agree
On ''what there is''
The question looks ''philosophical'' in the sense of ''what exist?''. In the old terminology ''ontology question''.
The modern formulation (by Quine) is: ''what are the values of your variables''? In our hobby ''what are
the new available components''? Can one person know what are available components? Obviously not
but we have ''collective knowledge''. Each contribution is welcome. Like in science. But like in science there
are individuals with special contributions. Raul with his MM contributions and his ''successor'' chakster
with his contributions about ''both kinds'': MC's and MM's. Despite his ''modest means''. I think we should
be thankful to have such individuals.
The modern formulation (by Quine) is: ''what are the values of your variables''? In our hobby ''what are
the new available components''? Can one person know what are available components? Obviously not
but we have ''collective knowledge''. Each contribution is welcome. Like in science. But like in science there
are individuals with special contributions. Raul with his MM contributions and his ''successor'' chakster
with his contributions about ''both kinds'': MC's and MM's. Despite his ''modest means''. I think we should
be thankful to have such individuals.
149 responses Add your response
One of the all time great Alan Watts talks! https://youtu.be/CJjOjKXSOCA?t=10 |
Kant was quite a wit.But there is a truth in that story. As a scientist I can tell you that the same experiment gets done over again about every 20 to 25 years. What changes is the technology used to perform the experiment. Old techniques are replaced by modern ones.Each time the same facts are proven again, the scientists of that generation believe they have found out something new. |
You mentioned Alan Watts and have obviously no idea why. Alan was ''expert'' in ''all kinds of religions''. BTW ''anything'' like ''everything'' or ''all'' are universal quantifiers which are used to formulate generality. But those are not ''names'' with referring function. So what do you mean with ''anything''? Is that the ''ópposite'' of ''something''? Both make no sense in isolation. |
Only thing obvious to me is you didn’t click the link. If you had you would see the title of the video is, "What There Is" and the first thing Alan Watts says is, "I’m going to talk about what there is." Which coincidentally is the title of your discussion, On "what there is". Oh well. So much for, "Each contribution is welcome." |
If this is your contribution on ''what cartridges there are?'' then we don't need your reference to Alan Watts. I am not interested in religious questions and made that clear. Mr. Watts has no idea what he is talking about. Anyone can check this on internet. Provided one is familiar with ''existence issue'' . |
Incredible thread! I dont even know what to think.... welcome....And indeed thanks to you for being so entertaining... I will only suggest to you to read Cassirer and not only his school master Kant but his spirit mentor Goethe, instead of Frege or Quine.... 😊 It is a bit more enlightening and less boring... By the way i am no more atheist than believer in religious faith... They ressemble much each other like ennemy brothers... Spiritual i am for sure.... It is a bit more enlightening and less boring also... My best to you.... |
don’t think i would assume he hasn’t “ read “…. xI am sure he know Cassirer and even read it in german , why assuming the opposite from a reader of Quine who speak 4 languages ? I only challenge his understanding of the opposition between religion and science...And i dont read german by the way....😁😊 |
Are all of you high? Don’t hide it,let’s divide it!!!!It is the "mana" coming from the sky at the "end of times" for those who own eyes that could "eat" it... «Is the fact that your eyes could eat made your toungue able to see? Or is it the reverse?»- Groucho Marx 🤓 «It is called cenesthesia brother , are you deaf?»-Harpo Marx |
From SEP, Quine entry: "What entities we ought to commit ourselves to depends on a prior descriptive account of what entities theories are committed to." I take this to mean that the things people profess to believe in (in audio, here) depend on how they've decided to describe the world, including the categories reigning over those descriptions. Gavagai, people. |
From SEP, Quine entry: "What entities we ought to commit ourselves to depends on a prior descriptive account of what entities theories are committed toTrue for sure... But there is a deeper layer behind this experience meaningfully refered to and described by Quine...which is the basis of human technological and discursive activities in the wide meaning of the word technological... There is an ultimate goethean layer: Goethe stated: "One should not see anything further behind the phenomena: they themselves are the theory." Here phenomena are no more an external affair, but an internal affair of our own consciiousness...A slight change in our consciousness... A change without any discursive expression yet... An experience...Not a logical proposition, perhaps a metaphor though... " What there is" lies out of an unbeknown window...But metaphors related what is inside and outside the window...Metaphor are pre-logical discourse....Poetry on an ontological footing... They express a way of seeing not a discourse....Metaphor express change in the eye and in the window and in what lies before us... «Metaphors speak in spite of us »-Anonymus Smith |
''The issue of existence'' is the same as ''what there is''. The case of Higgs particles may enlighten the problem. Higgs invented ''boson particle'' in order to improve the theory. So every particle physicist knew what ''boson particle means'' (in the sense of contribution to the theory) but nobody knew if this particle EXIST. So we in Europe have build 27 km long particle accelerator in Cern to prove or refute the existence of Higgs particle. After proving the existence of this particle the theory was saved. Because success is rewording the new accelerator of 100 km length will be build costing 23 billion euro's. Such proves are not known in relation to existence of God. Those are always verbal. One should discriminate between talking about language (aka ''meaning'') and extra linguistic reality. Pegasus or unicorns are linguistic but if one want to hunt unicorns in Africa or fly on Pegasus I wish them success. BTW the lack of knowledge by ''some'' members is disturbing. |
It is easy to claim common place fact like unicorn dont exist but Higgs boson exist by the proven construct of Cern detector... And very easy to say common place fact like: "One should discriminate between talking about language (aka ’’meaning’’) and extra linguistic reality." Typical second rate nominalism will not be enough though.... (If you cant understand Goethe try Charles Sanders Peirce to understand why nominalism is not enough) Man is not a "tabula rasa" as think people like behaviorists Skinner or Quine when they speak of language acquisition... Cassirer explain very deeply after Buhler why symbolic competence is behind consciousness speech act and any human activity ... I suggest Chomsky to correct your Quinean view of language, if Peirce, Buhler, or Cassirer are too "heavy" for you ... For example : P.Swiggers: "How Chomsky skinned Quine" "BTW the lack of knowledge by ’’some’’ members is disturbing. " Perhaps it is my posts which pointed toward something that is not "common place" and trivial fact like yours... Perhaps it is you who dont understand them at all.... Because for example language cannot be understood only by this childish evident distinction between external meaning and an external object... Study one of the greatest linguist of the century : Gustave Guillaume...If you dont read french try Karl Buhler... Perhaps there is also something called " consciousness" which is not the product of matter or linguistic playing.... Read Goethe and learn about it....If you dont understand Goethe try Husserl Or Cassirer... I will be here to help you... I will recommend to you a physicist who wrote many books about Goethe because instead of insulting people about their alleged ignorance i prefer to help them... Henry Bortoft.... |
The French ''enlightenment'' is understood in some countries as ''well-read'' in contraposition to ''poorly educated''. This explains high expectation from ''literature'' to explain the world. Hence ''tell me what you read and I shell tell you who you are!'' So we got ''scientist'' after their typewriters in their study fantasizing about the world. There were ''readers clubs'' everywhere were newest books were discussed. The members consider themselves as ''elite''. So, for example, in Germany everybody knew who Goethe and Hegel was/is but hardly any who Frege the father of modern logic is. He is, mirabile dictu, better known in USA than Germany. So if one want to study Frege he should first learn English. |
Gavagai and mathematics. By putting ''theory of meaning'' against ''theory of reference'' Quine constructed his Gavagai as ''unclear reference''. But the ''background'' is what kinds of objects or entities ''the numbers are'' . Frege had no difficulty to see them as ''objects''. But his definition was ''extension of terms or concepts''. Aka ''any object that is extension of some concept''. Actually ''sets'', ''properties'' and '' classes'' are logically ''the same'' because all assume ''members''. Hence ''set theoretic'' reduction of complexity. |
What does that have to do with anything?Well I made it a minute in (almost) and it was seeming to be a religious talk. So we in Europe have build 27 km long particle accelerator in Cern to prove or refute the existence of Higgs particle.CERN being established 3 years before Margaret Burbidge and her colleagues come up with the s, r and x processes that explained how the elements in the periodic table are generated, and 63 years before the 17 Oct 2017 LIGO (US, UK, and Au) detected the gravitational waves. Which is ties into the general research of CERN, LANL, LIGO, etc. as a worldwide science research endeavour. But I digress. It would be nice if there was a way to catalogue the contributions of the “art” for the audio. Unfortunately I do not believe that this site is overly science focussed and relies on personal testimony, and everyone deciding for themselves what is true and good.It may still get to a nirvana, but maybe not as quickly as a more structured and peer reviewed approach can do. By the way @nandric what are your other 3 languages? Cognitive dissonance result in this forum in calling names or strawman construction. in addition blame to write English as ’’second language’’. What an opponents !If I understand your OP correctly, then do not want to become an opponent. Perhaps a proponent? |
Holmz, My other languages are German, Dutch and Serbo- Croatian. I also learned Russian as obligatory language for 6 years at gymnasium. But I rarely used Russian. The ''ontological commitment'' is entailed in ''existential quantifier'' The universal is: ''for all x Fx& Gx'' Existential is ''some x ARE Fx& Gx'' In addition to sentence form: ''x is P'' all ''forms'' are expressed in terms of properties of objects. But is ''brother'' some kind of object with certain properties or relational concept by family ''places'' such that bigger families imply more places? Industrial society have ''small families'' , agricultural ''big families''. In my native Serbia there are no expressions '' cousin'' and ''nephew''. We are all brothers and sisters along the ''lines'' of brothers and sisters of our parents. In Holland the marriage between cousin and nephew is allowed in Serbia not even imaginable between brother and sister. |
I expected Lew to ''shine in'' regarding English as second language. He participated in many scientific gatherings so he must be confronted with ,say, ''Chinese or Japanese English''. Deed he understand his colleague with ''bad English'' or deed he avoid them because of ''language problem''? I assume scientific terminology familiar to all members of the same ''domain'' of research. |
