Metaphysics as an Error

[jamest]

And still no argument for how we are to access metaphysics? You're still merely sceptical of the scepticism.

Hello Matt. Welcome back to the conversion conversation.

I don't think you understand the importance of sinking Jerome's position. Consider it a clearing of my path, so that I can walk smoothly along it. You should also take a second look at the title of this thread, and read some of the claims made in the OP. The thread is actually about a justification for being negative about metaphysics. Consequently, the opposing view should be one that counters that justification.

[jamest]

Hey hi, Matt! I see the community is regrouping.

After the rout?

[SpeedOfSound]

Since we know that we do not experience the actual real world as it really is in any instant - at least a small delay for the sound and light to enter the CNS and be processed - then there is sufficient grounds to merit inquiry into how things really are, beyond the simple practicality of aquiring lunch.
While it is good sense to aquire lunch first, our large brains have allowed us spare time in which we can ponder such questions.

..
Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

I noticed that neither you nor jamest took me up on my request that you define reality without a physical analogy. You may have something here if you could do it.

On the appearance being a bit askew... how is it exactly that we know it is? Empirical evidence is how. You still haven't broke away from the physical realm with all this talk of sensory error. We should name this little idealist ploy. "Da world aint da way it appears" Dwadwia? Or should we just keep calling it blatant intellectual dishonesty?

[Little Idiot]

Since we know that we do not experience the actual real world as it really is in any instant - at least a small delay for the sound and light to enter the CNS and be processed - then there is sufficient grounds to merit inquiry into how things really are, beyond the simple practicality of aquiring lunch.
While it is good sense to aquire lunch first, our large brains have allowed us spare time in which we can ponder such questions.

..
Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

I noticed that neither you nor jamest took me up on my request that you define reality without a physical analogy. You may have something here if you could do it.

On the appearance being a bit askew... how is it exactly that we know it is? Empirical evidence is how. You still haven't broke away from the physical realm with all this talk of sensory error. We should name this little idealist ploy. "Da world aint da way it appears" Dwadwia? Or should we just keep calling it blatant intellectual dishonesty?

The main reason why I didnt touch it is that it seems a bit of a tangent. The topic here is the very validity of any metaphysics, not the validity of the ideaist metaphysic. To digress into attacking and defending idealism and so turn this into another 'it is so vs it aint so' thread seems a bit premature.

[jamest]

I noticed that neither you nor jamest took me up on my request that you define reality without a physical analogy. You may have something here if you could do it.

I didn't see the request, but I could easily provide conceptual attributions of 'God'. Would that suffice?

On the appearance being a bit askew... how is it exactly that we know it is? Empirical evidence is how. You still haven't broke away from the physical realm with all this talk of sensory error. We should name this little idealist ploy. "Da world aint da way it appears" Dwadwia? Or should we just keep calling it blatant intellectual dishonesty?

In this thread, what is relevant is that the world either IS reality/existence, or it isn't. Of course, claims about the former are ontological/metaphysical, so aren't much use as a tool for dismantling metaphysics. However, as discussed, claims for the latter are still definite and can be linked to an unspecified ontology, which also makes the argument against metaphysics self-refuting.

Then there is a third option: FBM's "Pyrrhonist skepticism", which ultimately equates to philosophical impotence, rendering any negative claim about metaphysics as impossible, anyway!

Of course, I don't believe that such scepticism is justified. So perhaps I could attend to that next. But the significant result so far, is that one cannot make definite claims about the world without implying an ontology. And so, none of the negative claims about metaphysics have been justified.

[Luis Dias]

But the significant result so far, is that one cannot make definite claims about the world without implying an ontology. And so, none of the negative claims about metaphysics have been justified.

Hey congrats, you won the incapable-of-reading-comprehension award.

You built your own straw man and destroyed it. I knew I was on the right track when I posted D Quixote's pictures here, for fucks sake.

[jamest]

But the significant result so far, is that one cannot make definite claims about the world without implying an ontology. And so, none of the negative claims about metaphysics have been justified.

Hey congrats, you won the incapable-of-reading-comprehension award.

You built your own straw man and destroyed it. I knew I was on the right track when I posted D Quixote's pictures here, for fucks sake.

You need to decide which mule you're on Luis. But none of the three brought to my attention are looking like studs. Is there another donkey up your sleeve?

[Luis Dias]

You need to decide which mule you're on Luis.

I'm not Sancho, thus I'm not going to indulge your red herrings and distractions until you actually engage in the point that is being made. You've been explained on and on what's on stake, you prefer to hit strawmans.

IOW, you are trolling us. I have little to no respect to trolls.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Oh no I hit h instead of t in Jamest, how terrible, that proves it, I have no valid argument to make.

No, you having no argument proves you have no argument. Pointing out spelling mistakes is amusing to me. There's no point to me mocking you, little idiot.

Why bother, you are not interested in ant ideas apart from your own.

Woe unto ye who enter here? I have no pity for you, little idiot.

Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

Your question is so ridiculous phrased it's impossible to answer it without invoking the inherent ambiguity. For someone who talks about language facilitating communication, you are doing a piss-poor job at it.

So thats 'no, i wont anser a simple question. I thought so

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Classic
First you say 'unless there is evidence blah blah ...'
Then as soon as someone makes a tentative possible offering; note the question 'isnt and question mark in my original quote "isnt the measurement problem exactly such evidence?"
Then you respond like this to a reasonable QUESTION.
If science is not a possible source for such evidence, you really are not open to a discussion of evidence at all, are you?

Quite! You seem to underestimate how much you need to prove before you can even start with proving actual metaphysical content. It's not my problem that your philosophy is so speculative.
To answer you directly to your last question, you must first demonstrate that science can make claims about the supra-empirical, or that metaphysics is actually explained by the empirical itself, whichever fits your fancy. You have not done so, either by evidence or argument, little idiot.

When I say 'A says the same as B' this is not supposed to be either philosophy or science, its a simple observation. If you can refute the obseravtion, then you show me to be wrong. You could go on from proving me wrong to accuse me of talking bullshit. But your inability to answer my points time after time shows that it is actually you producing BS in this exchange between us. I must have pissed you off real bad to make you respond like this; I used to think of you as an articulate guy.

Pissed off? More like laughing my ass off.

I am quite aware of the diference betwen Physics and metaphysics.

I'm sceptical!

However your implication that science can not be used to provide material for metaphysics to consider is very very silly. Its called meta-PHYSICS for a reason you know.

Yeah, just like atheism can tell us something about theism. It's called aTHEISM for a reason, you know.

Why the personal insult? Why imply that I failed school, which is obviously a lie?

I didn't say you failed school, I said you didn't pass primary school intellectually, which is hardly the same. And yes, I have met highschool students who were able to understand this point I'm making, so the comparison is valid, methinks..

What do you gain from it other than momentary ego food?

Wait.. Why exactly do you think I'm here?

I had hoped to engage in a worth while discussion with you and other people, but I can see you are intent on repeatedly dragging our exchange into petty insults, lies and basically wasting my time untill I stop attempting to engage you. Well, if that counts as some kind of victory to you, let me be the first to congratulate you on a job well done.

Actually, I would like nothing more than an actual discussion. The problem is, you haven't read my original post, and if you have, your response has as much to do with it as gravy has to do with a funeral. As long as an actual discussion is impossible because you can not understand the most rudimentary of things, I might as well have some fun.

I have no need to prove to you my credentials, unless we begin to exchange in a manner more befitting adults.
I do not use Physics to prove metaphysics; that would dumb. It is a common point I have used many times that the laws of physics do not prove metaphysics, despite claims by materialists or physicalist to the effect that Physics supports their position.
What I did, as you will see if you take time to actually read my post is that I suggested it may be a source of evidence for metaphysics, not proof of anything.

Yeah, you haven't explained how this would be evidence. You haven't done anything. All you've done is explained an analogy by which a part of quantum mechanics can be understood by laymen.

I take it that you not actually resonding to my point of physics is that you conceed that I was right, my physics was right, and I am not incredibly ignorant of physics, which means you were wrong to say I was?

Where did I say you were 'incredibly ignorant' of physics? Not that this is evidence of the contrary, I'm sure you can find the example worked out on wikipedia..

If you dont accept this, then pull out some physics of your own and show why I made an error and am so ingnorant. Were I in a position of having made an error, I would acept the error and say so, but thats because I consider my self to be honourable, what about you?

This thread isn't about physics, little idiot, it's about metaphysics. And unless you demonstrate how science can tell us something about metaphysics, any example from quantum mechanics is an a priori failed attempt at establishing metaphysics.

Put up or shut up, buddy

Yeah, have another one, buddy.

[Little Idiot]

Then there is a third option: FBM's "Pyrrhonist skepticism", which ultimately equates to philosophical impotence, rendering any negative claim about metaphysics as impossible, anyway!

That was exactly my reaction when I read the Pyrrhonist skepticism posts. To be honest I thought that position was historical and not seriously considered any more (unlike some posters in this thread I am only human and not perfect).

If the position is to with hold judgement (on the value of metaphysics, and other things) then there is no reason why that position should influence anyone who is of the judgement that metaphysics has value.

If I judge a positon and you present a better position, I will consider the evidence and incorporate or move to the position best in alignment with the evidence. In this way, one may best hope to move to an increasingly more accurate model.

This is what science does.

But if this Pyrrhonist skepticism is to avoid holding a position, then it would appear to be of no merrit in improving ones position and moving towards a better model. It would appear to run counter to modern scientific method, and be effectively stirile and impotent.

[Luis Dias]

But if this Pyrrhonist skepticism is to avoid holding a position, then it would appear to be of no merrit in improving ones position and moving towards a better model. It would appear to run counter to modern scientific method, and be effectively stirile and impotent.

I wasn't aware that metaphysics was some kind of a sex enabler. Last time I checked, VIAGRA was way more influential on that than Plato's musings.

IOW, to assert that ignoring metaphysics disables us somehow of our "abilities" is ungrounded, and mostly, wrong. You'll find that most navel-gazers navel gaze mostly due to the lack of other ... ahhhh.... entertainments.

[Little Idiot]

Where did I say you were 'incredibly ignorant' of physics?

You said

You are so incredibly ignorant about science I don't know where to begin. In fact, I don't think I will

in the first post on page 2 of the thread. I cant be bothered to take the time to link to it.

So as I said, you were wrong when you said it, and now you show that you cant even recall your own words.

I will respond to the rest of your drivel another time. I have things to do now.
Enough to say that you have offered no counter to my valid physics, which I brought up in the context of supporting a discussion on metaphysics, but you probably forgot that again, right?

Well done on living up to your sig.

[Luis Dias]

Enough to say that you have offered no counter to my valid physics

Your dissertation on the dual slit experiment is irrelevant to the subject at hand. You haven't shown how those experiments validate metaphysics, you just made a wibbling word salad out of it and mangled the words "quantum" with "metaphysics" together as if that is some kind of a valuable argument.

You have to do better than that.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Where did I say you were 'incredibly ignorant' of physics?

You said

You are so incredibly ignorant about science I don't know where to begin. In fact, I don't think I will

in the first post on page 2 of the thread. I cant be bothered to take the time to link to it.

Wait.. Doesn't that say science? Wouldn't this mean that rather than this:

So as I said, you were wrong when you said it, and now you show that you cant even recall your own words.

You're unable to read, since you seem to mistake physics for science? Just throwing out ideas here. If you don't understand the limitations of science, you don't understand science. If you don't understand the limitations of science to such an extent as you displayed here, then yes, I would say that you are woefully ignorant.
As for teaching at an undergraduate level, I have been asked to tutor mathematics and science at an undergraduate level, but I didn't have the time, err, at the time. Woopie-doo.

Enough to say that you have offered no counter to my valid physics, which I brought up in the context of supporting a discussion on metaphysics, but you probably forgot that again, right?

No, I'm still hoping you'll explain what it has to do with this thread.

Well done on living up to your sig.

I aim to please.

[jamest]

But if this Pyrrhonist skepticism is to avoid holding a position, then it would appear to be of no merrit in improving ones position and moving towards a better model. It would appear to run counter to modern scientific method, and be effectively stirile and impotent.

Yay. Relativism too. Philosophically lame.