Metaphysics as an Error

[Surendra Darathy]

The pertinent question is whether the OBSERVATION, by the bucket, of two fish escaping itself, is an internal or external affair.

Why are you talking about an "observation (made) by a bucket"? Are you nuts?

There are reports about the location of the bucket and its contents. You don't need to specify where they come from until much, much later, when peer-reviewed research is being published, and CVs are being assembled, and credentials are being granted. Being granted a credential in philosophy is no evidence of any accomplishment.

[Surendra Darathy]

Because by ignoring the fact that 'something' has to observe the world in order to make theories/conclusions/predictions about it, one is readily equipped to discuss nothing other than the relationships between observed entities (Aka 'science').

And it is regarded simply as being part of the same world, and the reports of the observations are part of the same world, and so on. Show the necessity that the "essence" of the "source of the observation" must be established, prior to considerations I already mentioned about peer-reviewed research. A systematically-successful source of observations gets a good reputation, and wibbling woo-heads get a bad reputation. "Reputation" has to do with how seriously reports are taken.

[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.

[Surendra Darathy]

It occured to me, after my last post to SOS, that 'observation' is the word that kills the empirical/relativist/sceptical position. Why? Because by ignoring the fact that 'something' has to observe the world in order to make theories/conclusions/predictions about it, one is readily equipped to discuss nothing other than the relationships between observed entities (Aka 'science').

Addressed in posts just above and as follows:

But what of the observer? What is that? And how can we ignore the significance of 'its' observations being distinct to that which is observed?

Your observer is only a feature of the world that produces reports of observations. A localised empirical feature. Those reports do not come from disembodied mouths and typing fingers, but from mouths and tongues and fingers attached to organisms. There. In the world. Do you purport it as some sort of miracle that the report of the observation appears in the world? A robot spacecraft on Mars has sensors to record information about the world, and communications gear to transmit it from there to here. It's just a report. It does some organizing of the information before the info is transmitted. The details contain some rocket science, but you should be able to understand the basics.

The "mystery of the observer" you have been wibbling about is only a problem for somebody who already assumes dualism and has jumped the shark in trying to establish the possibility of metaphysics. You are not only not addressing the question put forward in the OP, but are pressing your own agenda into the discussion. Go start your own thread inquiring about what the metaphysical foundations of the "observer" concept entail, and see it ripped to shreds.

[Surendra Darathy]

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.

Does this haz to do wif dem bukkit fingies the lolrus am alwaze playinz wif?

[the PC apeman]

René, darling. You assume too much. Thinking is (or is not) occurring.

[Surendra Darathy]

René, darling. You assume too much. Thinking is (or is not) occurring.

You talkin to me? I hope the fuck not!

Did we define "thinking"? Occurring? Waddat? There's a world. There are reports. The only content of reports is information. Reports are passed around as fluxes of information. Wild enough for you yet? Along about the time we get around to crunching information, we get to "thinking".

[Matthew Shute]

Are zeez bukkits fingies... fingies-in-demselvz?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Metaphysical reality is the concept reality deployed to refer to something metaphysical. As a concept in that deployment, it's meaningless. Reality can have meaning, in per example, discerning between dreams and non-dream events (reality). In this sense, there's nothing metaphysical about reality. The same can go for existence, and this is something I dealt with in my original post, where I suggested that there are many definitions that existence can have, and that it does not necessarily denote something metaphysical, in which case - again - the concept is meaningless.

AND

I have already explained this to you - twice now, I believe. I won't do it a third. Metaphysical existence and metaphysical reality are related. More importantly, there's no basis on which to deploy any metaphysical concept.

You missed the point that I asking about reality and existence, not 'metaphysical reality.' I keep telling you this....
Assuming you are addressing my question, shouldnt the answer be in terms of these words? Since I am attacking your OP, you really should be addressing my question.
If your not addressing my question, what are you doing?

If reality and existence to you are non-metaphysical, why are you bringing them up in a threads about metaphysics? What are you doing?

Who says there is no distinction? The point is that if I refute physics, chemistry is fucked as well. Criticising existence means a critique of reality as well. Hence your objection is unimportant. Now, this really is the last time I'll be making this point. You can object to it all you want, I'm not your tutor. I'm not getting paid to instruct you.

But MY point is that refuting existence does not touch reality; this is clear once we have a concept of what the words mean, thats why I ask what the words mean to you - and I suspect why you avoid answering me.

The meaning of words to me - or anyone else - is unimportant. We are discussing the possibility of the project of metaphysics, not idiosyncratic attributions of meaning.

Actually, I have already stated that I don't know the difference when they are deployed in a metaphysical setting, because in that setting they are meaningless. However, more importantly, my critique isn't about metaphysical concepts - it's about the possibility of metaphysics. You haven't even shown that metaphysics is possible, there's no basis for you to start out on such a project.

And I have shown why metaphysics is the study of reality, not the study of 'metaphysical reality' which you say is different to reality, and which you say is meaningless.

Yeah, whatever. Reality can have multiple meanings, and I'm talking about a specific definition that is meaningless - there is no ultimate definition of reality that I differentiate from metaphysical reality. I talked about this in my original post. I have no intention of repeating this ad nauseam in the hopes that it will finally get through. If you are unable to understand the main points in my post, prepare to be ignored. My patience for idiocy has its limits.

When I started to talk about metaphysics you said I should address the OP, which is what I am doing, and in turn why you should be addressing my question(s).

You're not addressing the OP at al. You're talking about your own ideas about metaphysics. That's not what this thread is about. You don't even understand the thread. Frankly, I think the off-topic discussion has some threads like 'say something about the person above you' that might be less of a challenge..

You may recall my point of issue is the straw-man based not on metaphyics (being the study of reality) but on existence. You simply can not dismiss reality by dismissing existence. You simply can not dismiss the study of reality by attacking the study or understanding of existence - which is exactly what you attempt to do in the OP.

Why the fuck can I not? Because you say so. Oh fuck, I forgot the 'fallacy ad little idiot', where if little idiot agrees with something you say it's wrong. Oh, wait. That's not a fallacy, that's a reliable measure of factual accuracy!

No, it's not a logical fallacy. There's no evidence or argument on which to assume you have any special access. If you claim to know everything there is to know about the world, everyone's going to laugh at you and call you a wanker, despite it being a supposed 'logical fallacy'. Claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

I need no special access, the point is simply that you claim access to that which you simply can not have; access to the internal workings and knowlege of another person (me). Unless you claim to have ocult powers such as telepathy or mind reading every one else here knows you cant access this information.
Look again and I will make it really easy for you, by including highlights.

yawn.

My question 'what do existence and reality mean to you (not 'metaphysical existence' and 'metaphysical reality') and specifically the difference(s) between them?
If you cant answer I will show you what they mean to me.
Now you claim I cant know this - while obviously I can know what they mean to me, and equally obviously you can not possibly know that I dont know what they mean to me.

I don't care what they mean to you. This is not what is being discussed in this thread. This thread is not about metaphysical content.

Time will expose me, if indeed I am BS'ing. As indeed it will expose you if you deny your logical error here, and in the opening post.

You've got it all wrong. We've established that you're bullshitting. All you can do now is minimise the extent to which we are going to laugh at you.

Not the case at all, I have no interest in how much you laugh at me. You make the wrong assumption that mocking or insulting my ego is mocking or insulting me.

I'm not mocking your ego, I'm mocking you.

[Surendra Darathy]

Are zeez bukkits fingies... fingies-in-demselvesz?

A "bukkit" is just a "repository of information". When you puke up information, it goes into the bukkit. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, the information goes into the bit bukkit.

[the PC apeman]

You talkin to me? I hope the fuck not!

The fuck or not, no. Sorry NE, that was for the ontologiphiles.

[Surendra Darathy]

You talkin to me? I hope the fuck not!

The fuck or not, no. Sorry NE, that was for the ontologiphiles.

Whatever. You inspired me to start rambling on about fluxes of information. Ontologic status or no. Good on you.

And NE? Who dat? NE is now in read-only mode.

Now we have three categories: Ontologiphiles, ontologiphobes, and ontologifeebz like LI and JT.

[the PC apeman]

I blame it all on the cheap tequilla. That's my story and I sticking to it. Provisionally.

[Matthew Shute]

I blame it on the boogie. Also, The Fly is showing on Film4.

[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? Because:

1) If one's observations of 'things' are external to oneself, this implies a metaphysic commensurate with materialism/realism.
2) If one's observations of 'things' are internal to oneself, this feeds a metaphysic commensurate with idealism... which requires a progressive elucidation (see '3').
3) If one's observations of 'things' are internal to oneself, this means that 'the world' [of one's observation] is actually reducible to oneself. At this juncture, this would not be sufficient to refute the existence of a world external to oneself. However, it has important ramifications for Kant's conclusions regarding the impossibilty of rational metaphysics. I did explain why in a previous post - basically, it means that 'the world' has to be properly defined to the extent that it embraces the observer, as well as what is observed. Consequently, this facilitates a discussion of what the observer is, without transgressing Kant's restrictions about that which can be discussed. In other words, Kant's philosophy does not negate the possibility of discussing oneself as distinct to the empirical world. Consequently, not all metaphysical discussion is suffocated by what Kant said.

In an empirical, metaphysics-free discourse, statements are not made about "experience", but only about the "world".

I'm aware of this. But 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.

There are your statements, in the world, in black and white. What's missing from your discourse? That's right: You shy away from making any statements about the world,
in favor of making statements describing your plan to how it is even possible to begin to approach metaphysics.

Surely, that is my primary concern?

And yet, all your statements are to an empiricist simply "messages" coming from a localized coordinate in the world. You write a statement in an internet forum, and responses to it quote the statement as if it was a part of the world, as if it appeared on a computer screen. Those messages are all there is to talk about, here.

Are you saying that I should be able to communicate my messages to you 'psychically', in order to prove them? Surely not?
Anyway, where do you think that my messages came from? I am the brother of all mathematicians: I need no telescope... and though my observations may spark my enquiries, they certainly do not answer them. That is, what I know comes not from 'the world'. That much should be clear.

We shoot the "experiencers" all to hell, and simply make statements about the world.

There is now sufficient reason presented here for you to surrender your weapons and stick your hands up, I think.

If you say the appearance of statements in and of themselves demands "experiencers", you must show how that is. Once we get past that hurdle, we can go back to processing statements about the world, and quit wibbling about "experiencers".

I think that you need to actually address the details of what I have said in the last 24 hours, instead of 'doing a politician' on me. I have presented arguments that address your concerns - so, deal with them.