future (Quantum Physics). This is not to ignore, however, the evidence from the Philosophy of Language and the anti-positivism seen in much of the philosophy of social science in the present.

-edited