What Is Truth?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-01-2014, 07:16 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 06:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I am an inventor of new ways of thinking...

...

Quote:I don't deserve any credit, nothing of what I say is new or original...

Self-contradiction in the same post.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
01-01-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 08:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I say that natural scientists underestimate the preparatory work that is necessary to make something testable.

And this generalisation is based on what evidence?

The entire history of experimental psychology--for example--is filled with insightful operationalisations of variables and ingenious test designs to render things testable.

Quote:Such things are usually observed by non-scientists and thus social science is absolutely necessary to get the preliminary data about such phenomena from the non-scientists.

Where in the history of science has this occurred?

Quote: If a natural scientist went to gather such data, he'd end up with one note - "these people talk bullshit". To a natural scientist it is a simple (thus more credible) conclusion

No, it isn't. A social scientist is not concerned with whether the claimants actually have "psychic" abilities and there is already lots of social scientific material on religion, superstition, magic, New Age, occult etc.

Quote:Here's how I see it. I can't think of everything by myself, I could be wrong. So what I need is someone to check my reasoning, that is, to see if such a thing is theoretically possible.

No, you can't accept any criticism. You are seeking a favourable answer.

Quote:No, not at all. I'm worried about the human element in science, that's a different thing. What I saw so far in the skeptical community was a systematic underestimating and ignoring the human element.

The biological and physical sciences aren't in crises. They are fine.

Quote:That worries me, because the human element in science is real and has been a subject of study for a long time. So I have to wonder why is it missing in the presentation. From social point of view the answer is obvious, social groups always adjust their presentation to produce confidence.

If the human element in science were a substantive problem then neither science nor technology would be as successful as they have been.

Quote:As for me being a nutcase, just because I'm a nutcase does not mean I am wrong.

You are a nutcase and you are wrong.

Quote: (and being wrong is not inherently wrong in science)

You aren't doing science--you are just jerking off in public.

Quote: I deliberately experiment with fundamental assumptions about reality to learn more about it. Any assumption we make is a way to reveal some aspect of reality, but also hide the others.

No, your subjective experiences are just that--subjective experiences.

Quote:My basic motivation for that is strictly empirical, strictly sensory and as such it is not that much controversial or open to discussion...

No, valorising your subjective experiences as if they were revealing something about objective reality is the opposite of empirical inquiry.

Quote:And before you think I get some kind of trolling hardon out of that, let's say I am paying a great price of inhumanity.

You are delusional. You are exhibiting some sort of grandiose delusion, a type of Messiah Complex.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
01-01-2014, 07:46 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 06:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I see it as a waste of time, there are a plenty of people who already know this stuff. So I don't need to know physics,

But you repeatedly link to sites that have pseudoscientific content and when the people here with degrees in physics (or that have at least taken some units in undergraduate physics) tell you that it is bullshit you ignore them.

Quote:I need to know physicists. Physicists are people, so I need to study social processes and ways of thinking.

"Know[ing] physicists" will not validate your claim that "psychic" phenomena are real.

Quote:Yes, knowing physics would be interesting to me personally, but if I can't communicate with the institution, it's useless.

How do you expect to be able to communicate with a physics department when you appear to not even have an understanding of physics equal to high school level (in Australia)?

Quote:Peer-review is useless if there are no peers.

This is your grandiose delusion leaking out.

Quote:And anyway I'm not a physicist,

We know that. That is abundantly clear. You are being urged to learn some physics because you aren't physicist.

Quote:I'm concerned about society as a whole and the knowledge of physics would be useless for all the other areas which I deal with.

Rolleyes

Have you been diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
01-01-2014, 08:05 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 08:30 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 07:16 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 06:52 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I am an inventor of new ways of thinking...

...

Quote:I don't deserve any credit, nothing of what I say is new or original...

Self-contradiction in the same post.
Creativity is taking old things and putting them together in a new way, as Jacque Fresco says... There's not a single guy who invented a camera or a bow, there were only people who adjusted the inherited concepts over long time.

I can't explain everything, people keep misinterpreting things much faster than I can explain them. And I'm not jerking off in the public, internet isn't the public. It's the place where we can be ourselves, while anonymous.

As for having disorders, I am so functional that there was never any need of medical attention, so I don't really know. Local psychologists are overwhelmed with much more serious cases. However, a study says that gifted people seem to have certain inklings of what on greater scale would be a mental disorder, but it is kept in check by a high IQ and discipline. I don't have delusions of grandeur, but I do engage in meditative practices which help abstract thought and poetic expression.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 09:39 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 08:05 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Creativity is taking old things and putting them together in a new way, as Jacque Fresco says... There's not a single guy who invented a camera or a bow, there were only people who adjusted the inherited concepts over long time.

That is nonsensical. We clearly have more ideas than we had when we first evolved. We haven't just been arranging the ideas that the first Homo sapiens in Africa had.

Quote:I can't explain everything, people keep misinterpreting things much faster than I can explain them.

No it's because you are in error and you are muddle-headed.

Quote: And I'm not jerking off in the public, internet isn't the public. It's the place where we can be ourselves, while anonymous.

So you admit that you are jerking off, you only disagree that the internet isn't the public. The internet is a virtual public space and this forum is viewable by everyone that wants to view it.

Quote:As for having disorders, I am so functional that there was never any need of medical attention, so I don't really know.

That is a question-begging argument.

Your problem is beyond mere ignorance. You appear to be delusional and that much comes through your posts. I would hazard a guess that in person you would exhibit much more problems.

Quote:Local psychologists are overwhelmed with much more serious cases.

Probably but a skeptic forum isn't the appropriate place for you to pour out the contents of your deranged mind. There are forums that are dedicated to unhinged people that think they are geniuses and that the world is conspiring to hide their brilliant discoveries. I'm sure you are a member of them all.

You have been frustrated in your task because most of the people here are sane. Even those that have had psychotic episodes in the past are currently sane so you can't get any traction for your deranged and incoherent ramblings.

Quote: However, a study says that gifted people seem to have certain inklings of what on greater scale would be a mental disorder, but it is kept in check by a high IQ and discipline. I don't have delusions of grandeur, but I do engage in meditative practices which help abstract thought and poetic expression.

Nothing that you have posted on any topic indicates that you are gifted, knowledgeable or even intelligent. What--after all--are your brilliant new ideas?

--"Psychic" phenomena are real.
--Scientists are incompetent and engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth of "psychic" phenomena

This is just www banality and nonsense.

--Your subjective experiences are evidence that "psychic" phenomena are real

This is just plain idiocy on many level of analysis.

--Social scientists are needed to coax genuine "psychics" to come out of hiding because physical and biological scientists scare them away and attract only charlattans with their offers of money.

This is just nonsense that completely ignores the history of the failed field of parapsychology.

I will not even bother to quote the pseudoscience that you have posted because it is entirely vacuous, it is literally just a bunch of words without any content. Your well-rehearsed response that it is nonsensical only because your interlocutor hasn't had an "extreme"/"paranormal"/"psychic" experience is bullshit. No one can understand it because there is nothing to understand.

The pseudoscience that you habitually post and link to is is just like the output of the Postmodern essay generator. Go on click Refresh a few times. A new essay that is grammatically sound but utterly contentless. It would be a easy task to create a Luminon pseudoscience generator using the same algorithms.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
03-01-2014, 04:52 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 08:04 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is nonsensical. We clearly have more ideas than we had when we first evolved. We haven't just been arranging the ideas that the first Homo sapiens in Africa had.
That's because we keep inventing them by putting old ideas together in a new way - and often giving them a new name. For example, a state is a monopoly on legitimate violence... That's a complex arrangement of ideas, and we'll call different arrangements different ideas. Philosophy refers to certain basic truths which are not that numerous and being a philosopher means looking under the hood of concepts and seeing how its constituent ideas are arranged. Why? Because bad philosophical concepts lead to totalitarian oppression. For example, the definition of what is a human being. If Christians legally define that a fertilized egg is a human being, then the state will oppress women in their own bodies.

There were times when most population on Earth believed that to be sane meant to believe in God. And it was true, sane and intelligent people naturally picked up the God belief from parents and surroundings. Healthy people always reflect their surroundings. Intelligent babies become Democrats, Communists, Nazis or Christians faster. If someone would not reflect his surroundings, he would have to be seriously mentally fucked up and isolated in the cell of his own mind.
And I heard that many of the Enlightenment era thinkers and America's founders were really weird people, eccentric, awkward, introverted, exuding some schizoid or schizotypal traits. (if you're interested in some details, read for example The Secret Life of INTPs by Anna Moss)

And yet it was these people who dissected the concept of divine right of kings and created a new concept of a secular, god-free, king-free state with equal rights, and jolly good, they even had put it into practice. There was no such thing before!!! The state was the king's back yard and the king was God's hand on Earth. It was literally unthinkable to conceive a back yard without a back yard keeper and keeper's hand without an owner. Yeah, these people had the democracy of Athens as an example, but they still had to invent equal rights for all men, eventually for blacks and women. This is metaphorically a madness most of the time, it even caused two whole wars to be fought over this. The American constitution is a fine piece of philosophy, going back to the basic concepts and deriving the rights and statehood from them. This is something like writing a new, better operation system that allocates memory more equitably to all sorts of variables...
People have their beloved concepts and someone performing a vivisection on them is felt as a great crime, because it's really unsettling and it upsets people and it may get the philosophers killed or locked up in asylum, but hey, sometimes the needs of the age demand it, maybe I like this job and it's statistically safer than driving a car.


(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  So you admit that you are jerking off, you only disagree that the internet isn't the public. The internet is a virtual public space and this forum is viewable by everyone that wants to view it.
This isn't about sex and related practices, so I guess you mean some metaphor which I don't know, so I can't deny it.

(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Your problem is beyond mere ignorance. You appear to be delusional and that much comes through your posts. I would hazard a guess that in person you would exhibit much more problems.
I've got a driving license, a Bachelor's degree, a clean criminal record and zero psychiatry ward sleepovers. And I learned a foreign language, apparently. So whatever is in my head, I can handle it. I am responsible for it. Is it the same with you? Do you control your emotions and do you know where your thoughts and concepts came from, and what's their underlying meaning?

Being intelligent may turn down to nothing in practice, because most intelligent people do not invent their own concepts or examine the others'. Concepts are like bundles of ideas with a name on them.
Many intelligent people were believers, because unbelief was unthinkable. Why was (or in many places still is) it unthinkable? Because they did not have a concept of atheism. Even worse, they had a concept named "atheism", but the underlying ideas under that concept were someone who is immoral, evil, sad, depressed, baby eater. And the person wasn't a baby eater, ergo, he couldn't be an atheist, logically. Such a concept of "atheism" existed, because the concept of "God" included the ideas of goodness, morality, joy and family life.
It took many proclaimedly insane philosophers to dissect the concept and take the good out of "God".

You may have better concepts than generations before, but you didn't invent them. You are self-proclaimed to be sane, and so it is equally difficult for you to imagine how I think, as it was for a medieval Christian to understand Muslims, atheists, Hindus... You need more than sanity and rationality to understand people who use a different worldview. I can't fathom what do you need to understand someone who can simulate multiple worldviews inside his head. I know that sounds bizarre and I don't say it's easy and most people probably can't do that at all.

(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Probably but a skeptic forum isn't the appropriate place for you to pour out the contents of your deranged mind. There are forums that are dedicated to unhinged people that think they are geniuses and that the world is conspiring to hide their brilliant discoveries. I'm sure you are a member of them all.

You have been frustrated in your task because most of the people here are sane. Even those that have had psychotic episodes in the past are currently sane so you can't get any traction for your deranged and incoherent ramblings.
You can be quite funny sometimes. But I don't expect you to understand the subtleties of philosophy, paradigm or worldview, ideology and their influence on people's perception of the world and theories they make about it and instruments they construct to confirm these theories.
Hell, I lied. I do expect you to, a little. But I expect more understanding from other people who'd read this.

(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Nothing that you have posted on any topic indicates that you are gifted, knowledgeable or even intelligent. What--after all--are your brilliant new ideas?

--"Psychic" phenomena are real.
--Scientists are incompetent and engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth of "psychic" phenomena

This is just www banality and nonsense.

--Your subjective experiences are evidence that "psychic" phenomena are real

This is just plain idiocy on many level of analysis.
Is there such a thing as a subjective experience in times of advanced neurological research?: Scientists are working on mapping the brain functions. We know that when people say this or that, their brain does this or that. I don't know, but I think our old concepts of subjectivity and objectivity are not so objective anymore and they need to be examined if they still hold true. For that I have to look at their definition and I'm not doing that difficult thing right now unless someone helps me. If you have a definition of what is subjective and what is objective and what is true, go ahead, tell me.

As for "psychic" phenomena, I don't know what do you mean by that, I use a finer distinction than you do. Most "psychic" phenomena as we know them are an unhealthy sign of using primitive brain functions. I am very careful to avoid them. Some authors call that "lower psychism" and they also write of a "higher psychism" which sounds like an interesting thing to study.

(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  --Social scientists are needed to coax genuine "psychics" to come out of hiding because physical and biological scientists scare them away and attract only charlattans with their offers of money.

This is just nonsense that completely ignores the history of the failed field of parapsychology.
Well, you mean the field that did not have any of the modern scientific instruments and social research methodologies that there are today. Or maybe even today these aren't good enough.
Reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci, who invented a helicopter centuries earlier before there existed even a physical possibility of an engine strong enough to turn it fast enough to make it fly. He had to be mad. Only many centuries later we suddenly know he wasn't mad. Or maybe he was, but he was still correct.

(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I will not even bother to quote the pseudoscience that you have posted because it is entirely vacuous, it is literally just a bunch of words without any content. Your well-rehearsed response that it is nonsensical only because your interlocutor hasn't had an "extreme"/"paranormal"/"psychic" experience is bullshit. No one can understand it because there is nothing to understand.

The pseudoscience that you habitually post and link to is is just like the output of the Postmodern essay generator. Go on click Refresh a few times. A new essay that is grammatically sound but utterly contentless. It would be a easy task to create a Luminon pseudoscience generator using the same algorithms.
What you see in this generator is randomness, for example how capitalism and sex (almost completely unrelated concepts) are repeatedly mentioned in the same paragraph, without any justification given. Randomness is a red flag.
I have seen a conflict between whole schools of socio-economical thinking accusing each other of producing meaningless bunch of words without any content. By your fine discerning abilities, people as Buckminster Fuller or Ludwig von Mises would be dribbling idiots. Yet they stand on different sides of the barricade. Usually we can talk within a single worldview, but a conflict of worldview is a conflict of languages. We may use the same English, but our English and their English does not have the same underlying meanings. Sometimes we don't have this luxury of understanding just because we share a common bundles of ideas under the concepts.

You remind me of Jim the nigger from Mark Twain's book Huckleberry Finn's Adventures.
“Why, Huck, doan’ de French people talk de same way we does?”
“No, Jim; you couldn’t understand a word they said—not a single
word.”
“Well, now, I be ding-busted! How do dat come?”
“I don’t know; but it’s so. I got some of their jabber out of a book.
S’pose a man was to come to you and say Polly-voo-franzy—what
would you think?”
“I wouldn’ think nuff’n; I’d take en bust him over de head—dat is,
if he warn’t white. I wouldn’t ‘low no nigger to call me dat.”
“Shucks, it ain’t calling you anything. It’s only saying, do you know
how to talk French?”
“Well, den, why couldn’t he say it?”
“Why, he is a-saying it. That’s a Frenchman’s way of saying it.”
“Well, it’s a blame ridicklous way, en I doan’ want to hear no mo’
‘bout it. Dey ain’ no sense in it.”
“Looky here, Jim; does a cat talk like we do?”
“No, a cat don’t.”
“Well, does a cow?”
“No, a cow don’t, nuther.”
“Does a cat talk like a cow, or a cow talk like a cat?”
“No, dey don’t.”
“It’s natural and right for ‘em to talk different from each other, ain’t it?”
“Course.”
“And ain’t it natural and right for a cat and a cow to talk different
from us?”
“Why, mos’ sholy it is.”
“Well, then, why ain’t it natural and right for a Frenchman to talk
different from us? You answer me that.”
“Is a cat a man, Huck?”
“No.”
“Well, den, dey ain’t no sense in a cat talkin’ like a man. Is a cow a
man?—er is a cow a cat?”
“No, she ain’t either of them.”
“Well, den, she ain’t got no business to talk like either one er the
yuther of ‘em. Is a Frenchman a man?”
“Yes.”
“Well, den! Dad blame it, why doan’ he talk like a man? You answer
me dat!”
I see it warn’t no use wasting words—you can’t learn a nigger to
argue. So I quit.
Huck had quit, but I wouldn't post this example if I expected you to quit or wanted you to quit. I'm just trying to get some understanding here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:42 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(03-01-2014 04:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 09:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  That is nonsensical. We clearly have more ideas than we had when we first evolved. We haven't just been arranging the ideas that the first Homo sapiens in Africa had.
That's because we keep inventing them by putting old ideas together in a new way - and often giving them a new name.

That does not seem to be a truthful evaluation. We don't just invent new ideas by putting old ones together in a new way, but we also invent entirely new ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with what the first homo sapiens were capable of envisioning.

Chippy has made it clear- and I agree with him based upon mere common sense- that the modern human is far more capable of creating new ideas than the ancient homo sapiens, and we do not require their ancient philosophy to do it.

If this were not true, then think about this; we still do not know everything about the ancient homo sapiens, as there appears to be many variations of them. Many of them did and/or could have employed a philosophy that we have yet to learn. Therefore, how can we be building new ideas upon their ancient philosophy if we have no idea what their ancient philosophy actually was?

The truth of the matter is we have evolved both physically and intellectually, and are now far more intellectually capable than our ancient ancestors could ever hope to be.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 02:15 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 03:54 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(03-01-2014 08:42 AM)Free Wrote:  That does not seem to be a truthful evaluation. We don't just invent new ideas by putting old ones together in a new way, but we also invent entirely new ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with what the first homo sapiens were capable of envisioning.

Chippy has made it clear- and I agree with him based upon mere common sense- that the modern human is far more capable of creating new ideas than the ancient homo sapiens, and we do not require their ancient philosophy to do it.

If this were not true, then think about this; we still do not know everything about the ancient homo sapiens, as there appears to be many variations of them. Many of them did and/or could have employed a philosophy that we have yet to learn. Therefore, how can we be building new ideas upon their ancient philosophy if we have no idea what their ancient philosophy actually was?

The truth of the matter is we have evolved both physically and intellectually, and are now far more intellectually capable than our ancient ancestors could ever hope to be.
I have NEVER talked about the first homo sapiens! Philosophers work with concepts derived from basic properties or reality - time, space, non-contradiction (and the rest of logic), gnoseology and so on. These concepts were defined independently by philosophers, for example western philosophers have name and meaning of a concept, eastern philosopher Patanjali had nama and rupa, name and body of a concept. There is a finite number of ways that basic concepts can be conceived and described, this is how we form languages and understand reality.

Philosophers work with objective logic, true and false. Ancient homo sapiens likely worked with subjective logic - "us vs. them". Ours is good and beautiful, theirs is bad and ugly. That's how they likely thought, until big civilizations invented philosophy several thousand years ago. This is the famous transition between myth (poiesis), and truth. I don't know how it occurred in India, but there was a hellenistic school of philosophers in today's Turkey,

If you're feeling so sure, tell me if you can think of some truly new idea. Maybe you can, although I doubt it. I know it doesn't work with technical inventions, Jacque Fresco had a talk on this, how he explained the origins of inventions that people thought were original, like a camera. A camera goes back thousands of years, back to times of clay huts, when view of the world outside got reflected through a small window on the ceiling inside a small, dark, clay hut. Then came the Chinese shadow theater and a few western inventions.

Most "ideas" we have are simply based on the primitive, subjective logic of attachment. Such as "nationalism"... If you feel an attachment to some thing or concept, call it a new way and you have a new concept. This isn't new. Today's concept of an atom is derived from the original "a-tomos", the hypothetical indivisible particle of reality. Electron is the Greek word for amber, first used in experiments with static electricity, they used to rub amber with silk. Nobody invents concepts just out of nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 04:46 PM by Free.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(03-01-2014 02:15 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 08:42 AM)Free Wrote:  That does not seem to be a truthful evaluation. We don't just invent new ideas by putting old ones together in a new way, but we also invent entirely new ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with what the first homo sapiens were capable of envisioning.

Chippy has made it clear- and I agree with him based upon mere common sense- that the modern human is far more capable of creating new ideas than the ancient homo sapiens, and we do not require their ancient philosophy to do it.

If this were not true, then think about this; we still do not know everything about the ancient homo sapiens, as there appears to be many variations of them. Many of them did and/or could have employed a philosophy that we have yet to learn. Therefore, how can we be building new ideas upon their ancient philosophy if we have no idea what their ancient philosophy actually was?

The truth of the matter is we have evolved both physically and intellectually, and are now far more intellectually capable than our ancient ancestors could ever hope to be.
I have NEVER talked about the first homo sapiens!

How can you even say that when your response to Chippy was directly related to what he said, which I will again post below:

Quote:Luminon
Quote:Chippy
That is nonsensical. We clearly have more ideas than we had when we first evolved. We haven't just been arranging the ideas that the first Homo sapiens in Africa had.
That's because we keep inventing them by putting old ideas together in a new way - and often giving them a new name.

Chippy clearly said that we have more ideas than what we had when we first evolved and that we have not been merely rearranging ideas that the first homo sapiens had, And then you responded directly to that with the reasoning that we keep inventing them by putting old ideas together in a new way.

You clearly stated that we are re-using/rearranging old ideas from ancient humans in our modern thinking, in direct opposition to what Chippy said. In effect you are saying that we are building off the old ideas of ancient humans as opposed to Chippy's position that we are creating completely new ideas without the aid of ancient thinking.

Are you even aware of what you are actually saying here?

We certainly are.

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
03-01-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(03-01-2014 04:06 PM)Free Wrote:  Chippy clearly said that we have more ideas than what we had when we first evolved and that we have not been merely rearranging ideas that the first homo sapiens had, And then you responded directly to that with the reasoning that we keep inventing them by putting old ideas together in a new way.

You clearly stated that we are re-using old ideas from ancient humans in our modern thinking. You are saying that we are building off the old ideas of ancient humans as opposed to creating completely new ideas without the aid of ancient thinking.

Are you even aware of what you are actually saying here?

We certainly are.

Drinking Beverage
I think you think that I claim there is some kind of long evolution of ideas, adding more and more meaning on top, since ancient ages. That's not what I mean. There is a long linguistic and cultural evolution, obviously. But cultural traditions are not concepts. Their meaning got lost or changed and today they're done mostly for fun.
OTOH, even if human culture would die out completely and for a few millenia people became illiterate savages in a post-apocalyptic wilderness, sooner or later they would invent equivalent concepts as we have today. They would not invent a completely new way to define reality, because they'd still live in the same reality. I'd say even higher primates would evolve the same concepts, as they can use the sign speech.

Concepts are relatively simple. You can understand them even if you don't know the history of the word. Word is just a part of the concept. As I said, their underlying meanings are derived from basic properties of reality, basic facts of 3D space and time perception. There are basic objective, true, necessary and very general statements about reality that philosophy can make. From them we derive things like logic or the scientific method.

Trying to invent a completely new concept would be either useless babbling without any reference to an idea or an object (it would not have the semantic triangle), or it would be unbelievable like inventing a better method of obtaining knowledge than the scientific method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: