Don't be so sensitive, Frank.
I didn't say YOU were vacuous, I said the very notion of Reality--since it includes EVERYTHING (an absolute plentitude) and NOTHING in particular--is conceptually vacuous.
You feel a compulsion to be snotty even when others are agreeing with you? Hmm.
Also, Frank, you said it is "obvious" that I am guessing. Are you saying that you are not guessing about my guessing?
Gasp, you're deep.
We shouldn't be so silly in the context of Cyracuz' very intelligent and serious comments.
I'm interested to see you concur with "reality" as "consensus".
Cyracuz's remarks on on the Hindu concept of "illusion" can surely be compared with Einstein's own words "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Although Einstein does not seem to have had an esoteric concept of unity of observer and observed, he certainly did stress the relativity of observations to their observers which seems but a short step from their inseparability.
Also,we need to wary of phrases like "making sense" with this sort of material.
To repeat a quote from the theologian/physicist Polkinghorne:"
"Do not make common sense the measure of everything but be prepared to recognise aspects of reality in those modes that are intrinsic to their natures, however strange these modes may at first sight seem to be'. There is not one single, simple way in which we can know everything; there is no universal epistemology.
Frank, you have a way of stating the obvious so mercilessly.
Actually, Frank's sweet.
And he IS compulsive to the extent that he is very predictable.Quote:
Multiple choice response:
a) Bite me.
b) Aren't we all here?
c) All of the above.
Quote:Good night, all.
It is 4:00 am. Just woke up. Can't say good night back.
I use the word "interested" both as a peace gesture and as a preamble to an invitation to comment on the relationship between "reality" and "truth".
Polkinghorne's "knowledge" is experiential. He did his Ph.D under Dirac ( a major contributor to QM) The QM position on "locality" is in terms of probability functions. Despite Einstein's chagrin, this is the only "successful" account of the experimental data for the wave properties of matter. Large objects have a probability close to "1" of "being where we think they are" but this is not the case for subatomic objects. Hence the oblique reference to "fuzzy sets"......and non-locality goes even further in that it undermines the very idea of "where" itself .
Philosophically, the circular question "how do we know what knowledge is" requires an examination of all contexts in which "know" is used. "Experience" is one such context.
That is, at most, an interesting grammatical or linguistic or even sociological question, but it bears little philosophic weight.
In the same way as water bears little importance in the physical act of swimming. Yet, without water, and without the knowledge of how it behaves, it would be impossible to swim.
True, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
If "truth" reflects "reality" and "reality" is a function of "consensus"
then presumably "truth" reflects consensus. ?
My philosophical position on "knowledge" as stated above is straight Wittgenstein. My conclusion from such an analysis of language games involving the word "knowledge" is that they share the features of "prediction" and "control". Polkinghorne is therefore saying that "knowing" at the micro-level involves "probabilistic prediction" with the suspension of normal logical rules. This to me seems to be a sufficient claim for the non-universality of epistemological modes, unless I myself press for a universal move to non-binary logic with "certainty" as a probabilistic asymptote.
You have exposed my devil's advocate position of attempting to lead Joe to the conclusion that any "universal epistemology" must indeed encompass non-dualism.
any "universal epistemology" must indeed encompass non-dualism.
(We are all having trouble connecting. I am tending to write my comments in Word and paste them quickly when there is a gap in the traffic)
The specific non-duality to which JLN and I refer is the inseperability of observer and observed. This is in some ways an extension of Descarte's mind-body duality, where the body is considered an "object".
Since "objects" normally have "spatial location" as one of their "properties". the deconstuction of "locality" is significant as a step towards the deconstruction of "objectivity" itself. For what are "properties" other than "expected relationships between observer and observed...hardness, taste, colour, location etc all are based on potential interaction....without "the actor" AND the "acted upon" NO REALITY. Such a conjunction implies that "existence" is the sum of such interrelationships and that "things" do not "exist" outside "relationship".