Metaphysics as an Error

[Luis Dias]

Bah, exactly. 3 alternatives: You two (LI and JS) either get a bed and work out that stuff between you two; actually report the damned "other" for good and see what the mod actually says; shut the fuck about this and stop derailing this thread to drama queenage ego-tripping mode. If I wanted to see wankering contest, I'd rather watch the parliament tv.

[maiforpeace]

We have a simple rule here: play nice. Demands and sarcasm are not helpful or productive and don't quite fit into that rule. Please keep your criticisms to ideas rather than people.

[Little Idiot]

Bah, exactly. 3 alternatives: You two (LI and JS) either get a bed and work out that stuff between you two; actually report the damned "other" for good and see what the mod actually says; shut the fuck about this and stop derailing this thread to drama queenage ego-tripping mode. If I wanted to see wankering contest, I'd rather watch the parliament tv.

Your right Luis. No point asking him to stop attacking me, again,. he just continues to do so. Therefore, I either take it or stop it dead...

[LaMont Cranston]

Little Idiot and Luis, I hope this isn't too much of a derail, but I just wanted to say "Aloha" to both of you. On RDF, I was known as "Dr. Robert Klass," but my new identity is "LaMont Cranston." Please don't tell anybody my secret identity...

[Luis Dias]

Little Idiot and Luis, I hope this isn't too much of a derail, but I just wanted to say "Aloha" to both of you. On RDF, I was known as "Dr. Robert Klass," but my new identity is "LaMont Cranston." Please don't tell anybody my secret identity...

Hey, welcome back, Bob! Check out the Rational Skepticism forum. It's full of RDF people.... this is the last thread that somehow survives here.... it should be redirected there somewhat, somehow.

Do you have anything to say about "Metaphysics as an Error" OP?

[Surendra Darathy]

This is outragous.

Does this have anything to do with ragout?

Sorry for being so merry, Nate, but a red whine ragout is one of my favourites. This sauté be the end of it.

Let stew something else now. Maybe there's a morel to the story, in this hard life of truffle and woe.

[Surendra Darathy]

We have a simple rule here: play nice. Demands and sarcasm are not helpful or productive and don't quite fit into that rule. Please keep your criticisms to ideas addressing ex recto assertions rather than people.

There. Fixed it for you. When we see an actual idea in this thread, a grateful planet will rejoice.

Oh, wait. There is one: "What if we were to consider metaphysics as an error?" A grateful planet rejoices!

[Little Idiot]

Little Idiot and Luis, I hope this isn't too much of a derail, but I just wanted to say "Aloha" to both of you. On RDF, I was known as "Dr. Robert Klass," but my new identity is "LaMont Cranston." Please don't tell anybody my secret identity...

Well there is some good news

Glad to know you finally got to drop the 'Dr.' which I know you wanted to do a while back, but I wasnt expecting the 'Robert Klass' to go too!

We're still here slugging it out, although I tried to drop out of the thread a few days back, but events took a funny turn as you will see if you have read any of the 'material' (think; brown, organic) in this thread

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Comte de Sant-Germain & Little Idiot,

You are both being far too personal in your posts. The constant "he said - she said" between you is irrelevant to the topic and boring to everyone else. Will you please BOTH knock it on the head now. Neither of you are playing nice.

The rules of this forum don't include 'official warnings'. Board warnings are only given as a joke for trivial acts of supreme inanity. What we do issue is reminders to play nice, which you have already received, which eventually include a warning that any further such behaviour will result in a brief suspension, so that you will have time to consider whether you really do understand the Play Nice rule. This post is that warning. The next time either of you post a continuation of your childish argument, that person will be sent for a vacation. And one word in retaliation from the other will mean the same for them.

Now can everyone please try to limit themselves to the topic. Enjoy your philosophising.

[Kenny Login]

it's hard to argue that questions concerning existence are not being handled preconceptually and preconsciously.

Elaborate please?

Why would any of it be pre?

'Questions' may be somewhat misleading here, and you could substitute other processes in connectionist or computational models of cognition. But either way, learning about the continuity of objects across space and time, and becoming aware that one is some kind of discrete entity, physically and psychologically individuated, is part of development. The evidence suggests it takes place outside of conscious awareness. The evidence also suggests that pre- or sub-conscious thought is not restricted to developmental psychology.

[SpeedOfSound]

it's hard to argue that questions concerning existence are not being handled preconceptually and preconsciously.

Elaborate please?

Why would any of it be pre?

'Questions' may be somewhat misleading here, and you could substitute other processes in connectionist or computational models of cognition. But either way, learning about the continuity of objects across space and time, and becoming aware that one is some kind of discrete entity, physically and psychologically individuated, is part of development. The evidence suggests it takes place outside of conscious awareness. The evidence also suggests that pre- or sub-conscious thought is not restricted to developmental psychology.

Now you have me curious. 'specially with the last line. What evidence?

[Kenny Login]

Luis - I did find that to be an amusing take on my post!

Although, I'm not quite sure why, for someone with an almost religious faith in science doing the job of 'unveiling', you seem to be overlooking the scientific evidence. Your post says (to me at least) that all we can do (i.e. know) comes from formulating and testing hypotheses within a positivist framework. If that were the basis of a philosophical argument, it would be dangerously close to tautological. It's also a position unsupported by the evidence.

Scientific research is made possible because the formation and testing of hypotheses necessitate a common protocol, a common language and common thought. As Surendra has mentioned, if you can't say something useful, or meaningful, what good is that to anyone? Well, it turns out that it might still be rather good for the individual, and it might in fact be going on all the time.

Conscious thought, and the very specialized type of conscious thought necessary to satisfy the rigorous requirements of formal research, is one activity of human beings. Developmental psychology shows that at least some human beings (little ones) discover very meaningful, valid things about themselves and the world in other ways, and preconsciously (i.e, not accessible to conscious awareness).

If babies are guilty of navel-gazing, rather than reading peer-reviewed scientific journals or debating analytic philosophy, then that navel-gazing seems to work out pretty good for them.

In the example you used, if there was indeed evidence that astrological thinking was hardwired, you would need to be sure that this gave us no valuable information, and then, how to correct an 'error' of this magnitude by simply reframing the problem.

If you've already decided a priori that all (current and future) things will be understood empirically, then naturally metaphysics is about as useful as poetry - QED. But I suspect that when you say empirically, you mean exclusively as part of scientific methodology (correct me if I'm wrong). And as James has been trying to get across in this thread, in order to explore empiricism and the 'error' of metaphysics, you have to get your hands dirty on what it is to 'observe'. Because 2 month old babies do not observe like scientists; nor do mystics or mad men. Who out of these need correcting?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Can a solipsist plagiarize?

Uhmm...damn. Not as far as s/he is concerned, I guess...

Of course he can. The question of solipsism concerns the existence of various elements, where the solipsists attributes metaphysical status - existence - only to his experiences, possibly himself (the latter is not necessary for solipsism - a commitment to only one's own existence ends up being absurd or the basis for further speculation, often leading to the more robust solipsism).
Consequently, even if he does not believe that anyone actually exists that wrote something, that does not mean he can not conceive others as 'non-existing' explanatory models that provide him with information. Plagiarism is the violation of a relationship, and that's still possible for a solipsist.

It's often erroneously assumed that the solipsist must believe that 'he' causes the universe. This is an error. It's entirely possible for a solipsist to be parsimonious about existence, believing only that empirical reality exists as it present itself to him, whilst not believing that causality exists metaphysically. He may simply refuse to comment or speculate. It's a somewhat confusing perspective, but no more confusing than metaphysics generally is.
Solipsism is a much more coherent position than is often supposed and most parodies of solipsism miss the point. For me, the objection is simple - I go one God further, one more step of parsimony further.

[SpeedOfSound]

Solipsism is a much more coherent position than is often supposed and most parodies of solipsism miss the point. For me, the objection is simple - I go one God further, one more step of parsimony further.

Damn. You had me tearing up on this one. I'm getting a bumper sticker with that.


....would that be plagiarism?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Couldn't resist having the last word, could you CSG?

Perhaps a break from forum activities will give you time to think about it. I don't care how clever you thought your wording was, you were asked to drop the subject and you didn't. See you this time tomorrow.