The control of one subatomic particle

Oh, I almost forgot, please no name-dropping here, if you appropriated baloneys from other supposedly thinkers, just mention that you adopted the thinking of others as your very own, that is enough: then expound on your adopted thinking taken from other thinkers.

No need to mention particular names, and no need to bring in internet links, and no need to present bibliographical data of your source thinkers; we don't care to know who they are, except just their thinking which you have adopted as you very own - because you can't think for yourselves.

As you can imagine I don't agree with all the points Chomsky has made. But at least he tries to be coherent in whatever world view he brings up. I wish I could have the same thing with some debaters when they present povs that contradict themselves. You see my problem with you is not about we disagreeing but rather you constant bypassing the limits of your own pov when confronted by different frames of reference. You rarely try to step down of your "professorate" podium and have an open honest chat with your critics.
Moreover, most people agree there is a subjective problem when it comes to interpret relate with the external world but you go a step further and deny all grounds to the extent of your own pov disintegrating from inside.

A typical response from somebody who has read nothing!

The mission statement here on A2k is to attempt to offer 'expert opinion', and any college graduate will tell you that references to the literature are mandatory in that respect. My own choice of supportive references is in accordance with with own considered views developed over many years of teaching, experimental research and study. Ontology and epistemology (which in case you don't know, are the technical terms concerning discussion of the nature of 'existence' and 'knowledge') require a level of intellectual engagement beyond the 'common sense' opinionated level at which you appear to be stuck. If you want cosy uniformed layman's chatter I suggest you try the local bar rather than this forum.

I recommend you read Maturana against the backcloth of Godels incompleteness theorem. It may be that 'we' simply cannot have a totally coherent system which accounts for our modus vivendi. Your demand for 'closure' may be no more than the manifestation of the same human urge which invents a 'God' to fill the epistemological gaps.

Dear Fresco, you are not obligated to engage in name-dropping, by a2k.



My response: Transeat,* neither here nor there.

Well, I tell you Fresco, you are into massive evasiveness, with your Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

When you have got nothing except what you appropriated i.e. adopted as to be your own personally thought out ideas, then it is enough that you just state that you read and take as your very own the ideas of others.

Your name-dropping is intended to frighten readers into taking up the reverential fear for authorities, simple folks do not have the correct attitude to examine ideas on their merits [the ideas'], the intrinsic worth of the ideas, but they are conditioned in society to accept with reverence the thinking of published thinkers or even celebrities in the entertaiment media, even though these celebrities are vacuous when it come to thinking.

I fear that you are also deeply into what I call reverential subservience to pseudo thinkers but celebrities in term of being published.

As also with entertainment celebrities for being in transit the household names that ordinary folks take to follow, even in regard to the latest fashion, like for example, by way of exaggeration, even if it makes people look silly, as to wear pants with the hind parts cut off, to expose their buttocks.

Okay, dear Fresco, let us all here read your concept of what is existence in less than 30 words.

*Cf. transeat - Wiktionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transeat
Italian[edit]. Etymology[edit]. Latin. Interjection[edit]. transeat. so be it. Synonyms[edit]. sia pure. Latin[edit]. Verb[edit]. trānseat. third-person singular present ...

Okay, I will repeat the gist of what I have said above in the simplest terms possible given your apparent intellectual limitations.

'Existence' is a word which we apply to useful concepts in particular social contexts. Since 'utility' is sometimes negotiable, so is 'existence' (22 words).

Dear Fresco, you say:


_______________________________


And here is my concept of existence which is represented by the word existence:


_______________________________


Now, we both use the same material word existence in regard to the concept represented by the word existence.

You know, for you the word existence does not represent the concept of existence, but the concept of what is useful with the word existence, or what is the utility of the word existence.

Take notice of the words: usefulness and utility in your definition of the word existence:

'Existence' is a word which we apply to useful concepts in particular social contexts. Since 'utility' is sometimes negotiable, so is 'existence'
_______________________________

Now, notice the words from me of what concept the word existence represents, focus on the words in bold, italic, and underscored below:

"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc."
_______________________________

Your word existence does not represent what is reality.

My word existence represents what is reality.

Anyway, dear Fresco, a good definition is made more exact and thus more clear by examples of what the word defined covers in its embrace.

Please give examples of what your definition of the word existence covers.

Unfortunately you are either too ignorant or too lazy, or both, to understand that the words 'know' and 'reality' are problematic. That is why you will find shelves of books devoted to epistemology and ontology if you ever visit a college library. Your idea of 'clear definition' is therefore beyond further comment.

But feel free to try to hook another lonely waffler like yourself. There are still one or two on the forum who can't get down to the bar.

Well, dear Fresco, you are now into alleging that something problematic is – I see it very clearly in you, beyond your intelligence, but it is not beyond my understanding.

Don’t go away, let us talk about why ‘know’ and ‘reality’ are problematic for you, for me it is not: don’t leave, let us exchange thinking on ‘know’ and ‘reality’, so that the problematic factor with you will be cleared up.



Dear readers here, Fresco is now leaving this thread: but we are still awaiting with bated breath for him to present examples of usefulness and utility of the word existence, as defined by him.

Well, at least he can nurse his self-respect with hurling the last word of his bruised ego, then vamoose he goes away.

Dear Fresco, adieu, and I was hoping that I could learn from you, because I had the assumption that at least by talking with you further my ideas should get more clear and certain, when compared to your problematic thinking method.

Now I feel that you have taken to flight.

Perhaps we can meet again some day, I am always available to exchange ideas with you.

...be careful he partially has a point that you may be missing.
His problem is to bypass X altogether...
I assume X bunt won't be dumb enough to dare to describe it. I am aware of the epistemic limits.

Funny that he brought up Godel's Incompleteness. I probably was the A2K'er poster who most often brought that up...
...yes we need some axioms and no system is perfectly justified...reason why I stick with the minimum possible denominator, X.

Dear Albuquerque, I really don't know what Fresco's purpose is, in a web forum at all.

Now, in my own case I am after learning from others who do think better than I think; the way I see Fresco, from direct exchange of thoughts with him, the man is incoherent with his ideas and words altogether.

He appears to me to be into regurgitating words from other people's thinking, with devotion to them as to authorities, and never doing any serious self thinking at all, with grounding himself on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

I notice that he puts a lot on having read this or that author already long dead, and perhaps modern ones still living but not participating in a2k: but he does not think for himself at all.

Consider his definition of the word existence, and mine, namely:


Honestly, I can't find anything coherent and consistent insofar as definition from Fresco of the word existence is concerned.

The vague idea from him in his definition of the word existence seems to be that of negotiation among parties in a conversation on the usefulness or utility of the word, in the present context, existence.

So I ask him to give examples which his definition of the word existence covers in its embrace, and he runs away, at the same time insulting me with my socalled lack of reading things in a college library.

Dear Alb, you mention something of an X from him, I like very much - since I have not dealt with him before, what is that X all about with him?

You see, dear Alb, and all readers here, first and foremost before anything else, we must parties in a conversation work as to concur on meanings of the words we are using in our exchange of thoughts; otherwise we are conducting ourselves irrationally, by in effect talking past each other's head.

That is the however sad to say the common ill practice of writers, never to present their definitions of words which are the most crucially important on an issue.

Why do people behave that way?

Simple, so that they can talk without any precision, and therefore for them talking is not to communicate, but to guard oneself from knowing what others think, and how to learn from them, and also of course see if they might see and accept also what we have to offer: so that both or all parties in a conversation benefit from the exercise of the conversation.

Tell me, what is this X, coming from Fresco?

Addressing Fresco, please come back and let us all continue with our exchange in re the control of one subatomic particle, in regard to the matter of what kind of existence is a subatomic particle into, from the experts of quantum mechanics, in most particular centering ourselves on the weirdness features of quantum mechanics.

Dear Fresco, as you seem to me to act to this pattern of behavior, namely, to run away when you see that you have to concur with me on a question, I tell you that is very unhealthy for your intellectual life.

How can you ever if at all get to know as to think better in the way of better knowledge of reality and life and our contact and control of, yes, existence, when you always run away when you see that you have to concur with other people, like for example, with me.

Dear Alb, please tell me what is this X you know about with the thinking style of Fresco.

Given the epistemic problem, (check it on youtube) think of X as an Axiom (THE axiom) on "Existence" without going into a full definition on what it entails.. In this abstract place you reduce existence to something that is but that you can't quite perfectly categorise or qualify in depth due to subjective limitations regarding your perceptual apparatus and your embodied specific intellectual relation with the world.
X is no more than the necessary logical step to aknowledge "activity" even when such activity tries to go on about the denial of activity...
Another way of talking about "X" could be put in pratical terms as X referring to information without describing the quality and content of said information.
Fresco never talked about X rather he denies X and in the act of doing it he raises back "existence", "X", from the dead. That is to mean, when you deny everything, you in the act of denying itself, immediately brought to existence in the least the very act of denial. A paradox.
Fresco for decades here in the forums avoids to deal with this paradox and indeed keeps posting the same old talk countless times. Being a long term old PHD professor one would expect more from him. But alas, politics rules the man, and he has made his carrier around is field incoherent inconsistent pov. I think is to late for him to turn around without losing his face. I empathise. He is not a bad guy just a trapped human being. Some of his advise has merit on many levels and he has read quite a good deal of useful stuff. Try to take the best of his talk in spite of the limitations on his cosmogony.

Dear Albuquerque, you are really such a patient mild thinker, but I propose that you think on this concept of what is existence from yours truly:



You see, dear Albuquerque, folks just love to talk on and on and on inside their mind, but the matter is clear when they get out from their mind and look at objective reality, and it is all from our part, namely, from our experience of objective reality - and pray, from whose part are we talking about if not from our part?

Namely:
"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc."

That is why I have said time and again, that there is the conceptival realm of things which are talked about all inside our mind.

And there is the objectival realm of things which exist outside of our mind and independent of our mind.

Paradoxes, fallacies, inanities, vacuities, stupidities, insanities... that is what the mind with us all can spin and get us all freaked out in a so labyrinthine maze-knot, that we can't figure out anything anymore as to make sense; but that is all inside our mind, that existence is all impossible to comprehend at all.

Tell you what, dear Albuquerque, when you meet people who write volumes and volumes of words, all in vague generalities inside their mind, and take you also to just keep inside your mind, DO THIS:

Insist that they present an example from outside their mind in the objectival realm of for example, the nose in our face, and also, pardon the grossness but it is all natural, semen and feces.

That will knock a ton of concrete cement into their self-stymied brain, that will bring them up to the realities outside our mind and independent of our mind.

So you think he is going to understand that lot !

...but you've not done your homework have you ?...You really need to read that article I gave you ages ago by Von Glasersfeld on Maturana's views on 'observation'.
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/archive/fulltexts/1568.html
..in particular read the justification for Maturana's circularity, together with his plea for 'emotionality' rather than 'rationality' with respect to his 'closed system' approach. But you will have to suspend your 'paradox fixation' if you are to appreciste it!

Dear readers here, no self-respecting thinker will resort to name-dropping - unless he can't think up something at all that he can explain properly, so as to, good for him, abandon his erstwhile quick-sand pedestal of Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

Otherwise, just keep to the college library and worship your baloney authorities.

I am referring to Fresco.

We unlike you, we will experience objective reality that is outside and independent of your college library, from which you continue to draw rancid stale data to occupy otherwise precious space in your brain: but to no advancement of genuine linkage with objective reality outside and independent of your mind, what I call the objectival realm of things.

When you read, also and critically probe what you read, by screening it on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Tell you what, dear Fresco and atheists here, I have said it already in the thread, Where are you God?

First and foremost, we must work to concur on pre-requisites, then proceed to the ascertainment of resolving an issue.



Okay, let you know that you are into inanity, vacuity, irrationality, stupidity, insanity: when you do not concur on pre-requisites, but head-long fanatically repeat your spins which you arrive at all inside your conceptival realm inside your mind.

Now, again, let us establish the pre-requisite of a mutually concurred on concept of what is existence.

Back to square one.

Here is again my proposal of the concept of existence:



And when you present your concept of what is existence, do not neglect to accompany your definition with examples, otherwise you really do not know what you are talking about - which is equivalent to talking nonsense.

...tell the bee that the flower is not a pot of food...
...my "God"? I like a Spartan minimalistic Pantheism...yeah just a hunch to give the word some social use.

To Fresco and Wittgenstein:

Meaning is not just use, Meaning is NECESSARY use!

...the point where we might have a humble attempt against Wittgenstein Language problem should go about the geometry not of the word but the geometry of a body of words, to its full extenct, the whole of History. Take for instance words as a point, a mathematical point, ad coordinates to them, directions, and no matter what the words signs try to stand for, its the geometry of the body of words as a whole that can be look upon as TRUTH. One might just as well state that the best Ontology possible is accepting Phenomenology as the frozen fact of BEING.

..in confidence to you Fresco the point Wittgenstein made I thought about it around my early twenties through my own private lingo...I use to say to my friends when talking about the Philosophy or the corpus of Law (as in law school studies) that each law alone was of no importance without the whole Geometry of the order and sequence of laws. The very context, geometry, not of the individual legislation but the holistic relation of them all with each other made the thing valid or invalid practical or impractical.

...later on I tryed to transcend this pov by aknowledging that the whole geometry, phenomenology itself including language is itself a defacto Ontology of what REAL is in BEING. I grabbed the Wittgesteinien elasticity/plasticity on language and throw Parmenides at it for glue!

BEING with the power set of all possible combinations of meaning is the Bayesian spacetime of TRUTH! (Frozen)