tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post5501565314373364184..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: A World of Existence Outside of Expierencegcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-87009327627829142872013-05-27T09:08:15.173-04:002013-05-27T09:08:15.173-04:00It can if one feels that maths is not so much inve...It can if one feels that maths is not so much invented as dicovered. This would fit with your idea that what is concrete is experience. To 'do' or 'discover' math is to experience it, i.e. to bring it from the murky realm of the potential into the concrete. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518543710611662227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-51194906872786961082013-05-27T09:03:22.647-04:002013-05-27T09:03:22.647-04:00But I would have thought that more in line with yo...But I would have thought that more in line with your idealism...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518543710611662227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-70320941349708846512013-05-27T09:02:22.692-04:002013-05-27T09:02:22.692-04:00But I would have thought this was more in line wit...But I would have thought this was more in line with your idealism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518543710611662227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-80483652199987178932013-05-27T05:54:58.618-04:002013-05-27T05:54:58.618-04:00"'Concrete' is an outmoded metaphor, ..."'Concrete' is an outmoded metaphor, as physics is revealing that the 'stuffness' of stuff is an illusion..."<br /><br />Right. What is concrete is experience.<br /><br />"Have we not reached the point where we can ditch it and say that all phenomena can more parsimoniously be thought of as abstract? "<br /><br />Absolutely the reverse of the truth!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-18230406273402331042013-05-27T05:52:55.409-04:002013-05-27T05:52:55.409-04:00Cause math can exist without minds, Burly?Cause math can exist without minds, Burly?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-21866854509757254192013-05-27T00:20:26.950-04:002013-05-27T00:20:26.950-04:00Does it have to be mind? Can it not simply be math...Does it have to be mind? Can it not simply be math?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518543710611662227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-26841895731076186052013-05-27T00:19:43.178-04:002013-05-27T00:19:43.178-04:00Does it have to be mind? Can it not simply be math...Does it have to be mind? Can it not simply be math?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518543710611662227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-82343173566135327982013-05-26T23:51:05.933-04:002013-05-26T23:51:05.933-04:00But as abstractions, they are always derivative of...But as abstractions, they are always derivative of the concrete totality of experience from which they are abstracted<br /><br />Are they really? <br /><br />The language of physics is maths.<br />Maths is completely abstract.<br />'Concrete' is an outmoded metaphor, as physics is revealing that the 'stuffness' of stuff is an illusion, a way for our primitive consciousnesses to deal with why different particles do what they do and the patterns of phenomena that result.<br />But the notion of the 'concreteness' of the particles themselves is just us being stuck in our primitive and erroneous sense of 'stuffness'. Have we not reached the point where we can ditch it and say that all phenomena can more parsimoniously be thought of as abstract? Thereby ditching the dualism of (matter/energy)/(mathematical law)?<br /><br />It would also tidy up the problem of the objective existence of the not yet observed, observation or interaction being simply like the 'bringing into the equation' of new variables, or conversely the result of said equation. The as-yet-unobserved have a kind of dark potential realness, like the answer to an unsolved or not yet formulated problem. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518543710611662227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-26678947121153396892013-05-26T23:50:21.230-04:002013-05-26T23:50:21.230-04:00But as abstractions, they are always derivative of...But as abstractions, they are always derivative of the concrete totality of experience from which they are abstracted<br /><br />Are they really? <br /><br />The language of physics is maths.<br />Maths is completely abstract.<br />'Concrete' is an outmoded metaphor, as physics is revealing that the 'stuffness' of stuff is an illusion, a way for our primitive consciousnesses to deal with why different particles do what they do and the patterns of phenomena that result.<br />But the notion of the 'concreteness' of the particles themselves is just us being stuck in our primitive and erroneous sense of 'stuffness'. Have we not reached the point where we can ditch it and say that all phenomena can more parsimoniously be thought of as abstract? Thereby ditching the dualism of (matter/energy)/(mathematical law)?<br /><br />It would also tidy up the problem of the objective existence of the not yet observed, observation or interaction being simply like the 'bringing into the equation' of new variables, or conversely the result of said equation. The as-yet-unobserved have a kind of dark potential realness, like the answer to an unsolved or not yet formulated problem. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12518543710611662227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-5948015114217736952013-02-14T01:40:43.367-05:002013-02-14T01:40:43.367-05:00No one's ever been to Jupiter. But we know it ...No one's ever been to Jupiter. But we know it exists, and we know there are thunderstorms on Jupiter. Are you saying the thunder on Jupiter don't make a sound? Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990715051451620558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-69458949814992299692013-02-13T19:56:01.634-05:002013-02-13T19:56:01.634-05:00Mike B., not sure about psychic phenomena; let me ...Mike B., not sure about psychic phenomena; let me think.<br /><br />But here is a position somewhat like mine:<br /><br />"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." -- Max Planck gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-43898430081704882092013-02-13T19:40:09.026-05:002013-02-13T19:40:09.026-05:00Well, if you are a Platonist about justice, then i...Well, if you are a Platonist about justice, then it is NOT an abstraction: IT is the actual thing upon which just acts are based. If you are NOT, then why is it different than a blueprint?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-5856608755914229042013-02-12T15:46:08.271-05:002013-02-12T15:46:08.271-05:00I'm not sure. Justice, for example, is an abst...I'm not sure. Justice, for example, is an abstraction, yet it doesn't bear the same relation to a particular just act as a blueprint of a house does to the house. Josiah Neeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04408537831149151396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-78218657354904630522013-02-11T15:32:36.702-05:002013-02-11T15:32:36.702-05:00Gene,
Are you suggesting that consciousness (or &...Gene,<br /><br />Are you suggesting that consciousness (or "experience") is a fundamental element of the universe, akin to matter or energy (or, perhaps, space or time), and that therefore it does not make sense to conceive of it as being limited to the private perspectives of sentient beings? I.e., that living things may partake in it, but so do all other things? If so -- and I know this is not the direction you were heading in -- but would you say that, for example, the notion of psychic phenomena would be prima facie much more plausible under this metaphysical view than under competing views, which hold to a strict subject-object divide? <br /><br />As someone who's somewhat sympathetic but not yet convinced, I'm just trying to see if I'm on the right track in understanding your idealist worldview.Mike B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11915838997030682650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-20356790495590538172013-02-10T22:05:39.753-05:002013-02-10T22:05:39.753-05:00Hume, what am I supposed to say here, other than, ...Hume, what am I supposed to say here, other than, "Well, look around you: it has been right here in front of you all the time"?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-67226096057192380712013-02-10T22:00:56.165-05:002013-02-10T22:00:56.165-05:00What is "the concrete totality of experience&...What is "the concrete totality of experience"?Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-53399677605860311142013-02-10T21:59:22.739-05:002013-02-10T21:59:22.739-05:00"'m still not sure what you mean by "..."'m still not sure what you mean by "the concrete totality of experience." Whose experience? An aggregation of the experiences of all subjects that ever existed? Only all human subjects? Only human subjects that exist at this given moment?"<br /><br />OK, you just keep positing the subject-object split as fundamental, and then wondering how what I am writing fits into it!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-81184114803088970712013-02-10T21:55:17.889-05:002013-02-10T21:55:17.889-05:00Kind of odd, perhaps, but basically true: not that...Kind of odd, perhaps, but basically true: not that "algorithms have nothing to do with it," but that certainly no algorithm has ever "produced" anything: what produces my blog page is my typing combined with a very specific set of computer instructions running on a very specific computer. That code may be said to "embody" an algorithm, but it was that code which produced this post, and not "an algorithm."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-21860994137390994092013-02-10T21:40:44.412-05:002013-02-10T21:40:44.412-05:00You said earlier that "algorithms are somethi...You said earlier that "algorithms are something that run on computers". I assume you would accept that your blog page is displayed on my monitor as a result of algorithms running in various locations.<br /><br />It would be kind of odd then if you were to say "No rob, my blog page is produced by me moving my fingers up and down on the keys on my keyboard - algorithms have got nothing to do with it".<br /><br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-77498000791013333972013-02-10T21:39:24.675-05:002013-02-10T21:39:24.675-05:00"they are always derivative of the concrete t..."they are always derivative of the concrete totality of experience from which they are abstracted."<br /><br />I'm still not sure what you mean by "the concrete totality of experience." Whose experience? An aggregation of the experiences of all subjects that ever existed? Only all human subjects? Only human subjects that exist at this given moment? Only current human subjects that share similar concepts? Or are you talking about each individual subject--the center of their universe of experience--and this reality is whatever the subject encounters in a stream of consciousness? If that's the case, there are a boat-load of questions, first of which is a seemingly inevitable solipsism. I thus have a huge problem with this approach: the foundational notion of a "concrete totality of experience" is obscure to me, and this is my problem with Hegelians: much abstraction, little content.Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-56353142257357048032013-02-10T18:58:56.567-05:002013-02-10T18:58:56.567-05:00No, rob, living things like, say, animals are prod...No, rob, living things like, say, animals are produced when a mommy animal and a daddy animal "do the nasty."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-1706439382161840082013-02-10T18:47:46.619-05:002013-02-10T18:47:46.619-05:00And would you grant this holds for abstractions in...And would you grant this holds for abstractions in general? A blueprint must be a blueprint of a house, even if the house is only in the architects imagination at present?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-44564667166483925952013-02-10T16:06:11.368-05:002013-02-10T16:06:11.368-05:00Sure. A map has to be a map of something. Sure. A map has to be a map of something. Josiah Neeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04408537831149151396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-79638433095122621192013-02-09T13:41:10.572-05:002013-02-09T13:41:10.572-05:00Gene, Thank you for taking the time to put down yo...Gene, Thank you for taking the time to put down your thoughts on these matters. I appreciate it and appreciate these discussions. I will take some more time to think about your views in particular and the idealist views more generally. I have some Kantian sympathies, so maybe that will inevitable cause frictions (perhaps the result of UPenn, but I'm contrarian by nature, and no simultaneous Rawlsian sympathies). Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-45816651231147540272013-02-08T21:28:47.885-05:002013-02-08T21:28:47.885-05:00'And how can evolution produce objects? What i...'And how can evolution produce objects? What is it working with to "produce" them?'<br /><br />Well it certainly seems to have produced lots of living things that have in turn produced lots of other objects.<br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.com