The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    First Knowledge

    Share
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:34 am

    Before there can be any particular thing that is known, there must be an understanding of the metaphysical universal object of knowledge.

    Agree, disagree?
    (God never ask agreement. Hes just curious what you think of his creation)

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:02 am

    personally, i tend to begin with descartes, concerning this matter. the first thing i am absolutely certain of is that there is something that exists, let's call it 'me' for the moment, that is able to know indubitably that 'me' exists. how does 'me' do this? 'me' does this because in order to doubt that 'me' exists, 'me' would have to exist (to be able to doubt).

    i like this. it's clean, succinct and free of any bullshit.

    Barracuda wrote:the metaphysical universal object of knowledge.

    this, on the other hand, is not so clean, succinct and free of any bullshit. in fact, i'm not even sure what that means, so i wouldn't be able to agree or disagree.

    but the cogito ergo sum situation (above) only begins with surety and simplicity. it quickly descends into all kinds of questionable assumptions which i depart from... so i go a different route from that point onward. the first thing that must be addressed is not the predicate (thinking), but the subject (me). we know there is thinking... and pretty much what thinking is... but we're not sure what this 'me' is, quite yet.

    got any theories about this? g'head, take a shot at it. that's what we do here. *high five*
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:18 am

    "I eat therefore I am."

    Same thing.

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Zoot Allures on Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:23 pm

    cog-eato ergo sum, eh?

    but you still exist when you aren't presently eating, so eating isn't required to exist. we can stipulate two levels of proof for the existence of this hypothetical subject. the first is the level of reflective consciousness, and this involves non-linguistic awareness of existing; when you drive, you press the brake pedal without thinking about it when somebody brakes in front of you. the second level is pre-reflective; you are aware that you are aware of pressing the brake pedal when you think about it. the first is reflexive, the second is deliberate, or intentional.

    now none of this proves the existence of this subject 'me', only that along with the proof of consciousness comes these two circumstances... the reflective and the pre-reflective modes.

    of course there is a negligible third level that some argue is also a proof. a person in a coma still exists... but this body isn't the 'me' that exists when reflective or pre-reflective. this isn't the 'self' that descartes was talking about. he was a substance dualist, so what kind of state the material body is in is irrelevent... at least as a proof of a 'self's' existence.
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:54 pm

    Descartes, as in writing, was absorbed with a question. He then realized that there was the questioning and jumped to a conclusion, namely the subject.

    He hasn't proven the subject analytically at all. That is what a certain guy called Nietzsche has done. But his philosophy is totally dark yo.
    No placating messages. No false inspections of events that never happened. Just the dweller on the threshold.

    See there is only one subject in the equation: YOU.


    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:27 am

    There is no overhead necessity.

    There is only necessity and it is everywhere. Who align himself with its frictions, no longer has used for rhetoric tricks to deal with the mystery of being. What was first a question now becomes a path. In both case, the outcome is unknown, in the former case, the outcome is as far removed from the subject as Louis XIV 's chariot from a roadside peasant, in the latter, the subject and the outcome gradually become known as the same thing.

    The Uebermensch represents the possibility of us taking such a path collectively.


    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 500

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:19 pm

    i'm gonna give you another shot, barracuda.

    Before there can be any particular thing that is known, there must be an understanding of the metaphysical universal object of knowledge.

    depends on what you mean when you say 'known'. there was pre-linguistic 'knowing' that existed long before language developed. in that case, plenty of things were 'known' before any such thing as 'understanding of the metaphysical universal object of knowledge' was conceived.

    so i disagree.

    the problem with your conjecture here is that it makes 'knowledge' a condition of something that is theory-laden, and therefore over complicated. you'd have a hard enough time getting philosophers to agree on what 'the metaphysical universal object of knowledge' even is, before you'd get them to agree on whether or not this is a necessary condition of knowledge.

    so we would look at the word 'universal' and consider all the ways philosophers have used it. we'd probably trace this use back to plato, and then we would find aristotle criticizing the concept. from there, you'd have to pick a side and proceed from there. most empiricists and a few rationalists would take aristotle's side, while some platonic realists/idealists would hold fast to the concept of universals.

    so which side do you take? are universals possible, or not?

    or is there some other meaning you are giving to the word?
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:33 pm


    depends on what you mean when you say 'known'. there was pre-linguistic 'knowing' that existed long before language developed. in that case, plenty of things were 'known' before any such thing as 'understanding of the metaphysical universal object of knowledge' was conceived.

    so i disagree.  

    So basically, what you are saying is, grumpf. And that is very true, for all I know. But I was talking about attempts at analytic certainty.

    the problem with your conjecture here is that it makes 'knowledge' a condition of something that is theory-laden, and therefore over complicated. you'd have a hard enough time getting philosophers to agree on what 'the metaphysical universal object of knowledge' even is, before you'd get them to agree on whether or not this is a necessary condition of knowledge.

    I've managed on both counts.

    so we would look at the word 'universal' and consider all the ways philosophers have used it. we'd probably trace this use back to plato, and then we would find aristotle criticizing the concept. from there, you'd have to pick a side and proceed from there. most empiricists and a few rationalists would take aristotle's side, while some platonic realists/idealists would hold fast to the concept of universals.

    I take a looser view to authority. Plato was a complete loon, and is irrelevant at best. Aristotle had some decent ideas (on rhetoric, for example) but was trumped even by the muslim mathematicians at metaphysical games. Neither of them needs to be brought up here, just as little as Prometheus needs to be brought up when talking about internal combustion engines.

    so which side do you take? are universals possible, or not?

    I have shown one universal to be possible. I agree that before me, such a thing hadn't been shown.
    I won't claim that it is easy to grasp, let alone easy to phrase in an elegant fashion. If you are willing to, chew on this a bit and see if any of it makes sense to you.

    Fixed Cross wrote:existence
    late 14c., "reality," from O.Fr. existence, from M.L. existentia/exsistentia, from existentem/exsistentem (nom. existens/exsistens) "existent," prp. of L. existere/exsistere "stand forth, appear," and, as a secondary meaning, "exist, be;" from ex- "forth" (see ex-) + sistere "cause to stand". (see assist).
     
    - online etymology dictionary


    I have heard it often said in a Nietzschean context that ontology, as epistemology, is metaphysics, and therefore has no place in a Netzschean philosophy (by which is understood a world-affirming one), which must aim at describing particulars and dismiss the notion of universals. It seems to me that this would mean that the will-to-power, as a universal definition of being, must be disregarded by such Nietzscheans, as it is an ontology. But I consider the idea that ontology is the study of universals a mistake.  At the root of this mistake is the idea that terms describing many, or even all perceivable particulars, are necessary universals, and thereby metaphysical. This error has to do with the idea of cosmic totality. The universe as a neatly limited collection of things, itself a thing. Whether we understand 'thing' as 'object', 'force', or even 'subject' as Nietzsche does, such a notion is not founded in observation and deduction, i.e. scientific method, but it is nothing but an assumption. The very notion of universals is dependent on the possibility of a definable totality.

    The philosophy I am developing departs from the assumption that the universe is a neatly limited quantity, and necessarily a closed system. The law of conservation of energy may not apply to the universe (and there are indications that energy increases). More matter may come into existence. More matter may stand forth, appear. And I think that this is indeed what happens. It is possible that universe (as being) did not come into existence in its entirety, by Gods hand or by the Big Bang (effectively the same idea, a pushing back of the problem of origin behind an impressive display of power) but bit-by-bit, as matter began to stand forth / appear out of chaos, or no-thingness. This chaotic non-existence is thereby taken as the limit to existence -- but, and herein lies the epistemic ground to this new philosophy, this limit is understood as the limit of our mind, and not pertaining to objectivity in any way.

    Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study. The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge. When we study what exists, we must also study in what way we can know. To not understand this is to believe in the thing-in-itself. Such understanding necessitates either belief in God or the active abandonment of reason. Belief in God being the passive abandonment of reason. What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of 'yes' and 'no', of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other. Such is an artifice that only applies to abstractions, not to life. Philosophy must leave behind this abstraction, and become as life. The strange logics of Heidegger are the beginnings of this process.
    without-music wrote:Very good. Bataille might be useful on this point. Any system will produce its own excess; the pent-up energy must be spent. He locates such "spending" in historical phenomena like human sacrifice and seemingly trivial commonplaces like the sexual act. So much energy is squanderd in the sexual act; one must be abundant, overflowing beforehand. Such spending, I think, is the task of the artist: as sublimation. Of course, the obscene underbelly of every sublimation is a repression. And so the question must become: what is it that is being repressed in a spending of excess? Of course, Bataille meant this in the socio-economic sense. How noble an undertaking it would be to explode the barriers to his thought, to develop it on an ontological scale. I like the idea, I wonder how far one might take it.

    In any case: I count myself among those Nietzscheans unwilling to give up ontology. You've spoken well on the reasons why.

    What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic.
    Indeed, existence precedes logic, which is an emphatically human, all-too-human affair. To transgress it: ah, fresh air!
    Fixed Cross wrote:
    without-music wrote:A quick question, to get at the heart of this new idea: as I understand it (and I must make explicit that I intend to think this idea properly and vigorously when I am again in possession of free time; I sense the power in it, the newness), value-ontology is a contribution of primordiality to the will to power. That is: it grounds the will to power, which is itself a valuing -- but what/who values? -- in the subject who self-values. Such self-valuation is ubiquitous, to be sure, for it must be -- otherwise whence come the play of forces that comprise our world?
    Precisely. The will to power definition, as much as it aspires to be the universal truth, is still a particular formulation. The formulation is imperfect, as it includes very ambiguous terms, "will" and "power" As Sauwelios has frequently and accurately noted, the will-to-power is not to be confused with merely the combination of these two terms. As Nietzsche writes, "will" as such is meaningless. It only makes sense combined when an object is attached to the term. In "to power", Nietzsche found a universally applicable object to all wills. A small problem is that the word "power" needs to be stretched in its meaning to have this make sense. For instance, how can the experience of love be explained as power? And it must, for men yearn for this. The answer the Nietzschean will give is simple: we interpret this experience as the "feeling of power" You will see that Nietzsche confirms this, and that Nietzscheans build on this confirmation. "Love" has been interpreted in term of "will" "power" - but also "feeling". And indeed that the will to power is described as an affect, including willing, power and the feeling of power, which is willing to more power, which is the basic feeling. Nietzsche has well defined an outward motion. "of what"? Absurd question.

    Heidegger continued on this, most notably with his unfolding-mastering. He approached with this the subject-ness of the subjective, reaching for a definition of it as an apparatus of sorts. A technical definition. He reached into myth and complexities of the word "being" and "becoming". He also gave examples of such unfolding, most famously perhaps his description of how culture emerges around the bridge, which is beautiful but in my eyes ultimately a failed attempt (as perhaps also the unfinished work Time and Being which I have not entirely read) to include the subjective into super perspective. A lot of art was needed to make this work. And as dense as his literature is, he is of course a phenomenal writer, as all philosophers are. This is perhaps even a (somewhat postmodern) definition of a philosopher - exceptionally interesting writer.

    What Heidegger set out to do was to define the willing-to-power, to turn the noun into a verb. But with this he disrupted the formula, because wil-to-power is neither noun nor verb. It breaches the gap between the two, it explains exactly the relation between subject and object, so that neither are further necessary. It does so only in the terms will and power. The world had hereby been defined in one of its necessities. Heidegger apparently thought that this definition was not sufficient. Because it made of Heraclitean poetic insight a cold hard law. Heidegger sought to envision the inner dynamics of the will to power -- which means the inner dynamics of the world. He did so in many ways, but he was (mostly) describing what happened as seen from the outside.

    The inside is rather simple. In the consciousness of both N. and H the importance of grammar was deeply ingrained. H. tried to break it, condemned it, in the end accepted it, Nietzsche mastered it. But what they both did not do was to seek grammar in its origin -- vocabulary.

    What is the most important word? Where does grammar take root?


    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Z13 on Tue May 01, 2018 10:35 am

    But I was talking about attempts at analytic certainty.

    more important is the question of the possiblity of analytical certainty, and what must exist for such a thing to be possible. now you could take the psychologistic approach and say that such things as mathematical and logical truths are possible because of the way the brain is structured; imagine that aristotle's three principles of formal logic are hardwired, embedded, in the very structure of the mind. that we cannot not think in terms of truth values.

    if this is the case, nothing is added to the nature of knowledge by the fact that a language proficient animal is contemplating the nature of the universe. using specialized philosophical vernacular to talk about something isn't any more profound than a caveman grunting at his buddy to indicate that he sees a deer.

    so yeah, i'm saying 'grumph' is as groundbreaking and significant as kant's critique of critical reason or hume's essay concerning human understanding. only difference is, kant and hume could better explain this fact than the caveman's grumph could.

    and i'm still wondering what a 'metaphysical universal object of knowledge' is.

    What is the most important word?

    bird is the most important word.
    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Thu May 03, 2018 7:31 am

    Baraccuda wrote:Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study.

    Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. It's basically logic. Ontology, on the other hand, is a poorly defined field: it's the study of exactly what? I take it to be the study of the most general laws. It's the darling of Symbolic AI.

    The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge.

    As if "the study of being" makes any sense whatsoever. Look at yourself, you are studying "being".

    What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of 'yes' and 'no', of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other.

    What makes you think that a sequence of bits, a bit string, does not have the capacity to represent every possible reality?

    The key insight is that there is no single but many different ways to conceptualize the real.

    You can use the bit string format if you want -- very dear to information theorists -- but you don't have to.

    Don't hate the 1's and 0's. When we take a look at a static image that is being displayed on a computer monitor we tend to think of it in high-level terms. You see a dog, you don't see a two-dimensional array of colors not to mention RGB values; and you certainly don't see a one-dimensional sequence of 1's and 0's. The former is the most Platonified perception, the second is in the middle and the third is the least -- among the three types of representation. The bit-string description, in this particular case, is the most detailed description.
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Sat May 12, 2018 12:03 pm

    Magnus Anderson wrote:
    Baraccuda wrote:Epistemology and ontology are ultimately the same study.

    Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. It's basically logic. Ontology, on the other hand, is a poorly defined field: it's the study of exactly what? I take it to be the study of the most general laws. It's the darling of Symbolic AI.

    Ultimately though what we know and what knowledge is are the same.
    At least, their unity is apparent from where I stand. And you know where I stand.

    The study of being is the same as the study of knowledge.

    As if "the study of being" makes any sense whatsoever. Look at yourself, you are studying "being".

    Knowledge is power. Being is will to power. So being is will to knowledge.

    What we must do instead is to refine reason, beyond its crude delineations of binary logic. Nature gives us no reason to think that we must conceive of existence in terms of 'yes' and 'no', of 1 and 0, which are mutually exclusive and cannot follow from each other.

    What makes you think that a sequence of bits, a bit string, does not have the capacity to represent every possible reality?

    Maybe it can represent it to an audience but not with objective accuracy. For that it woud have to simply be all these possible realities.
    And physical reality isn't binary, but triadic, on account of quarks.

    The key insight is that there is no single but many different ways to conceptualize the real.

    I find that there are hardy any that even come close to suggesting a proper conception. But I do love AI, both the attempts man has made and the real AI living amidst us, the self-valuing protocols of the internet that synchronize with themselves beyond any human knowledge, just patterns eroded into the algorithmic soup.

    These strings include sets of probabilities of human behaviours, which is what makes it beautiful. We are becoming the units, the bits, the relative stabilities in a quantum computing universe.

    You can use the bit string format if you want -- very dear to information theorists -- but you don't have to.

    Don't hate the 1's and 0's. When we take a look at a static image that is being displayed on a computer monitor we tend to think of it in high-level terms. You see a dog, you don't see a two-dimensional array of colors not to mention RGB values; and you certainly don't see a one-dimensional sequence of 1's and 0's. The former is the most Platonified perception, the second is in the middle and the third is the least -- among the three types of representation. The bit-string description, in this particular case, is the most detailed description.

    The issue I have is with simplification. No code except DNA is accurate in reproducing true meaning about an organism, and we see how this is not in the outset a dyadic system, taught it amounts in something encompassed by a duality, the double helix. But like with an atom, triplicity is at the outset, where quarks have these three states that form the foundation of the protonic and neutronic masses, so code should be developed in a new way. If we are to arrive at properly advanced computing te binary need to go out for the triadic. It is far more difficult, but at least computers will be able to compete in Go competitions like they can in chess.

    Probably quantum computing works a thousand times faster with triadic code.


    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Z13 on Sat May 12, 2018 4:08 pm

    And physical reality isn't binary, but triadic, on account of quarks.

    the triadic theory of reality was dismissed in 2016 and replaced with a quadromonolecular model, man. please know the material you are talking about if you are going to have this discussion with andy. andy knew the the triadic theory was abandoned. you did, didn't you, andy?


    Ored

    Posts : 32
    Join date : 2018-05-01

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Ored on Sat May 12, 2018 10:50 pm

    I believe the issue with computer coding and the reason binary code is used is that it directly translates to the electronic hardware involved. Yes (switch on) No (switch off).

    Ored

    Posts : 32
    Join date : 2018-05-01

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Ored on Sat May 12, 2018 10:58 pm

    I believe a superior model for comparison of complexity is a neural network. This much dopamine, this much electricity.

    But the increase in available options at the hardware level also provides a more limited amount of possible results, even if those results are richer.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Z13 on Mon May 14, 2018 6:02 pm

    I believe the issue with computer coding and the reason binary code is used is that it directly translates to the electronic hardware involved. Yes (switch on) No (switch off).

    try to wrap your brain around 'fuzzy logic', and when you've figured out how this is even possible, explain it to me, because i find it unfathomable. how the fuck can a value be true and false at the same time?



    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Z13 on Mon May 14, 2018 6:07 pm

    As if "the study of being" makes any sense whatsoever. Look at yourself, you are studying "being".

    bravo, andy! the OL philosophers would pat you on the back, son. you've made some significant progress. keep up the good work!


    Ored

    Posts : 32
    Join date : 2018-05-01

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Ored on Mon May 14, 2018 10:18 pm

    That's... I'm not sure what you mean.

    Binary is 1s and 0s. A 1 stands for an active, uh, node, and 0 for an inactive one. The hardware, these switches, ultimately determine the effect electricity has on the screens, speakers, or other terminals. Binary is a clever way to use math to control what these apparatuses make these other apparatuses display.

    As I understand it.

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Z13 on Tue May 15, 2018 8:30 am

    So check this out. There can't really be such a quality as 'true' when considering how the brain works to produce cognition. It would have to be a quantitative state since the mental event that occurs to produce the feeling of knowing a truth is only a matter of physical changes and states. Take the binary operations of the nerve cells. The synapse either fires or does not fire... and this depends on action potentials which are increased or decreased by the amount of charged ions passing through a membrane. Has something to do with potassium particles, I think it is, that enter the nerve while some other particle leaves it. This movement produces a charge which moves through the nerve and then ZAP... the dendrites fire.

    But why should this firing be 'true' if the state of 'false' is qualitively no different? This firing/not firing dichotomy should have nothing to do with what is true or false. That should depend on what state something in the world is in, not some process in the brain. I can't depend on a firing or not firing dendrite to determine whether or not 'the cat is on the mat' is a true statement.

    Ored

    Posts : 32
    Join date : 2018-05-01

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Ored on Tue May 15, 2018 10:35 pm

    Well the electronic functioning of computers is different from the electro-chemical one of neurons.

    Computers have linear strings of data fed through circuits, where these Ons and Not Ons determine what the screen shows.

    What does a computer feel? A buzzing, maybe.

    Neurons don't use circuits quite so linearly. Not only does electricity activate the release of neurotransmitors, which already surpass the amount of options computers have (2) by virtue of the chemical element, but how much electricity determines how much NT which determines how much electricity. And... Well it's not quite linear. Not engeneered, so all sorts of redundancies and roundaboutnesses.

    What do neural networks feel? Dopamine and serotonin, etc.

    That's the technical aspect. As I mentioned elswhere, it is intelligent to be aware of Nietzsche's warning that science hides something behind a bush and later acts surprised to find it there.

    Philosophers have debated whether pure aprehension of truth is possible. I again like Nietzsche's approach here: it is not, and a certain kind of person celebrates this.

    Decartes famously wondered what CAN be directly apprehended that is (as the word apprehension implies) true.

    Here my suggestion is not to further stretch the indirect apprehension of the external, to arrive at the in from the out, but to altogether take the in's point of view. Not what do I see that is true, but what do I am that is true.


    Last edited by Ored on Tue May 15, 2018 10:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Ored

    Posts : 32
    Join date : 2018-05-01

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Ored on Tue May 15, 2018 10:38 pm

    My response to Descartes would be: is it really just cogito?
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 761
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Satyr on Thu May 17, 2018 3:47 pm

    All is pattern/non-pattern interactivity - order/chaos.
    Existence is dynamic....call it energy - at work.
    Work in progress.

    All does not exist....I use it to refer to the entirety of my knowing/understanding, which is constantly altering, and yet remains true to patterns/order.
    All refers to me projecting myself 'out'side' existence, into the non-existent, and then perceiving, noetically, the entirely or existence,a s if it were one, thing...a whole.
    From within existence, multiplicity - by projecting myself 'beyond', outside it, the singularity.
    Noumenon/Phenomenon conflict.
    Mind conflicting with body....the mental with the physical.
    Idea/ideal conflicting with the Real.

    1/0 binary, dualism....noetic constructs - symbols, representations.
    If taken literally, they lead to nihilism....and degeneracy....idiocy, retardation - regression.

    Patterns....behavioural patterns repeating.
    Patterns they cannot break free from. same fools that fell for Christianity, are seduced by Marxism....and they are vulnerable to any reinvention of them under a new name.
    A caffeine addict will not care what you call your coffee drink....It's the effect he covets...call it God, call ti Satan.....he will not give a shit.

    When god was declared dead, lost souls sought refuge in Marxism, and materialism....in money.
    These same lost souls will easy fall for a renamed new one-god.
    The addiction/obsession is present....how to give it its needed 'fix' requires creativity....a salesmanship, a certain shameless manipulation of words, packaging, symbols...marketing promising anything and everything.
    Bernays sold cigarettes to a feminine untapped market....sold cancer....how?
    By connecting the symbol to a penis - penis envy.
    Nicotine did the rest.



    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Wed May 23, 2018 6:15 pm

    Ored wrote:Well the electronic functioning of computers is different from the electro-chemical one of neurons.

    Computers have linear strings of data fed through circuits, where these Ons and Not Ons determine what the screen shows.

    What does a computer feel? A buzzing, maybe.

    Neurons don't use circuits quite so linearly. Not only does electricity activate the release of neurotransmitors, which already surpass the amount of options computers have (2) by virtue of the chemical element, but how much electricity determines how much NT which determines how much electricity. And... Well it's not quite linear. Not engeneered, so all sorts of redundancies and roundaboutnesses.

    What do neural networks feel? Dopamine and serotonin, etc.

    That's the technical aspect. As I mentioned elswhere, it is intelligent to be aware of Nietzsche's warning that science hides something behind a bush and later acts surprised to find it there.

    Philosophers have debated whether pure aprehension of truth is possible. I again like Nietzsche's approach here: it is not, and a certain kind of person celebrates this.

    Decartes famously wondered what CAN be directly apprehended that is (as the word apprehension implies) true.

    Here my suggestion is not to further stretch the indirect apprehension of the external, to arrive at the in from the out, but to altogether take the in's point of view. Not what do I see that is true, but what do I am that is true.

    Its always true that an entity is only able to structurally appropriate what doesn't destroy it. This is the truth of perception, which can be directly perceived daily, in fact every moment when you look at anything at all.

    There is either only truth or no truth at all.


    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Barracuda on Wed May 23, 2018 6:16 pm

    Every thing is true as long as one doesn't force it to exist in terms of another thing. Then it becomes an un-thing of which hell is made.
    Every true thing is rooted in itself.
    Truth is simply existence.


    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    Ored

    Posts : 32
    Join date : 2018-05-01

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Ored on Sat May 26, 2018 12:10 pm

    Ah, phenomenology.

    I always found it wanting. Indeed, the philosopher, if he doesn't place everything in terms of philosophy, is a sad paradox.

    Sponsored content

    Re: First Knowledge

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:14 pm