On 18 August 2014 12:34, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 Aug 2014, at 8:16 am, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 August 2014 06:41, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/16/2014 11:02 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> Indeed. This is generally my objection to theories that *require* >>> conscious observers (and also my objection to people who say 1+1=2 is a >>> human invention, by the way, since the laws of physics, which appear to be >>> based on arithmetic, still worked fine without any conscious beings to >>> "invent" them). >>> >> But that's because we invented them to work that way. We invented >> language to describe things as we seen them and then we make inferences >> from it. >> > > Yes, note the "As we see them" in the above sentence. If we are describing > things as we see them, we aren't inventing them. > > "As we see them" = perception. Perception = seeing with the mind. The mind > is an object which has been mooted to exhibit a structure; a conscious, an > unconscious, an experiencing ego and various other purported "stable > complexes" (Id, anima, shadow, superego etc.) which are (if you go with > Jung and Freud) more like numinous archetypes or platonic entities that > seed experience and behaviour. The ego has free will and hence can devise > an agenda, whether conscious or not, but the self can sometimes have other > plans. Human nature is verrrrrry messy. In trying to account for the > existence of mind we forget that we are just as likely being imperceptably > controlled by the very thing we are trying to observe (usually via > language, yes.) >
I'm not sure I followed all that. My objection was Brent uses "invented" in such a broad sense that it means whatever he wants it to mean. So we don't discover that the world is round, we apparently invent it. This is the sort of deliberately provocative language I keep asking him not to use, but just to say what he means using terms the way everyone else does. But after asking and almost pleading for a sensible discussion, there isn't anything else I can do. He obviously has some good ideas (and famous friends) but insists on playing games rather than talk about things seriously. Either you agree with him 100% or you get this sort of treatment. > We already had an argument about your weird use of "invent" to mean > "discover" - we don't invent the world that is being described, we only > invent the particular form of the description, like using the symbol "1". > If you're going to use invent and discover interchangeably like this, fine, > just remind me not to bother discussing it with you in future. > > It's a bit naughty, yes. Invention is active. Discovery is largely > passive. They are entirely different. "We" don't invent anything. We > discover ourselves in the act of discovering the usefulness of something > and putting that thing, idea or concept to use. The "invent" part is in the > usage of the thing. Before that it's pure perception, often with a range of > alternatives that we never explore because we are, as ever, in a hurry to > form a judgement and say "what is." > > It's not like the evolution of language was the result of committee based > language-planning think tanks. > > "Today's meting is about the need for a number 1. Does anyone dispute the > need for this?" > > Actually, many people confuse "discover" and "invent". As in "Mommy, > mommy, why can't I find out what I want to do in life?" > > Loosely speaking I agree, and there's no problem. But we're talking about a very precise usage, in which it is important whether, say, a fact about the state of the world is just somehow in our minds (as comp suggests, I suppose) or whether it's actually out there in a real world, separate from us, our ideas, our theories, etc. So, for example, if we follow Brent's usage and say we "invent" the law of gravity, this may be true in a trivial sense, but obscures the fact that we may actually believe there are real gravitating objects outside our use of language, equations, models, etc. Whereas if we say we have "discovered" it that brings with it the assumption that there actually exists a real world external to ourselves that we can discover. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
