Quote

Nor can I see any connection to the OP subject. -Studiot

Metaphysics is expressed in words and models.   Anything beyond metaphysics necessarily must consider these words and models as well as their meanings and perspectives.  

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I agree with the second sentence, but not the first.
However detailed discussion of these points would be off topic here.

 

How can words be off topic in a discussion about meta metaphysics?  

I suppose to the degree words affect actions in other people they are "real".  

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Whats the difference?

Words are deconstructed.  Ideas are not... ...at least until they are communicated in words.  

22 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Who said there was any magic involved? 

Eise referred to "vague ideas" and I know no other words to describe the subject than i am using.   If anyone has other ideas about metaphysics and metametaphysics then I'm all ears. 

I believe we must assume NOTHING in reality is "magical" or we would get bogged down in lines of research that are dead-ends or not reproducible.    This even applies to all things for which we lack even a working definition like "consciousness" and our ability to communicate ideas through language.   We tend to assume others take our meaning on all things but this is never the case.   Every sentence is deconstructed differently by every individual.  

21 hours ago, Strange said:

We may each have different ideas and different definitions for words, and even use different abstractions. Abstractions have the same level of "existence" as ideas, words and meanings. These are all constructs of the mind.

 

Yes.  Exactly.

Words and abstractions have no real existence.  They are to help us think and communicate.  

But I would maintain that "ideas" are a product of the brain that are "real".  Ideas are a product of consciousness which can underlie the invention of hypothesis, experiment formation, and invention.   They can be made manifest in the concrete world while mere words can be immaterial and irrelevant to all of reality.  You can say the sun goes down art 4:22 today but the world will still be turning just before and just after it "does". 

Definitions and axioms   are reasonably well defined in science so "metaphysics" isn't so much an issue.  But we do tend to forget that there is some individual variation in understanding these terms and much more variation in model formation.   We believe there is a tendency for those who build the most realistic models to be more likely to devise good hypothesis and experiment but this is hardly a certainty in the last half century.   I simply believe this might no longer be true because we've reached a point that our models are overly dependent on perspective.  It is this perspective which is a product of language (the way we think and communicate) that is meta metaphysics.  Rather than seeing reality our models are increasingly dependent on the perspective of the "builder".  The model is the perspective of the builder.  

There are numerous ways to deal with this but it requires a recognition of the problem to even begin.  

22 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Words are not "real and palpable" (you cannot touch them, for example). They are signs (audible, written, or conveyed in some other form) which we assign meaning to on an arbitrary basis.

 

I should have used the word "idea".   I meant words in the sense of a "thought".

All life uses ideas to maintain its existence.   Whether it is fleeing a predator or looking for a place to build a nest an individual can invent an idea that will save its life or assure the continuation of its genes in its offspring.  

22 hours ago, Strange said:

 

I think we do largely understand and agree on the process and why it works. And even if we didn't, we know it does work.

 

I'd certainly agree most scientists are in reasonably close agreement.  I don't think this applies well to laymen.

7 hours ago, Eise said:

 

Everything else is based on vague ideas, personal convictions, ideology etc.

You believe some abstraction lies at the root of metaphysics but this can't be true because we each have different ideas and even different definitions for words.  "Abstractions" don't exist in the real world and even numbers are abstractions.  

We know what "metaphysics" is.  So what is beyond "metaphysics?   Someone can claim it is some abstraction like "consciousness" or "God" but the only thing that is real and palpable that lies beyond metaphysics are the very words we each must use to understand, think about, or communicate ideas about  metaphysics.  It is the words we use to define what it is and how even these words have slightly different meanings to every thinker, speaker, and listener.    

If we hardly agree on why science works or on the means by which the process of science works then what is the meaning of science at all?   

Perhaps the problem here is as often the case that we are talking about different definitions for "metaphysics".  There is no "magic" and no abstraction that makes science work.  It is a mere tool that works because the real world, that which is palpable, discloses itself in well crafted experiment.   Experiment certainly isn't magic either.  We must use words to speak of this tool and why it works.   Somebody needed words to invent the tool.   Before that somebody invented the words.  

Metaphysics is the basis of science.  It is the meaning of science and every experiment.

Meta-metaphysics is simply language.  Science is founded in metaphysics and metaphysics in language.   

Since we each think, learn, understand, and communicate with language it is foundational to science.   

Until we understand this the concept of consciousness will always elude us.  The knowledge and meaning of science will elude us.  And if I am right, a unified field theory will elude us.   

Quote

Ironically, the demise of logical positivism was caused mainly by a fatal flaw in its central view, the verification theory of meaning. According to the verification principle, a non-tautological statement has meaning if and only if it can be empirically verified. However, the verification principle itself is non-tautological but cannot be empirically verified. Consequently, it renders itself meaningless. Even apart from this devastating problem, there were difficulties in setting the scope of the principle so as to properly subserve the positivists’ scientistic aims. In its strong form (given above), the principle undermined not only itself, but also statements about theoretical entities, so necessary for science to do its work. On the other hand, weaker versions of the principle, such as that given in the second edition of Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic (1946), were incapable of eliminating the full range of metaphysical and other non-scientific statements that the positivists wanted to disqualify.

I believe this "problem" disappears when the existence of reality is axiomatic.  

While the peers have not even seen the data it is apparent that the powers that be are investigating the void discovered 160' south of the NE corner of the Great Pyramid.

In the center right of this picture (click twice on the picture and scroll to center) can be seen what is most probably an endoscope guide they used to discover the void they never publicly admitted was causing the heat anomaly and which led to the proposal to insert a drone balloon.     One of the Egyptologists even announced there was a natural fissure in live rock behind here yet no such observation can be made exterior to the pyramid.  

So there is a stalemate where even peers aren't allowed the data.   I suppose next we'll have loyalty oaths and non-disclosure agreements.  Peerhood will be stripped from those who dare to cite facts and evidence.   

These are dangerous times largely because of the perpetuation of "scientific" beliefs that date to the 19th century.  

On 5/19/2019 at 3:42 AM, Will9135 said:

 

“

• Single-blind reviews are unbalanced and unfair. They should be replaced at least by double-blind or triple-blind reviews or even better by open reviews.

• For transparency reasons, reviewer guidelines should be added to the author’s kit of journals and conferences.

• As authors are required to provide references or conclusive proof for their statements and conclusions, reviewers should also be required to provide references or conclusive proof when they disagree. This is not only fair, but allows to resolve possible misunderstandings on both sides. If reviewers do not provide references or conclusive proof, their comments should be disregarded by the responsible editor or TPC chair.

• In order to prevent us from authority bias and personality cult, the number of extended abstracts a reviewer is allowed to review per conference should be limited to 10 and the number of full-sized papers a reviewer is allowed to review per journal or conference should be limited to 1 per month. Furthermore, scientists and academics should not be allowed to participate as reviewers in more than 4 and as editors or TPC chairs in more than 2 journals or conferences per year.

• In order to prevent journals and conferences from ethnic bias, editors and TPC chairs should select reviewers with diverse ethnic background to review submitted papers and extended abstracts.

 

 

 The only way to fix "peer review" is to eliminate it.

If anyone wants to know whether some scientist is real in the eyes of his peers then he can just google it.  Or the same conferences and meeting can be used to rate the peers instead of their studies or experiments.  Obviously experts in every field are the individuals we need to seek for opinions about interpretation of experiment, experiment quality, and the meaning of experiment.  

I would propose that peer review be scrapped and a new step added;  "Metaphysical Implications".   

The problems with "peer review" are even more obvious in current day Egyptology.  They claim to be science despite their lack of systematic application of modern knowledge and science to the study of pyramids.  They normally just refuse testing and have even chided scientists in the last couple of years for proposing testing (one offered to fly a balloon drone into the pyramid to see what lay beyond).   Across the board there is testing and measurements they refuse to gather.  Believe it or not strategraphic archaeology nor forensic testing has ever been performed in any pyramid!

But now there is a far worse problem that shows the utter failure of peer review and this applies to every discipline.  Infrared data was finally gathered starting in October of 2015 and this information has NEVER been supplied to peers.   They are withholding from the public because it apparently does not agree with what Egyptologists  believe (the powers that be have said no data that disagree with the paradigm will  ever be released).  There is no mechanism for distributing it to peers so their review of the data is impossible.   If they did distribute the data to all the Egyptologists whom they could identify, the information would almost immediately hit the internet.  

"Peer review" is an irrelevancy.  Reality is seen principally in experiment and the opinion of fools and scholars alike has no effect on experiment and no causation of reality.  This is likely the cause of the failure in education and the cause of soup of the day science which is training the general public to ignore sound and flaky science as well.  We are rushing headlong into a dangerous future where the roadsigns are determined not by the road ahead but by peers describing the road behind.  

We are in serious trouble but it is not well seen.  

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

theirs always a third...

Probably.  But I don't have a clue to what other method might word to provide an answer consistent with reality (or laws of nature if you prefer).  

I believe the philosophical question is how you can ask such a question.

I believe the answer to the question is that you can't prove it any more than you can prove there is, was, always has been, or will be a conscious Creator of all things.  

I believe there are only two options for answering the question; first you can establish definitions and protocols to define a logical means to study your environment which factors out beliefs and perspectives.  Or second you can take your existence and the existence of all things that are apparent as being axiomatic pending establishment through theory derived from observation and logic.   I believe the first option is what we call "science" and the second is the way animals thrive, live,  and progress.   

We don't even know what consciousness  is and the simplest brains are orders of magnitude more complex than a computer or the internet.   

Nevermind we can't really even define intelligence either, how are we going to create AI?   It would be about akin to teaching a stone to fly.  

If we ever have machine intelligence there will be nothing "artificial" about it.   

2 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Unless I have misunderstood the OP I think it was backwards. I think that thinking 6+6 is the same as 4+8 is too restrictive by limiting a person's ability to understand the complexities if the real world, but I may have misunderstood.

Imagine my surprise to have learned that some people think a biscuit is a cookie, and my disappointment to realize I said no to a cookie. Understanding that 6+6 is not necessarily the same as 4+8 can be seen as less restrictive especially since I would have never said no to a cookie.

Hmm the OP has replied. I need to go read it. 

...And it would have been more restrictive to have said "no" to a first cookie and a second cookie.  

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

. Now what do I do?  

Well, ya' could start inventing a cardinal mathematics where the first of six oranges and  the second of six oranges ... and the 6th of 6 oranges plus the first of six apples ... and the sixth of six apples equals(?) 12 servings of fruit.  

The world is complex but mathematics only needs to be logical so long as we remember while we apply it to the real world.  "Proper" mathematics can be as complex as the real world.  

Philosophy

"I glad to see that some have now caught my drift that just because 6+6 has the same sum as 8+4 it does not mean that 6+6 is the same as 8+4.

Unfortunately some are offering this type of reasoning as a valid argument."

People here almost invariably miss my point so much that they believe I'm not even on topic!

What you're getting toward here is an entirely different way to see math and its reality.   Of course 4 + 8 are never really  equivalent to 6 + 6 in the real world.   There are many many different types, sizes, and compositions of bolts and nuts that have been made in the history of man and they are not always interchangeable with each other and nut and bolts themselves are never interchangeable.  There are an infinite possible types of either nuts or bolts possible with our definitions.   Numbers are necessarily abstractions and as such 4 + 8 = 6 + 6.   But this isn't magic or the nature of reality it's because of definitions.   Rather it is because reality itself is logical and so long as operations on its quantification are logical than these abstractions are numerically logical.  

In the real world though we must add 4 apples and 8 apples or 6 apples and 6 apples and we'll always get 12 apples.  But in the real world every set of four ,six, eight, or twelve apples is different.  Every apple in the real world is different so there's no such thing as "two apples".   It is an abstraction.   You can't really put "a" nut on 'a" bolt and must put the nut on the bolt.   In the real world it's not that uncommon for a nut to not fit a bolt but to fit the next "identical" bolt.  There are probably "work arounds" for everything including math that doesn't always fit.   

"It is always necessary to define terms in Mathematics.

Sadly I fear the rest of your posting entirely misses the OP which is about Philosophy, not Mathematics."

I wasn't referring to defining mathematical terms so much as units.   Math is so restrictive largely because we are trying to impose abstractions (numbers and their operations) on concrete reality.   

The nature of math has always been considered a philosophical issue but, like with most things, I tend to disagree.   

But if I asked for nuts and bolts and you came back with:

6 nuts and 6 bolts

4 nuts and 8 bolts

8 nuts and 4 bolts

Would any of these situations be equivalent?

(I think all three outcomes are different)

Mathematics is an artificial and arbitrary imposition of our understanding.   Only one and zero actually exist.   

Math "works" because each term is defined and every known operation reflects the logic of nature.   

In reality there is no such thing as "6 nuts and 6 bolts" because every bolt and every nut is different than every other.   But in order to use ordinal math it is necessary to treat abstractions such as "6 apples" or "6 bolts" or "6 no units".  This makes even the numbers abstractions, of course.   If you want to count bolts then it is necessary to use our mathematics but it is not the only way to understand apples and oranges.   

 

"Math" is by nature restrictive so it frequently becomes necessary to define terms.   There are an infinite number of pitfalls possible each time we apply math to the real world and these tend to be invisible to us until after the fact.    Generally when communicating mathematical concepts a drawing can prevent most miscommunication.  

On 2/18/2019 at 1:10 PM, Space Babe said:

 

Namely, the majority of people don't really value social sciences as much as natural sciences. And since most people put linguistics under the category of social sciences, they tend to automatically doubts its scientific credibility.

 

What people think is irrelevant.   People are looking more at technology than at theory and these are very different.  Good theory often gives rise to new technology but technology also springs from many forces that have little to do with new knowledge or new understanding of nature.   They value  science because they conflate it with technology which provides us wealth and new creature comforts.  Meanwhile we see most social things degrading and disintegrating so we tend to discount the value of new "theory" in the social sciences.   

We live in a time that most of our fundamental beliefs are probably wrong but they still derive from fields that are believed to be "science"  and are often founded on assumptions that have never been subjected to any sort of science, much less rigorous testing.  This especially applies to linguistics.  In many cases this testing is impossible with the current state of human knowledge.   

If we can ever unjump the shark then people will begin accepting soft sciences as being true science but it still won't necessarily be true.

Real science has a very specific metaphysics.  Scientific knowledge must derive from observation and experiment.  While there may be some latitude on how you define "experiment" it certainly does not encompass the assumptions necessary to linguistics.  Indeed, most of the soft sciences where statistics are not firmly rooted in definitions and void of assumptions are likely not to even return results reflective of reality.  Much of what is considered "science" is not and probably not real.   "Linguistics" has attributes of real science but there are far too many assumptions to make some of the results of any value at all. 

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Mutation.

"Survival of the fittest" is the ability to breed; more offspring  = greater fitness. We can breed to see which phenotypes will produce the most offspring in a given environment. The only difference between natural evolution and breeding is that the latter is contrived to a specific outcome, but it's evolution nevertheless. 'Evolution', by definition, is change in allele frequency over time, and that's what breeding does.

Metaphysics concerns ontology, and science doesn't do that.

I do not want to get bogged down in semantics here.  "Ontology" is philosophical anyway and I'm talking about science. 

The first definition of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science" and this is the concept to which I am referring. 

The "ability to have more off spring" is a concept that refers principally to non-human animal.  Having more off-spring has not been shown to change species.  Rather it results in stronger, faster, and smarter individuals (usually).  The weak and sick die out anyway without changing the species, either. 

Breeding works only by the artificial imposition of artificial bottlenecks and it is these bottlenecks that change species in the lab and in nature. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

So... evolution?

Breeding.

You need to think before you write; non sequitur.

Change in species is real.  This has no bearing on whether or not we understand the forces that cause the change.  I believe we do not.

"Breeding" simply means we can intentionally cause specific changes in species.  It does not show "survival of the fittest" or most adaptable. 

No!   I said exactly what I meant.  "Science" has validity only within its metaphysics.  Anything outside experiment > observation is not science. 
"

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

How is it dangerous? And how is it irrelevant, when it describes the mechanisms by which species change?

And why must natural selection (or even deliberate selection, as in breeding domesticated animals and plants) be described as "Darwinian forces"? Who says they must? And why not "Wallacian Forces"? And what about all the factors that Wallace and Darwin were unaware of?

 

"Evolution" as it is currently understood underlies most peoples beliefs.  "Survival of the fittest" (by any name at all) becomes a rallying cry for those who would suppress or attempt to control the masses. 

If our understanding reflects reality then it is still dangerous but  whether or not it is dangerous has no bearing on whether or not it's real. 

Darwin excused himself from being right when he simply wrote off the primary cause of change in species in the 2nd edition of his book.  He stated that populations of species "never" dip to a very low number.  He said they stay  relatively constant and this is apparently wrong and apparently the cause of change in species. This is what is observed when we select individuals for breeding:  This selection process itself is an artificial population bottleneck.  

20 hours ago, beecee said:

The theory of evolution is so overwhelmingly supported by empirical scientific evidence, it is as certain as any scientific theory can be. The following gives two far more precise answer then I ever could.....https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-experiments-being-carried-out-to-test-the-theory-of-evolution A1 "Way too many to provide even a rudimentary list. Experimental evolution is a fully fledged subdiscipline, with most of it taking place in lab experiments with viruses and bacteria (out of practicality). The most well-known example is probably the Lenski Lab's long-term E. coli experiment which has been running for 24 years now and has demonstrated a whole range of evolutionary phenomena: E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

As for the kind of thing you mention in your comment, that's run-of-the-mill domestication. We've been experimenting with it for thousands of years now - our entire agricultural system is testament to the theory of evolution, as is the presence of dog breeds. All were produced by crossing together the animals and plants we like the most, selecting for traits that are favourable to us. That's how you turn a mighty auroch into a pathetic cow, or a wolf into a poodle.

I can't name specific experiments with dog evolution, as most of the truly experimental stuff to see how evolution works in these cases is done with model organisms (Drosophila flies)."

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

A2"The most interesting tests of evolution are in DNA. Only lately have full genome sequencing become easy.

One of the most compelling signs of evolution found in DNA is the traces of endogenous retroviruses (ERV's). To put it shortly, ERV's are like fingerprints left in DNA by diseases. the fingerprints generally have no functionality, and they go into a random place in your genome and are copied on to your offspring to the same location. Thus, if someone has the same ERV marker as someone else, then it is pretty much proven that they share a common ancestor.

The more genomes are sequenced it turns out that ERV insertions follow predictions made by the theory of evolution very precisely (like the one that we share numerous ERV markers with chimps). This is really hard to explain with anything else than evolution without saying "god did it to test our faith".

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Creationism of course can not be tested, and no evidence of any creationism by any magical deity exists to support that myth. In fact continued scientific experiments support the fact that all the elements that go to make up us and all other living things, were forged in the belly of stars. And of course the whole history of the universe back to the BB, can explain how stars formed, how planets came to be, and how the first fundamental particles arose out of spacetime at least as far back as 10-43 seconds post BB.

At some point though we arrive at a position of where space and time came from. As yet science has no actual information on that process, other then speculative hypotheticals as to how the universe was able to arise from nothing. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ By the same token, at this point, is really the only logical opening where perhaps an unscientific supernatural, magical hypothetical deity maybe slotted in by those more inclined with magic. The overwhelming success of science over the years though,  has me leaning towards the scientific explanation similar to that given in my link. 

Once your first two questions are answered, successfully, it logically answers the last two. 

What s been proven is that species change.

Humans have not been "experimenting" with "evolution" for thousands of years because experimental science is not that old. What you are describing is outside of metaphysics so has no meaning at all in real science.

The "theory of evolution" is dangerous but this is irrelevant to whether or not species change as a result of what must be described as "darwinian forces". 

10 hours ago, Gees said:

 

 

Quote

It's been a long time. I missed you.

I've missed you and this place as well.  I've got a few sites I can talk "science" but there are few good sites for philosophy and fewer good posters about consciousness. 

Quote

I am sorry that you had to deal with this, but it is common on many forums and supported by some administrators. I think they try to be fair here.

I'm still dealing with it.  Of course the only thing I normally do is ignore them altogether.   This is the first time I've posted anything at all about the situation. 

Quote

You and I study different things, but I will look forward to reading your thoughts.

It's curious how studying the pyramids is leading me straight to the nature of consciousness and machine intelligence.   I suppose everything ultimately leads to the nature of consciousness and any understanding of consciousness in the days of silicon implies things about programming.  

I had thought my unique perspective was founded in reality but since 2006 I've found even my most cherished beliefs are false or only true from specific perspectives.  

I fear I may not be talking much philosophy here however.  My presence here is important to me to protect a thread and to prevent the dissemination of falsities I'm expecting to come out of Egypt for the next couple years.    The less I post the less I'll wear my welcome thin. 

Quote

I will object if you disappear again without giving me a way to contact you. Send me a PM and let me know how you have been.

Noted. 

I don't mind being contacted to discuss anything I post about.  I believe my eMail is visible. 

I'll PM you later.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Not quite as good as not posting at all, but welcome back.

You were one of the last people I expected to welcome me back so I'm going to take that as a good 'omen". 

...Congratulations on your promotion.