Nomaparanoius.... HAR..... Sometimes I look back on my posts and note quite a few lapses or mistakes that make me cringe....I wonder how people can understand what I am trying to get at when I state the exact opposite of what I wanted to convey.... all due to a misplaced term..... I tend to set up my reasoning by oppositions of terms and ideas.... sometimes I get forgetful and plug in the contrary in the wrong place.... ah well.... I know what I mean, if no one else does....
I've been looking over some of the writings and notions of David Hume..... another smart "empiricist".....English thinkers are the predominant origin and seat of empiricism... nominalism... and the like....My personal favorite....I don't cotton much for the teutonic brands of "Idealism"... and especially Kantian "transcendental Idealism... which generates phenomenology... I think you've gathered that about me by now, Archytas.....You, on the other hand, appear to have a tolerance of if not a liking for Kant and the Phenomenological brand of philosophical "meditation" techniques HAR.... searching for the Thing in Itself.... the noumenon which underlies the misleading and transitory phenomenon..... the Alpha and the Omega... the "GOD-IMAGE" and revealed utmost TRUTH of all scientific quest........It's a religion... you know... that whole "direction".... On Friday, November 30, 2012 10:00:26 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > No Nomaparanoius - my allusion was to some postmodern dross. > > On 30 Nov, 15:35, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Are you suggesting that I am not... readable????HAR....well... my style > > comes from "thinking" in "things"....Concepts and References.... not in > > "words and abstractions".....mostly ruminations and phantasms of the > > "imagination".... tropical fish... words and abstractions are? HAR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:20:41 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > And he was readable Nom! > > > > > On 27 Nov, 16:34, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Locke > > > > left room for something more speculative than the empirical. / > Archytas > > > > > > Smart fellow, that Locke.... > > > > - show quoted text - > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:31:09 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > I don't go with Craig on the 'answer' - but we don't know what > matter > > > > > or energy is - we construct notions of such in the present > including > > > > > the notion some 'stuff' is older than us. Whitehead's 'occasions > of > > > > > experience' perhaps. > > > > > We sidestep a lot of ontology with method. If you waft a bit of > lead > > > > > carbonate in a test tube in a Bunsen flame for a while it will > turn > > > > > yellow. That is, on Earth in normal lab conditions. You could > check > > > > > this out if arsed. A blind man would need a sighter he could > trust. > > > > > If I draw two line on a flip chart, one slightly shorter than the > > > > > other and get a collaborator to point to the short one and say it > is > > > > > the longest - most will follow the lie and point to the wrong one. > A > > > > > ruler becomes the arbiter. Much of science is about keeping > cheating > > > > > slackers and dumb sheep behaviour out. Particles are just > accounting > > > > > devices and theories accounting systems. Science likes to mark to > > > > > what it posits as reality - unlike banks. What that reality is - > fuck > > > > > knows - but just hold the top of this Leiden Jar Nom - the shock > will > > > > > only be nominal (or Nominal's?). Make me a radio based on some > goon's > > > > > ideas about health giving crystals - or try Wireless World (I was > once > > > > > an addict). Tropical fish realism works - but this doesn't negate > > > > > what Craig has to say and neither does it not working for me. > Locke > > > > > left room for something more speculative than the empirical. > > > > > > > On 26 Nov, 18:49, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The way that it makes sense to me is that energy is only the > > > experience > > > > > of > > > > > > matter interacting with matter, and matter is only experience > > > divorced > > > > > from > > > > > > any given participant. To you, your life is images, feelings, > > > thoughts. > > > > > To > > > > > > me is it a body or brain - materials having an effect on other > > > materials > > > > > in > > > > > > the world. > > > > > > > > Our idea of energy and information are the two greatest > obstacles to > > > our > > > > > > understanding. We have objectified them as existential > > > > > pseudo-substances, > > > > > > but I think that the reality is that energy and information are > > > nothing > > > > > but > > > > > > arbitrarily depersonalized sensory-motor experience. Information > is > > > > > sensory > > > > > > input, energy is motor output, each of which define and > constrain > > > each > > > > > > other.. Period. > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:36:54 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have a "teasing" question for the both of you....Socrates > and > > > > > > > Archytas....are Energy and Matter (interchangeable and mutable > as > > > they > > > > > may > > > > > > > be)... both "physical"... or are they just > "conceptual"....same > > > > > question > > > > > > > put differently ... are Energy and Matter an "idea" or are > they > > > an > > > > > actual > > > > > > > "real" thing?....Sometimes I think "scientists" get lost in > their > > > > > > > "abstractions"..... of formulas and mathematics...theories and > > > > > > > hypotheses....Me... I think that Energy and Matter are > Objective, > > > > > actually > > > > > > > "there" and "real"....but I'm just a lowly lay-person.... > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, September 8, 2012 11:16:00 AM UTC-4, > > > > > socr...@bezeqint.netwrote: > > > > > > > > >> Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. > > > > > > >> =. > > > > > > >> The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton. > > > > > > >> Question. > > > > > > >> Where did electron and proton come from? > > > > > > >> Answer. > > > > > > >> Electron and proton came from big bang. > > > > > > >> Question. > > > > > > >> Where the did big bang come from? > > > > > > >> Answer. > > > > > > >> The big bang was created when all electrons and protons > > > > > > >> and all another particles were pressed into a singular point. > > > > > > >> ==.. > > > > > > >> If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are an ignorant > > > man. > > > > > > >> =. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/cmOfya5KVrAJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
