|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 28, 2014 9:22:19 GMT 1
The philosopher strikes! No matter what I say, you will state that it isn't necessarily correct. So I suggest you go ahead and waste your life worrying about the true meaning of "necessarily" and "correct" while I get on with enjoying the fruits of QM and all the other brilliant insights that physics has given me into the real world. Maxwell's equations still navigate me in the dark, so why should I worry about people who make a living out of pretending not to understand them?
Oh, and just to be pedantic, the processes are indeed occurring, it's the mathematical description that's hypothetical, and a model is not a reproduction (I hesitate to make a cheap joke about philosophy and inflatable sex toys, but he who hesitates is lost).
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 28, 2014 10:09:45 GMT 1
It is not a matter of faith because if that was the case it would have no place in philosophical arguments. It is more a matter of logic. For example, the assertion "I think, therefore I am" is not a matter of faith but is a self-evident truth, since if I could not think, I would have no self-awareness and "I" would have no meaning thereby demonstrating the truth of such a statement. It has long been realised that Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is not a self-evident truth, not a tautology, but a complex proposition, an empirical statement, which may or may not be true. It asserts the existence of a subject and an activity the subject is doing: the activity does not imply the existence of the subject, and the existence of the subject does not imply the activity. Therefore it's not a tautology. Hume first pointed this out; Wittgenstein later argued it at length. There are no empirical statements . There is nothing complex at all about the statement: 'I think, therefore I am" because of its pure tautological truth. "Think" and "I am" are equivalent concepts since thinking evokes the state of being (I am) and experiencing the state of "I am" is the process of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 10:10:47 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 10:17:06 GMT 1
It has long been realised that Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is not a self-evident truth, not a tautology, but a complex proposition, an empirical statement, which may or may not be true. It asserts the existence of a subject and an activity the subject is doing: the activity does not imply the existence of the subject, and the existence of the subject does not imply the activity. Therefore it's not a tautology. Hume first pointed this out; Wittgenstein later argued it at length. There are no empirical statements . ...that are self-evident truths. Jean likes to adulterate and make up quotes, too. Cheating, it's called, in proper academic circles.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 28, 2014 10:26:47 GMT 1
It has long been realised that Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is not a self-evident truth, not a tautology, but a complex proposition, an empirical statement, which may or may not be true. It asserts the existence of a subject and an activity the subject is doing: the activity does not imply the existence of the subject, and the existence of the subject does not imply the activity. Therefore it's not a tautology. Hume first pointed this out; Wittgenstein later argued it at length. There are no empirical statements . There is nothing complex at all about the statement: "I think, therefore I am" because of its pure tautological truth. "Think" and "I am" are equivalent concepts since thinking evokes the state of being (I am) and experiencing the state of "I am" is the process of thinking. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-existence has the capability to produce thinking. In what way can self-awareness exist without a subject?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 10:35:19 GMT 1
Yes it is. You'll see I've had to complete what you quote from me above. Why? If it's wrong, it's wrong; if it's right, it's right - what your views are on it have no bearing on the matter. Time to repeat the post I'm taking issue with: ...Jean has a very similar background to you, I strongly suspect, (and has swallowed the same sort of cognitive relativist nonsense you've been fed) - a lifetime sitting behind a desk shuffling paper and words about; a humanities or (very) soft science education, in a post-war promoted university, from an influx of ill-trained bearded lecturers wearing denim jackets and smoking pipes infused with quasi-Marxist views via Marcuse and Gramsci and Foucault and Sapir-Whorf... You are claiming the truth of some propositions you have put forward with regard to me and abacus. The only people who could know whether they are right or wrong are abacus and I, since you know neither of us in the real world. I don't know abacus in the real world either, so I am not in a position to pronounce on the truth or falsehood of your claims as far as he is concerned; but I know that they are false as far as I am concerned. Your 'views' and mine on this matter are not of equal weight. Your speculations are the result of shuffling words about, of making statements for which you offer no evidence; my statements about myself are the result of real-world knowledge about my life and what has happened in the course of it. No it isn't; it asks, point by point, for evidence in support of statements you have made. Nothing I have said here is false. Anyone who wants to be respected as a philosopher should not know better than to allow himself to be caught out in such poor reasoning. Oh, and: ...when a little group gangs up on someone, as Jean is very wont to do. Then it's bullying, in my opinion.. It would be if she did, but she doesn't. It's a serious charge, and you ought not to make it without some evidence to back it up. And finally, for the moment: Jean likes to adulterate and make up quotes, too. Cheating, it's called, in proper academic circles. I really think we need some examples of that, too. Why not start a new thread, instead of inserting statements about me into your posts on this one?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 10:37:37 GMT 1
There is nothing complex at all about the statement: '" I think, therefore I am" because of its pure tautological truth. "Think" and "I am" are equivalent concepts since thinking evokes the state of being (I am) and experiencing the state of "I am" is the process of thinking. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-existence has the capability of producing thinking. No - not a tautology. "Think" and "I am" are not equivalent concepts, you see. I strongly advise you read Hume, once again. You see, all Descartes is entitled to claim is: "thinking is going on." He has yet to demonstrate either logically or empirically that there is an additional "I am" involved - and that's precisely what he's trying to prove. As Hume argued, when you try to find any evidence for this "I" all you can find is the "thinking". Buddhists and Taoists have always argued the same point, of course. Wittgenstein analysed it as a reification of a grammatical placement; as did Ryle; as has more recently Dennett. But whatever the "self" might be, Descartes certainly did not prove its existence merely because thinking was occurring. Thinking occurs, was what he proved.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 10:41:40 GMT 1
You see, the "strongly suspect" part was an essential part of the whole thing after all, wasn't it?
And...I do.
It's up to you to quibble with what you believe to be "wrong". I can't imagine what you're referring to, frankly. You studied dead languages at college. You spent most of your life teaching them to a captive audience. You have often argued for cognitive relativism, including the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: when challenged, by my pointing out the whole case was a fraud, you backtracked and claimed you'd only ever supported a "weak" version of it, though you were totally unable to say what you meant by this. Your crony later clarified that what it meant actually had nothing to do with Sapir-Whorf whatsoever, but was merely a commonplace pointed out by Socrates and Hume and James in exhaustive detail. I don't know what else you could possibly claim is "wrong". Something that I described as a caricature and a pastiche in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 10:45:01 GMT 1
You see, the "strongly suspect" part was an essential part of the whole thing after all, wasn't it? And...I do. Your suspicions seem to have been the sole basis for some supposedly factual statements you have made, if that's what you mean. And for a philosopher, that's not good enough. It isn't good enough even for an ordinary person. I don't have to 'quibble'. I ask merely for evidence for statements you have made on matters of fact; you have offered none. I see you've just added to the post I'm replying to here. I may reply again later.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 28, 2014 10:47:26 GMT 1
There is nothing complex at all about the statement: '" I think, therefore I am" because of its pure tautological truth. "Think" and "I am" are equivalent concepts since thinking evokes the state of being (I am) and experiencing the state of "I am" is the process of thinking. What you seem to be suggesting is that non-existence has the capability of producing thinking. No - not a tautology. "Think" and "I am" are not equivalent concepts, you see. I strongly advise you read Hume, once again. You see, all Descartes is entitled to claim is: "thinking is going on." He has yet to demonstrate either logically or empirically that there is an additional "I am" involved - and that's precisely what he's trying to prove. As Hume argued, when you try to find any evidence for this "I" all you can find is the "thinking". Buddhists and Taoists have always argued the same point, of course. Wittgenstein analysed it as a reification of a grammatical placement; as did Ryle; as has more recently Dennett. But whatever the "self" might be, Descartes certainly did not prove its existence merely because thinking was occurring. Thinking occurs, was what he proved. "Cogito ergo sum, ("I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical proposition by René Descartes. The simple meaning of the Latin phrase is that thinking about one’s existence proves—in and of itself—that an "I" exists to do the thinking. This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one's own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one's own existence, or at least of one's thought." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sumThe problem is you are tying yourself up in dead-ends by playing around with the semantics of language.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 11:06:15 GMT 1
You see, the "strongly suspect" part was an essential part of the whole thing after all, wasn't it? And...I do. Your suspicions seem to have been the sole basis for some supposedly factual statements you have made, if that's what you mean. Already offered, sealed, and delivered.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 11:13:24 GMT 1
No - not a tautology. "Think" and "I am" are not equivalent concepts, you see. I strongly advise you read Hume, once again. You see, all Descartes is entitled to claim is: "thinking is going on." He has yet to demonstrate either logically or empirically that there is an additional "I am" involved - and that's precisely what he's trying to prove. As Hume argued, when you try to find any evidence for this "I" all you can find is the "thinking". Buddhists and Taoists have always argued the same point, of course. Wittgenstein analysed it as a reification of a grammatical placement; as did Ryle; as has more recently Dennett. But whatever the "self" might be, Descartes certainly did not prove its existence merely because thinking was occurring. Thinking occurs, was what he proved. I've just told you that. But it doesn't, as has been conclusively pointed out by a long line of philosophers. Philosphers who were and are far more competent in philosophical analysis than Descartes. Descartes meant something very specific by "I" - the existence of thinking does not prove the existence of that I in the least. This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge.[/quote] For a few decades, until Hume blew it totally out of the water. Pay attention: or at least of one's thought. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 11:50:51 GMT 1
I don't keep filing cabinets on people like you, Jean, dragging up what people said from years ago. No; you prefer to drag up what people have said purely from what you think you remember, and get it wrong.Actually I haven't got the filing cabinets either, but that WoM thread on Sapir-Whorf must still be in existence on the archived WoM board and if you want to quote accurately what I said there, please look it out, and don't offer any more caricatures.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 28, 2014 12:01:03 GMT 1
I don't keep filing cabinets on people like you, Jean, dragging up what people said from years ago. No; you prefer to drag up what people have said purely from what you think you remember, and get it wrong.Do I hell as like. When Nay returns, we'll ask what he remembers, shall we? You're the one denying what you said there, you dig it out if you dare. Go on. We'll start a new thread about it, because we're not there yet on this one, because like you Abacus refuses to respond to conclusive refutations of his absurd argument. As for caricatures - nothing wrong with them, especially if they're accurate, as that one was. Your hard-left extremism and cognitive relativism might not have been passed on to you at your particular college, but it hardly matters, does it, because you came up with it from somewhere else, if you're to be believed - and then went on to be a teacher, confirming my "caricature". I expect you were an activist in the nutters too, weren't you?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 12:17:14 GMT 1
And for a philosopher, that's not good enough. You wouldn't know the first thing about it. Miss "weak hypothesis." Find the thread. Not quite what I said - but it's not a category that can be biologically determined, either. Not what I said. But that thread exists too, on WHS. Go and reread it. Surely a cognitive relativist wouldn't make such a dogmatic statement! To clarify: the spelling imput certainly exists. It exists for you. Objectively, It may by now be accepted as an alternative, but it has its origins in ignorance of the original spelling input.That's easy. You asked on another board for a link to the OED entry in support of this assertion, which I don't think anyone else had questioned, and I posted: I can't post a link - you have to log in yourself. Try your library card number.
I quote the relevant extracts:
snipe, v.
Etymology: < snipe n. 1.
1. trans. To shoot or fire at (men, etc.), one at a time, usu. from cover and at long range; to pick off (a person) in this manner. Also fig.
Under snipe, n. we find:
1. One or other of the limicoline birds of the genus Gallinago (formerly included in the Linnæan genus Scolopax), characterized by having a long straight bill, and by frequenting marshy places; esp. G. cœlestis or media, the common English species.But I don't think anyone else here is really interested in your obsession with me. Why don't you start a new thread?
|
|