Abracadabra wrote:



Define intellectual dishonesty.

Have fun making nonsense...

I have better thoughts to read.

Since the rest of your post is built upon this strawman, allow me to burn it in place...

Noone said that philosophy must refrain from considering the empirical. That does not follow from what I wrote. You asked for the line. I gave it. I did not make it up. That is the line.

Science necessarily holds that the universe is as we see it to be. Philosophy does not necessarily hold that to be the case.

If you cannot understand that distinction, then you could not possibly know the difference between the two. That is becoming more and more apparent. That is your categorical error in thinking, and ultimately shows me exactly why you equivocate between the two so frequently.

Alrighty then...

Some want to be able to make some incredulous claim without shouldering the burden of proof, and others love philosophy for other reasons.

Some like criticism done well and see it as an avenue for development, and some see it as a name-calling contest.

Some use rhetoric to motivate and pursuade, and others see through it.

Some find logic to be the most reliable form of value assessment we have for language-based claims, and others have illogical claims which are so plentiful that they become amalgamated into those which are not, rendering the person at a loss to know the difference between them.

Abra,

I read part-way through your last response. After a few times of witnessing very problematic associations along with your expression of not wanting to 'argue' or debate it, I lost interest. You insist upon others' recognizing your claims to have merit. As though the pursuit of your personal beliefs are in accordance with science.

I found no use in reading further.

Abracadabra wrote:



Abra,

There is nothing erroneous about that. Science is necessarily empirically based, and philosophy is not. No amount of rhetoric changes that fact.

That is the line, regardless of whether or not you want it to be.

Your categorical errors are just that, my friend.

When terms are being used in a way which does not support the most commonly used definitions, should the one using the term in an uncommon way provide an valid argument for the acceptance of his/her uncommon use of that term?

Who here could or would argue with the use of the term ice cream?

Why is any other term treated any differently?

If I were to use the term ice cream in a way which contradicted the known definitions and/or common uses, would I not be responsible for giving a valid argument for another to accept that use?

I see what you mean and I think you're beginning to touch on what I am thinking, however, the focus still seems to be upon the objective measures necessarily for discussing meaning. I think that the idea of meaning being subjective need not be mentioned, as it is a given really. All attempts to discuss it are necessarily objective as well, so that also needs no further attention.

I do not think that the topic can be fully expressed in cause and effect terms. Those attempts would either require knowing what the causes actually are or be sidetracked into figuring them out, and therefore lose the focus. I think that there can be an overview of sorts given which encompass all possible cases.

Science maintains one thing, that the world(universe) is as we see it, and therefore science is necessarily empirically grounded.

Philosophy does not and therefore is not necessarily.

It seems to me that you are expressing only a very limited view here, and in doing so are applying properties to smaller constituents which are only known to exist in larger ones. In other words, there is no reason to believe that a quark is explosive like a hydrogen atom is. That property is an emergent one. So for you to say that scientists believe they emerge from complex systems, and then to label that as unwarranted is really a curious way to look at things.

What makes you think that the constituent particles follow "simple" laws? It seems to me that QM(which governs the smallest) is much more complex than Einsteinian/Newtonian mechanics which govern the larger. I am failing to make sense of your assessment here.

Emergent properties are easily shown Abra, from the smallest known constituents to the larger ones. There are properties which emerge from the combination of smaller constituents that the constituents themselves do not have. Things change as they 'grow' in size. Along with those properties come new capabilities and this is also easily shown to be the case.

Reductionism, while it is very successful in figuring out what a larger system is comprised of, fails to directly address emergent properties because of it's top/down approach. Emergent properties cannot be given their due unless they're recognized for what they are. Emergent properties exist, and we know that through testing and observation. To deny their existence and the relevance that that has upon what we know and can know about individual sub-atomic particles is to ignore reality.

Sky,

What you are calling 'semantics' I am calling the logical foundation of your expressions here. I see no way to express it other than logically. To do that would venture into possibly offending you through the semantic differences between the terms necessary to show what I am thinking...

I would rather not go down that path.

How does one define knowledge without it necessarily being contingent?

"I am" presupposes a distinction between what I am, and what I am not.

I think that the issue here is not so much a problem with language per se, but moreso an issue with conceptual fuzziness.



The term observer is rendered absolutely meaningless.



I am not following you here.



They are two sides of the same coin.



Again, I am not following what you mean by this or how it is being applied.

Of course.



No need to earn a PhD to know what it stands for, but whatever your reasons are for believing what you choose, they are fine by me and applied by you.

If you consider my thinking to be mainstream, you have yet to understand my thinking.



It's all good!

I would agree.

I know a Chinese young man who will help me to get(hopefully) a 'closer' interpretation. I have read that the Tao Te Ching is the second most translated piece of writing next to the Bible. The ambiguity in Chinese characters is intrinsic in the traditional thought of the culture as well.

That which goes unspoken means a lot.

The one thing I do question upon re-reading Abra's post is this...

Probability is necessarily based upon logical inference. For probability to be accurate, and it is in QM, there must be some form of universal physical rules or laws which determine what the liklihood of the outcome is, based upon what can be known.

Therefore, I have trouble coming to the conclusion that QM defies logic altogether. There are certain QM effects/events which defy classical and/or Einsteinian mechanics. Quantum Entanglement/non-locality being the primary one, which is what Bell's theorem focused on. That is what Einstein objected to the most when he described 'spooky action at a distance'...

@ Abra...

I appreciate the way you wrote that!



I would just like to add the idea that the smallest known constituents of matter must be considered as both particle and wave, because they all exhibit behaviors which are attributed to both. I am not so sure that when you get to that level that there is any distinction to be made.

This caused me pause as well, actually. When one studies and obtains the highest possible academic understanding in any of the physical sciences they get a PhD.

They get a doctorate of philosophy.

I saw that when you first posted it. The frame of mind I was in at that time did not allow me to be able to read it open-mindedly. Therefore, my own recognition of that, did not allow me to deliberate the words very much.

I wonder now, however, much what I wondered then.

For me, it is important to expose myself to as much unfamiliar territory as possible. I personally believe that we are all students and teachers alike, regardless of whether or not this is recognized. It has also become apparent to me that 'my own' thoughts are actually just a combination of experience from which to infer, and that necessarily includes others' expressed beliefs/philospohies.

If I were to only ruminate within my own thoughts on a matter without pursuing the thoughts of others with a genuine intent, then I would necessarily stop 'growing'. My 'greatest' mental accomplishment was had in recognizing the intrinsic value which can only be seen when one looks inside themselves. That concept would not have been considered if I were to have remained self-contained.



My morals have been effected by everything that I have entertained in that way. Certainly my morals have changed from when I was much younger, if for no other reason than I have come to realize that there are no moral absolutes.

If that is all that was said about 'God', then I would have to agree. However, with the Tao and 'God' both, far too often one attempts to describe the concept and in doing so loses the entire meaning of it.

For what you hold in your hands is not what is held.

Sky wrote:



Can you give me an example to work with?



That is true for all things known.



How do you know that?



Your offerings thus far in this post seem to emphasize the personal subjectivity of all observation. Science necessarily contains this as well, due to the irrefutable fact that scientists are human. I am unsure what you think the premises are.



Again, I am failing to see the relevance in this line of thinking. All human knowledge is dependant upon something else for it's orientation, including "I am"...

One finger cannot point at itself.



I am still struggling in an attempt to follow your thoughts sky. I see relevance in the subjective nature of human perception, but I see no way to seperate that from what you suggest exists without it.