Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2016 - 11:23pm PT
|
very interested in.do you know anything about Duchamp at the chess player? probably not something you'd be
Actually I enjoy chess. I don't know how good a player Duchamp was and if I remember right the whole thing was a bit of a ploy after he moved to New York, a declaration of having evolved beyond an art world grown corrupt and incestuous but that he secretly wanted to participate in and did so, ironically and precisely, by appearing to not participate.
Dada, like Pop is really an intensely critical style or approach based on the perception of the ironic nature of social and aesthetic norms. The most successful practitioner presently would be Jeff Koons, someone I consider a swindler of sorts. Look him up. He makes Duchamp look like a piker.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 07:45am PT
|
he achieved Master, so not too shabby, and co-wrote a book on hyper-modern openings that I'm sure I studied back in the days I was interested enough in chess that it competed with school.
interestingly, computer chess engines are probably the strongest modern players.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2016 - 09:26am PT
|
another way to think about this logic is that the very thing you claim to exist doesn't. It sounds outrageous, because it is something we all think we are familiar with, but actually it isn't such a stretch.
-
How many times do I have to assert that mind isn't a "thing" (external object) that you and measure and "know" as you would a quark or an acorn. In this regards, mind DOSEN'T exist - not as a material thing. "Mind" is merely a term we apply to the fact that we are aware of existing in a manner beyond just stimulus and response, and the whole shebang often gets diverted into talk about neurons and the objects of existence. Quite naturally the default position here is to consider mind an object - normally just the brain - or the data processing that the brain does and say, "That is all it is. There is no 'thing' more to it. And if there is, show it to me" (provide material proof).
This is a viable perspective. But it's not the ONLY viable perspective. That's the rub.
I suspect that "looking" at mind is a little like trying to look at both the location and speed of a particle. You can't "see" both at the same time. So long as you are looking at objects, you can't see mind. And so long as you are fully present with mind (to the degree one can), the objects fall away.
I don't believe that most philosophers (excluding the analytical camp, or "logicians") are claiming there is an "objective" world out there we, and science, can't get at. When Kant mentioned "the-thing-in-itself," he didn't mean a world of objects more "real" than what we can see and measure. And the fact that math has come a long way since Kant's time has nothing to do with his insights because he wasn't talking about data, but the process by which data is perceived. Nor was he talking about the mechanical process by which the brain converts external and internal stimulai into the content of consciousness.
More later.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 09:54am PT
|
interestingly, computer chess engines are probably the strongest modern players.
No doubt.
If only they knew what they were doing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 10:05am PT
|
If only they knew what they were doing.
Hahahaha that is the truth and in nutshell explains perfectly the difference between a machine and a sentient living being ......
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 02:40pm PT
|
And the fact that math has come a long way since Kant's time has nothing to do with his insights because he wasn't talking about data, but the process by which data is perceived. Nor was he talking about the mechanical process by which the brain converts external and internal stimulai into the content of consciousness (JL)
That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, although I suspect weighty tomes have been written about this infinitesimal space of ideas. Sounds a little bit like angels dancing on the head of a pin. As for "data" I think your knowledge of the nature of mathematics is a tad weak. About like my knowledge of Kant.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 03:06pm PT
|
re: chess engines
"If only they knew what they were doing."
Welcome to the Hard Problem. (For the hundredth time.)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 03:09pm PT
|
Great visual metaphor, jgill.
What makes a perspective viable, Largo? No sane person would insist that there is only one view of what mind "is." But it does not follow that all perspectives count for anything.
Can you tell us, in a few sentences, why (or if?) your perspective conflicts with the biological perspective?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 03:10pm PT
|
Testing img retrieval
John looks like the Forum administration disabled image retrieval by using the method .....?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 03:19pm PT
|
OK, I see the other thread on this problem. Thanks, Guys.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 03:21pm PT
|
John save your image to your computer and then upload it to the forum .....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 03:48pm PT
|
Werner, I used to do that but the resolution is too poor. Maybe the adm will get the [img] process fixed. Thanks.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 03:52pm PT
|
Base that's a bummer. There was jus another thread with your issue. Think he was lookin into gettin heart ticker-upper? His heart beats hovered around 40bpm.
Remember that great body you got there is just a machine. We all wear them out differently. Knowing how and why you got to this predicament, may just show you need a change of habit?
Want the number to my acupuncturist? Jus kiddin;)
keep us atunne.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 04:36pm PT
|
MH2 said "What makes a perspective viable, Largo? No sane person would insist that there is only one view of what mind "is." But it does not follow that all perspectives count for anything.
Can you tell us, in a few sentences, why (or if?) your perspective conflicts with the biological perspective?"
Perspectives!!! they are fascinating. They make our world, our experience. It is quite wonderful to perceive when your perspective is dead wrong; it might be the definition of maturity.
Can you step outside your perspective and see how perspectives are limited are just placeholders. The Zen perspective is to ask what is it that has perspective?
If you are attached to your perspective you will have a very limited view.
So how do you not be attached to your perspective?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 06:11pm PT
|
A start would be to entertain other perspectives. And why would it matter knowing what it is that has the perspective? What difference would it make?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 07:55pm PT
|
Mystical Belt . . . Blow it up to 130 or 150% to get fascinating detail.
I know, I know, it pales in comparison to Urinal Art.
This is a topographical image (moduli) of an expansion I created involving a reverse, self-generating Euler equivalent continued fraction. For each point tested in the rectangle this mathematical object, similar to a complex contour integral, is evaluated and the modulus is computed with light hues=large moduli and dark hues=small moduli. This doesn't appear anywhere in the literature and has zero citations, thus invalidating it as anything worthwhile.
;>)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 08:30pm PT
|
John that thing is kind of a flashback of 1968 psychedelic hippy posters I've seen in Haight Ashbury .....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 09:35pm PT
|
Yes, I can recall driving through that area in the early 1970s and seeing things like this.
The unpublished mathematics underlying this is even more obscure: Adding up the even partial numerators of a "collapsible" self-generating continued fraction presents a mathematical object that at each point tested has the general form of a Riemann contour integral. Same idea about light hues vs dark hues. I find these far more intriguing than fractals, which are relatively simple mathematically. It's almost as if I have inadvertently opened a line of communication with the underlying matrix of the universe and am receiving strange coded messages that appear as hieroglyphics.
Am I communicating with empty awareness ?
I regularly post notes like these on researchgate.net under my name if anyone is interested. Or go to this obscure Wiki math page
Definitely way off the accepted paths of research mathematics. Fun for my old age.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 09:46pm PT
|
Oh, oh... sounds like the divinity of number... fascinating images.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2016 - 11:04pm PT
|
You really seem to need or want an objective reality. Maps, theories, abstractions, labels, concepts, etc. all point to a reality that can be known. I guess that is fine—I guess that works—IF there is a reality that can be known.
In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant has a short and quite accessible argument entitled: "The Refutation of Idealism." By "idealism" in this context, he is referring to the skepticism that emerges out of rationalist thought from Plato through Descartes (and then the retrograde Hegel).
With one hand this rationalism "gives" you the sense that you can "know" the "true essences" via thought (dialectic) alone. However, with the other hand it takes away "knowledge" of the empirical world, the "objective reality" that we really care about.
What is not often seen by commentators is that Kant is here also arguing against the widespread (even today) "veil of perception doctrine" that asserts that we are never "directly" in touch with the objects of our experience; instead we only directly experience our perceptions of "objects" in the world. Thus, from behind the veil of perception, we cannot be confident that there even ARE "objective objects." Perhaps (most likely) all we ever "know" is ourselves.
Kant's argument uses our experience of the passage of time (including our ability to denote "before" and "after") to prove that we must be directly in touch with an objective and external reality.
(I would ask you what you really know through and through, but by now that would constitute a redundant echo from me here on this thread.)
The sort of skepticism you seem to be expressing or at least "throwing out there" is precisely what Kant refutes in the Prolegomena. It is seriously worth taking a look at his argument.
If everything is nondual (just one thing, just one reality), then correlations would be everywhere and never-ending. Everything would be correlated to some extent with everything else.
I can make no sense of terms like "else" in "Everything would be correlated to some extent with everything else." If there is only one thing, then there is no "else."
Logically that would also imply that nothing would be correlated with anything else.
Again, you are smuggling in something very strange with your use of "else." What you are saying does not follow from monism.
Everything would be unique.
No, monism implies precisely the opposite: There is one and only one thing; the term "unique" is vacuous without the notion of differentiation. It seems that your "implications" emerge from ambiguous uses of terms. By "everything," you sure seem to mean "everything else," but that's the root of your confusion here. There is no "else" in monism.
If "X" applies to everything, then is cannot be a discrimination. X discriminates nothing.
Predication does not work as you are suggesting. You are conflating multiple senses of the copula.
I am zeroing in on this issue because of how you are about to use this line of thinking....
One can begin to see how things ARE and ARE NOT this or that. This is how some spiritual masters talk. It’s confusing if a person thinks there is no excluded middle: things either exist or they don’t, by golly.
And there it is: You are drawing implications about the nature of existence by appeal to some vague notion of "is" and what it "implies" about (your idea of) the underlying logic of predication.
No way to rigorously cash this point out here, but I'll say that you simply cannot get the traction you think you do with your vague appeal to non-classical logics. With rare (and unmotivated) exception, non-classical logics, including those that deny the law of the excluded middle, are consistent with classical logic; they can be cast as "extensions" of classical logic.
The metaphysical motivation for non-classical logics (such as talking rigorously about quantum states and vague terms like "bald") is based upon confusing metaphysical inquiry with epistemological inquiry.
For example, the fact that we have to talk about a sub-atomic "particle" in terms of a probability wave (which sure sounds non-classical!) is an epistemic problem rather than a metaphysical one; our human epistemic limitations do not metaphysically imply (or even rigorously suggest) anything in particular.
Are there really atoms? Are there really trees? Is there a piece of stone that is El Cap? Am I MikeL?
This form of skepticism is not "profound" since Kant. And you cannot use it to leverage your final step because your skepticism does not ground your substantive claim about the nature of knowledge.
Get to the bottom of any one thing, and one will get to the bottom of everything. There is no difference between the two.
Perhaps. But only if monism is true. But Kant rigorously proved that monism is not true (see above). Not only are we directly in touch with an external "substratum," but that substratum is not changeless (and correspondingly monolithic).
Of course, I am talking about empirical reality rather than "things in themselves." I echo Kant in this context to say: "About things in themselves, we can say [know] nothing." That is not skepticism about "things in themselves." That is a demonstrated and necessary limitation upon our capacity to have experience/knowledge.
However, regarding empirical reality, we can experience/know much! There is no reason to embrace or "employ" rationalist skepticism nor the metaphysical thrutchings that emerge from it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!