15 Kommentarer i “The shallow mind of an intellectual impostor”

Prenumerera på detta kommentarfält Comment RSS eller TrackBack URL

I resent being called an imposter. I’m authentically shallow!

Gagdad Bob skrev 07/08/17 klockan 16:51

Your sense of humor is commended! Though the sentence didn’t imply that your shallowness was an imposture, on the contrary it affirms it. The imposture was purely implied on the intellectual side. Then again, logic and semantic were never your strongest card.
Best wishes from the other side of the Atlantic
Allotetraploid

Allotetraploid skrev 07/08/17 klockan 17:55

We shall see. I will provide a point by point response to your post when I have time next week.

Gagdad Bob skrev 07/08/17 klockan 18:08

That I truly look forward to, as I’m sure, will one of your Swedish admirers who provoked me to write this post. You make your rebuttal and I make a reply and then give you the last word which seems fair since I so brutally took the first.

Allotetraploid skrev 07/08/17 klockan 18:18

This is going to be like the Nihilists versus the Dude in the big Lebowski’s bath scene, right?

vanderleun skrev 07/08/18 klockan 17:48

“A fact is also a thing on which we have universal agreement, or at least theoreticaly so”

Ah. Bi-Lingual lack of understanding. Impressive.

I think the word you probably were looking for is percepts, not facts. Facts are a lower level uniting of perceived existents with lower level concepts, which we may eventually organize into our conceptual hierarchies as Facts. Facts require conceptual agreement, only perceived existents can be said to have universal agreement.

For instance, your example of Fossils, were for millennia perceived only as rocks – sometimes seeming more oddly shaped than other rocks, but rocks all the same. It was only with a deeper understanding of the world through Science directed by capital “R” Reason, which they became identified and expressed as Fossil Facts.

That requires Reason which isn’t locked into circular logic chopping paradigms – which requires an awareness of, and a perspective above, the horizontal plane of existence which contains those perceived existents. Lose the elevated perspective, and you lose the capital “R”, and are left with only a logic chopping little ‘r’ shade of reason and any ability to see beyond your ‘facts’ – aka Materialism.

Basically, where you made a Left turn at the Descartes-Rousseau-Kant-Hegel outhouse, you needed to continue on straight in order to keep in touch with reality. The rest of what you have to say pretty much follows from that wrong turn, but if you are careful of your step, you should be able to retrace your steps to get on track. Good luck to you.

Blogodidact skrev 07/08/18 klockan 20:20

Blogodidact
If I’d meant percept I would have called it percept and not fact. A fact does not refer to the modus of realization but is an attribute of a proposition, or phrased formally “a fact is a proposition to which only one propositional attitude is theoretically possible”. As for my example I referred to the lowest level of facts and they incidentally reassemble the cognitive act of perception but a fact can as well be a purely logical phenomena as “a(a)=a^2”. One important difference though is that percepts might be deceptive (for example optical illusions) which a fact cannot. A fact is a logical category, or if you so like, an instantiation of the propositional attitude where the proposition (not necessarily sensory) is (or can be) affirmed by all. Any higher level will be a level of explanation and those ascending hierarchies I refer to as conjectures. This is pure (and basic) formal logic.

The argument you are dealing with are not within the bounds of a purely logical analysis but refers to a discourse that Kant began in his “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”, but today is best articulated within the conceptual framework of neuropsychology. However I don’t think you can salvage Plato’s epistemology by appealing to Kant, at least not without giving us some pretty darn good reason as to why we should desert the so abundantly fruitful enterprise of neurology for the sake of his bronze age mysticism.

Allotetraploid skrev 07/08/19 klockan 09:49

You’re punching out of your weight class, Jojo.

Uncle Mikey skrev 07/08/19 klockan 17:31

Oj, det var en ny typ av apologetik för mig. Pretentiös psykoanalytikerapologetik.

Hämnar'n skrev 07/08/20 klockan 03:02

Tralnslation of post Hämnar’n’s
[Oh, that was a new type of apologetics for me. Pretentious psychoanalytic apologetics.]

Allotetraploid skrev 07/08/20 klockan 04:40

“One important difference though is that percepts might be deceptive ”

Sigh. No, percepts are not deceptive, however our interpretation of them can be mistaken. Has to do with concepts & judgement… ability to evaluate, recognize and agree upon facts… higher level conceptual operations than the bio-mechanical registering of percepts. Study hard, you’ll get it.

“…refers to a discourse that Kant began in his “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”
Yeah, the same critique of pure reason where he said “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith”. Of course the bungler only boosted the prospects of skepticism and completely doomed not only religion but people’s (such as yourself) ability to grasp reality.

“I don’t think you can salvage Plato’s epistemology”

No, not Plato, Aristotle would be a fair place to start from to try to get ahold of reality again though.
“… not without giving us some pretty darn good reason as to why we should desert the so abundantly fruitful enterprise of neurology for the sake of his bronze age mysticism.”

Aside from neither Plato nor Aristotle being from the bronze age, how about this – your conceptual framework leads to Munch’s “The Scream” being regarded as Art.

Case closed.

Blogodidact skrev 07/08/20 klockan 06:26

Blogodidact!
I don’t know what more to say but; congratulations! You have made yourself an entirely new definition unheard of in the scientific literature. In every standard textbook a percept is defined as “an activation of a certain category in the mind”. There is absolutely no concept or judgment on a conscious level before the percept enters your mind. If percepts could not be deceptive the phenomenon of optical illusions (among other things) would be impossible because they are based on the discrepancy between the distal stimulus and the neural categorization of the proximal stimulus. However, they cannot be false or true since that is a logical category only applicable to propositions and a percept is not a proposition but what I believe Aristotle referred to as a NOE^SIS, something intuitively known. So let’s take this slowly, the percept enters the mind and in doing so it has no logical function, but still it can be deceptive in relation to its object (otherwise we would be equipped with infallible senses). This can now be transformed to a valid logical statement “I perceive X”. This is the most basic level of logical analysis we can come to in terms of inductive logic. There is only one propositional attitude towards this since you otherwise would be denying the existence of your own sensation. All other levels of the logical analysis are conjectural, i.e. they are based on a deductive analysis of the lowest level of inductions, i.e. the translation of sensations to propositions. Scientists are those who then uses this deductions to structure the lowest level inductions to systematize reality and test these systems by making predictions about what percepts would present themselves if one were to manipulate the world. In that scientists are the only serious believers since they have “faith in things yet not seen”. What differs them from the credulous religionists is that they are prepared to not only put their faith to the test (for example ask a mountain to move itself or drink poison) but also change their “dogma” when experience and/or logic don’t support them.
I do agree that Aristotle is a god start, especially his metaphysic, but I would strongly suggest you take a right turn at Newton and ask yourself what that would do to Aristotle deduction of hO O^N from the need of a prime mover of the celestial bodies.

Allotetraploid skrev 07/08/21 klockan 05:24

Heh. “There is absolutely no concept or judgment on a conscious level before the percept enters your mind.”

True.

“So let’s take this slowly, the percept enters the mind and in doing so it has no logical function, but still it can be deceptive in relation to its object ”

I guess we’d better take it slowly, got to watch out for those no-logical functional deceptive objects, they’ll get you every time.

“If percepts could not be deceptive the phenomenon of optical illusions (among other things) would be impossible ”

So… you’re saying that my bioware is actually receiving and transmitting an image of a monster in the dark room, which my unsullied mental faculties then expose as a fraud?!

The bioware delivers raw and unadulterated data, which our minds attempt to identify, and sometimes gets wrong, which closer non autopilot examination with the same bioware, delivering the same percepts (actually at this level structured into sensations, perhaps that’s where your “in relation” is meant to come in, but at that point it is no longer just a percept) but with more focused conscious attention, reveals to our awareness what is actually there in the corner.

“take a right turn at Newton ”

Good advice. Take a closer look at Newton’s wider beliefs. Not an atheist, that one, he also wouldn’t have bought “…for example ask a mountain to move itself or drink poison”, might want to think about why that would be. Do yourself a favor, stop with the silly fundie literalistic reading – though that might be easier said than done… same point of view as most strident atheists – it would be worth your while to try.

Blogodidact skrev 07/08/22 klockan 06:19

“I don’t know what more to say but; congratulations! You have made yourself an entirely new definition unheard of in the scientific literature.”

Thanks, but its not that new. If you’ve got Aristotle down, Objectivist epistemology would be your next best step. No worries, she’s (Ayn Rand) an Atheist too.

Blogodidact skrev 07/08/22 klockan 06:26

2+2=4 is an equation. think of it. e q u a t i o n. equal, equality. it all means equal to the other side.

L man skrev 08/06/24 klockan 04:51
Kommentera
Tillåtna tagar : <blockquote>, <p>, <code>, <em>, <small>, <ul>, <li>, <ol>, <a href=>..

 Username

 Email Address

 Website

Kolla kommentaren innan du skickar Vänligen notera: Allt som inte är spam eller strider mot svensk lag kommer att publiceras. Om ditt inlägg inte publiceras omedelbart, så har det fastnat i spam-filtret och väntar på att bli godkänt. Få inte panik, ta ett djupt andetag och kolla in senare istället.