Metaphysics as an Error

[jamest]

Claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

Hubba hubba hubba. Can I please transplant your brain into the body of a nubile nymph?

You prefer bimbos then?

...says the man who thinks a bucket can make an observation.

Err, if you read the evening's convo properly, you'll see that I was responding to the concerns of a member regarding the escape of two fish from a bucket.

Shortly, the conversation shall be directed to the removal of five fish from a basket.

[Surendra Darathy]

Here, I'm just trying to establish how it is even possible to begin to approach metaphysics.

When will you get started? You can begin by stating a question whose answer will imply a definite metaphysics.

I did: I asked whether one's observations were internal or external to oneself.

... So, why is this a question whose answer will imply a definite metaphysics?

Nope. The idea is to establish that metaphysics is possible without assuming it's possible and then assuming that your particular statements validate a metaphysics the possibility of which you have not vetted.

In other words, "I think I have a metaphysics" (which is what you're saying) is not a demonstration that any metaphysics is possible. No "self" involved. There are observations. Fluxes of information. Reports. You cannot demonstrate a "self" by assuming it and then trying to refer to it and talk about it. You're a long way ahead of yourself, there, pal. A series of preliminary statements, if you can come up with them, will serve such purposes as describing what requirements the metaphysics will fulfill. You haven't proven that your wibble-question is even necessary. You assume a metaphysics rather than articulate the needs that a metaphysic will fulfill.

An ancillary question is, where does the qualification of labeling them "one's" observations come except by assuming that more than just the observations are there to analyze? The consciousnessness brigade insists on continuing the first person plural attempt to establish a metaphysics, in the mode of "you and I agree that weeble weeble weeble". We don't, and you can't, unless you present the metaphysics underneath it. First, show that the metaphysics is possible by defining the metaphysical entities and their relationships. If it is a dualistic metphysics, or even a monistic metaphysics, just define some metaphysical entities and describe how they are necessary to talk about the observations. What is it in your metaphysics that allows the entry of an observer? Is it consciousnessness? What establishes it?

Saying "it's obvious" is more or less a metaphysic that founds the entire system on a metaphysical "obviousnessness" always and forever representing itself obviously to consciousnessness. So it is a very dualistic metaphysics, with two primary substances, consciousnessness and obviousnessness.

Parsimony begs you to collapse it all on the empirical world. Nothing in the empirical world is "obvious". Mentalism imagining the obviousnessness of the obvious is delusional.

[Matthew Shute]

Claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

Hubba hubba hubba. Can I please transplant your brain into the body of a nubile nymph?

You prefer bimbos then?

...says the man who thinks a bucket can make an observation.

Err, if you read the evening's convo properly, you'll see that I was responding to the concerns of a member regarding the escape of two fish from a bucket.

Shortly, the conversation shall be directed to the removal of five fish from a basket.

Be sure to let us know when you've finished discarding the doubt and you're ready to establish a basis for metaphysics (without just "begging the question"). Meanwhile, there's only so much of you and little idiot I can take, and I tend to skim past the boring bits. Both of you.

[jamest]

Here, I'm just trying to establish how it is even possible to begin to approach metaphysics.

When will you get started? You can begin by stating a question whose answer will imply a definite metaphysics.

I did: I asked whether one's observations were internal or external to oneself.

... So, why is this a question whose answer will imply a definite metaphysics?

Nope. The idea is to establish that metaphysics is possible without assuming it's possible and then assuming that your particular statements validate a metaphysics the possibility of which you have not vetted.

C'mon SD, I've covered this:

The fact is that science isn't about 'the world' per se, but about one's observations of it. And, significantly, if 'one' isn't observing, then whom is making the judgements about what the world is, or might be?

Science is an opinion about the world - it's not the world itself, inputting its secrets into a scientific journal.

[jamest]

Meanwhile, there's only so much of you and little idiot I can take, and I tend to skim past the boring bits. Both of you.

I never promised that reading my posts would be as exciting as screwing Jerome in a nubile nympho's body, but if you want to really participate in this discourse, it will be necessary that you give consideration to the details of my posts. Sorry about that.

[Surendra Darathy]

as I keep saying, this ignores both the internal/external element of that which is observed... and the nature of the observer itself. Clearly, it has to be acknowledged that 'the world' is an observation (since 'observation' is the key to what science discerns)... and, therefore, questions about the nature of the observer and the internal/external whereabouts of 'its' observations, are legitimate.

The internal/external boundary can be parsimoniously reported by the empiricist as that of the body, as a feature of the world. It's all that can be reported. There is no "self" to be observed, nothing but a pile of protoplasm. Some people call this eliminativist, but empirically, it eliminates nothing that can be observed. The empirical is very strict about this. We can start talking about all sorts of details of neurophysics, but it takes us away from the activity of establishing what requirements an actual metaphysics is going to fulfill that the empirical report does not.

The report issues from the locality of the mouth and tongue, or from the typing fingers. This can be observed. What lacks to be accounted for? The fact that the report contains information? When it contains reports about the "self" it represents reports of lots of unobserved shit. The veterans here have not just fallen off the turnip wagon, James. We've seen your sort of woolly-ass shit arguments dozens or hundreds of times before, and not one proponent of them has responded by showing an aspect of the question requiring the metaphysical without assuming that which it wishes to demonstrate. This talk of "self" and "consciousnessness" and "observer" and "experience/experiencer" is a pile of steaming bollocks. Pure futility bottled and sold as wisdom.

The fact is that science isn't about 'the world' per se, but about one's observations of it.

You don't fucking know what you're talking about, James. All that science reports are observations, and the personal shit (e.g. about the state of "mind" of the "observer", selling them as "one's observations") is nominally left out. Situations where it intrudes are inevitably embarrassing for the scientists involved. If you want to argue about the melodrama of human interactions in doing science, I'm afraid that I have no good news for you, as it boils down to the problems of an overactive endocrine system coupled to complicated neurophysics. The days of people putting "I observed the following events..." are long gone from science journals, and remain only in the wibblings of philosophers. You need to get out more.

Science is an opinion about the world - it's not the world itself, inputting its secrets into a scientific journal.

It's a reliable system of reporting on the world, James, infinitely more reliable than the fetid festering dungheap of valueless wibbling you seem quite prepared to foist on any unsuspecting ears and eyes.

[jamest]

Your observer is only a feature of the world that produces reports of observations. A localised empirical feature.

Since when has the report of anything, been the truth/actuality of that thing?

Don't try and dissolve the observer into nothingness and present 'reports' as actual mirrors of the world itself. A report of the world is an individualistic attempt to explain that world. It is not the world itself.

And you are still avoiding the meat of everything I have said... choosing, instead, to resort to 'doing a politician' on me.

[Matthew Shute]

if you want to really participate in this discourse, it will be necessary that you give consideration to the details of my posts.

You assume that this thread revolves around you and your endless wibbling? You have a bigger ego than JS, if nothing else that is bigger. If you write something interesting enough to dissect I'll jump in there! I've made at least one long reply to you, in which I quoted your entire post in small sections, that you ignored. I'm not the one claiming to have special access to metaphysics, remember. I'm here for the laughs until somebody, posting with an argument for metaphysics, makes a strong case - or at least something to get the teeth into.

[jamest]

You need to get out more.

Possibly, though I've shagged enough Jeromes in my time... and am now at a point in my life to wonder why.

Some people get their kicks out of spotting rare trains or planes. Others shag Jeromes. And others jump off bridges with strengthened elastic attached to their torsos.

I cannot say that I am averse to all such pleasures, but it's occured to me that there might be something more meaningful to life than self-gratification. And that means that I may not have to get out more.
Let's see where this metaphysics discussion ends before making any final conclusions. Okay?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Considering I haven't noticed, I must have been asleep and you must be very tiny, so I wouldn't brag.

[Surendra Darathy]

Don't try and dissolve the observer into nothingness and present 'reports' as actual mirrors of the world itself. A report of the world is an individualistic attempt to explain that world. It is not the world itself.

It's all we fucking have, James! That is the premise behind Monsieur le Comte's challenge in the opening post. You have nothing else of any reliability to obtain information about the world. Let's stop calling it "knowledge". Too much baggage on that one. Give us something that metaphysics will do that empiricism cannot. Throw us a metaphysical bone, James, and put away that nihilistic, solipsistic insistence that the "individual" is free to report whatever the fuck he likes and then to call it an "explanation". That's (roughly speaking") not giving explanations, but producing alibis and excuses. If an alibi stands up under empirical scrutiny, then your visit to the astral plane might get some ink in a comic book somewhere.

Actual mirrors of the world?

My ears are bleeding, James. You're the one yet to establish that an "actual mirror" is even fucking possible or why it might be, um, desirable. That is why you are being invited to show how metaphysics is possible, let alone necessary. The usual reason that the "actual mirror" is desirable is to know the wishes of a god-thingy-doodad, or some such bollocks. Just throw us a bone, James, about how it's even possible to get the "actual mirror", as opposed to tossing out the sorts of howlers and boners you seem so proficient at generating.

A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a boner for?

it's occured to me that there might be something more meaningful to life than self-gratification

Then what are you doing in this forum attempting to aggrandize yourself by playing at being some hard-ass metaphysician? Forum threads like this, when they go on long enough, generally turn out to be strictly for the lulz, mainly due to the hard-ass metaphysician's apparently-blissful ignorance of the fruits of trying to talk about the unsayable.

[Surendra Darathy]

Some people get their kicks out of spotting rare trains or planes. Others shag Jeromes. And others jump off bridges with strengthened elastic attached to their torsos.

Me, I've flown small aircraft on the gauges in instrument meteorological conditions, and the epistemological challenges of that, as well as years of experience in scientific laboratories have trained me to be condescending toward vacuous wibbling.

Oh, and about shagging: Therein lies your best hope of selling books filled with woo to people wanting to bend a spoon. But the empiricists are hot on the trail of that one, too.

[Luis Dias]

The "observer" is everything that observes. The observed is what the observer observes.

These are easy concepts to deal with, empirically speaking. Get back when you actually have a "case".

You really think you "are on to something". Well, you are not. The distinction between the observer and the observed has nothing metaphysical about it. Of course, the big "elephant in the room" that you are trying to get is the big C.

It's always down to the C. It's like the god-of-the-gaps thing all over again.

[jamest]

if you want to really participate in this discourse, it will be necessary that you give consideration to the details of my posts.

You assume that this thread revolves around you and your endless wibbling? You have a bigger ego than JS, if nothing else that is bigger.

Consequently, you should want to shag me, rather than Jerome?

The fact is that I have put more into repelling the J-team, here, than anyone else. Sure, LI has contributed alot too, but not as much as me. And, indeed, he's even questioned aspects of my own posts. Ultimately, unlike yourself, I don't really consider myself as a member of a team here with a common goal, because my ideas are my own and are essentially at-odds with even those that would support me to a point.

I'm not being egotistical at all. Jerome comes out with all manner of self-promoting nonsense. All I am doing, is to give my best to what I consider to be the truth. I simply think that you are confusing capability with arrogance. And yes, I do think that I have sufficient capability to take you guys on in a rational discussion. But no, I do not think greatly of myself; and nor do I think that having the capacity to reason to such a degree should necessarily effect such an emotion.
You are misreading between the lines.

If you write something interesting enough to dissect I'll jump in there!

You've already said that you skip the boring bits. And what you consider to be boring is both subjective and irrelevant - especially so in a discussion about metaphysics!!!!

I've made at least one long reply to you, in which I quoted your entire post in small sections, that you ignored. I'm not the one claiming to have special access to metaphysics, remember. I'm here for the laughs until somebody, posting with an argument for metaphysics, makes a strong case - or at least something to get the teeth into.

If you think that the post you are talking about really merited a response, then remind me of it. If so, I will respond and apologise for overlooking it.

[Surendra Darathy]

Ultimately, unlike yourself, I don't really consider myself as a member of a team here with a common goal, because my ideas are my own and are essentially at-odds with even those that would support me to a point.

O! Brave paladin!

As I say, you need to get out more, especially when it comes to developing ideas. You need to learn something. Eschewing science because it actually requests that you learn something is a weak start on that road. Hatred of science because it competes too successfully with "inner questing" is easy to figure out, and usually starts out with something about breaking a butterfly on a wheel.

I do think that I have sufficient capability to take you guys on in a rational discussion.

And you got that conviction from where? Did you extract it from someplace warm and dark? Remember, every time you catch your brain telling you how wonderfully clever it is, take note of who's telling you that. Be kind to your brain, James; let it learn something.

Cue that old song about "the windmills of your mind", and charge at them, Knight of the Woeful Countenance.