On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 10:40:12 AM UTC-7, PGC wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 1:55:39 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Feb 2020, at 01:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/19/2020 12:15 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> Wittgenstein is at the core really of *linguistic pragmatism * >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism >> >> Languages are tools. There is no truth "out there". >> >> >> My view is that "true" means different things in different contexts. >> >> >> And in different modes (of self-reference). The platonists dis understand >> that the absolute truth requires faith in something beyond “my >> consciousness” or “consciousness” (to take into account Terren Suydam’ >> remark). >> > > Wittgestein up to now still has the upper hand with those old arguments > over anybody proposing science based ontological packages metaphysically: > language will seduce people to overgeneralize, to confuse personal > mysticism with reality, to engage in false equivalencies between terms used > in formal contexts and everyday use of language, scientism etc. Slowly, > yours truly is coming around to the idea that folks agreeing on > ontology/reality/religion, which would guide research in some allegedly > correct direction; spilling over positive effects into the world... that > Wittgenstein may prove correct in that this is a confused product of > muddled armchair thinking, not because of his generally negative stance, > but because there seem to be positive developments out there that he > couldn't have informed those arguments with. > > I see/predict metaphysics shifting from the naive armchair forms of > identity, reality, matter etc. practiced here on this list with profound > erudition, walking in circles for 20 years now (Wittgenstein says thousands > of years) to optimization and more efficient pursuit of value and benefit > questions instead, through say orchestration of highly sophisticated forms > of organization applied to education, governing, finance, technology, > problem solving, applied or theoretical etc. that are permissionless, > universally accessible, require no hierarchy of politics, charlatan > experts, control freaks, their sycophants, and bibles of some Messiah > achieving miracles such as eternal life, self-duplication etc. > > Metaphysical setups that place less emphasis on truth, trust, power, > control, or proof and more emphasis on "can entities such as ourselves be > highly organized, solve specific survival problems over short and long > terms, without trusting each other + instead assuming that folks will be > opportunistic and idealistic?" Example: we don't agree on what reality may > be, but we do agree on the need for habitable living space in the long > term, nutrition, water, health, limiting self-destruction, expensive wars, > standards of living etc. quite clearly. There ARE more appropriate politics > and economics on the horizon. Metaphysics here, shifting our old-school > conceptions of what first principles are, and you'd refute Wittgenstein > instead of running from him. Engineering incentive and not what the game is > but *how* the game of life on this planet could be. > > >> >> About this, it is clear to me that in “I think thus I am”, Descartes use >> the “first person” I. Indeed he start from the doubt. Dubito ergo cogito, >> cogito ergo sum. Descartes did not prove the existence of Descartes, bit of >> his own consciousness, hoping others can do the same reasoning for >> themselves. Consciousness always refer to a first person experience >> implicitly: like God (truth) it is not a thing. >> > > You concede to Terren that "true means different things in different > contexts" but everyday like clockwork you still barrage the list with your > use of "large truth, 3p, reality that cannot be named, mechanism is > incompatible with physicalism" and all the rest of it. I used to wonder why > you don't pursue contact with linguists, physicists, a wider audience, and > philosophers but this has ceased to surprise me. PNGC >
I think I finally got it -- what mechanism means for Bruno -- namely, that a human being can be perfectly simulated by a computer. But if that's what he means, how does it follow that mechanism is incompatible with physicalism? What exactly does Bruno mean by physicalism? Why the incompatibility? Bruno? TIA, AG > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9725ab5e-d50e-41aa-8932-0eafeecf6b4d%40googlegroups.com.
