Perhaps I should have said philosophical discussion as it should be, to be more exact.
That’s great. Now that the subject of “what is truth” is settled, we can go on to the next step. I look forward to finding out the truth about subjects outside of philosophy that matter to my everyday life. Philosophy being a means and not an ultimate end.
“WE can go on to the next step?” (Emphasis added.) Another huh(?) for that one. I do not know about you, but I have been “finding out the truth about subjects outside of philosophy that matter to my everyday life” for quite some time now, so please just speak for yourself, not “we.”
“WE can go on to the next step?” (Emphasis added.) Another huh(?) for that one. I do not know about you, but I have been “finding out the truth about subjects outside of philosophy that matter to my everyday life” for quite some time now, so please just speak for yourself, not “we.”
Wonderful!
Now can you point out to me where I can access this information? Relevant to me.
BTW, I do not count the subject of whether information survives black holes as being relevant to my life. I would be more interested in knowing the causes of excess concentration of glutamic acid. How can I (I’m avoiding “we”) apply Objectivist epistemology to identify the cause or causes of excess concentration of glutamic acid? That would be a practical subject. The doctors that I have been to don’t know and are not interested in finding out.
Now can you point out to me where I can access this information? Relevant to me.
Why aren’t you interested enough in what is “relevant to you” to find out where this information is? Or to create it yourself?
BTW, I do not count the subject of whether information survives black holes as being relevant to my life. I would be more interested in knowing the causes of excess concentration of glutamic acid. How can I (I’m avoiding “we”) apply Objectivist epistemology to identify the cause or causes of excess concentration of glutamic acid? That would be a practical subject. The doctors that I have been to don’t know and are not interested in finding out.
Get training in biomedical research. Become a medical researcher. And then – if you learn some basic Objectivist epistemology – you can apply that to your newfound medical knowledge. Of course I can’t give you very specific guidance, because glutamic acid is of no interest at all to me. It’s not a practical subject, as far as I’m concerned.
Now can you point out to me where I can access this information? Relevant to me
Have you tried the library? The library is usually a big building and it has shelves full of books on all sorts of subjects. The books are even organized in a way that you can do searches. Just ask the grown-up at the desk for some help.
BTW, I do not count the subject of whether information survives black holes as being relevant to my life. I would be more interested in knowing the causes of excess concentration of glutamic acid. How can I (I’m avoiding “we”) apply Objectivist epistemology to identify the cause or causes of excess concentration of glutamic acid? That would be a practical subject. The doctors that I have been to don’t know and are not interested in finding out.
Then try another doctor. Oh, wait, how silly of me. I forgot that according to you the entire medical profession are a bunch of quacks, unlike your most marvelous holistic hygenics.
I guess then you will just have to learn about this yourself. The first place to start after philosophy is to learn about the scientific method and … uh oh, I just realized that that is the same method used by the doctors who, in your mind, are all quacks. I guess then there is no point for you to learn a method that resulted in a profession composed of all quacks.
So yes, I see the quandary that you are in. Perhaps you might try the Catholic Church. Or, perhaps Buddhism.
I am familar with libraries and all sources and spent years trying to track down this and related information. The official answer is the cause is unknown. But I know something about the causes.
The regular medics deny that there is a cause in terms of volition, only a deterministic cause. The NHs accept that there is a cause in terms of volition, but tend to deny that one needs to know what it is. I would nonetheless like to know what it is. I don’t agree with everything the NHs say.
No matter, I will track it down yet. (Unfortunately.)
I am familar with libraries and all sources and spent years trying to track down this and related information. The official answer is the cause is unknown.
Then you are inept, which further explains why you think that the entire medical profession are quacks. The major excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain is glutamate, and in neurons it is essentially derived from glutamine in the form of a phosphate activator of the enzyme glutaminase. The transmitter system mediates uptake and functions as a mechanism for transmitter release. Several different causes of excess glutamate have been identified and studied.
For instance, in cerebral ischemia the outward transport of glutamate from depolarized glial cells lead to massive release of glutamate, sometimes at the millimolar concentration in the extracelluar space. At normal levels the glutamate transmission participates in neuronal plasticity, but the excess level indicated triggers neuronal degeneration and neuronal cell death. It has been found that bone morphogenetic protein-7 (BMP-7) can attenuate the altered dendrite growth from cerebral cortical neurons that are connected with excess glutamate.
I have at least a half-dozen scientific papers in my collection that detail the process from the perspective of molecular biology, experimental neurology, and even physiological nutrition. And yet to you, in your profound ignorance, you claim the the “official answer is the cause is unknown.” And YOU claim the entire medical profession is a bunch of quacks. Pathetic! :yarr:
But I know something about the causes.
The regular medics deny that there is a cause in terms of volition, only a deterministic cause. The NHs accept that there is a cause in terms of volition, but tend to deny that one needs to know what it is. I would nonetheless like to know what it is. I don’t agree with everything the NHs say.
No matter, I will track it down yet. (Unfortunately.)
Next time you come in for a landing on planet Earth, do let us know.
All that is irrelevant. I am looking for the ULTIMATE cause. That must be volitional.
I am not interested in any causes except volitional causes. I thought this was understood without having to say it.
It is not MY claim that the answer is unknown. The medics claim that. Again, speaking of the ULTIMATE cause. I don’t seek knowledge from sources that claim to not know.
The same place you find the volitional causes of gravitation, chemical bonding, and earthquakes.
“To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.”
[Ayn Rand, "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made, The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. II, No. 13 March 26, 1973]
Getting drunk has a volitional cause: excess consumption of alcohol. The act of drinking beer etc. is a choice, an act of volition. If someone has a birth defect, say a defect in DNA, this is a non-volitional cause. The person did not have a choice in the causing of it. When I look for causes of a disease, I look for volitional causes, causes that I have a chance of doing something about. My purpose in identifying causes is to do something about them.
It is possible to state the cause (or causes) of a disease in technical biochemical terms that have no obvious connection to what I call a “volitional cause”. For example Blaylock says something about deficiency of an enzyme resulting in excess glutamic acid. This is of no value to me unless I can do something about the deficiency of the enzyme.
In the case of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), I know that the progression of the disease can be slowed down dramatically by abstaining totally from all foods that contain MSG (including hidden sources of MSG and they are many). This is something I can choose to do, something I have control of. (One of many things.) This is the sort of cause that I am interested in.
I suppose all diseases have a non-volitional cause component. For example even getting drunk might be connected to a defect in DNA that makes the person get drunk quicker than a normal person. But it would be ridiculous to say that he can’t do anything about. He just has to consume less alcohol than a normal person can get away with, or no alcohol. Similarily I probably have a defect in DNA that makes me more sensitive to MSG than the average person. No matter, I can avoid MSG. I can control ALS.
Propositions are conceptual, hence mental. You can’t have a proposition (which is mental) and recognise (which is mental) the relation between the proposition and reality, and not recognise that relation.
Seems to me that you’re running smack into the problem of universals. I’ll start with propositions. What is a “proposition” exactly? It can’t just be something in the head. Two different sentences in two completely different languages being expressed by two different people can mean the same proposition. Thus propositions must not be mental, but external. This external thing might be the relation between sentences or mental phenomena and reality. The two different people are expressing the same proposition in virtue of sharing the same _relation_ to reality. Fair enough? Or should we say relation to the same “object.” Propositions may refer to fantasy as well. So what is the nature of the relation? Surely it isn’t in the head. And it is a universal because it can be duplicated in any number of different sentences/propositions. So even if propositions are not Platonic universals (and that is arguable) they might as well be, because they must be reduced to Platonic relations. If you try to reduce these relations to concepts or whatever in the head, in order to explain their universality, you get a regress. There seems to be a problem of irreducable universals.
Seems to me that you’re running smack into the problem of universals. I’ll start with propositions. What is a “proposition” exactly? It can’t just be something in the head. Two different sentences in two completely different languages being expressed by two different people can mean the same proposition. Thus propositions must not be mental, but external.
Isn’t this a false alternative? Can’t the proposition be neither completely in here or completely out there, but rather objective: in here but formed according to rules derived from reality.
Seems to me that you’re running smack into the problem of universals. I’ll start with propositions. What is a “proposition” exactly? It can’t just be something in the head. Two different sentences in two completely different languages being expressed by two different people can mean the same proposition. Thus propositions must not be mental, but external.
Your conclusion does not follow from the fact that different sentences in different languages can mean the same thing. What they have is common is reality: two sentences mean the same thing if and only if they refer to the same metaphysical state of affairs. That real-word condition is grasped inside the mind in terms of a proposition, which may be expressed by various sentences.
This external thing might be the relation between sentences or mental phenomena and reality. The two different people are expressing the same proposition in virtue of sharing the same _relation_ to reality. Fair enough? Or should we say relation to the same “object.” Propositions may refer to fantasy as well. So what is the nature of the relation? Surely it isn’t in the head.
Why not? Propositions are founded on concepts, and express relations between concepts. This is all entirely mental. Relationships are mental: they are the product of recognition of facts. If you’re unclear on how the mind grasps external facts, we could have a separate discussion on perception, but I assume the overall mapping between the external world and the mind is somewhat familiar to you.
And it is a universal because it can be duplicated in any number of different sentences/propositions. So even if propositions are not Platonic universals (and that is arguable) they might as well be, because they must be reduced to Platonic relations. If you try to reduce these relations to concepts or whatever in the head, in order to explain their universality, you get a regress. There seems to be a problem of irreducable universals.
The replicability of concepts is implicit on the nature of concepts: they are mental integrations that subsume a class of existents. This mean that you can identify this as an apple and that as an apple, despite any different sizes and colors, because of their nature.
Seems to me that you’re running smack into the problem of universals.
Fortunately, Ayn Rand solved the Problem of Universals.
From what you wrote here and what you wrote on the Hume thread (asking us whether logic and mathematics are “truths that exist independantly in a realm of forms”), it seems that you are not familiar with the Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. In order to understand the philosophical context of this forum, I suggest you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand and the first few chapters of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.
Do you mean all relationships are mental? If so, allow me to register my protest.
Hmmm. I did say that, didn’t I. Musta been early in the morning. Okay, let me put it differently. The word “relationship” is used in two ways. The metaphysical connection (no pun intended, exactly) between my foot and me isn’t mental, it is real. But I mentally grasp that connection. So the mental grasp and the metaphysical connection are different (but not unrelated or unconnected). In the above context with the emphasis on propositions, what this guy (apparently) is talking about is the understanding of reality, and not the facts (I guess: that’s why conceptual parsimony is important when speaking of “truth”). This is one of the perils of abstract word-game philosophy: without relating claims to actual existents, it’s nigh onto impossible to really know what somebody means. In the above case, the relation is mental, being the “understanding of reality” (and the fact that the two people have the same understanding).
)