It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you a Philosopher or a Metaphysicist?

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by entelechy
reply to post by evolv
 


I'd just like to say that you have saved me the effort of debunking the obvious 'sophistry of this guy's post. In the first case he is guilty of what Philosopher Gilbert Ryle labelled a category mistake. namely creating an 'either/or' position on the subject of philosophy and metaphysics. As you stated there is no polarity of positions here.
You cannot limit a term to a single definition because it happens to suit a particular position. Especially with a broad term like metaphysics. I'm doing my best not to troll anybody here but the simple fact is that his whole post, while sounding impressive to somebody lacking a basic knowledge of philosophy and science, is pseudo-intellectual claptrap ! After the briefest of scans it becomes readily apparent that it doesn't make sense.
I'm new to this website and the first posting I read was the one you answered. This is why I replied to you. It was obvious that you had some grounding in the relevant subjects, certainly enough to see through that twaddle. I consider myself to be a rationalist inasmuch I adhere to Occam's razor i.e. the obvious, simplest answer is usually the right one, and in this case the simple answer is this guy is full of it !


well well well

Aren't you full of yourself here, son.

And what would you have suggested to describe the kind of seeker who doesn't impose his/her own version of reality upon all that he/she views? Or would you even understand the question at all?

I do believe that this site is very new to you, and that you have no idea what it is that I am asking in this thread or why I've posed the question. My brother is like you. You scan but you don't ingest. You take in but you don't internalize. You're not a learner. You're an imposer of your own truth upon whatever you stumble over.

I think you've answered my question very well. The truth is that if you take the time and effort to state the premise precisely, then you've established the parameters of that premise, and anyone who wanders in and declares the premise that you crafted to be improper or insufficient is just someone who's tripped over the threshold and is too self-obsessed to even understand what they've just done. You're a guy that's falling down the stairs and calling it ballet.

Nice job, Jethro.
edit on 8/21/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Well, personally, I don't classify myself as either as these. I understand the importance of operating within the realm of proven facts, but I also see the importance of being speculative, operating on a ground of 'what ifs'. Isn't speculation necessary for discovering facts? Only so much can be discovered by interrelating concepts that have already been discovered. Sometimes you gotta make up an idea and see where it leads. That's my philosophy.

Objectivity works with subjectivity in the same way that male works with female. Without objectivity and subjectivity co-existing, there would never be the birth of new knowledge.


Subjectivity is an invention of the human intellect. Nothing else that exists is capable of anything but objective reality.

Of course, you may not agree with this, but if you examine a chair or a rock or a storm cloud, you'll see that there's no capacity for subjectivity within the space that either fills within the whole of physical reality.


Subjectivity is an invention of the human intellect? Seriously? You mean we're the only ones that have an imagination? Prove it.

Personally, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. To deny all other living beings of being capable of some degree of subjective reality is an error. I will venture out to say that the more complexly intelligent a being gets, their degree of subjective experience also increases, but due to the being's capacity for knowing the outside world, so too does their objective viewpoint also increase.

Think about dreams. Our brain takes objective memories and introduces them to subjective imagination in an objective kind of way so that usually, you aren't dreaming about something that is outside the realm of possibility or probability in the objective world, but it is still something that you are just imagining. I think this is a testament to the balanced nature of subjective and objective experiencing for any individual being. If your brain is tainted, I believe you would have a wild subjective imagination, and I also believe that the way you perceive the extternal world would be erroneous. If your brain is healthy and in good shape, then you will imagine possible objective realities subjectively and be able to bring that internal subjective imagining out into the external objective world. That is a brain that thinks in balance.

Or perhaps I'm off. Maybe, like in a dream when you have objective memories mixed with subjective imagination to bring about a probable objective experience experienced subjectively, you also have, in the objective world, subjective imagination mixed with objective probabilities to bring about a possible subjective experience experienced objectively.
edit on 21-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Well, personally, I don't classify myself as either as these. I understand the importance of operating within the realm of proven facts, but I also see the importance of being speculative, operating on a ground of 'what ifs'. Isn't speculation necessary for discovering facts? Only so much can be discovered by interrelating concepts that have already been discovered. Sometimes you gotta make up an idea and see where it leads. That's my philosophy.

Objectivity works with subjectivity in the same way that male works with female. Without objectivity and subjectivity co-existing, there would never be the birth of new knowledge.


Subjectivity is an invention of the human intellect. Nothing else that exists is capable of anything but objective reality.

Of course, you may not agree with this, but if you examine a chair or a rock or a storm cloud, you'll see that there's no capacity for subjectivity within the space that either fills within the whole of physical reality.


Subjectivity is an invention of the human intellect? Seriously? You mean we're the only ones that have an imagination? Prove it.


[sigh] Why don't I just let you prove it with your examples then.


Personally, I'm going to have to strongly disagree. To deny all other living beings of being capable of some degree of subjective reality is an error. I will venture out to say that the more complexly intelligent a being gets, their degree of subjective experience also increases, but due to the being's capacity for knowing the outside world, so too does their objective viewpoint also increase.


Subjectivity is only inherent in initiative thought. It isn't part of intelligent response to external stimuli. Even if one responds to external stimuli with initiative thought, the brain is initiating thought. That is the difference between human brains and other kinds of brains; the configuration of Intellect (or initiative thought). Dynamic Response (DR) is configured from residual information stored within the carbon of the memory cells, as it is applied to the data being received by the body's sensor systems for managing the survival response per specific suite of circumstances. In the non-human brain, that DR is then launched as a system coordination management trajectory of precise directives that activate the body's muscular, nervous, circulatory, pulmonary and digestive systems in a specific activity protocol that the body's DNA information has developed over thousands of years as being the correct method of dealing with the circumstance that the external sensors have detected. The response, in this situation, is hardwired, and there's nothing subjective about any of it. Of course, the response can only be as appropriate as it can possibly be, and the objective nature of the circumstance can't be perfectly met by the objective nature of the DNA's prepared response suite. In short, not everything survives every situation regardless of how well it is equipped to do so.

The human brain configures data in the same manner, but it also possesses an additional survival tool. And this tool is the capacity of the brain's previously launched DR to reach in - by way of a unique ongoing information vetting process that picks and chooses what is and isn't allowed into the short term memory system of the brain itself - to actively assist in the data selection and configuration effort per survival response circumstance. This happens due to a completely separate survival concern involving that dynamic information and its own existential requirements, but (as it is with all that exists as dynamic and change-centric) this DR will certainly act in its own best interest, and the survival of its authoring system is central to its own survival (as it views the relationship it has with that authoring system, of course) so it pitches in with its own inimitable contribution, and the result is human Intellect, which features high-end capacities like strategy, tactics, planning, and deliberative decision making. All of which are absent from the response suite of lesser brains.

These high-end capacities introduce the concept of subjectivity into the realm of information - which is the only realm where subjectivity exists. DNA directives do not deal with subjectivity. Those directive - while they are also information - are much too primitive and specific to be capable of subjectivity. Only high-level Intellect configured data responses are capable of containing subjective data models, and this is only because survival tools like tactics, strategies and progressive event trajectory anticipations (planning) involve nothing but subjective data models. Of course, the modern human mind has taken the subjective data model and has engineered art, literature, emotional expression and lots of other neat new versions of subjectivity as the corporeal survival effort has been eased. It's even begun to consider itself and the subjective nature of self-consideration. And with that, the potential for subjectivity within the external objective realm that exists beyond its own unique capacity for subjectivity.


Think about dreams. Our brain takes objective memories and introduces them to subjective imagination in an objective kind of way so that usually, you aren't dreaming about something that is outside the realm of possibility or probability in the objective world, but it is still something that you are just imagining. I think this is a testament to the balanced nature of subjective and objective experiencing for any individual being. If your brain is tainted, I believe you would have a wild subjective imagination, and I also believe that the way you perceive the external world would be erroneous. If your brain is healthy and in good shape, then you will imagine possible objective realities subjectively and be able to bring that internal subjective imagining out into the external objective world. That is a brain that thinks in balance.


And you make my case for me here. What is subjective, in your own example, is the human mind and its perceptions. Nothing else.


Or perhaps I'm off. Maybe, like in a dream when you have objective memories mixed with subjective imagination to bring about a probable objective experience experienced subjectively, you also have, in the objective world, subjective imagination mixed with objective probabilities to bring about a possible subjective experience experienced objectively.
edit on 21-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)


Memories are bits of Residual information (created in natural response to the data configuration events that the brain engages in as it retrieves such residual data and applies it in the manner I described above) that are stored locally for quick retrieval. The data bits may be or may not be factual, since once any data is handled by the human brain's configuration process (which, as I noted in the case of the human brain is directly affected by the subjective Intellect and its own survival concerns as its being configured) it immediately ceases to be reliably objective as resulting data configurations. Then, once the configuration is launched as a system directive, that Residual information emergence (naturally occurring upon each and every event initiation) can only objectively reflect the true and accurate nature of the event itself. If that event is the launch of subjective information....well, you can see the issue with memory. It's an objective representation of subjective information. Reliably unreliable is the best way to consider it in light of what we're discussing here.

Basically, you've strengthened my point here with your own examples. Reality is objective. Even the subjective nature of the human Intellect is objectively subjective. Subjectivity is what the human mind brings to the table, and why the human being is so priceless within the whole of physical reality. Oh...and you need to also keep in mind that what makes the human being "human" is this capacity to think subjectively. It may very well be the case that the Homo Sapien is only one version of human on this or other planets. The whale - for instance - may also be capable of subjective thought. We don't know yet if this is the case, but if it does engage is imagination or deliberative thought, then this would make them human - even if not as profoundly assertive in their humanness as we are.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


My argument is that objective discernment is proportional to subjective imagination in any entity.

For instance, a dog probably doesn't have a clear interpretation of the external world and is likely to behave irrationally based on natural survival instincts. So while his behavior is objectively reactive based on survival instincts, the dog may be erroneously discerning a potential threat. This causes the dog to bark at everything as a defense when in actuality there is no threat at all.

This poor objective discernment is proportional to its degree of subjective imagination. The dog doesn't completely lack subjective imagination, although there is no apparent evidence that it even has one. This is not to say that it doesn't, it is just to say that its brain is undeveloped in as much that what minute possession of subjective imagination it has is not prevalent proportional and is proportional to its degree of accurate objective discernment.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

A philosopher would say objects fall because they want to.

A metaphysicist would say objects fall for the same reason that planets orbit.


I would say it is in the nature of the object to fall.

The nature of things vs. things of nature...

I tend to stray to the philosophical side but take an interest in so-called metaphysical topics.

An excellent post.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

"So, are you a philosopher or a metaphisicist?"


Yes :p

Nice op NorEaster. I would say I'm a bit of both. I ponder 'what if' and imaginary scenarios... I look deeply into the scientific and mathematical mechanisms of existence and life... I reflect inwardly and meditate... I experience higher states of consciousness... I utilize will and intent... and I combine accepted academic understandings with my own personal gnosis to better grasp my subjective reality. But if I were to put a label on myself I would choose 'spiritualist.'

Peace be to you my friend!



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster

So, I guess it'd be a good thing if a person could take a moment and get to know where they line up in this sense of what they bring to the table here. So, are you a philosopher or a metaphisicist?


NorEaster, I do not know. Upon reading your OP I would have thought I was a metaphisicist, but the ensuing debate has me second-guessing myself. Perhaps you could help me decide.

After an episode that happened to me recently, I now find myself not seeking the answers to the questions of reality, but the truth. And I need to know the "why" of the truth and what to do with this information once I've obtained it. But most importantly, I need to be able to understand it.

(And not the truth as it pertains to me, or can be moulded by me to fit into my belief system - because I now find myself devoid of any dogma.)

At the moment, upon my trek, if I find a nugget of information that I understand, I find myself giving a little "ah, ha" and popping it into it's little container that it belongs in and moving on to the next hurdle, I guess with the end goal being to find the whole of the sum of all parts.

Perhaps I am a metaphisicist in training to become a philosopher.


But for now, just to seek and more importantly - begin to slowly understand certain concepts is the focus. Baby steps.


And what would you have suggested to describe the kind of seeker who doesn't impose his/her own version of reality upon all that he/she views?


A mentor?


edit on 30/8/2011 by Netties Hermit because: too many smily thingys



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 



Perhaps I am a metaphisicist in training to become a philosopher.


It's been said in this thread by a few posters and myself...

A meta-physicist IS a philosopher.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

Modern philosophy may deviate to the point of a separate distinction due to our very empirical methods, but it started as a branch of philosophy...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by underspace
 


Thank you underspace,

I'm aware of this, however I guess I was responding to NorEaster's version of philosophy and metaphysics. I think we could argue till the cows came home about the exact definition of each (and I do think there is a distinction) but for me that would make my head explode and it can be all very abstract which is why I chose to just answer the question as asked.


I am not very good at verbalising in this topic however I'll give it a layman's shot. I would say that what I took from the OP's post was this - do you look at this subject from a "scientific" point of view, no - maybe a better word, "uncritical" to get the determined outcome with verifiable result, versus the "conjucture" strategy.

In any case, I think the end-goal is the same.
Which is why we are all here.

In any case, I'm probably totally wrong - hell, pretty sure I am, but that's what I take from this thread.

eh - please don't think I'm going to debate this as I am way out of my depth here and I will let the academics take over and hopefully learn something in the meantime.




edit on 31/8/2011 by Netties Hermit because: just cause ...



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


No worries about being too critical in thought of this. I don't want to exhaust myself either. Didn't mean it directly to you, it just seemed in this thread not many knew that metaphysics had its origin in philosophy. But I agree in the 'nowadays' there is a distinction to be made between thinking metaphysically and other mainstream flavors. Hell, even neuroscience renders psychology pseudoscience in some regards (should it?). The more empirical we become with our approach the more we distance ourselves with the subjective experience of things like intuition, dreams....consciousness itself. Questioning reality. That's what metaphysics is about, then and now

edit on 31-8-2011 by underspace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by underspace
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


No worries about being too critical in thought of this. I don't want to exhaust myself either. Didn't mean it directly to you, it just seemed in this thread not many knew that metaphysics had its origin in philosophy. But I agree in the 'nowadays' there is a distinction to be made between thinking metaphysically and other mainstream flavors. Hell, even neuroscience renders psychology pseudoscience in some regards (should it?). The more empirical we become with our approach the more we distance ourselves with the subjective experience of things like intuition, dreams....consciousness itself. Questioning reality. That's what metaphysics is about, then and now

edit on 31-8-2011 by underspace because: (no reason given)


I'm going to say that you're right that metaphysics - as a term, at least - did have its origins as being associated with philosophy, but as Netties correctly observed, I was using the term in a very specific and initially established manner. I was thinking about this a couple days ago, and had a notion that the phrase "beyond physics" - associated with the term metaphysics - does seem like a good place to start when trying to stabilize it as a definite term. The issue, it seems to me, lies in the application of the word "beyond".

Beyond can mean after, but it can also mean encompassing - as in "beyond my capacity to understand", which suggests that the totality of understanding includes my own capacity, as well as much more capacity than I possess. In this sense "metaphysics" involves the physics of material existence, non-material existence, event relationships, contextual precedence, ramification, trajectory analysis, the impact of information (residual and dynamic forms thereof) upon material and non-material existence, the impact of the event on information as a continuum, as well as on information as an emergent form of existence, the nature of the human mind and its impact on what emerges as philosophy, and a host of other such issues that we - as corporeal humans - may have no ability to perceive as being issues at all.

When I consider what can and cannot be true, I have to factor in everything that I just listed above as being integral to that consideration. That means that my ability to embrace anything as plausible is severely limited by the extreme nature of the balance that must be struck. Ramification, alone, eliminates most of what passes for philosophy on this board, and much of the rest that's widely embraced here as plausible filters off as the examination proceeds along the above stated lines of inquiry. Hell, the full impact of residual information on the establishment of proven material staples, like "natural laws", is a field of study that no one has really taken on to any definitive degree of success, and without that providing a research platform, it's a wonder that science has assumed the knowledge foundation to assert anything at all.

I understand the need for accuracy in language. Believe me, I'm a big fan of accuracy, regardless of how it manifests. Still, the sort of all-encompassing view that I'm suggesting must have a term that represents it - in, at least, a descriptive sense. Metaphysics - as a descriptive term - still seems to fill that requirement. I know that it's been adopted by the ethereal crowd, but maybe we can refer to their art as "voodoo metaphysics", since it's actually a lot more colorful in that sense, even as they seek to tie everything together in their own carnival fashion.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join