Metaphysics as an Error

[SpeedOfSound]

I know how we get such ideas and how the brain makes copies of DNA out of them. I also know how the brain gets deluded by it's ability to abstract and creates silly worlds where fish wont cut.

All I ask is that you start to look carefully at the source of your illusion of foundations in these common words.

I'm sorry, but these claims cannot be made, except as a materialist - in which case, they are irrelevant to the discussion, as you cannot negate metaphysics with a metaphysic (I need that in my sig, don't I?).

Check out my sig! I don't know who that Gazer guy was but he sure is funny.

If you claim that my claims are false then you will have to falsify science which is where I get them. Has nothing to do with isms. Just us folks doing experiments and making relative sense of things.

[jamest]

I'm sorry, but these claims cannot be made, except as a materialist - in which case, they are irrelevant to the discussion, as you cannot negate metaphysics with a metaphysic (I need that in my sig, don't I?).

If you claim that my claims are false then you will have to falsify science which is where I get them. Has nothing to do with isms. Just us folks doing experiments and making relative sense of things.

Actually, there is no science proving that mind states are reducible to brain states. You're making it up!

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Having proved above at least one other way of knowing, having proved in an earlier post here to Luis that the conclusion we should only talk about the physical world is unreliable (paraphrase of proof below) I have dismissed the argument that metaphysics must meet the criteria of empirical method to be knowledge.

First of all, you misrepresent my post in your signature. The period at the end was not to designate the ending of the sentence, but that part of the sentence, right now, it looks like I'm some sort of illiterate monkey. More importantly, the actual important part of that message comes after what you quoted - namely, my critique of what is actually arrogant.

That, Sir, is my point in this post. The point in the previous post was stated in the post - I will did edit to highlight it for those unable to read.

P1) we only know about the physical world by empirical investigation of the physical world

P2) We do not know that the physical world exhausts the entire reality

C1) We may not reliably assert that only the empirical can be a valid indicator of reality.

P3) Without a reliable indicator no reliable conclusions can be reached

P4) "we should only talk about the physical world we do have knowledge of by empirical method" is a conclusion reached without a reliable indicator

C2) " we should only talk about the physical world we do have knowledge of by empirical method" is an unreliable conclusion.

I haven't spoken of a 'physical world', nor of 'entire reality, nor the empirical as related to validity or exhaustive in terms of reality. Your argument is so flawed it's vapid.

You're missing the point. The point is that metaphysics can actually be employed to discuss the essence/reality/definition of the empirical realm - and by doing so, has not transgressed the boundaries of that realm.

The 'actual' essence or reality of the empirical realm is beyond the boundaries of the content of that 'realm'. That is to say, since it has nothing to do with empirical data, it is beyond empirical data.

I do understand your point that metaphysics is beyond empirical data (scientific facts). But you seemingly fail to understand that this data is a product of observing something.
It's not just data we are privy to though. That data is our statistical understanding of something.

I understand that you believe this. I don't deny that you believe. I say - that this what I did in the first post of this thread - that this belief is not based on evidence or argument.

The 'empirical realm' is a realm from which we pluck empirical data, but it is NOT this empirical data. This should be obvious as we continue to observe 'whatever' in the hope of producing more and more data. We observe 'the world' and then data is deduced from the order apparently inherent within it. There has to something upon which that data is based.

Simply because your conscience demands it, because your pride demands it, does not make it so. You have no evidence, you have no argument upon which you base this metaphysical assumption. It is an assumption and it is metaphysical, and it lies at the very heart and at the very foundation of your metaphysical argument. It's not the latter that is the question here, we aren't interested in the many floors of your eleborate hotel - we are interested in the decency of the foundation. You built in the swamp of metaphysics, and around you, all hotels have been swallowed by the swamp, but you maintain the solidity of your foundation - contrary to every lack of evidence..

The very basis upon which metaphysics is possible, is that there is this 'something' to discuss.

Exactly! You have no argument to support this assumption.

I've already proved that other facts can be known in relation to this realm that do not come from observation. I did this in my post about "the three E's", which showed that there were three possible metaphysical scenarios in relation to it (E). I also went on to discuss 'causality' - and your response was commensurate with identity theory (materialism - about the brain being the cause of seeing causality) - and not functionalism, as you wrongly claimed.

So, the basis of metaphysics is the realm of the empirical, but not empirical data. Can we be clear on that?

I feel a bit like the guy telling Santa Clause does not exist..

[SpeedOfSound]

I'm sorry, but these claims cannot be made, except as a materialist - in which case, they are irrelevant to the discussion, as you cannot negate metaphysics with a metaphysic (I need that in my sig, don't I?).

If you claim that my claims are false then you will have to falsify science which is where I get them. Has nothing to do with isms. Just us folks doing experiments and making relative sense of things.

Actually, there is no science proving that mind states are reducible to brain states. You're making it up!

That's all another discussion but I didn't say that now did I. I said I know how the brain makes abstractions and mistakes.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I'm sorry, but these claims cannot be made, except as a materialist - in which case, they are irrelevant to the discussion, as you cannot negate metaphysics with a metaphysic (I need that in my sig, don't I?).

If you claim that my claims are false then you will have to falsify science which is where I get them. Has nothing to do with isms. Just us folks doing experiments and making relative sense of things.

Actually, there is no science proving that mind states are reducible to brain states. You're making it up!

That's all another discussion but I didn't say that now did I. I said I know how the brain makes abstractions and mistakes.

Science doesn't speak of mind states, it speaks of mental states, which is a functionalist approach to describing the brain in more abstract terms - it does not mean that one is making metaphysical claims. Much of this is faulty perception of the science of psychology. Merely because idealists appropriate the mind does not mean that mental states necessarily are states of the mind, rather than empirical constructs. I understand that this may be confusing to some, but that doesn't mean it is relevant to this thread.

[jamest]

That's all another discussion but I didn't say that now did I. I said I know how the brain makes abstractions and mistakes.

Yes, what you're saying is that the brain is responsible for thought. That is, thought is reducible to brain-states. That's a claim commensurate with identity theory - a materialist outlook.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

No, it really isn't. It's materialism when it is suggested that this 'physical reality' or 'empirical reality' is 'real' or exists. This discussion won't progress very far if you can't discern between metaphysical statements and non-metaphysical statements..

[jamest]

The 'empirical realm' is a realm from which we pluck empirical data, but it is NOT this empirical data. This should be obvious as we continue to observe 'whatever' in the hope of producing more and more data. We observe 'the world' and then data is deduced from the order apparently inherent within it. There has to something upon which that data is based.

Simply because your conscience demands it, because your pride demands it, does not make it so. You have no evidence, you have no argument upon which you base this metaphysical assumption.

Of course I've got an argument. The argument is that we can't just be looking at statistics and formulae (empirical data), or else we wouldn't see anything until that data was understood. Stupid animals and men would be forever blind! There's been plenty of experience without understanding, and there still is. And science is but the means to apply understanding where there is none. Also, there's been plenty of science that has been wrong, or incomplete. So, the obvious question ensues: are we observing wrong data when we report wrong data? Of course not!
It is clear that 'empirical data' is OUR construct - OUR understanding - of this 'thing' that we are trying to discern.

I feel a bit like the guy telling Santa Clause does not exist..

Coming from the guy who thinks that only data exists, we can take that with a pinch of salt. I for one will be watching my chimney come December.

[jamest]

No, it really isn't. It's materialism when it is suggested that this 'physical reality' or 'empirical reality' is 'real' or exists. This discussion won't progress very far if you can't discern between metaphysical statements and non-metaphysical statements..

You don't seem to understand the implications of attributing the brain with being the cause of 'experience' (where experience = thought/perception/feeling etc.). The implication IS that the brain is real, or else how would IT cause experience to happen?

[Surendra Darathy]

I have demonstrated that there are other ways of knowing in addition to the emperical.

You are claiming that the complicated tautologies arrived at through mathematics are classifiable as "knowledge", when all of them are "statements". This is a misunderstanding of how mathematics is developed. You cannot make any valid statement in mathematics that is not consistent with the axioms. All you've demonstrated here is that you are not a mathematician. You've defined "axiom" idiosyncratically. Why are you trying to discuss this with anyone else.

Insistence that there are "other ways of knowing in addition to the empirical" is occultism. This is not a branch of metaphysics. Furthermore, you are attempting to smuggle in occultism by misapplying mathematical and philosophical language. Only on the internet, is what I say to that.

P2) We do not know that the physical world exhausts the entire reality

C1) We may not reliably assert that only the emperical can be a valid indicator of reality.
etc.

All this without writing down even an alternative definition of "knowing" or of "reality" or of "reliability" that allows for occultism. The empiricist has determined on the course of referring to the empirical, and not using words that have not been defined.

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.

I have to assume this is humour, since it certainally meets the criteria; it is very funny.

I have a scary feeling that you are actually serious, but not even your ego is that fat and self-agrandizing as to make claims like 'I am the most exemplary human being to every walk upon this Earth' seriously, is it?

Yes, you are correct, Little Idiot. CdSG has written a parody of the metaphysician occultist who claims the veil of the empirical as the gateway to higher knowledge.

This is how we tell Sage from imposter, the ones who know reality from the ones who think they know reality.

And like clockwork, the occultist takes umbrage that anyone dare not to respect his "sagacity". I would use "sagenessness" but we've been around the block now with "consciousnessness" and "obviousnessness", and proof by induction is not what we need at this point.

All we get from the wibble-heads metaphysicians is the rhetorical question, "What lies out there beyond the empirical?"

Oh, but that is not the question that I have posed to you and the rest of your clan. The question is not about what lies "out there beyond" the empirical, but, what is the totality of the empirical?

Well, here goes another occultist, using a word like "totality" without first defining it. Do we understand why he does this? Of course! Jamest does not know what it means either, and has fallen on the hard times of "making shit up". "Totality" is a bullshit word used by occultists, and has not really ever been used to enhance the reputation of a metaphysician.

If I had to take a shot at "totality of the empirical" it would be "everything we can talk about empirically" such as the outdoor temperature registered on a thermometer two people can locate independently and stand before it face to face, without asking what a "face" really is. It's a face, that's what it is. What your nose is in the center of.

because if the empirical realm is [also] something else than that which can be observed to exist, then metaphysics is free to do its work therein without transgressing beyond the parameters of that realm.

But the empirical is not something else. It involves being willing to confront the evidence face to face, as it were. Nothing else will do, for empiricism. Occultists may have a different opinion, but they haven't shown they can sensibly (!) talk about the occult. What they've shown is that they are willing to make shit up about the occult.

Analogies must have some likeness between A and B (an analogy denotes a relationship of similarity between two 'concepts'/'things'/'whatever') and this likeness is not shown. This makes analogies impossible to use, and all language impossible to use for metaphysics. We can not speak of it, in other words.

Making shit up about the occult and calling it metaphysics is not to speak of the occult as a metaphysician. Little Idiot and jamest have not shown that they understand yet that "reality", for example, is not a word used by empiricists except to say that it constitutes the subject of our discourse as empiricists. It's a simple tautological definition, and the obvious likeness of identifying "reality" with "the subject of our discourse as empiricists" without obfuscation is the attraction of empiricism to empiricists. There. Reality is defined for the purpose of investigating the world. Not only that, "reality", the "world" and "the subject of our discourse as empiricists" are bound, methodologically. The method has been specified without obfuscation: Study that which is available to our senses and our instruments.

The pie missing from the windowsill is not available to our senses at present. Our memory of putting the pie in the windowsill, assisted by an annotation in a lab notebook, reminds us that we put the pie in the windowsill. If we solipsistically doubt that the methodology of the annotation and the memory it jogs are reliable, yes, we might as well just go hunting ghosts.

metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS

No, James. Metaphysical scepticism is based on a decision not to decide what anything is. Defining what something is requires ontology, an underpinning of metaphysics. On the other hand, an "unlimited view of what the empirical realm is" constitutes one of the preliminary wibbles of occultism, and is not even metaphysics, because it focuses on delimitation of discourse about everything. In other words, it commences to make shit up about what can be discussed.

The problem is with your IS. You can't just pull a big IS out of your ass, in this context, and let it lie there before us. Well. You can but don't expect us to touch it.

That has to go into Surendra Darathy's Big Book of Little Aphorisms.

We've reached the crux of the debate here

Oh, the momentousnessness of it all.

Recall how we tell a dream from 'waking reality' by contrast when we wake - in sleep the contrast is not possible because contact with 'waking reality' is not available.

But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come, when we have shuffl'd off this mortal coil...

The ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face....

we have no way of knowing what 'out there' looks like, let alone whether it looks like dreaming versus reality

The reason for this is two-fold. First it is because we restrict ourselves to the empirical in order not to have to make shit up about dreaming and waking in the form of faulty analogies. We connect "knowing" and "reality" and "empirical" in a tightly-bound tautology, and the only shit we make up are the interpretations of physical theory. However, we know when we do that we are doing interpretation. It is like interpretive dance, and we realize that as hairless apes, we like to dance without really knowing why, and furthermore, some of us have decided that "why" is a nonsense question.

You cannot argue against the possibility of metaphysics without employing reason.

No one in his right mind "argues against possibility". We simply decline to talk formally with occultists about it. We're not arguing with you formally yet, James. You have yet to present a formal argument against which to contend. You seem to think that because someone is engaging you in conversation that you are conducting a formal debate. How silly.

The point is that metaphysics can actually be employed to discuss the essence/reality/definition of the empirical realm

You can start doing this any time you are ready. Ex recto assertion about what employments metaphysics can find are not the same as the fruits of those labors, which the empiricists recognize as idleness.

All that is needed to produce a statistical analysis, is a field of observation devoid of chaos.

You have such a minuscule apprehension of the scope and constraints of science that I cannot dignify your remark with further analysis. It is not my job to instruct you in the philosophy of science. If you think a scientific study of cartoons as such is legitimate, you are sadly mistaken. We can study the effects of cartoons on people scientifically, but the study of cartoons sui generis is a study of a sort of literature, and is not science. I'm surprised at the provinciality of your remarks here. Yes, occultists and paranormalists purport to do statistical analyses of non-observations; this is well-known, and paranormalists are laughed at by scientists.

It's talking out of your asshole. You have no evidence or argument for speaking in that fashion, that's what we mean by 'beyond the boundaries of the empirical'. You've moved the goalposts, but you moved the wrong goal posts. This was never about confines or realms, this was you not having any basis to claim these sort of metaphysics on.

Still working on the basis I see. Nice to have the second story of the house built before the first.

Ah, another aphorism. I'm going to have to buy a new disk drive before this is over. Hopefully, it will be the last fish.

This is true for any odd and any even number, and does not require any empirical input at all. Therefore proving my original point that the statement ‘empirical is all we have got’ is wrong.

Little Idiot left out the part about where the axioms are presented. The axioms themselves are not empirical, but the presentation of them, in order to arrive at a discourse of mathematics, is empirical. Sure, one may do mathematics by oneself, as a masturbatory exercise in knowledge obtained without recourse to the empirical, but that leaves knowledge locked up in a single skull, exactly the situation we avoid by going the empirical route. The solipsistic definition of "knowledge" is not any kind of knowledge. It leads one to look for the Secret of the Universe occulted somewhere within the digits of pi. Presentation of axioms is an attempt to begin a conversation. It is not surprising that the occultists in this thread are reluctant to present axioms, in favor of making shit up, such as that empiricism goes about saying what anything "is".

I do understand your point that metaphysics is beyond empirical data (scientific facts). But you seemingly fail to understand that this data is a product of observing something.

It's not just data we are privy to though. That data is our statistical understanding of something.

To put it bluntly, James, this is incorrect. Epic fail is fully-engaged for you.

Once one starts in with "something" one is already doing metaphysics, if the goal is the ontology or essence of "something". To a scientist, it's just data. People try to do metaphysics on the data, and this wibbling goes quite beyond the interpretation of the data within the context of a theory. The interpretation of theories is metaphysics, and no one has shown that it is possible to do this kind of activity productively (in the sense of producing further data).

Actually, there is no science proving that mind states are reducible to brain states. You're making it up!

No, epic fail again, James: It is you who is making shit up. Science is not in the business of proving anything. The idea that cognition is reducible to brain states is an hypothesis, for which evidence is being gathered, empirically.

Science doesn't speak of mind states, it speaks of mental states, which is a functionalist approach to describing the brain in more abstract terms - it does not mean that one is making metaphysical claims. Much of this is faulty perception of the science of psychology. Merely because idealists appropriate the mind does not mean that mental states necessarily are states of the mind, rather than empirical constructs. I understand that this may be confusing to some, but that doesn't mean it is relevant to this thread.

Reiteration always helps, when working with remedial learning situations and contexts.

No, it really isn't. It's materialism when it is suggested that this 'physical reality' or 'empirical reality' is 'real' or exists. This discussion won't progress very far if you can't discern between metaphysical statements and non-metaphysical statements..

You don't seem to understand the implications of attributing the brain with being the cause of 'experience' (where experience = thought/perception/feeling etc.). The implication IS that the brain is real, or else how would IT cause experience to happen?

Nobody but you is talking about "causes" in a metaphysical sense. Or, for that matter of "experience", which is already a metaphysical term, and is the one you want to get around to wibbling about. The brain is an empirical object. It's "ultimate reality" is not in discussion scientifically. Correlation is not causation. The correlation is empirical, and comprised of "data". Behavior is empirical. "Experience" is not. And with your renewed wibble about "experience" we are exactly back to where we fucking started in with you, when you brought your talk of "experiencers" before us, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy forum far, far away. Use the force, James.

"Attributing the brain with being the cause" of 'experience'". Such locutions must be preserved for posterity.

[jamest]

I do understand your point that metaphysics is beyond empirical data (scientific facts). But you seemingly fail to understand that this data is a product of observing something.

It's not just data we are privy to though. That data is our statistical understanding of something.

To put it bluntly, James, this is incorrect. Epic fail is fully-engaged for you.

Once one starts in with "something" one is already doing metaphysics, if the goal is the ontology or essence of "something".

That's the point - there's a basis for metaphysics staring us in the face. Thus, zero reason to reject metaphysics as "groundless".

To a scientist, it's just data.

Do I sound as though I'm wearing a white coat? I'm not a scientist and I don't give a fug about his or her perspective - as if that were relevant to this issue. A scientist doesn't decide what is or whether there are grounds for metaphysics.

There's alot of overlooking going on from your camp, Sir. I've spent considerable time in this thread producing arguments of one kind or another, most of which have been dispensed with the shrug of a shoulder, or ignored altogether. Here, for instance, you completely avoid my reasoning for explaining why there has to be 'something' upon which the data is based... that there cannot be just data out there... and that empirical data is clearly a human construct: an effort to understand that which is the object of our study. Do you not consider that upon such a pivotal point, that reasoning is worth addressing?

People try to do metaphysics on the data, and this wibbling goes quite beyond the interpretation of the data within the context of a theory.

Let's forget about the data. Let's concentrate upon that in which it is grounded

Actually, there is no science proving that mind states are reducible to brain states. You're making it up![/url]

No, epic fail again, James: It is you who is making shit up. Science is not in the business of proving anything. The idea that cognition is reducible to brain states is an hypothesis, for which evidence is being gathered, empirically.

Dude, how do you prove that the brain is THE cause of anything, without introducing metaphysics into the equation? As I said earlier, there are ontological implications for any claim that attributes, fully, causality to the brain of experience (or whatever you prefer to call it).

Nobody but you is talking about "causes" in a metaphysical sense. Or, for that matter of "experience", which is already a metaphysical term, and is the one you want to get around to wibbling about. The brain is an empirical object. It's "ultimate reality" is not in discussion scientifically. Correlation is not causation. The correlation is empirical, and comprised of "data". Behavior is empirical. "Experience" is not. And with your renewed wibble about "experience" we are exactly back to where we fucking started in with you, when you brought your talk of "experiencers" before us, a long, long time ago, in a galaxy forum far, far away. Use the force, James.

"Attributing the brain with being the cause" of 'experience'". Such locutions must be preserved for posterity.

I see, you're an eliminativist. Okay, I'll roast that potato later.

[the PC apeman]

Let's forget about the data. Let's concentrate upon that in which it is grounded

You mean that for which you have no data? What can be said about it?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I see, you're an eliminativist. Okay, I'll roast that potato later.

Analogy:

Jamest: "So what do you believe?"
Surendra Darathy: "I don't believe in God."
Jamest: "Ah, so you're an Anglican!"

--

Excellent post, Surendra Darathy! It's amusing to be fighting the occult under the name Comte de Saint-Germain..

[Surendra Darathy]

I do understand your point that metaphysics is beyond empirical data (scientific facts). But you seemingly fail to understand that this data is a product of observing something.

It's not just data we are privy to though. That data is our statistical understanding of something.

To put it bluntly, James, this is incorrect. Epic fail is fully-engaged for you.

Once one starts in with "something" one is already doing metaphysics, if the goal is the ontology or essence of "something".

That's the point - there's a basis for metaphysics staring us in the face. Thus, zero reason to reject metaphysics as "groundless".

Well, then make us an erudite statement about your "something" that consists of more than the childish whining rant that "there has to be something behind or beyond the empirical". It's as far as you've gotten, and as far as you're going to get, and if I were you, I'd be embarrassed as hell to give something as banal as that the imprimatur of "metaphysics".

It's a natural fact, James, that if you spend enough time on the internet, you will encounter people better educated than you are on subjects you wish to discuss. Your persistent denial that this has happened to you here is hilarious. CdSG launched this thread to induce you (or whomever) to go beyond saying "there's a basis for metaphysics staring us in the face".

You haven't started in on your "something" yet; all you've done is posted the word something in an internet forum. Show us that you can do metaphysics. Enough idle talk from you. Do some fucking metaphysics, if you want to claim that you can do it. Start in on the fucker, instead of playing word games about whether or not I actually grant that you have "started in" on anything. Because, James, you have not.

Once you start in on it, I may grant that you are doing metaphysics. But it depends on making a start. I'm about ready to complain that you are trolling this thread with repeated offers to start in on something that you never get round to.

there cannot be just data out there... and that empirical data is clearly a human construct: an effort to understand that which is the object of our study.

Well, get round to saying something erudite about what's beyond the data. Otherwise, just more happy horseshit recycled from the big pile you've already produced. Start in on the fucker, James. Enough with the foreplay.

[Surendra Darathy]

Dude, how do you prove that the brain is THE cause of anything, without introducing metaphysics into the equation? As I said earlier, there are ontological implications for any claim that attributes, fully, causality to the brain of experience (or whatever you prefer to call it).

Dudette, I am not fucking trying to prove anything. CdSG opened the thread as an invitation to you to start in on the fucker. You're attacking several strawmen at once here, since I am not discussing causality with you until you write down some shit about fucking causality that is then open for discussion. As an empiricist, I do not invest in metaphysical causality, and empirical causality is more or less what transpires across the left and right halves of an equation. I'm about to complain to the forum mods that you are introducing strawmen like this to derail the increasingly obvious conclusion that you have nothing else to discuss. I think you know that you don't have anything further to discuss here, and your repetitions of strawmen are evidence that this is so. That is called "Trolling".