My theoretical framework

[Piggy]

Georgia?

If you are there, quickie question -- did Pappasito's make it to Atlanta? It's a chain, I know, and not authentic Mexican (it's Tex-Mex fair) but they have great Fajitas. It's owned by a Houston family that created several different restaurants -- their seafood/cajun chain Pappadeaux has made it as far north as Cincinnati, so it's sort of like a little taste of home.

Yeah, there's 2, one in Marietta (pronounced may-retta) and another in Norcross.

But I don't go into the city unless I have to. Haven't been to either one.

I do know of one place on the north side that serves autentica sit-down Mexican. The pricey stuff. But oh, Lord! It's worth it. I actually don't even know the name, I just know it's around the block from a place I used to work out of when I was teaching test prep. Menus in Spanish, and your server might not speak English.

For cheap Tex-Mex in Atlanta and Athens, you can't beat The Taco Stand. Caliente Cab in Athens will knock your socks off, but they tend to cuisine a little south of Mexico, great lomo saltado and saltimboca.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My mouth is watering. It's snowing here. I'm heating up the car right now.

 

[AkuManiMani]

...snip...

...snip... answers just lead to even more questions.

You do recognise that is just an opinion of yours? By that I mean you aren't making an actual claim about the nature of reality are you?

I was making a factual statement about the limits of knowledge. The fact of the matter is what one can ask "why?"/"how?" ad infinitum. The only way to avoid this is to have absolute/perfect knowledge -- which is logically impossible.

 

[PixyMisa]

I was making a factual statement about the limits of knowledge. The fact of the matter is what one can ask "why?"/"how?" ad infinitum. The only way to avoid this is to have absolute/perfect knowledge -- which is logically impossible.

Why?

 

[Darat]

I was making a factual statement about the limits of knowledge. The fact of the matter is what one can ask "why?"/"how?" ad infinitum. The only way to avoid this is to have absolute/perfect knowledge -- which is logically impossible.

How do you know this as opposed to believing it?

 

[Phaedrus74]

I think she disagrees in that I (somehow) disqualify some forms of materialism.

Which is the disagreement I understand, why this is supposed to be wrong eludes me though....

 

[Phaedrus74]

Not privileged, but unavoidable. By definition, your world (phenomenologically) is your only contact with reality. Other than that, consciousness is not "a thing" in itself, everything indicates that it is instantiated by the same set of rules that are "behind" the phenomenal world (some call "what is behind" material).

This was how I understood your position.

My question to volatile was however related to his qualification that this entailed a privileged status of consciousness. Privileged in this context means (more or less) that the object/class of objects seem to be endowed with properties that appear to transcend those that are entailed by the properties of the substrate that make up this object/class of objects.

In other words what I was wondering was why the substitution of "matter" with "the unknowable" in your ontology in relation to volatile's would suddenly entail a special status for consciousness where this status does not exist under his ontological assumptions.

[Don't know exactly what your background is, but it seems that you are/were unaware that the phrase "privileged status" has some technical connotations in philosophy. (Sorry if you did know this and I missed your point)]

Yes, for the ones who have left. Still, for me, has been a formidable lesson, I'm glad I took this road. I know now a way to finish the endless semantic quibbling that arouses in most discussions.

Pretty much, yeah. As you no doubt have noticed most people (actually all people but that's another matter) take their understanding of certain terms for granted and in extention their understanding of what other people are saying. It is interesting to note the unwillingness of some to revise their initial "theories of interpretation" visavis the persons they are communicating with even though there appears to be ample reason. As such your experiment is a huge success. If you are interested in reading why this occurs I can recommend the work of Donald Davidson (I can't help it, I'm a fan) concerning Radical Interpretation.... [But he is merely one of many who have occupied themselves with this question]

Hehe, I know what you mean.. still, I believe we ALL love to think and good arguments, thats why we are here. (at least this describes me)

I know I have sorely missed conversations like this since I graduated, but the amount of semantic triangulation required isn't always conducive to meaningful discussion...

 

[AkuManiMani]

I was making a factual statement about the limits of knowledge. The fact of the matter is what one can ask "why?"/"how?" ad infinitum. The only way to avoid this is to have absolute/perfect knowledge -- which is logically impossible.

How do you know this as opposed to believing it?

In much the same way that I know 1+1=2 or that there is no "last" number. Its simple logic.

Why?

Exactly.

 

[Darat]

In much the same way that I know 1+1=2 or that there is no "last" number. Its simple logic.

...snip...

Ah right - you mean in a trivial and rather meaningless way rather than anything of significance.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In other words what I was wondering was why the substitution of "matter" with "the unknowable" in your ontology in relation to volatile's would suddenly entail a special status for consciousness where this status does not exist under his ontological assumptions.

Exactly. There is non (privileged status). I believe the misunderstanding (for him) arise by his use of the word "noumena". Once he understand what I mean by that word his counterarguments cease to have any meaning.

Pretty much, yeah. As you no doubt have noticed most people (actually all people but that's another matter) take their understanding of certain terms for granted and in extention their understanding of what other people are saying. It is interesting to note the unwillingness of some to revise their initial "theories of interpretation" visavis the persons they are communicating with even though there appears to be ample reason. As such your experiment is a huge success. If you are interested in reading why this occurs I can recommend the work of Donald Davidson (I can't help it, I'm a fan) concerning Radical Interpretation.... [But he is merely one of many who have occupied themselves with this question]

Thanks I look forward to read that!

I know I have sorely missed conversations like this since I graduated, but the amount of semantic triangulation required isn't always conducive to meaningful discussion...

And yet, there is a solution. Ok. Here is where I come from. I own a domain www.debate-it.com and I have been working in the structure of it. What I want is for people to be able to discuss ideas in a way that our use of words doesn't interfere with arguments.

As soon as it is ready, I will present it to the community.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

TO ALL (specially our materialist friends):

Why the need of having (knowing) the "final substance"? what does "knowing it" changes?

As for me, I'm happy with the results of indicators, descriptions of behavior, predictive capabilities. I don't need a "final substance" at all. In other words, (as it should be clear by now) for me, quarks are ways of description, not "things".

 

[volatile]

TO ALL (specially our materialist friends):

Why the need of having (knowing) the "final substance"? what does "knowing it" changes?

As for me, I'm happy with the results of indicators, descriptions of behavior, predictive capabilities. I don't need a "final substance" at all. In other words, (as it should be clear by now) for me, quarks are ways of description, not "things".

Even if they are essentially unknowable, to posit that they do not exist as objects in the world is a non-sequitor, principally because, as I keep saying, you can't account for inter-subjective experience otherwise, can you?

You do need a final substance (and Kant agrees), "otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."

 

[Darat]

TO ALL (specially our materialist friends):

Why the need of having (knowing) the "final substance"? what does "knowing it" changes?

As for me, I'm happy with the results of indicators, descriptions of behavior, predictive capabilities. I don't need a "final substance" at all. In other words, (as it should be clear by now) for me, quarks are ways of description, not "things".

Well I can't answer from the stance of someone who does give a stuff what the stuff actually is - indeed I don't believe that we, as human beings, even have the capability to understand whatever there may be "underneath the bonnet" (USA translation: bonnet = hood of a car), and that is even if the concept of "underneath the bonnet" is in fact a truly meaningful concept.

However saying that I do have to concede that the process of trying to look "underneath the bonnet" and the assumption that we can make sense of what we find is the only tool that humans have come up with that produces reliable and accurate results (so far at least). So pragmatically my sympathy is with the stuffists.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Thanks I look forward to read that!

I can recommend starting with "The Method of Truth in Metaphysics" (1977) [You can find it in the bundle "Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation"]

I think you'll like the argument he makes..

And yet, there is a solution. Ok. Here is where I come from. I own a domain www.debate-it.com and I have been working in the structure of it. What I want is for people to be able to discuss ideas in a way that our use of words doesn't interfere with arguments.

As soon as it is ready, I will present it to the community.

Looking forward to it!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

And yet, there is a solution. Ok. Here is where I come from. I own a domain www.debate-it.com and I have been working in the structure of it. What I want is for people to be able to discuss ideas in a way that our use of words doesn't interfere with arguments.

...snip...

Telepathy will also win you a million dollars (at least for a couple more years).

 

[volatile]

Well I can't answer from the stance of someone who does give a stuff what the stuff actually is - indeed I don't believe that we, as human beings, even have the capability to understand whatever there may be "underneath the bonnet" (USA translation: bonnet = hood of a car), and that is even if the concept of "underneath the bonnet" is in fact a truly meaningful concept.

However saying that I do have to concede that the process of trying to look "underneath the bonnet" and the assumption that we can make sense of what we find is the only tool that humans have come up with that produces reliable and accurate results (so far at least). So pragmatically my sympathy is with the stuffists.

Hear, hear.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Even if they are essentially unknowable, to posit that they do not exist as objects in the world is a non-sequitor, principally because, as I keep saying, you can't account for inter-subjective experience otherwise, can you?

Hold on, right there. I state that it is, as you put it, essentially unknowable, even by definition. I have never said that what is behind our phenomenal world, doesn't exist. There is a difference, and you, so far, have been unable to noticing it.

I STRICTLY said that "there are no objects around you", meaning, those objects BELONG to your phenomenal world (you know, spoons, shapes, colors, appearances). Outside your phenomenal world, what they "ARE" (thats right, their ontological status does not depend on your phenomenal world) is "unknown". Got it?

One thing is what you see, from inside your phenomenal "bubble". Another, very different, is what the things you see "are" beyond your phenomenal bubble (what I call noumena and, as we have seen, the problem about our discussions).

You do need a final substance (and Kant agrees), "otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears."

Well, I don't. I have stated all I need in my previous post. The mere notion about that "final substance" is very problematic, approaches fast to a dogma and is, IMO, naive.

 

[volatile]

Hold on, right there. I hold that it is, as you put it, essentially unknowable, even by definition. I have never said that what is behind our phenomenal world, doesn't exist. There is a difference, and you, so far, have been unable to noticing it.

Right then. So the objects do exist. If they do not exist materially, prior to the phenomenal world, how do they exist?

One thing is what you see, from inside your phenomenal "bubble". Another, very different, is what the things you see "are" beyond your phenomenal bubble (what I call noumena and, as we have seen, the problem about our discussions).

It seems the debate out whether "noumena" and the "thing-in-the-world" are equivalent seems to be a rather broad debate. So let's not stray down that path. It's largely a tangent (albeit an interesting one).

What makes up these things that are "beyond the phenomenal bubble", and how do they interact with this same bubble? Materialism, as I keep saying, has a very pragmatic explanation for this, namely that these things are "real" and "material". What is the explanation in your framework?

Well, I don't. I have stated all I need in my previous post.

This is the "twist" where you go against Kant, and you still haven't explained why you do so to any degree of accuracy, or with any degree of coherency. How can the be appearance, without anything that appears? There's a very simple question you could answer which would clear this up for me: What is the nature of these objects, and how can you account for the fact that multiple people can see the same object in broadly the same way?

I keep asking you this question, but you still haven't answered it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What is the nature of these objects, and how can you account for the fact that multiple people can see the same object in broadly the same way?

I keep asking you this question, but you still haven't answered it.

Believe me, I have answered it, in multiple occasions, but somehow it escapes you. Rephrasing it; Multiple "phenomenal bubbles" will see (approximately) the same objects because, mainly, two things. 1) Their cognitive apparatus is very similar and 2) because (whatever is there), has objective qualities.

Done.

Now, let me get a few things straight. What is "Material"? Most of you argue that its, "the final substance" (even the wording seems medieval to me) but I believe it is essentially a void concept.

What is "matter" after all? I even doubt that all the materialists in the forum happen to share the exact and same definition.

Whatever it is (not matter, but that "final constituent"), it has some properties, we can observe, test and describe such properties (to an extent) and this is all that is needed.

Maybe some of you would not feel so outraged if I simply state that I'm an "energytist"? (and I'm sure physicists would have zero problems with it as, at least from last century, matter and energy are interchangeable) But... let me insist. I consider the exercise to be futile.

Quarks are ways of description, no "things".

Maybe you (and other materialists) would say that quarks are "made of matter", and thats your choice.

 

[Piggy]

TO ALL (specially our materialist friends):

Why the need of having (knowing) the "final substance"? what does "knowing it" changes?

There is no need to know the "final substance" in order to understand that "materialism", as you call it, is the only legitimate world view left standing among the contenders.