Existence exists?

[tjohnson]

This presumes that our eyes exist as functioning organs separately from our brains.

No I don't presume that. The eyes are part of a system - the part that detects light. When we say we see an object, we mean our eyes detect light and our optical cortex "sees" an object. this does not mean nothing exists outside us but it does mean that all the properties and attributes we notice are inside our nervous system and we ascribe them to an object outside our nervous system. Ordinarily this happens so fast we don't notice but when viewing distant object in space, for example, it becomes very clear that the object we are "seeing" may not be there anymore.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No I don't presume that. The eyes are part of a system - the part that detects light.

GS,

In fact you just did it again in that statement. The eyes are part of a system called a living organism, not a light-detecting system. Without the living organism, the "light-detecting system" is not a system.

You insinuate that it is, so it is easy to exclude the context of why eyes exist in the first place when discussing what they do.

Another point. We process information inside our brains. So?

That does not mean that this information does not reflect what exists outside.

I have seen you claim on numerous instances that something does not exist because we process an abstraction of it. I claim we internally process abstractions of existents because we are part of the same universe. Our mental equipment did not develop to operate in—or construct—a parallel universe. It evolved to work with the same existence that exists independently of us, thus it also operates according to the same laws of nature as the rest of the universe.

Michael

[tjohnson]

That does not mean that this information does not reflect what exists outside.

What exists outside is the domain of science. Science represents the highest, more reliable abstractions of the human race about the "reality" outside us (and inside us in fields like physiology, biochemistry, etc.). Science tells us that "objects" are not what they appear to be.

[galtgulch]

That does not mean that this information does not reflect what exists outside.

What exists outside is the domain of science. Science represents the highest, more reliable abstractions of the human race about the "reality" outside us (and inside us in fields like physiology, biochemistry, etc.). Science tells us that "objects" are not what they appear to be.

GS,

Science and the scientific method enable those who care enough to know reality, that is the reality known to us by our senses. Human beings have the capacity to form concepts by a process of abstraction and to check the validity of concepts using reason, logic and rational evidence.

Scientists know that what we know or think to know may be mistaken and alternative concepts may be valid, obliging them to give up their previous understanding about some aspect of reality if contrary evidence is forthcoming. The classic case would be, in the case of evolution, the finding of a fossil skeleton of a rabbit in a preCambrian layer. The mystics cannot put forth a case of just what would constitute prove of the error of their thinking.

The statists can attempt to enforce their own ideas as can the mystics and religionists, but the scientist is willing to subject his ideas to a fresh and critical look in the face of contrary evidence.

www.campaignforliberty.com 6Apr 12:45 PM 139303

gulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What exists outside is the domain of science.

GS,

This confuses me. Do you mean to say that if I do not become a scientist, I can know nothing of food, external dangers, etc.? That I must relegate such matters to "the domain of science"?

How about accepting the fact that science, epistemology, common sense, etc., are all part of the same brain?

Michael

[tjohnson]

What exists outside is the domain of science.

GS,

This confuses me. Do you mean to say that if I do not become a scientist, I can know nothing of food, external dangers, etc.? That I must relegate such matters to "the domain of science"?

How about accepting the fact that science, epistemology, common sense, etc., are all part of the same brain?

Michael

Not all activities of the brain are equal. Historically, science is responsible for almost all of man's progress. Philosophy (including epistemology) has contributed almost nothing and has most likely caused tremendous damage. Common sense is not reliable, especially in a highly technological environment. One need not become a scientist to be aware of what science is telling us, but one has to take measures to educate oneself.

[tjohnson]

You are implicitly claiming objectivity in your epistemological activity so I guess you are a closet Objectivist, if nothing else, after all--which is why you are here?

As I stated before I don't think objectivism has much to do with objectivity, despite the name. I am here because I do admire the principle of getting people to become more rational, something it shares with general semantics.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

I disagree with your idea of philosophy as being fundamentally different than science and common sense. All of them are based on observation and goal-directed thinking.

Maybe common sense will not do much in a technological environment, but science will do little for a person who finds himself alone in an emergency without power driven devices. Say, in a flood when levies break like happened in New Orleans.

Hell, science will not do much to tell a person what to spend money on or invest in when common sense takes a hike. Look at the present economic mess.

You can dispense with common sense and belittle it. I won't.

I won't even mention concept formation here since I have already done so at length.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

Not all activities of the brain are equal. Historically, science is responsible for almost all of man's progress. Philosophy (including epistemology) has contributed almost nothing and has most likely caused tremendous damage. Common sense is not reliable, especially in a highly technological environment. One need not become a scientist to be aware of what science is telling us, but one has to take measures to educate oneself.

GS -

How do you separate "science" from "philosophy (including epistemology)?" By what process do you "know" anything, if you eschew philosophy (including epistemology)? How do you reason? How do you think about what you perceive - even if you want to end up, as you seem to, declaring that you are not confident that you ascertain the relationship between your perceptions and reality?

Bill P

[tjohnson]

GS -

How do you separate "science" from "philosophy (including epistemology)?" By what process do you "know" anything, if you eschew philosophy (including epistemology)? How do you reason? How do you think about what you perceive - even if you want to end up, as you seem to, declaring that you are not confident that you ascertain the relationship between your perceptions and reality?

Bill P

Science grew out of and out grew, philosophy a long time ago. You don't need to study philosophy to be a scientist, but you will need to study mathematics. Science tells us much more about "reality" than our mere perceptions can.

[Alfonso Jones]

GS -

How do you separate "science" from "philosophy (including epistemology)?" By what process do you "know" anything, if you eschew philosophy (including epistemology)? How do you reason? How do you think about what you perceive - even if you want to end up, as you seem to, declaring that you are not confident that you ascertain the relationship between your perceptions and reality?

Bill P

Science grew out of and out grew, philosophy a long time ago. You don't need to study philosophy to be a scientist, but you will need to study mathematics. Science tells us much more about "reality" than our mere perceptions can.

GS -

So you are going to do "science" and learn about "reality" without using your perceptions? Are you just going to "reason" isolated from perception?

I suspect you couldn't prepare and eat breakfast without using your perceptions, much less do science.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

What exists outside is the domain of science.

GS,

This confuses me. Do you mean to say that if I do not become a scientist, I can know nothing of food, external dangers, etc.? That I must relegate such matters to "the domain of science"?

How about accepting the fact that science, epistemology, common sense, etc., are all part of the same brain?

Michael

Not all activities of the brain are equal. Historically, science is responsible for almost all of man's progress. Philosophy (including epistemology) has contributed almost nothing and has most likely caused tremendous damage. Common sense is not reliable, especially in a highly technological environment. One need not become a scientist to be aware of what science is telling us, but one has to take measures to educate oneself.

With a few great exceptions like Archimedes, science came out of an enabling, nurturing Anglo-European culture which came out of religion/philosophy, which is Christian/individualism.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

With a few great exceptions like Archimedes, science came out of an enabling, nurturing Anglo-European culture which came out of religion/philosophy, which is Christian/individualism.

Well, that's not necessarily a bad thing, is it?

rde

Confused like usual.

[tjohnson]

GS -

So you are going to do "science" and learn about "reality" without using your perceptions? Are you just going to "reason" isolated from perception?

I suspect you couldn't prepare and eat breakfast without using your perceptions, much less do science.

Bill P

It isn't a question of not using my perceptions. Its realizing that perceptions only give us part of the picture and in many cases can be fooled completely. In mathematical physics much of the structure is worked out mathematically because experimentation, and so perception, is very limited.

[BaalChatzaf]

It isn't a question of not using my perceptions. Its realizing that perceptions only give us part of the picture and in many cases can be fooled completely. In mathematical physics much of the structure is worked out mathematically because experimentation, and so perception, is very limited.

And what is the mathematics based on? Eventually you will realized that reality cannot be deduced a priori. Our knowledge of it is based entirely on what is perceived through the good old fashioned senses. Genuine science is empirical right down to the basement floor.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I find the manner of GS's thinking fascinating.

Categories get so isolated in his thinking that causality and hierarchies cease to exist. The cart comes before the horse in much I have read.

Thus, for one example, mathematics can invalidate sensory evidence as a whole because some sensory evidence is misleading. The idea that without sensory evidence at all, there would be no math, i.e., sensory evidence is more fundamental than math in building knowledge, does not compute in this manner of thinking. This idea that the math that does invalidate some sensory evidence was developed with more reliable sensory evidence gets lost in the verbiage.

I wonder if this tendency is a byproduct of becoming intimate with, and adopting, the general semantics body of thought.

Michael

[tjohnson]

And what is the mathematics based on? Eventually you will realized that reality cannot be deduced a priori. Our knowledge of it is based entirely on what is perceived through the good old fashioned senses.

I don't understand this statement. Our knowledge of mathematics is based on what is perceived through the good old fashioned senses?

[BaalChatzaf]

And what is the mathematics based on? Eventually you will realized that reality cannot be deduced a priori. Our knowledge of it is based entirely on what is perceived through the good old fashioned senses.

I don't understand this statement. Our knowledge of mathematics is based on what is perceived through the good old fashioned senses?

Mathematics is a tool for doing physics. It is not the content of physics. Shame, shame. You have confused the map with the territory and the description with the thing described. Everything we know about reality comes through our ordinary senses.

Mathematics is an abstraction generated from ordinary experience. A person with no sensory input could never develop mathematics or mathematical ability.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

GS, Michael, Ba'al:

GS, this is why I cherry picked from general semantics.

"I wonder if this tendency is a byproduct of becoming intimate with, and adopting, the general semantics body of thought." It seems that way to me.

"You have confused the map with the territory and the description with the thing described." Ahh good use of negative evidence. It does seem that GS is reading the map and "thinking" or "perceiving" that the math exists independent of the senses because ....Why?

I also find it semantically frustrating to have a formal debate/argument with general semanticists because their "semantic" is differently coded than mine is for certain. However, like all systems of thought, including objectivism, there are weaknesses and places where the square peg got damaged getting into the round hole [doughnut disputation theory].

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Mathematics is a tool for doing physics.

No, only a small subset of math is this.

It is not the content of physics. Shame, shame. You have confused the map with the territory and the description with the thing described. Everything we know about reality comes through our ordinary senses.

I don't think he has confused anything. I think you have confused the map - period. The 'map' in this case need not have any connection to reality whatsoever.

Mathematics is an abstraction generated from ordinary experience. A person with no sensory input could never develop mathematics or mathematical ability.

Abstract math is not generated from nor connected to any 'experience'. The only connection to senses here at all is that one needs senses to learn the skills and concepts, but that's it.

[BaalChatzaf]

Abstract math is not generated from nor connected to any 'experience'. The only connection to senses here at all is that one needs senses to learn the skills and concepts, but that's it.

Dead wrong. I have been doing mathematics for over 55 years. I can tell you its starts with intuition based on everyday sensory input. That is not where it ends up, but without that start the abstract end cannot be attained.

The relation of mathematics to physics as as tool to task.

Are you a mathematician. What are your qualifications?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Abstract math is not generated from nor connected to any 'experience'. The only connection to senses here at all is that one needs senses to learn the skills and concepts, but that's it.

Dead wrong. I have been doing mathematics for over 55 years. I can tell you its starts with intuition based on everyday sensory input. That is not where it ends up, but without that start the abstract end cannot be attained.

The relation of mathematics to physics as as tool to task.

Are you a mathematician. What are your qualifications?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Just because you've done differential equations for 55 years doesn't mean that math starts and ends there. Some math begins in the abstract and never intersects with reality or intuition. Shall we start with "i" ??

Even imaginary numbers can be useful in real-world applications, but do not have to be.

"The relation of mathematics to physics as as tool to task. "

This is correct, but only for a narrow and specific branch of math.

I have a physics background, but I have some exposure to pure math and know the difference between pure and applied mathematics.

[tjohnson]

Me too, my degree is in pure mathematics with a little physics thrown in. But we are not doing math here we are discussing it. I think of it this way; pure mathematics is about all possible relations and physics is about actual relations, So, in a sense, it is the physicist's job to figure out which mathematics is applicable to his particular problem.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Put it this way. Without experience, there is no elementary math. Without elementary math, there is no advanced math.

You can have elementary math without advanced math. You cannot have the contrary.

Thus you can have experience without advanced math. You cannot have the contrary, since advanced math depends on elementary math to work, and that depends on experience.

There is no such thing as advanced math without its building blocks.

I marvel that this is so difficult to understand.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Maybe you could give us an example to help clarify.