Metaphysics as an Error

[SpeedOfSound]

SoS is a physicalist, and said so many times; that is a metaphysical position you know.
Unless, do you no longer claim physicalism is right, SoS?

I understand your mental impairment and I'm willing to try and work with you here.

Suppose you have a mental representation of five fish and a bucket. The representation has three inside and two flopping around outside of the bucket. Is it fair to say that with respect to the bucket that the fish are in the fucking bucket???

Could we say that the two outside are external to the bucket and the three inside are internal to the bucket?

Or are you going to insist that they are all in the bucket?

There are three fish in the bucket and two outside it. Although obviously the bucket knows nothing of this, being as it is just a bucket.
This mental representation may be a dream, an imagination or it may indeed have a physical world existence.

Simple question. Is talk about the fish being internal or external to the bucket metaphysics?

[Surendra Darathy]

Simple question. Is talk about the fish being internal or external to the bucket metaphysics?

It's not a simple question, SoS. You're asking what "talk is", and ladling the presumed answer all over some pre-existing metaphysical crap.

[Little Idiot]

Reality — The actuality; what is rather than what appears to be.
1. The actuality of a thing, situation or event at a point in time
2. The totality of all things possessing actuality.
3. The unchanging actuality.

Existence - The configuration of any substance. (substance can be physical, mental, even possibly ‘spiritual,’ though who knows WTF that means).

And you had to mention it. Why, exactly? Got a bug under your skin?

No bug.
I simply am not being dogmatic about what does or does not exist.

Existence then is the configuration of any substance.

Well, that fucking clears it up. Truly a statement sin verguenza. Listen to yourself wibble.

Such a general word as existence needs a broard meaning. IMO.

Similarly, science tells us the solid objects we experience are almost entirely empty space...

Well, then. Demonstrate for us how easy it is to walk thru walls merely by wibbling. After you do that trick, go bend your spoon.

Straw-man.
Neither science, idealism nor I say (nor imply) such is possible.

[Surendra Darathy]

Such a general word as existence needs a broard meaning. IMO.

Similarly, science tells us the solid objects we experience are almost entirely empty space...

Well, then. Demonstrate for us how easy it is to walk thru walls merely by wibbling. After you do that trick, go bend your spoon.

Straw-man.
Neither science, idealism nor I say (nor imply) such is possible.

So: A synonym for "existence" is "arse gravy"?

I'm not arguing with you. If you make a broad enough definition for all your terms, discourse is impossible. This is along about the moment when discourse tells itself to go fuck itself.

We were hoping that "existence" was not simply some banal generalisation that one cheaply blows out one's arse.

[Little Idiot]

Such a general word as existence needs a broard meaning. IMO.

Similarly, science tells us the solid objects we experience are almost entirely empty space...

Well, then. Demonstrate for us how easy it is to walk thru walls merely by wibbling. After you do that trick, go bend your spoon.

Straw-man.
Neither science, idealism nor I say (nor imply) such is possible.

So: A synonym for "existence" is "arse gravy"?

I'm not sure where the connection is between me pointing out that science atoms are mostly empty space, your suggesting this means I can walk through walls, then asking if existence is 'arse gravy.'

I'm not arguing with you. If you make a broad enough definition for all your terms, discourse is impossible. This is along about the moment when discourse tells itself to go fuck itself.

We were hoping that "existence" was not simply some banal generalisation that one cheaply blows out one's arse.

The crucial point, as I am sure you have picked up is that I am saying
reality is the actual (regardless of appearence), existence means the apparent form of 'things' regardless of the actuality.
This is not banal. Nor is this cheap. It certainally is not blown out of one arse, In my humble opinion.

[Surendra Darathy]

the apparent form of 'things'

How is this relevant? It's only relevant if you already assume the dualist divide between phenomenon and reality. The empirical is all you have. Why talk about the errors in relation to "real reality". The empirical is always being revised. Is it such a bummer that there are no constants, so that you don't have to keep learning NEW STUFF? Unwillingness to learn NEW STUFF is a sign of laziness.

We're not trying to sort out dualism. We're trying to establish whether the distinctions of metaphysics are warranted. What can we do with the addition of metaphysics that we cannot do with empiricism?

There is now the question of how many times you can be asked this question before your responses might be considered as trolling. Oh, yeah: Right. You can't be accused of trolling if your responses are the product of ignorance.

[SpeedOfSound]

Simple question. Is talk about the fish being internal or external to the bucket metaphysics?

It's not a simple question, SoS. You're asking what "talk is", and ladling the presumed answer all over some pre-existing metaphysical crap.

I am not clear on what you are saying here. You think it's metaphysics?

[Surendra Darathy]

Simple question. Is talk about the fish being internal or external to the bucket metaphysics?

It's not a simple question, SoS. You're asking what "talk is", and ladling the presumed answer all over some pre-existing metaphysical crap.

I am not clear on what you are saying here. You think it's metaphysics?

Your statements seem to imply a metaphysics. The woo-heads' evaluation of your discourse seems to fit the definition.

Unless you care to say that "talk" is the same thing as "reportage". The reports themselves are a feature of the empirical. For the metaphysician, what is it about the "report" yet to be accounted-for? Reports are just a feature of the world.

[SpeedOfSound]

Simple question. Is talk about the fish being internal or external to the bucket metaphysics?

It's not a simple question, SoS. You're asking what "talk is", and ladling the presumed answer all over some pre-existing metaphysical crap.

I am not clear on what you are saying here. You think it's metaphysics?

Your statements seem to imply a metaphysics. The woo-heads' evaluation of your discourse seems to fit the definition.

Unless you care to say that "talk" is the same thing as "reportage". The reports themselves are a feature of the empirical. For the metaphysician, what is it about the "report" yet to be accounted-for? Reports are just a feature of the world.

Don't know where you got that idea. Seems to me that a four year old knows the three fish are in the bucket and the two out. This would be an empirical observation. No?

So now we have a fine definition of internal and external. In the bucket and out.

Where did I imply any different?

The strange thing to me is that LI and JS refuse to answer the simple question. You too?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

So now existence is a property? Read Kant. Alternatively, read the wiki on ontological argument, Kant. That said, why are you bringing metaphysics into a thread that asks you to base the presumption that metaphysics is possible?

[Surendra Darathy]

Don't know where you got that idea. Seems to me that a four year old knows the three fish are in the bucket and the two out. This would be an empirical observation. No?

So now we have a fine definition of internal and external. In the bucket and out.

Where did I imply any different?

The strange thing to me is that LI and JS refuse to answer the simple question. You too?

I think we might try to agree substantially that "internal" and "external" are empirical categories, and not ontological ones.

If you opine that observation implies a divide between external and internal, then we have more to wibble about, but not to discuss intelligently. You may really declare that it is worth saying who is doing the observation, or that the observation is "lodged" somewhere; the parsimonious way would not so declare. It's just a fucking observation.

The observation is specified to be located, but who cares about who or where the observer is, except as qualifying whether the observation is "possible" relative to the situation of the observer? Could the observation have been made if a detector was installed in the right place?

[Little Idiot]

the apparent form of 'things'

How is this relevant? It's only relevant if you already assume the dualist divide between phenomenon and reality. The empirical is all you have. Why talk about the errors in relation to "real reality". The empirical is always being revised. Is it such a bummer that there are no constants, so that you don't have to keep learning NEW STUFF? Unwillingness to learn NEW STUFF is a sign of laziness.

We're not trying to sort out dualism. We're trying to establish whether the distinctions of metaphysics are warranted. What can we do with the addition of metaphysics that we cannot do with empiricism?

There is now the question of how many times you can be asked this question before your responses might be considered as trolling. Oh, yeah: Right. You can't be accused of trolling if your responses are the product of ignorance.

If you think I am trolling, report me to a mod. If the mod agrees I will leave the forum never to return, simple as that. Just because you dont like my answer does not mean I am not responding to the question.

Its relevent because the physical world has been known and experienced since the first early man. He didnt think 'hrmm lunch...but it it really real, or is it an elaborate hoax by aiens, or a computer simulation like the one in the matrix that my ancestors will write in a few k years; who gives a fuck it still tastes good even if it is a simuation'

He took it as the reality cos it looks that way. He took the appearence of forms as reality. I question the apparent forms, which do exist, but may not be reality, rather they may be appearance only. I am no longer what the cave man was, nor are you.

We can ask the question, 'is it real?', 'how do we know if the physical world is or could be a computer simulation or a mental experience?'
To do this, we need to avoid the assumption that the physical is the only reality, which it may be, or may not.
To do this, we need to avoid the assumption that the emperical is all we've got - I know you will say 'ah but it is all we've got'; how do you know it is the only reality, which it may be, or may not.

[Little Idiot]

Simple question. Is talk about the fish being internal or external to the bucket metaphysics?

Not every simple question has a simple answer, nor a single answer.

Are the fish in or our of the bucket - emperical
What is the reality of the fish, the bucket, the observer who made the observation - metaphysics.

Happy now?

[SpeedOfSound]

Don't know where you got that idea. Seems to me that a four year old knows the three fish are in the bucket and the two out. This would be an empirical observation. No?

So now we have a fine definition of internal and external. In the bucket and out.

Where did I imply any different?

The strange thing to me is that LI and JS refuse to answer the simple question. You too?

I think we might try to agree substantially that "internal" and "external" are empirical categories, and not ontological ones.

If you opine that observation implies a divide between external and internal, then we have more to wibble about, but not to discuss intelligently. You may really declare that it is worth saying who is doing the observation, or that the observation is "lodged" somewhere; the parsimonious way would not so declare. It's just a fucking observation.

The observation is specified to be located, but who cares about who or where the observer is, except as qualifying whether the observation is "possible" relative to the situation of the observer? Could the observation have been made if a detector was installed in the right place?

We can so agree. To put it simply I do not think that we need make metaphysical assumptions in order to tell our asses from a hole in the ground.

As for the observer crap it was jamest that wanted to drag that shit into a very early phase of a discussion about what is a metaphysical assumption and what is not. Not Me. I will get to that later but first I have to know who is with me on discerning ass from hole in the ground. Or fish in buckets if you prefer.

[SpeedOfSound]

Simple question. Is talk about the fish being internal or external to the bucket metaphysics?

Not every simple question has a simple answer, nor a single answer.

Are the fish in or our of the bucket - emperical
What is the reality of the fish, the bucket, the observer who made the observation - metaphysics.

Happy now?

So happy.

Like fucking pulling teeth out of a rhino. :pissed:

My claim is that everything that we know about internal and external is from these simple empirical 'realities'. That is the same claim as the OP. But we can take these two words and make further abstractions. The validity of those abstractions is what is in question.