On 03 Jan 2015, at 14:23, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Logical positivism in the hard form has been abandoned in favor of a
dozen derivations, but it is a tactical withdrawal in order to
protect the central dogmas: the antimetaphysical standpoint, the
acritical adoration of science understood in the very narrow sense
of today.
It seems we get the contrary. Why do you think I insist on theology?
The negation of innate knowledge.
On the contrary, computationalism proves its existence.
The negation that the mind can know the truth from inside.
The complete contrary. With computationalism, all knowledge comes from
inside, and the believe in a "outside-truth" becomes a religious (and
important) belief.
The negation of morality as object of study. The negation the most
high of man in which distinguish himself form animals.
Or to summarize: the monstruous contradiction of the negation of Man
as object of study with the aim to divinize it, Or to be exact, to
divinize some men and slave others. That is not possible if morality
is objective and the inherent limitations of every men are accepted
No men-gods are possible then.
The auto-idealized positivist man look at nature not as a part of
it, but as a god that observe nature and submit it to himself trough
the knowledge of his laws by science. And this domination include
other men. This Man-god justified by himself is the childs treasure
that tries to preserve the neo-positivist
This does not follow, by my remark above.
Bruno
2014-12-16 11:42 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>:
On 15 Dec 2014, at 11:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
You are projecting metaphisical differences into physical forces at
the last steps. That does not make sense IMHO. The New Agers do the
opposite.
I think that this is an error typical of people with no education
in physics and technology that are overexposed to scientific-
tecnical terms.
Your metaphysical reasoning is very interesting. Specially your
awareness of the logical positivism and your rejection of it, that
is refreshing for me. The people of this list are logical
positivists and they don´t know that they adopt this metaphysical
standpoint.
I have no clue why you think that we are logical positivist, which
in paricular I debunk in detail in many places (forum, papers,
books). Then, how could machine's theology fit with logical
positism? How could computationalism, which asks for a consciousness
invariance act of faith be positivistic?
I think that the rejection of metaphysics by the logical
positivists is an ideological trick that closes their mind and
inmmunizes them against metaphysical reasoning, in the same way
that marxists despised anything non marxist as bourgeois.
I think that logical positivism, like behaviorisme in psychology has
been abandonned by everybody since many decades.
Bruno
2014-10-23 9:50 GMT+02:00 Peter Sas <[email protected]>:
Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a
physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most
fundamental question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see
how far we can get with pure logic alone. It is of course very,
very tricky to try to derive fundamental laws of nature in this
way. But I think that we can actually get quite far with such an a
priori method. Now with respect to your question, I understand that
dark energy is a basically repulsive force driving inflation. I
don't want to say I can derive dark energy from a priori principles
(that would be absurd). But I think I can derive a duality of
attraction and repulsion in that way. The reasoning I emply,
however, is very abstract, using ideas taken from philosophers like
Hegel and Heidegger, although on the whole I feel more attracted to
the rationality of Anglo-American philosophy (and science) than to
postmodern philosophy (which I think is basically a fraud). Perhaps
my reasoning is closest to German idealists like Hegel and
Schelling who still feld they could derive the basic principles of
natural science from philosophical principles. So here is how my
argument goes in nuce, I hope you can make sense of it:
First I argue that nothing is self-negating (for logical arguments
see the blog piece). Simply put: nothing is nothing to such a
degree that it isn't even itself! Thus, as nothing negates itself,
it produces being, it becomes something. Now, since nothing is
different from itself, being (as the negation of nothing) must be
different from something else. This then is how I define being: as
difference from something else. Now it is easy to see that this
difference must take two forms. First, being is being because it
differs from non-being or nothing (let's call this ontological
difference, following Heidegger). Second, being must also be
internally differentiated, that is to say: there must be multiple
beings differing from each other (let's call this ontic
difference). Then we can say: a being is what it is because of its
ontic difference from other beings. (Ultimately, I think, this
imlies that beings are mathematical, for lacking intrinsic
qualities of their own, they canly be distinguished in quantitative
ways, such that it is their position in a quantitative structure
which determines what they are.) Now we can say: the source (or
cause) of what beings are is (ontic) difference. This difference,
then, must precede them, just as any origin must precede the
originated (at least logically, if not temporally). But what is
this difference that precedes the different beings? It's like a
relation that generates its own relata. Thus we must postulate
something like a pure difference or a pure negativity underlying
the mutual non-identity of beings. But what is this pure
negativity? It seems clear to me that we are now back with our
starting point, the concept of nothing as differing from itself.
And this is not surprising if the self-negating nothing generates
all beings, for then it must also act as the pure negativity that
differentiates beings. But now comes the rub: there is a
contradiction between ontological and ontic difference. Recall:
ontological difference requires that beings differ from nothing
(i.e. pure negativity), whereas ontic difference requires that
there is pure negativity between them. Hence: to have existence
(i.e. ontological difference) beings must stand in a negative
relation to the negativity between them, they must differ from
their mutual difference. But to differ from their mutual
difference, beings must become the same and loose their separate
identities. Hence there is a contradiction between identity and
existence, i.e. between the determinacy of beings (ontic
difference) and their existence (ontological difference): in short,
existence is unifying, determinacy is separating. Now given the
fact that being must be logically consistent, we must interpret
this contradiction not as logical but as an opposition of forces.
Thus existence becomes a unifying force, determinacy (ontic
difference) becomes a separating force. The separating force must
manifest itself as repulsion, i.e. as resistance against
unification. The unifying force must manifest itself as resistance
against repulsion, i.e. as attraction. Hence repulsion and
attraction are the basic forces that govern being.
I spelled out this argument in more detail on another blog piece I
wrote: http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/06/theses-towards-dialectical-ontology_8246.html
So if you want more detail, please check this piece. I have to
emphasize, however, that I am still working on these ideas and that
I hope to publish a fuller account on my blog in the near future.
.
Op woensdag 22 oktober 2014 15:46:16 UTC+2 schreef yanniru:
Peter,
Could you elaborate on how Dark Energy fits into your thesis?
Richard
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Peter Sas <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi guys,
Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source
of being:
http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html
--
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.
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Alberto.
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
--
Alberto.
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
