>Now think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked "five red apples". He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked "apples"; then he looks up the word "red" in a table and finds a colour sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers—I assume that he knows them by heart—up to the word "five" and for each number he takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out of the drawer.——It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words.——"But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word 'red' and what he is to do with the word 'five'?"——Well, I assume that he acts as I have described. Explanations come to an end somewhere.—But what is the meaning of the word "five"?—No such thing was in question here, only how the word "five" is used.
Just started reading this beaut. Is it just me or is he basically providing a proto chinese room argument?
But he would know what five is without even knowing a word for it.
Hunter Wright
It's almost like language isn't inherent or fundamental to human communication and "five red apples" serves as a close, yet sufficient appromixation of a much more complex structure of executive commands we're yet to understand logically.
Nathan Jackson
just another reductionist chopping away at the tree of reason until only the utilitarian toothpick is reveal-tada! just because you can ask a question, doesn't mean it's worth asking. these brainlets never understood frames of reference and operated from a deeply ridiculous position- that there is no frame because i have not adopted one even though the empty frame is a necessary subset of the set of all frames (you need it for god, the unknown, the unknowable, the hidden). if you don't want to use sets then use topology. what geometry is the human brain? it's a shape right? what properties does that shape possess, those are your natural limitations and the extension of all your sensational experiences. i dont think it's a failure on the part of the mathematicians or physicists to communicate their discoveries, it's just the social science fags were too lazy to read them thoroughly because it would expose their entire field's intellectual vacuousness. the irony is that by not reading it, the same thing occurs, only in a much more laborious and agonizing process.
Jeremiah Cox
+1
Landon Sanchez
is Wittgenstein a rationalist?
John Lewis
it is true that human and other animals' brains have the ability to represent approximate numerosity nonsymbolically
but how would your brain come to develop the discrete, symbolic representation FIVE without having talked about it?
Mason Carter
From what I understand, he was an "outsider" philosopher who took it upon himself to discover the truth of the matter for himself, with no regard for the sanctity of pre-existing memes like rationalism
Ethan Evans
holy fuck. this is pretty much what i've come to discover for myself. yet another book i should have read much earlier...
i get a feel for what you're trying to say, but can you express it differently? it's a little unclear >what properties does that shape possess, those are your natural limitations and the extension of all your sensational experiences isn't this a reductionist view? which i basically agree with btw >frames of reference i'm assuming this has a technical definition (as opposed to the colloquial one), but google is not helping. explain pls?
Easton Long
Not at all. He was personally mentored by Bertrand Russell, and engaged deeply with the works of Frege, Kierkegaard, and Schopenhauer among others. He was even a Cambridge professor.
Luke Morgan
i don't think anything you said contradicts my statement. his style is pretty idiosyncratic, and from what i've read so far he doesn't seem at all inclined to pay homage to the great memes of history and philosophy.
Liam Stewart
>Excuse me user, could you quickly verify the colour of this spot here?
Gavin Gray
Wittgenstein was still an outsider. Consider, for example, his views on the subject itself. This is why he's barely taught at universities today: professors don't want to teach someone who undermines their whole life's work.
Asher Long
apples=5. math
Owen Morgan
he is still taught in philosophy departments today. He just isn't as big there because his significance is more in teaching a way to lead a life derived from his radically new philosophy. Since the academy isn't really interested in teaching philosophy for the sake of telling one how to live one's life, and is rather in clarifying concepts and hoping that the individual can do the former with their own head, they recognized that Wittgenstein ended up being wrong about a lot of stuff on technical grounds, rather than humanistic ones, which I always take Wittgenstein to be operating on (take humanism here broadly).
Easton Thomas
>rather than humanistic ones, which I always take Wittgenstein to be operating on (take humanism here broadly). didn't he love hitting kids to make them stronger?
Blake Johnson
Can someone help me grasp this: the sorts of things Wittgenstein calls "language games" (the shopkeeper, the builder and assistant, etc.) seem very simple. When I think of more complex usage (like what I'm doing right now) it is hard for me to grasp what possible rules I am applying. By rules I don't mean as in Chomsky's generative grammar or anything of that sort, but rather rules governing the semantics of my train of thought. I'm not asking anyone to solve the field of Artificial Intelligence right now, but just what Wittgenstein thought of these more complex uses.
He says somewhere early on the Philosophical Investigations that meaning surrounds the working of language with a haze, and that it disperses the fog to focus on "primitive" uses of language. But that's just it: can everything be reduced to something so simple?
Jace Martin
He was doing it for their own good. And he killed one of them too, accidentally. Maybe instead of humanism I meant sprituality
Noah Garcia
>his significance is more in teaching a way to lead a life sure, if you don't take him seriously as undermining the foundations of all contemporary philosophical inquiry
>wrong about a lot of stuff on technical grounds considering that his whole point is that such "technical grounds" derive their authority from an elaborate circle jerk, this is a strange comment to make
>sure, if you don't take him seriously as undermining the foundations of all contemporary philosophical inquiry This is precisely his point. The philosopher can only untangle his own problems, this doesn't mean that he ended philosophy.
>this is a strange comment to make Not really, if you've ever read John McDowell who is a Wittgensteinian, you'd see that there is quite a lot of stuff that you can argue with W about. Technical was the wrong word, stop playing language games.
Sebastian Cooper
>isn't this a reductionist view?
(I.) FLAW IN REDUCTIONISM
>"For compact 2-dimensional surfaces without boundary, if every loop can be continuously tightened to a point, then the surface is topologically homeomorphic to a 2-sphere (usually just called a sphere). The Poincaré conjecture, proved by Grigori Perelman, asserts that the same is true for 3-dimensional spaces." >imagine a donut. now deform it until you have a cup. no matter how you deform this donut-cup you will never get a sphere. why would you want a sphere? because this is the simplest possible shape. but it turns out to be impossible to deform the donut-cup into a sphere because it's hole is a fundamental irreducible property, it's donutcupness requires there to be a hole.
since we live in at least 3-dimensional space, and the poincare conjecture holds for 3-space, reductionism is fine up until you hit the fundamental features or properties, like holes, which cannot be reduced, if you reduce a hole into nothing it's no longer a hole. (this closed hole / open hole problem pops up again when looking at how black holes radiate energy, how they are created and how they evaporate.)
so reductionism works, but only up to a point. when you have a sphere it's a sphere, and when you punch a hole in it it's a torus, and these are two _different_ things. so different things do exist, and those differences are exhibited in properties you can't eliminate or reduce and maintain the thing the same, such as holes in this example.
(II.) INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME
with respect to frames, i am talking about inertial reference frames. without confusing you, just think of it as x,y,z,t coordinates in 3-space for all objects in space, with events just being changes in x,y,z,t. so then reality becomes reduced to
>an object >at some place >and some time
you cannot go below this, or you invoke less dimensions or no time or no objects. where do thoughts and words exist? you could think of words as little shining balls (or donuts) trapped in some dark liquid, each ball deformed in some way or another to form various distinct shapes, but at any moment these shapes can be squashed back down into their original essential shape, ball or donut. it doesn't really matter what shape they are or if they are all the same shape under distortion, what matters is how they interact with each other.
Jaxson Reed
(III.) WHY?
the problem of natural language, grammar, syntax, is very similar to the n-body problem in physics. what we have now is distinct objects, words, (at some place, and some time) interacting with each other in strange ways. well not so strange, because when we start observing more than 2 spheres interacting with each other due to gravity, or any other forces you can think of (imagine fluid or water modeled as little spherical blobs) there is no general theory for how these interactions work. when you have two spheres they each interact on each other, when you add another one it complicates matters and you can only force a numerical solution through enumeration/approximation/simulation. the more spheres you add the more it looks like chaos because each sphere interacts with every other sphere causing all kinds of feedback.
(IV.) TWO BIG PROBLEMS
>(a) non-reductive nature of reality, words might not mean anything and be completely interchangeable but they are still something, just like holes are something.
>(b) "Explanations come to an end somewhere."
this is the crux of the whole thing. poincare's conjecture, relativistic frames, n-body problem, and HALTING PROBLEM. the halting problem is somewhat related to godel's incompleteness theorem and heseinbergs uncertainty principle.
for heisenberg he saw the problem as measuring position and momentum of particles, the more you know one the position less you know the momentum). for godel he saw it as building some mathematical language, it can never describe itself completely or consistently (the more complete the less consistent, the more consistent the less complete). in computer science, any and every computer von neumann architecture turing machine ever built by man suffers from a similar problem called the halting problem. (given some input to a program you are uncertain if it can solve it or if it will continue computing forever, will it halt?)
this problem has cropped up again under a different name in mathematics, it is called homotopy type theory, and it tries to tackle the structural incompleteness in our mathematical models by applying transformations to objects, but it's doomed to fail because of what i described in (I) above. at best you will get approximations, simulations, models, which is NOT what the continental philosophers of the 20th century were pretending they were doing. by trying to do so much wittgenstein basically exposed his entire field as fraudulent and incapable of formulating useful new ideas for the future. masturbating with words, while the world went on to build rocket engines and fusion bombs.
he is struggling with some of the biggest problems of the past 100 years, but is unable to express it let alone understand it, and ultimately we benefit nothing from the world salad.
Jaxon Ross
I'm not an enthusiast of philosophy but this topic seems interesting as fuck. Is Wittgenstein readable to an average literature reader?
Ryan Morgan
I personally think (as he maybe even obviously alluded to) it all starts from internal/mindful visualization of objects, people, places, things, actions. The videos that can be played in the mind. Then choosing the words that equal those videos.
A squirrel just ran down the tree and across the yard with a nut in its mouth and looked at me for 7 seconds.
so far its readable and thoughtprovoking, but i do have a background in psycholinguistics and have read some other relevant philosophers.
I tried reading the Tractatus earlier but gave up trying to interpret what he means all the time. I think I need to find a guide or primer of some sort that explains his technical use of various terms.
Adam Morales
There's only one Chinese room user
Xavier Perez
but they're so fun... thanks for the McDowell rec user
Lincoln Phillips
My university has only two classes dedicated to specific philosophers. Kant and Wittgenstein.
Isaac Cooper
>black holes Black holes are simply whirlpools of the gravity-medium
Mason Morris
.
Samuel Howard
>Wittgenstein is considered smart. Never ceases to amaze me.
Adam Richardson
I forgot my color samples in my drawer at home.
Ryan Harris
any arrangements of dots probably, if fingers aren't symbolic enough
Nolan Cook
Not that guy but that doesn't explain the abstract concept, as an isolable essence in consciousness of "fiveness," abstractly predicable of any group of objects. An easier way to see this is: Why did it take so long to "discover" the idea of zero being a number? Why did the Greeks, who had insanely sophisticated philosophy of mathematics, never get around to conceptualising it?
Many ancient cultures existed for a surprisingly long time, thousands of years even, without figuring out how to count in discrete cardinal numbers. Many cultures still have situations where they count by saying "one, two, a lot," or something similar. The Greeks and other mathematically sophisticated cultures had similar things, especially at the popular level, where any large number was conceptually vague for them to the point that it took serious thinking to pin down "thousand" and "million" as separate entities.
Also take into account how every counting system is arbitrary. Why have a decimal counting system? Many cultures used duodecimal, and some people say this would have been better as a foundation for modern mathematics in many ways than a decimal system. What about a system with a base of only two or three distinct numbers/symbols?
Think of how easy it is to break up something as elementary as counting into constituent conceptualising "equipment," like symbols, concepts, the idea that the concepts "apply" to groups of objects. Alexander Luria did ethnographical research in Russia showing that pre-literate and pre-numerate peoples had trouble with discrete groupings, so that if you put down three tools and a piece of wood in front of them and said "Which of these doesn't belong?", they wouldn't even understand the premises of the question - which shows that even the idea of abstract groupings or concept-mappings (like "These are Tools") are historically relative and not built in to humans.
Mason Gray
REEREREE REREEEEE
Carson James
thanks for taking the time to write this out user. i get the impression that much of what you say comprises your original thoughts, but if you can refer me to any sources that expands on the following, i'd appreciate it >you could think of words as little shining balls (or donuts) trapped in some dark liquid, each ball deformed in some way or another to form various distinct shapes i have always felt that commonly held views among cogntive scientists about the neural basis of conceptual representations are terribly naive
Landon Jackson
>where any large number was conceptually vague for them to the point that it took serious thinking to pin down "thousand" and "million" as separate entities the degree to which the depth of our conscious experience seems to depend on the depth and breadth of our verbalizable concepts is fascinating. Have you read Julian Jaynes? I'm nowhere close to finishing his book, but he seems to be essentially saying the same thing.
Christopher Jenkins
>conscious experience seems to depend on the depth and breadth of our verbalizable concepts That's one of the biggest issues in philosophy of mind and everything that hangs on it. It's difficult to even get people talking about it without talking at cross purposes. Wittgenstein has this whole private language argument in Philosophical Investigations, but it's completely misunderstood by others (like Kripke; check out Peter Winch's discussion of others misinterpreting it, it's about 10pages somewhere in _The Idea of a Social Science_).
What Wittgenstein does is allow us to talk about "mental contents" without imposing any metaphysical ideas on them a priori, which is also what Heidegger and Husserl and Derrida and others try to do. People mistake him for making an empirical argument about how the brain or human psychology function, but he's actually operating at that transcendental level of staying within language when talking about language "is" - of not presuming that language can point "outside itself" to its own cognitive base in any straightforward way.
The fact that this simple point is lost even on Wittgenstein's commentators, including the smartest and most famous of them most of the time, is an indication of how tricky it is to talk about what thought "is" based on, what language "is" - because we have access to language, at least to the extent that we live within it, but we can only infer back to thought from it.
Analytic philosophers, continental philosophers, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, all make similar mistakes of trying to simplistically pin down what thought "is" (what it "must be") based on what we see of its "operation" in language, including the claim that thought simply "is" language. They constantly forget that language can only ever give us a "chain of signification" that remains within language itself, never leading to a transcendental signiFIED.
Which isn't to say that empirical knowledge of cognition is impossible or something, just that simplistic metaphysical claims are retarded.
I've never read Jaynes but I have him around here somewhere - I only know the thumbnail sketch of his basic thesis. Would you recommend checking it out? Does he talk about language/concepts in the brain and shit? Related to the fact that the best scholars often fuck everything up and then institutionalise their own mistakes for 50 years, quacks like Jaynes are usually free and open-minded enough to say something actually interesting for a change, without stunting it by constantly bending it to accommodate Kripke's stupid orthodoxy.
Joshua Turner
this is amazing. thank you
Nathan Fisher
i can’t look at this thread
not today, nope. i’ll have another episode
Parker Johnson
ummmm no sweetie 'five' is a determiner (with certain adjectival qualities in its distribution) that forms measure phrases or generalized quantifiers when composed with count nouns, which attribute second-order properties to properties contained in a verbal predicate to the effect that the cardinality of the set of individuals characterized by that property is at least 5, cardinality defined via Frege's notion of equinumeracy...
Logan Bell
Language is technically a representation. Wittgenstein was kind of correct in that Philosophy is the study of Language. If he wanted to be totally correct he would say that Philosophy is the study of representations.
There is a flaw with all philosophers in that they tend to ignore the basic use of representations and, instead, go off the deep end of simulations. In other words, "philosophers" want a theory that can explain what "thought" is without having to explain the very basic representation that is DNA. All the major questions such as the chinese room can be applied to the DNA and the study of genetics and evolution. If a theory can't answer Genetics and evolution then it ain't worth shit.
Isaac Lopez
The idea that he was some kind of radical outsider that completely ignored the tradition is just a pop philosophy meme if you want to insist on using that term.
He read deeply from the history of philosophy and religious thought and worked on the same topics and problems that his contemporaries did. Honestly, do you have any idea how important the ideas of Frege and Russell were to his thought? The whole linguistic turn and Frege's invention of contemporary logic serve as preconditions to the ideas of Wittgenstein. Just because he writes in an aphoristic fashion and doesn't cite other thinks does not mean that his thought represents some radical break with the tradition. That's not to say that some of his ideas weren't brilliant and original, but he was very clearly operating within the paradigm that was in style at the time.
Jose Carter
>Who is Wilfrid Sellars for $1000, Alex
Adam Russell
I've found it to be the case that Wittgenstein was at least familiar with a lot of the history of philosophy even if he didn't care much for it >read Plato extensively, died with a German copy of the complete works >made fun of colleagues who read Aristotle >Read Augustine, obviously >Cited Berkeley and Kant as "deep" philosophers >Was inspired by and later criticized Schopenhauer >Almost definitely read Nietzsche although this is just an assumption. Held many similar views about language >Hegel not mentioned >Marx not mentioned >Hume possibly read. Discusses cause and effect but this doesn't mean he read him >Very familiar with many great novelists and poets >Kierkegaard, Russell, and Frege go without saying Miss anyone?
Zachary Green
>huge swathes of the brain dedicated just to language >key development process of learning to speak a language that shapes your entire development, see: feral children >not inherent or fundamental
come on m8
Brody Allen
What did he mean by this?
Sebastian Wright
being familiar with the ideas of relevant philosophers but not having a good grasp of the history of philosophy, reading your post (nice writing btw) had the effect of coagulating various loosely connected insights that have been simmering for a while now in my head. much gratitude.
>language can only ever give us a "chain of signification" that remains within language itself is this one of derrida's main insights? i guess i should read him because because this basically describes something which i feel to be true but have had trouble expressing in the language of neuroscience. (i could probably make a more serious effort, but part of the problem is that i can't deal with the inherent irony of using language to express its own illusory nature..)
>Jaynes he's definitely not shy about expressing unorthodox views. at one point he refers to the "aristotelian writings" (as opposed to just "aristotle"), and in the footnote casually mentions how obvious it is that the manuscripts commonly attributed to aristotle were actually the work of multiple authors. from what i remember, the first couple chapters are devoted to disillusioning the reader of commonsensical but ultimately unfounded notions regarding the nature of consciousness and its role in cognition. to this end, he cites relevant (for 40 years ago) findings from cognitive neuroscience and psych. i enjoyed his writing so much that i didn't care about the fact that a lot of what he said i already knew. i remember thinking that this dude, with his shitty outdated sources, seems to understand more about the neural basis of conceptual representation and behaviour than most people in the field probably do today. there's an authentic tone to his reasoning that made me not even care if he's technically wrong about certain things (especially given how much more we know about the brain) - it's simply intellectually refreshing.
following these preliminaries is his discussion of the archaelogical/anthropological evidence that i believe forms the core of his argument. he's an excellent expositor of others' discoveries, but i found his own insights on how changes in social structures might have lead to changes in psychological characteristics to be fucking fascinating. now i want to pick it up again.
Mason Moore
hate to pull this stunt, but have you actually ever read wittgenstein? the incongruity of reality and representation is the central fixation through all his work. you don't dig his style? fine, whatever. but he knew what he was on about. >while the world went on to build rocket engines and fusion bombs yes, wonderful, tools of mass destruction, what an terrific advancement for mankind
John Ross
there are better modes for going from discovery to understanding. let me try to help you make a cognitive connection. a bomb is linked to an observer. depending on the observer frame and bomb frame this can mean radically different relationships.
in the case of fission and fusion weapons, it has meant continuing peace between world powers and proxy wars in contested territories at much smaller scale than full capacity total war. had nuclear weapons not been invented, russia and america would have gone into ww3 maybe only one or two decades after ww2 causing a far greater loss of life and misery, since it would've been a true world war between two continents, likely russia prevails and we are under a state of global communism with periodic famine and never progress beyond 1960s technology.
we are moving towards a period of observable threat and danger: a superstate which watches everything you think say and do. the balance to this is that people will no longer think say and do threatening and dangerous things. it's self-regulating, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is transitive. there will still be proxyself wars, likely people will have argument assistants, a type of visual AI which accepts and then gently refutes hidden biases and beliefs in a way that vaccinates them from virulent opinions. there is a danger for this to be abused, but it won't be, for the same reason we didn't have a nuclear armageddon.
to address your first part now.
>incongruity of reality and representation
except he used the wrong tool for the job. the sooner you start thinking: shapes, connections, reference frames, n-bodies interacting in some lattice, path finding in a shifting maze; and stop using natural language, you start constructing new tools, and these act as more efficient modes of discovery then later understanding, it's a hierarchical process, just like building a vocabulary. based on the speed of technical progress in the past 18 months a radical transformation in human self-ideation is underway, i'm bothering to write this only because i feel a frustration at the poor communication and preparation regular people have for it.
the net effect will be a total abandonment of language from relevant human activities and a different process for thinking, combining artificial sensations, augmented memories and perceptive connections. i am worried that the public will misunderstand the work and overreact. this will retard the progress and potentially pull us back into a period of warring instability. the irrational fear of change compounded by the failure of intellectuals to explain emergent stability in seemingly chaotic systems as necessary pre-requisite stability and not emergent, like the hole in the donut- it's not there but it's there; this is what worries me.
this is a long game were playing, and should be treated with patience and intelligence.
Christian Nguyen
>this is the crux of the whole thing. poincare's conjecture, relativistic frames, n-body problem, and HALTING PROBLEM. the halting problem is somewhat related to godel's incompleteness theorem and heseinbergs uncertainty principle.
Nice rhetorical trick. Moving from "somewhat related" to subsuming them all under "this problem" and then wrongly equating it to homotype type theory.
People that try to borrow legitimacy from the hard sciences to make their bullshit seem valid are horribly annoying.
>moving from topology to the human brain to sensual experience to consciousness There are many gaps here that need to be filled.
Good job reading a couple of papers on mathematics but try actually engaging with the positions you are arguing against rather than ignoring all the intricacies of the problems they are dealing with. You are making very strong reductionist assumptioms without clearly stating them.
Nathan Clark
i didnt subsume them under anything, the halting problem is separate from all of the other ones, but it underlines wittgensteins fumbling nature, in one throwaway sentence
>(b) "Explanations come to an end somewhere."
he glosses over it without understanding how fundamental coming to an end is. my entire point is that wittgenstein tries to do with language what requires many disciplines working in tandem using advanced forms of communicating often unaware of each others work.
it's not a rhetorical trick, im not using rhetoric, i am merely explaining new concepts and discoveries which do a better job of explaining the problem of consciousness, reality, communication.
the problems arent even related, PC deals with manifold transformations, relativity deals with object-subject relationships, n-body problem deals with flux matrices and pattern analysis, and the halting problem deals with indeterminable termination. HTT deals with replacing set theory with something new, it's another unrelated subtopic in the general "what the fuck is going on" field of science.
you're annoyed because you didn't understand what i wrote, which is on you. re-read it carefully and don't flavour it with your own opinions of what i may be trying to say, im saying it clearly:
philosophy is like astrology, junk science with nothing to show for itself. it led us towards mathematics, physics, chemistry etc, so we should treat it with the historical reverence it deserves, but it has little to nothing to say about the present or the future, it's just another type of religion, secular and compartmentalized, but just as self-serving and unable to correct itself.
>many gaps to be filled
no shit, what you expect me to unify 5000 years of human knowledge into a Veeky Forums post? it's not even interesting to me, building the machines that can do this process is far more rewarding than attempting to square the circle from first principles.
>very strong reductionist assumptioms
this is the exact opposite of what i go on to say in a very lengthy and boring 2 parter elaborating my position.
Ryan Rogers
burmp
James Turner
>dude just forfeit language >trust us these new fake schizo perceptual modes and meme languages work, that’s why psychosis increases in direct proportion to their employment >also im frustrated with the ant people >neglects to mention 90% of them are going to be culled by this >neglects to mention the corps and state are the one’s pushing all of this as a control system with no goals >doesn’t care >thinks his job and breeding status is secure >thinks VR porn and dopamine drip will save him >doesn’t see that AI and CRISPR will exterminate all of us >when confronted >nope nope nope >repeat as needed
Gavin Butler
>philosophy is like astrology, junk science with nothing to show for itself All subjects have 'their philosophy': Philosophy is mode and method and drive to think certain ways with certain voracities and depths.
Every field of science necessarily has ascoiated philosophy: the philosophy is the all thinking surrounding the experiments and hypothesis:
Philosophy is: Questioning
The nature of approaching the nature of problems, the nature of approaching askable questions.
Dylan Brooks
>Every field of science necessarily has ascoiated philosophy And if you think that means: Ok then, we don't need Philosophers, because every field, those that work in the field, are the sufficient philosophers, they have the modes and methods to best fully comprehend the material they are working with and could never use any oversight from anyone who may be able to see things and think about things in different ways: just leave them to their corners and halls and let them be, let them take their time and figure it out by themselves, noone outside of the subject: some 'general philosopher' could offer any non negligible modicum of insight into the problems they deal with: and people working in that field, by becoming intuned with 'the nature of a philosophical mind' could not benefit from uncovering potentially hidden aspects of the work they work with.
Adrian Watson
wrote this to someone else but what think?
efine the term "Physical" , in your use: Underlying physical reality.
And then tell me on what grounds would a person say: I think, or I know, there is no underlying physical reality.
What is meant by that? Simply that "everything is always moving".
Is water physical? Is ice more physical than water? Is steam less physical than water and ice?
I am ignorant of the fundamental true nature of actual fundamental particular reality.....therefore, I feel confident (why, on what grounds? ignorance?), in saying actual true fundamental reality does not exist.
There is no reason to bring up "does reality exist?", "does anything besides pure nothing exist?"...that is a given.
There is that which exists besides pure nothing.
It is that (along with its interactions across expanses of nothing) which is called: Reality, that which exists, universe.
When EM radiation 'leaves' the body of the sun and travels to Earth:
We are not viewing it, observing it, seeing it, on its travel.
(That must mean it does not exist!)
After its travel.
After its travel, of which we are not seeing it, it hits a detector:
It (whatever this it is) hits the detector and leaves signs, and clues.
Then they (whoever they are) say:
We know...we think... we think we can know... we think we can guess... we guess we think we can know... we are confident we can be close to confidence in thinking we can guess we can close to know that we can close to guess we can be confident in knowing we can close to guess with close to confidence we can close to think we can know....
That when we dont see...when we arent looking... when the EM radiation is not being detected... IT... That which hits the detector...
Exists like: quality a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, a1, a2, b5, subsection c...
Because......
We think the butler did the murder in the foyer with a candlestick.... because.........
We think with our absolute ignorance of, absolutely blind to how that which we call, EM radiation, travels from the suns body to earth precisely, exactly like: ______________________
While it is (we assume, we know with close certainty) traveling from the suns body to the earths body:
We cannot see it..... we do not see how it is traveling.... we do not see how it exists and moves.....
But we think we know how it exists and moves... and we think we are 50%, 60%, 70%,80%,99% sure we are spot on?
because.......because.......
Lots of context clues.
And those context clues tell us: This _______________ is what is traveling from the sun to the earth.
Nathan Richardson
And This _____________________ what we call EM radiation, looks and moves like this _____________________
And we are this ____% certain we know how it looks and moves when we cant and have never seen what This is.
Hume was a skeptic, but not (and this is why I say Einstein is on my side) when I close my eyes the moon ceases to exist in reality.
Not: Just because I cant see reality means reality does not exist.
Reality exists in some way. The exact way it exists.
Minds can more and less approach constructing in them (and on lots of computers and papers) maps, keys, approximations as to how reality actually exists.
Thats what physics was, is and should be. Or ok, stickler, thats a main aspect of what physics was, is and should be, the other main aspect being practicality: can ya make da big stick hit da enemy on da head harder? oki doke dats da truth then. Thats reality.
Eli Garcia
My entire, crux, has to do with the suggested belief that: EM Field is actually something that exists, and what it means is that "there exists things: EM Things" all through out space:
Started from the (at least I believe I have heard this declared with authoritative confidence) declaration that: EM radiation is generated when an electron is accelerated.
That simple concept forced me down a path of questioning. Perhaps that statement (EM radiation is generated when an electron is accelerated) was not appropriately stated, perhaps it was shorthanded, and purposefully or not limited.
Perhaps it was only directed to the condition of: After an atom absorbs EM radiation: Eventually, the electron which is kicked to a higher energy level; Drops back: This dropping back, being acceleration, and it is after that which the atom/electron propagates EM radiation:
And it is only focusing on that mechanism, by which the statement that tortured me, was made:
So when else is EM radiation made? So when else is EM radiation propagated? By what other causes?
Because if I take the statement, as being the crown, and whole, of the defining capstone of EM Radiation production and existence: The only thing we know about the generation of EM radiation is that it coincides with electron acceleration (pardon me, is it charged particle acceleration in general? An accelerated proton produces EM radiation? If a single quark could be accelerated would it produce EM radiation? You see the essence of my crux is: Where does EM radiation come from? Where and how is it produced? Does the same quantity and quality of EM radiation always exist?)
Then this leads me to ask something like: If you could theoretically hold a single electron between your fingers, and you existed in a vacuum in between the milky way and the nearest galaxy: And you accelerated the electron up and down up and down 1000000 times: Would you be creating EM radiation?
Ryan Rodriguez
When stars were first made, did they happen to be made in ores of EM radiation: and the stars like pinata's (making the distinction between baryonic matter, and EM RAdiation: When I say the star, or star, I do not mean EM radiation: I refer to only the atoms which make up the star, nucleus, electrons (we can ignore gluons for now, I hope): so imagine all these atoms, like a cage, like a net, like lattices of lattices: did this giant thick 3/4d cage of atoms, happen to big bally coelesce surrounding a huge field of ""EM Radiation"" "stuff" "substance":
And then as the electrons and nucleus' left one another and connected with one another: this jostled all the EM Radiation Stuff, outwards away from the net/cage/atoms? In all directions outwards?
Or, like the 'holding an electron in your finger' example: like what I thought was meant by the concept of 'field', and 'EM radiation is generated by the acceleration of an electron', and why the concept of aether was thought of, and why I make analogies to water:
EM Radiation Stuff: Is like the medium of water: if the medium of water existed everywhere.
Imagine a fish. It is entirely surrounded by water.
Imagine only the ocean existed. Imagine the entire universe was just a single ocean of water.
But in the water there are still rocks and sand and corral and fish.
Is the EM Radiation Substance Field: Like that? (well, I believe your aether answer is: yes, thats the meaning of aether).
So in that case, stars: atoms: would coalesce into giant balls: and the atoms would lose and gain parts of their neighbors: and this movement of charged particles would always disturb the aether/em radiation field that exists all around and in the star ball:
The electrons of the atoms in the stars movements would be like your finger holding the electron moving it up and down up and down, would be like taking your finger and leaning over your filled bathtub and dipping it in and out and in and out and in and out: would be like being fully submerged in the ocean and taking your hand and moving it up and down and up and down: all of these forcing the propagation of the surrounding "Stuff Medium" away from the point of your mass fingers acceleration.
It is either: Something like that is the case: or not.
And the or not, would entail, that Em radiation would then be: not part of some all encompassing medium: but more similar to how atoms, an electron, nucleus, exists separate from everything else, as its own singular entity:
James Bailey
A local area of EM radiation in either potential, would be "separate" in that it is "different than its immediate surroundings",
On the beaches shore, watching the waves: It is a single medium, but there are definitive 'separate' waves... though they are not separate from the medium, they are separate from each other, and identifiable.
Different to how multiple baseballs exist. Baseballs are not attached to the same "baseball substance medium".
How do we as scientists and physicists approach determination, of whether Em Radiation exists like separate baseballs exist (or self propagating waving snakes: who are also made of particles!!): Or like the all encompassing ocean medium exists?
Colton Miller
Things must behave someway, and I am confident I can comprehend AT THE VERY LEAST AN INCREASING APPROXIMATION IF EVEN VIA ANALOGY OF HOW ANY THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE THING CAN POSSIBLY EXIST.
We are talking about a simple ''object'', one of the smallest and simplest things... we are not even talking about a geometric shape which has 10000 lines asking me to envision this.
We are not talking about asking to envision at once the momentum and direction of each water particle of a pond when a cannonball is fired into it.
We are talking about 1 single thing. 1 single thing. 1 single small thing.
For you to so persistently suggest that it is possible for me to be able to grasp, how 1 single small simple thing exists, because I think there can be a good, and a very good, and a better, and a better better, way to analogously approximate it, is preposterous and intellectually dishonest, deflective, and shallow on your part.
I am working for the meat and potatoes, lets talk about it chief, instead of giving me your same "no no no, about you, about you, I think this, I thnk this about you, lets not talk about the photon, and what you are saying, I think this about you, I think you are wrong, lets draw attention to how you cant possibly understand the photon, and it cant be approximated, there is no way the most intelligent people working on this stuff over the past 40 years could close to simply approximate how a photon might actually looks... because... I just in my head cannot properly envision how a photon looks... in my head it just looks like numbers and letters and a graph.... of course a photon, em radiation, is not a classical thing, or cannot be better and better approximated in crude, and less crude drawings, or classical analogies, because em radiation in my head looks like numbers and letters on a graph,.... I know... listen, I know the photon, em radiation, behaves nothing like anything you can possibly imagine or think of... why? because I cant imagine or think of it... thats how I know... and I dont try... so you shouldnt try... because you cant... because I havent, and I cant.... and if I cant think about what a photon might look like, how could I possibly tell you if you were write, if you provided an analogy that approximated... listen... really smart scientists said that how EM radiation exists cannot be shown, and how it exists and moves is nothing like anything material, or existing you can imagine.... its not like the whole universe is covered in horizontal ropes that cross the whole universe... it is not like the universe is covered in vertical ropes that span it.... it is not like the universe is covered in vertical and horizontal ropes, of which when the horizontal is accelerated, it causes a nearby vertical to accelerate, which causes nearby horizontal to accelerate, which causes near by vertical to accelerate...
Evan Ward
its not like em radiation is like if you took all those ropes and chopped them up into little line segments, or little nubs, and then stuffed a bunch of them into stars, and then let the stars spew them out... and its not like in those cases where its not like there are vertical and horizontal ropes everywhere that wave, that those are made of out particles.... its not like those little cut ropes, can just be tossed this way or that and like a snake or caterpillar wave themselves.... that is certainly not how EM radiation actually exists... you cant imagine or think about anything like it that approaches... like if there is close to a circle... you can say.... that is not actually a circle... but it is closer to being a circle than being a trapezoid... you cant say.... that analgy is not actually 100% congreuent to how em radiation actually exists, but this one is closer than that one... because I know in my head how EM radiation actually exists, but I just cant tell or express or draw it.. and so I also cant say: that analgy is far from being congruent to how em radiation actually exists... that analogy is closer to being accurate... that analogy has this aspect accurate.... lets ponder and think and work and argue and discuss how we can create a closer and closer to accuracy analogy.. you just gotta embrace the mystery mannn, its like sooo crazy and weird and cool hehehehehe, isnt it kinda cool how we cant really know... how we can tell our friends and family: the fundamental and most commonly experienced aspect of your existence cannot be even approached to be accurately depicted and understood.... because I understand and comprehend it, and I can tell you when you do not...
Parker Morales
but I cannot approach offering any imagery or accurate analogy as to how em radiation actually exists... it gives me this power, I feel, that noone can really judge me, and nothing really matters, because people just cant even imagine the superr cool and weirdd and bizzarree and wowwowowo twilight zone weirrdddd simulation computerrr energy juiceeeee jello weird matter quasi plasma planck space bose einstein condesente quark gluon plasma electronic aetherrr fielddddd juiceeee splurgeeee gooooooo em radiation is like gooey marble wavess heheheh ropes all over waving up and down its frequency wave its wavelength up and down, side to side... a makes b makes a1 makes b1 makes a2 makes b2... ask me to show you I will make up some absolute nonsensical garbage... its a secrett... topppp secretttttt cant let the russians no how a photon really looksss...... goooooo juiceeee plasmaaa taking up all planck space a pico second micro motion movements fraction waves dimension tangent vorticey vector tangent balls or waves balls and waves all over... theres balls everywhere theres waves everywhere... theres balls someplace theres waves someplace.... you cant even really imagine balls or waves.... these are nothing like the balls and waves you can imagine.... I can imagine them and see them... but I cant show them... I cant talk about them.. I can describe them, but when you point out all the inconsistencies in my descriptions and ask all your questions that poke holes in my understanding and vision I will say your logic is wrong, your understanding is wrong, I see perfectly in my head, and what you say is thinking classically, and in my head I see the perfect spooky quantum truth.... waves made of balls, balls made of waves.... gooey juice... plasma.... everywhere... pico plancks.... waving balls.... little balls... but not like balls or waves you can ever think of.. nothing like you can imagine or have ever seen... the concept of a wave applies perfect!! and does not apply at all!!"
I said Philosophy is Questioning, but I also should have said it is the
James Morales
>Philosophy is: Questioning I also should have said, Philosophy also contributes to the approaching the nature of: Solution
Jordan Torres
.
Jayden Hernandez
This guy's opinion of Jaynes is spot on. Everyone should check him out.
Gabriel Garcia
.
Michael Evans
if no man or woman could ever see, mankinds understanding of the universe, earth, self, reality would likely be vastly different: how much do we owe to the faculties of sight
Daniel James
gud job getting over yourself. very rare for STEMlords to be able to do just that. only a few people like Land and the twitter apes I’ve seen, even dare to do that.
Adrian Hall
.
Jaxson Hughes
..
Anthony Sanchez
>filename
kek
Joseph White
I very much enjoyed your autistic ramblings and agree with you. We experience models designed to fake the experience of reality. We have no way of exiting the models: indeed no one throughout history has ever been without their models. And we just add more and more and more. All we really know is that something is different: the effects of your em radiation for example. And the difference is cross sectioned by all these models, cross sectioned so many times that we could build a replica. But the difference itself is stuck in the model, and we can't get it out.
