Metaphysics as an Error

[SpeedOfSound]

Side point; how does a physicalist/empericist or what ever I am supposed to call the mob here explain how I become tired after mental effort, after all work= force x distance, and neither a significant force nor significant distance is involved in strenous thinking.
Maybe you will think about that after you show me the emperical explaination for the odds and evens (without infinite tests).

[Little Idiot]

Side point; how does a physicalist/empericist or what ever I am supposed to call the mob here explain how I become tired after mental effort, after all work= force x distance, and neither a significant force nor significant distance is involved in strenous thinking.
Maybe you will think about that after you show me the emperical explaination for the odds and evens (without infinite tests).

Glad you liked it.

The mental work is just a side point as much entertainment as question.
But the sting in the tail is that the example about odds and evens has not been explained with emperical method. SD cracked the easy one (finally) but I dont know how or even if the second can be explained by emperical method.

[Luis Dias]

We had this very discussion earlier, when I used the example for Max Planck and Bohr having made metaphysical statements based on their interpretation of QM.

This does not constitute evidence nor argument. They may have made "metaphysical" statements about it, just as Einstein made about dice and gods. So what? There is a good reason why Feynmann advised to "shut up and calculate", and jokes about intelligent interns of physics being completely derailed because "they tried to understand QM" are part of that reason. You may think you have an "explanation" for QM, but unless it is parsimonious and based on empirical evidence (that is, a speculation that will be empirically falsified with predictions of its own, original ones I mean), then it's all made up shit.

I could also say that it's a rabbit that plays a dice and we are controlled all by that rabbit. I could say a gazillion things. That's why we do not. In the absence of any methodology of solid investigation, one simply declines the effort.

IOW, it is wise to know when to stop. Willie E Coyote never was.

Side point; how does a physicalist/empericist or what ever I am supposed to call the mob here explain how I become tired after mental effort, after all work= force x distance, and neither a significant force nor significant distance is involved in strenous thinking.

Do you doubt that there is a good physical explanation for it? You should be aware that the tiring of the brain is an argument for its physicalness, not the other way around. It is one of the most energy expensive organs, and it needs rest.

Maybe you will think about that after you show me the emperical explaination for the odds and evens (without infinite tests).

We are not in the neuro-science thread, mr. LI. Stop trolling. Remain on topic. Do you have anything that you think you can explain better with metaphysics? If so, then produce predictions onto which we can confirm your knowledge. The failure of doing so will just render your taunts as silly.

[Little Idiot]

Let's recap:

PC: I say knowledge is the result of reason applied to empirical data. What's your definition of knowledge?
LI: Knowledge can also be the result of reason alone, aka a priori, ie. without empirical correlates, for example math and logic.
PC: Reason alone tells you nothing, by itself it's just an entertainment.
LI: What, what, what? Without reason empirical enterprises would be in shambles.

Moving forward, and without resorting to empirical references, what knowledge can be obtained from reason alone? You can throw up all sorts of letters and operators but I can counter them with just as many that contradict yours. The difference is in our premises. Our axioms.

O.K. I admit that the example of science was not a good example, I hold my hand up on that one. But I was using the (bad) example to show that maths is more than an entertainment, my mistake was to miss addressing the part where you said alone.

But I still object to you saying "knowledge is the result of reason applied to empirical data" on the grounds that you assume your conclusion (that only emperical data can produce knowledge) in your definition.

Why not just 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied in any situation'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data' including data derived from a previous correct application of reason to accurate data'
'knowledge is the result of aquisition and accumulation of mutually coherent facts'[/i]
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to established coherent facts to produce more coherent facts.

Pick the best?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

My argument is the culmination of three thousand years of philosophy

I think a pole is in order; who could keep their face straight on reading that?

I am impressed.

Philistine.

You want me to provide a basis for the possibility of an approach to metaphysics? And I did! So what is it about that approach/effort that you didn't like?
Seriously, I'm utterly confused. Please respond so that I can resolve this issue.

You have initiated a metaphysical enquiry, but you have not provided any evidence that it can be grounded, that it is possible to do this based on evidence or argument. You've merely made some metaphysical inferences - not any argument evidence that these inferences are grounded. In less polite terms, you're talking out of your ass, and I'm asking you to demonstrate that you're not talking out of your ass. I mean, how difficult is it to understand the topic of this thread? I'm genuinely puzzled.

I'm sorry, but "you're talking out of your ass" does not suffice to negate a serious attempt to show you how one can approach metaphysics. As far as I'm concerned, what you asked for has been forthcoming. If you want to condemn it, then a certain protocol should be adhered to - namely, that we respect and respond to one another in a manner befitting intelligent adults. Otherwise, what's the fucking point of talking to you?

That's the whole point. You do not understand what this thread is about. The challenge 'is it possible to do metaphysics on a basis of evidence or argument' can not be answered by doing metaphysics. It can only be answered by doing metaphysics on the basis of an argument or based on evidence. Sofar you have been unable to identify a class of argument or a class of evidence that could qualify. You haven't even done the warm-up to what such an argument would look like.
You've shown that metaphysics is possible - but that was never the question - the question whether metaphysics could be founded in evidence and/or arguments.

[Surendra Darathy]

I dont know how or even if the second can be explained by emperical method.

Argument from Incredulity? So soon? Even numbers, LI? Dividing in twain? Never seen it, before? This is only ignorance. If your bad eye offend thee, pluck it out. You'll still have one left. We can only hope.

Two paths in a wood diverged and I, I took the one less traveled by.

Because I could, LI, because I could.

Why not just 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied in any situation'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data' including data derived from a previous correct application of reason to accurate data'

Think you can just toss out the terminology "correct" without showing you are not creating a trivial tautology? Then we have "accurate", which is defined in terms of "correct", which is defined in terms of "knowledge".

The question stands: Does "correctness" entail being able to bend a spoon with it? Bend the spoon!

[Little Idiot]

I dont know how or even if the second can be explained by emperical method.

Argument from Incredulity? So soon?

Dont be silly, I dont say its not possible because I cant do it, which would be 'Argument from Incredulity'. A simple statement of humility, I dont know the answer.
I simply point out that I knew the solution to the first when I posted the question, you know, a starter for 10' so to speak. I was actually shocked it too so long to get a solution, it was just bait after all to draw response which the points clearly at the failure to solve the second one (which remember was the real question all along).

Even numbers, LI? Dividing in twain? Never seen it, before? This is only ignorance. If your bad eye offend thee, pluck it out. You'll still have one left. We can only hope.

Two paths in a wood diverged and I, I took the one less traveled by.

Because I could, LI, because I could.

Then if you can, do

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

(solve the real question)

Why not just 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied in any situation'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data' including data derived from a previous correct application of reason to accurate data'

Think you can just toss out the terminology "correct" without showing you are not creating a trivial tautology? Then we have "accurate", which is defined in terms of "correct", which is defined in terms of "knowledge".

The question stands: Does "correctness" entail being able to bend a spoon with it? Bend the spoon!

I am pointing to the error in the original definition; knowledge gained from faulty reasoning is not knowledge - is it?

[Luis Dias]

Solve the "REAL" question?

What "REAL" question?

And does it even exist?

(We all know the answer to the question though. And it ain't 41).

[Little Idiot]

My argument is the culmination of three thousand years of philosophy

I think a pole is in order; who could keep their face straight on reading that?

I am impressed.

Philistine.

big deal I spelled pole instead of poll.
Your the one who makes the claim to be at the culmination of three thousand years of philosophy
thats gotta go in my sig!

I mean

[Little Idiot]

Solve the "REAL" question?

What "REAL" question?

And does it even exist?

(We all know the answer to the question though. And it ain't 41).

Just in case your serious, I earlier asked two questions, an easy one and the unanswewred one (the real question) which is
'can you demonstrate why an odd number plus an even number always gives an odd, using only emperical method without using infinite trials?'

[Surendra Darathy]

I am pointing to the error in the original definition; knowledge gained from faulty reasoning is not knowledge - is it?

Never mind that. You still seem to be pursuing "essences". The "explanation" for lack of achievement may be "lack of ability" (i.e., stupidity) or it may be "lack of information" (i.e., ignorance). Whichever it is, the lack of achievement is empirical.

big deal I spelled pole instead of poll.

You also spell "empirical" as "emperical", although every dictionary on the planet spells it "empirical". Nonconformism is not automatically recognisable as wisdom. The consensus of dictionaries is empirical.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

My argument is the culmination of three thousand years of philosophy

I think a pole is in order; who could keep their face straight on reading that?

I am impressed.

Philistine.

big deal I spelled pole instead of poll.
Your the one who makes the claim to be at the culmination of three thousand years of philosophy
thats gotta go in my sig!

I mean

Do you understand what 'Philistine' means? It has nothing to do with spelling - it has something to do with you being uncultured and uneducated, reflected through you finding it apparently hilarious that I accurately remark that the culmination of three thousand years of philosophy can be found in the ultimate rejection of metaphysics. This is not much different from what Nietzsche proposes - indeed, this argument is not original to me or idiosyncratic, and as such reflects little upon me.

[the PC apeman]

But I still object to you saying "knowledge is the result of reason applied to empirical data" on the grounds that you assume your conclusion (that only emperical data can produce knowledge) in your definition.

I'm not assuming my conclusion because I'm not trying to come to a conclusion. I was just giving my definition, my premise, and the consequences that trivially follow from it - namely that E is all we can know. What then followed was a defense of my definition, and by association, the consequences. You provided a counter-example of a priori knowledge. I rejected your expanded definition of knowledge as an impotent masturbatory exercise - It tells you nothing other than trivial results of arbitrary rules.

Why not just 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied in any situation'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data' including data derived from a previous correct application of reason to accurate data'

Because "correct" and "accurate" are problematic concepts at this level of epistemology.

'knowledge is the result of aquisition and accumulation of mutually coherent facts'

This one is not too bad. We might be able to work with it. By going to a coherence theory of truth, we avoid the metaphysics inherent in the more common correspondence theories of truth. But, following the JTB model of knowledge, we need more than truth. We also need justification - which is just another way of asking 'do you accept my epistemology and do you think I've applied it consistently'.

[Surendra Darathy]

Do you understand what 'Philistine' means?

It doesn't map to "non-conformist", does it?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Conformist or contrarian.. They're both missing the point. We walk our path, through the snow, through the ice and high mountains. No one shall steal after us.. Our very feet have effaced the path behind us, and over it stands written: Impossibility. How many little idiots does our culture have, how many Jamest's? How many more will it produce? I dare assert that they are countless! One could bridge Europe with the Americas with their cadavers.
There is but one Comte de Saint-Germain living today. His predecessors were false, his heirs are none. If I am not God, if I am not Nietzsche, it is because they were not yet ready to be me.

I am the most exemplary human being to every walk upon this Earth. None of this, none of these verbal imitations of what I feel, of what I breathe, of what it is to be me.. None of this, as arrogant or narcissist or 'ego-driven' as it sounds comes close to the claim that one has insight into the very fabric of the cosmos.. That one perceives beyond perception, that one reasons beyond reason. I make no claims to the transcendent, to the divine, to read in the Stars their ultimate making; To break the veil with the prism of my mind and gaze upon the face of God.