Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Introduction

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am a frustrated 45,000 plus post RichardDawkins/ RatSkep philosophy addict. Any argument I attempt on anything ends up in a convoluted self-destroying loop of solipsism and misreadings of Hume and Descartes skepticism. I prefer very simple models with clear and certain propositions first, prior to extension to homologs in the more complex domains. I am working on minimal metaphysical models of cognition and things such as identity. I have developed a couple of simplistic tools that I think have great use in rational discussions. I have no idea whether it be idiocy, madness, or something good. 

 

I am a software artist by trade but have spent 8 years in serious study of neuroscience from molecular biology to cognition by way of detailed brain anatomy. I own and peruse over 1300 books on logic, science, and philosophy. My philosophy education is 'coming along'. 

 

It will be easy for people who read this to recognize my SpeedOfSound handle on those 'other' forums so I may as well spit that out. My hope is to have discussions in philosophy here that actually progress. 

 

Mostly, at first, I will be a listener and a humble occasional commenter. 

 

A note on minimal metaphysical models. My take on metaphysics is that of a mathematician not an imaginer of worlds where gods and minds that create worlds. I am disturbed by what passes for metaphysics these days. My models are truly minimal and a third grader could do them with color crayons. 

 

Hope you guys can adopt me. 

Edited by GrimmsFairyTail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a frustrated 45,000 plus post RichardDawkins/ RatSkep philosophy addict. Any argument I attempt on anything ends up in a convoluted self-destroying loop of solipsism and misreadings of Hume and Descartes skepticism. I prefer very simple models with clear and certain propositions first, prior to extension to homologs in the more complex domains.

Hi.

 

This sounds like an interesting approach. Can you give an example or two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need a little more time here to find out what is on topic and what is not. I have used it to lay out the frame context for brain in a vat arguments and 'the world is an uncertain illusion' arguments. I got tired of seeing the arguments jump frames in the same sentence. It makes sense to me but did not actually help the argument a bit. I ended up spending days explaining and defending the tool instead. Another usage is to create minimal structural basis for various cognitive functions. I use a little coding and a little imaginary robotics for that. 

 

Give me time to get acquainted here first, though I would be glad to take it up in private messages. 

Edited by GrimmsFairyTail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a few questions about what I deem epistemic nonsense. I am a bit frustrated with entering a discussion about the nature of mind and awareness, then being swarmed by people who don't even believe that their children actually exist except as some kind of cluster mind-share. Makes it quite difficult to discuss the physical nature of cognition. 

 

How is that sort of epistemic vapor treated here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...  people who don't even believe that their children actually exist except as some kind of cluster mind-share....

In real life, or on the net? I've never met people who really think that way in real life; but, on the net people will often take theoretical stances as a way of exploring an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"people who don't even believe that their children actually exist except as some kind of cluster mind-share" Is that the object/percept thread or a different one? I only noticed children mentioned on the first page of that thread without seeing anything like what you mentioned in the posts with children in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used children to stretch the example somewhat. Could have used any object. I am talking about philosophy forums and the thing they do not think exists is the physical world outside of their minds. There is an assumption that the mind is the only thing that you can actually experience in high definition consciousness. Everything else is behind some kind of veil of uncertainty.

 

I find that I am often the only one who has doubt about all this 'mind' stuff. I am a direct realist. If I (see) experience my coffee cup I believe it is because of my coffee cup. Not 'sense data'. I use the little single quotes a lot because I find fowl in most of these standards. 

Edited by GrimmsFairyTail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grimms:

 

 

Get your hands on Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff (often refered to as OPAR here)

 

I also highly recommend the History of Philosophy and Modern Philosophy by Leonard Peikoff audio courses available at the Ayn Rand Institute for download, they are a steal. Some of the parenthetical bits on physics and possibly math should be taken with a grain of salt but almost all of it is simply remarkable, especially the counterarguments in favor of the validity of the senses and the primacy of existence.

 

You are coming up against multiple enemies of rational thought, the arbitrary, a misunderstanding of what "possible" actually means, errors regarding what "certainty" and "knowledge" are, rationalism etc. 

 

These history courses (as well as OPAR) are a good start for what you are looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that sort of epistemic vapor treated here?

As nonsense. :)

 

Rarely a poster will question direct realism, but usually that's a matter of learning, as in the object/percept thread Bluecherry mentioned. So, you're in the right place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book is ordered. I actually have been looking for a decent history of Western Philosophy. One untainted by the idealist.

 

My direct realism is a result of studying neuroscience. Strong representationalism doesn't make sense in the brain. 

 

You will see from your research that according to Objectivism, strong representationalism simply does not make sense for any finite, means of cognition, because the means of cognition has identity, and the object of cognition has a different identity.  To wish any means of cognition must somehow mirror of the myriad almost infinite number of different existents which are the subject of cognition ... is simply a silly impossibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grimm, if if you spend some time here you will find that the way certain ideas are treated by folks here depends a lot on what their understanding is of the philosophy the forum is purposed around......

The Objectivist defense of direct realism would be one that is approached from a foundationalist perspective. That means that the validation of perception is something that can be obtained within and from any moment of general awareness. The relevant facts are ubiquitously implicit in any state of awareness. All subsequent knowledge and in particular knowledge of method, rely on and presuppose those facts.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grimm, if if you spend some time here you will find that the way certain ideas are treated by folks here depends a lot on what their understanding is of the philosophy the forum is purposed around......

The Objectivist defense of direct realism would be one that is approached from a foundationalist perspective. That means that the validation of perception is something that can be obtained within and from any moment of general awareness. The relevant facts are ubiquitously implicit in any state of awareness. All subsequent knowledge and in particular knowledge of method, rely on and presuppose those facts.

Sounds refreshing. My head is still spinning a little though, from a few rounds on Philosophy Forums. Epistemic quicksand.

Trying to get time for the Two Rand books I have. Hopefully this weekend. What I have scanned so far is fresh air for me. I am ashamed that I listened to the press enough to ignore the philosophy, though I have long defended Rand as one of the most interesting novelists.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...