Where is your experience?

[Paul2]

That's an interesting speculation. How much (whatever that means) of the concept of causality, for instance, is merely a result of our particular cognition, and how much isn't? I'm not even sure the question is coherent.

 

[punshhh]

I'm certainly open to the possibility of other kind of languages, or even cognitive processes. I also believe that we are hardwired in a way that our language has to develop in certain ways, and no others. For instance, I believe that our very known "causality" is a limitation of our cognition, there most be other ways (even when with language sometimes we try to go beyond the old "cause and effect"), to think in relations between facts. Mere speculation from my part.

I would suggest the development of spiritual intuition as a means of lateral though moving away from language.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That's an interesting speculation. How much (whatever that means) of the concept of causality, for instance, is merely a result of our particular cognition, and how much isn't? I'm not even sure the question is coherent.

I know, it is exactly my feeling. One day I'm going to give it some research.

I would suggest the development of spiritual intuition as a means of lateral though moving away from language.

What you mean by that?

 

[punshhh]

What you mean by that?

You learn to think in concepts, develop a language of concepts, refine and transmute/synthesize concepts through creativity.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You learn to think in concepts, develop a language of concepts, refine and transmute/synthesize concepts through creativity.

Sorry, I still don't get it. What is this language? does it have sintax? what do you mean by refine, transmute, etc? What is like to think in concepts?

I believe, we already think in concepts.. and that concepts are composed by emotions, beliefs, biases, memories.. all of them "orchestrated" by the language who attach labels to that complex mix and makes the logical connection between them. Like for instance, you are angry with someone, the emotion is there, the memories, your beliefs about whats fair and what is not, etc, everything coordinated by language.

 

[The Man]

Which is an impossible task. Language limits, and in certain way, defines what we can think. We could call it a trap. My favorite philosopher, Wittgenstein, said "The limits of my language are the limits of my world", and I can't agree more. Language its a deep subject, incredible complex to deal with. So far, analytic philosophy is trying to solve some problems which would be useful for philosophy of science. At one point I plan to dig deeper there.

Well if it were indeed impossible then no one could say what they actually mean. Ideas also limit so the trick is to phrase things such that the implicit and particularly explicit limits in the language reflect the limits of the idea being communicated (what you are thinking). Language is also dynamic and evolving, new words are created and old ones get used in new ways that become common usage. Limits are not inherently a bad thing. In fact it is due to the lack of limitation in colloquially language (comparatively) that formal languages like mathematics and logic were developed. So the explicit limitations of the formal languages could be exploited to better define the limitations of some idea or thought.

I don't follow. What you say seems circular to me.

I’m not sure what you think is circular could you be more specific? One need not subscribe to any particular underlying reality to accept that what we are modeling is an underlying reality.

Agreed. That doesn't make some of them "more real" than others, because what matters is only that they can match the facts.

“That doesn't make some of them "more real" than others”? So they are all equally real? That would make the concept of “real” rather meaningless as it could not delineate anything. While one’s "perceptions, opinions and beliefs" can be just wild speculation, elaborate fantasy or outright falsehood they don’t have to be. What would make “some of them "more real"” is a quantifiable definition of “real” as “more” implies a comparison of quantity, generally though “perceptions, opinions and beliefs” that do tend to match the facts are considered to be more “realistic” than those that don’t.

Here we disagree, but if we dig in the subject, we might be saying the same thing with different words. By definition, a model is subjective. If it correlates, or not, with facts, is what matters. But facts are not "entities on their own", facts are the relation between perceptions and stimulus. A perception involves the stimulus and several mechanisms inside the body, for example, pattern recognition mechanisms, memory, etc. The stimulus is something else, could be called the "external" component of perception. What I argue is that it is irrelevant what that stimuli "is", as "is statements" are ontological statements, and assumptions.

Ah “the "external" component of perception”. Clearly that statement of “what that stimuli "is"” (“external” or just “something else”) isn’t irrelevant as it is specifically intended to distinguish between that and some other perhaps ‘internal’ aspect of “perception”. You may need a more objective model of perception or conversely make perception purely internal and subjective. Unfortunately once one defines everything as just subjective then that designation (like real above) loses any significance. Certainly if one is going to claim, as you do, that “facts are the relation between perceptions and stimulus” then “what that stimuli "is"” becomes critically relevant and establishes if there is any “relation” at all to what is perceived. Just How do you establish this “relation between perceptions and stimulus” you are referring to as “facts” when “it is irrelevant what that stimuli "is"?

Let’s take your body on a train / brain in a vat example from before. You had to establish some link between the two otherwise what the brain in the vat perceives could have no direct relation to what was stimulating the body on the train. While such a disconnected (from the body on the train) brain could report facts about what it was perceiving (just itself at this point) it just couldn’t report any facts about what was going on the train or in the body on the train. So an imagined body on a train or even a simulated one both distinguish themselves by what the stimulus “is” and from the body on the train by having no relation to that particular set of stimuli.

This also seems to go against your assertion that “"the experience" is located at the body”. An equally irrelevant assertion if the stimuli is something the body experiences (thus “located at the body”) and “it is irrelevant what that stimuli "is". Worded a bit differently this time but it still comes down to the same apparently self contradictory approach, the desire not to have “is” “ontological statements” yet the inability to avoid not only just making them but making them critical to your “ minimalist ontology. It is not something you can just try to pass off as a limitation of language. Were such statements irrelevant or unnecessary you could express your ideas just fine without them but that of course would leave you unable to assert exactly what your perception is “as "is statements" are ontological statements, and assumptions”. So what exactly is this minimalist ontology of yours attempting to minimize? It doesn’t seem to be self contradiction, a reliance on facts or ontological statements, and assumptions, is it just consistency, definition and relevance?

 

[The Man]

I'm certainly open to the possibility of other kind of languages, or even cognitive processes. I also believe that we are hardwired in a way that our language has to develop in certain ways, and no others. For instance, I believe that our very known "causality" is a limitation of our cognition, there most be other ways (even when with language sometimes we try to go beyond the old "cause and effect"), to think in relations between facts. Mere speculation from my part.

That's an interesting speculation. How much (whatever that means) of the concept of causality, for instance, is merely a result of our particular cognition, and how much isn't? I'm not even sure the question is coherent.

Well causality, that cause precedes effect, is part of our cognition of the “Arrow of Time”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_causal_arrow_of_time

Certain mathematical models, like Maxwell’s field equations, are time symmetric. Though the advanced (backwards time) wave solutions to those equations are simply discarded as, well, unrealistic, in favor of the retarded wave (forward time) solutions. Others have tried to develop more advanced time symmetric models like Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory and the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics…


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation

…both have their problems.

Even without just the cognition of causality for the “arrow of time”, it has a quantifiable definition, the increase of entropy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

 

[punshhh]

Sorry, I still don't get it. What is this language? does it have sintax? what do you mean by refine, transmute, etc? What is like to think in concepts?

I believe, we already think in concepts.. and that concepts are composed by emotions, beliefs, biases, memories.. all of them "orchestrated" by the language who attach labels to that complex mix and makes the logical connection between them. Like for instance, you are angry with someone, the emotion is there, the memories, your beliefs about whats fair and what is not, etc, everything coordinated by language.

Its difficult to describe thinking in concepts, as I can't compare how others think, I can only describe how it is for me and hope you can see what I see.

I have developed a series of simplified interpretations of reality over the years from my experience. I see or conceptualise these as 3D images in my minds eye. Rather like a garden, or perhaps a library. Everything I experience now can be identified as fitting into an exact position within this library (garden) intuitively.

This enables me to correlate and compare things with other things of the same essential form or origin without using any kind of language(in the conventional sense). Also to cross reference between the simplified interpretations.

For example, I have a concept of everything in existence developing in the form of an idealised plant. It grows expressing its inner symmetry and extends and expresses complexity and the nature of living things. I also view animals as plants in a certain light. Indeed humans as plants in which their chakras are nodes or buds and the head or mind is a lotus flower. The thousand petalled lotus, as represented in Hindu and Buddhist symbolism as the platform or stage upon which nirvana can be accessed.

There is no language in the conventional sense involved in any of this.