epistomological discussion

[quatona]

Actually, its a little more than just a rephrasing of an assumption. I don't see, once you admit that phenomena are not simply locally determined, how you escape the existence of a reality. If something else is contributing to phenomena other than noetic structure, what else could it be but reality? mind theater doesn't fit the bill. And, again, if you admit this, then there must be some connection with that reality.

I suspect, Silenus, that the long pauses in our conversation make it as hard to you as they make it to me to remember the complete course of our discussion. I for one admit that each time we take it up again, I have a hard time finding my way back in; actually, the best thing to do would be to reread the entire thread after such a long pause but I´m too lazy to do that.
In this particular case, however, I remember clearly that I felt unable to discuss three different claims simultaneously and asked you over and over again what premises you want us to base the discussion on (I remember it because it was important to me, and I downright begged you).
Finally we agreed to take options like "dream theater" out of the equation and discuss on the basis of the assumption of an external reality and the idea that our senses perceive this external reality.
It was the premise, and of course in the further discussion I worked from this premise. Finding things I said during this discussion presented as implying the conclusion that the premise is accurate is a bit frustrating to me.

it's interesting, i don't think I understand you here because, on first reading, I agree with you and I don't feel it impacts my previous post at all. In fact, I see it as reinforcing it. I take it, when you say get a grasp of it, you might mean understand it. To be able to comprehend its how's and why's, so to speak.

No, that´s not what I mean. „Understanding/comprehending“ can easily be understood as being about having it correct. They presuppose the idea of „truth“. „Getting a grasp“ is about conceptualizing in a way that is useful, making it accessible in the way my mind works.

I don't see that as the antithesis of leaving it be what it is . . .

I do. It is about my mind trying to make sense and creating patterns in that which is. Patterns that suit my needs and „noetic structures“.

What is opinion change if not the realization that a conceptualization doesn't match experienced phenomena and existing conception coherently, or that a judgment based on a conception or perception is found to be incomplete?
And since phenomena is not locally, internally, or noetically determined, what else is causing that change but a more accurate understanding of that which is?

I think I have exhaustively covered other options in my previous post. There are a couple of variables in the process (external reality could have changed, my perspective could have changed, my needs could have changed, that part of external reality that is not the object of my observations, but determines my mind (e.g. the brain) could have changed – and any combination of these options simultaneously). The conclusion „I have changed my opinion, therefore I am closer to the truth“ is not warranted in view of these variables.
Even if we could (hypothetically) determine a case in which change in external reality must have been the cause for a change in my reality, this wouldn´t help the idea of „truth“. If (Warning! Not entirely accurate analogy ahead – but I hope you get the idea) external reality is X, and if my reality is always X+Z, any change in reality would cause a change in my reality, but the difference between external reality and my reality would remain always the same.

I'm not citing Adler's methodology here, but his terminology, the way he distinguishes between forms of knowledge. I don't see how that is contrary to anything I've said previous.

I didn´t mean to say it was a contradiction. I just found it funny, since „helpful“ (as opposed to „true“) is the very criterium I am working from.

I agree, but I would argue that logic is an intuitively self-evident tool.

This is undisputed. However, being a tool it is at the core of our „noetic structures“, the way our minds work. If you want to establish it as the determinant of „truth“ you are making my case rather than yours.

Especially, again, considering the fact that phenomena are not locally determined.

You make it sound like the assumption that it is not exclusively „locally determined“ implies the idea that it is solely „externally determined“.
If you project an image („external“) upon another image or a structured surface („local“), neither „determines“ the result more than the other. „Determining“ is actually not a suitable term here. All that can safely be said is that the result will not be identical with the external image (and neither with the local image, of course).

 

[Silenus]

In this particular case, however, I remember clearly that I felt unable to discuss three different claims simultaneously and asked you over and over again what premises you want us to base the discussion on (I remember it because it was important to me, and I downright begged you).
Finally we agreed to take options like "dream theater" out of the equation and discuss on the basis of the assumption of an external reality and the idea that our senses perceive this external reality.
It was the premise, and of course in the further discussion I worked from this premise. Finding things I said during this discussion presented as implying the conclusion that the premise is accurate is a bit frustrating to me.

Yes, I apologize, you're right. I guess I get a little overzealous in stating all the connections I'm making as I think through these things. Anymore that I think of that pertain to the other two I'll keep to myself . . . I'll try not to let them slip into the discussion.

If you project an image („external“) upon another image or a structured surface („local“), neither „determines“ the result more than the other. „Determining“ is actually not a suitable term here. All that can safely be said is that the result will not be identical with the external image (and neither with the local image, of course).

I think I'm misunderstanding the analogue here. If the image I project generated by me, then that image is entirely locally determined . . . if the image I project is something I copy, then it is local and external at the same time and the external has some involvement in determining the image.

(external reality could have changed, my perspective could have changed, my needs could have changed, that part of external reality that is not the object of my observations, but determines my mind (e.g. the brain) could have changed – and any combination of these options simultaneously

But if my needs or perspective change, they do not change of themselves do they. Something changes them, correct? I don't see how a change in noetic structure, by that noetic structure alone, is possible. It must be a change made to correspond to something . . . doesn't reality have to be ultimately responsible?

The conclusion „I have changed my opinion, therefore I am closer to the truth“ is not warranted in view of these variables.

more I change my opinion because I think I may be far from truth, or not understand something I have encountered.

No, that´s not what I mean. „Understanding/comprehending“ can easily be understood as being about having it correct. They presuppose the idea of „truth“. „Getting a grasp“ is about conceptualizing in a way that is useful, making it accessible in the way my mind works.

Later on you talk of patterns. But these patterns don't do anything to reality . . . the theory of gravity (to keep the example more abstract) either is a good or bad understanding of how natural forces work. My pattern i developed doesn't impose on reality it tries to understand how the repeated phenomena of the apple falling off the tree works. what explains it, does my explanation match phenomena, do i understand? Yes, when i try to understand it, I may conceptualize things that impose or cause me to "see what I want to see," I agree that this is a possibility. However, it seems to me I have no reason to imagine that phenomena I experience doesn't match reality. In fact, to make such a statement, don't you have to know reality? I think I mentioned this before, so if I did and you responded, ignore it . . . I'll go back and make sure later . . . I gotta run.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I apologize, you're right. I guess I get a little overzealous in stating all the connections I'm making as I think through these things. Anymore that I think of that pertain to the other two I'll keep to myself . . . I'll try not to let them slip into the discussion.

No problem. As I said, this has been a long and complex conversation, and we have little common ground to work from, so it´s not easy.

I think I'm misunderstanding the analogue here. If the image I project generated by me, then that image is entirely locally determined . . . if the image I project is something I copy, then it is local and external at the same time and the external has some involvement in determining the image.

When working from said premises, I don´t dispute that the external has some involvement.

But if my needs or perspective change, they do not change of themselves do they. Something changes them, correct? I don't see how a change in noetic structure, by that noetic structure alone, is possible. It must be a change made to correspond to something . . .

Not necessarily. As I have previously stated, any combinations of several variables can have caused the change – and the problem is that we can´t know which it was.

Another fundamental problem with your approach is the distinction between „internal“ and „external“. I´m pretty sure that you can´t draw a clear line between the two, at least not a line that helps your approach.
Just one example: The make-up and current state of your brain – are they „external reality“ or „internal“?
If there is a change in your brain (like certain cells are dying, new ones grow, a certain part of your brain is injured, brain-chemistry changes due to whatever reason, or new neural connections evolve) – is that a change in „external reality“ or an internal change? Is it, in my analogy, a change in the local image/structure, or a change in the image projected upon it?
If you say „internal“ – there you are. There needn´t be any change in „external reality (the observed)“ for there to be a change in my opinions/beliefs/ideas.
If you say „external“ this change is not caused by the observed part of „external reality“ - the phenomenon - (as your approach presumes), but by something else which does not constitute the sort of connection between „external reality“ and my reality that you actually want to establish.
Do you see the problem with this distinction?

doesn't reality have to be ultimately responsible?

Sorry, Silenus, I have no idea whatsoever what „responsible reality“ this might mean, even less „ultimately responsible reality“. Care to reword it for me?

more I change my opinion because I think I may be far from truth, or not understand something I have encountered.

If you are used to and insist on operating with terms like „truth“, that is.
I don´t operate with them. Instead I simply note that a previously held idea is no more usable for me (and there are many potential reasons for that), and that another one works better now.

Later on you talk of patterns. But these patterns don't do anything to reality . . .

Why sure, they downright shape my reality. They do not affect „external reality“ (which simply is what it is). And that´s where the systemic, unavoidable incongruence between „eternal reality“ and my reality. I create patterns as I need them, impose them on „what is“, and the result is my reality. Exactly that which we call „understanding“ or „getting a grasp“ (creating patterns, categories and concepts) is the very part that makes the difference between my reality different from „external reality“. As soon as I want to understand, I am moving away from „external reality“ as it is, in favour of creating my reality.

the theory of gravity (to keep the example more abstract) either is a good or bad understanding of how natural forces work.

Well, the idea of „natural forces“ is already a pattern created by our minds. Any abstraction moves away from „what is“ and broadens the gap between „what is“ and my reality.
I´m not saying that creating patterns, categories, concepts is unuseful, mind you. Au contraire, their usefulness is what I appreciate about them. It´s my making, after all, and it fits my needs. What more could I ask?

My pattern i developed doesn't impose on reality it tries to understand how the repeated phenomena of the apple falling off the tree works. what explains it, does my explanation match phenomena, do i understand? Yes, when i try to understand it, I may conceptualize things that impose or cause me to "see what I want to see," I agree that this is a possibility.

Whilst I say it is a necessity. „External reality“ (by any meaningful use of the word) is actual, concrete – whereas my concepts, my „understanding“ is abstract. Since all you describe here is actually the seeking for abstractions, the results are essentially different from „external reality“.

However, it seems to me I have no reason to imagine that phenomena I experience doesn't match reality.

(I am assuming by „reality“ you mean „external reality“ here).For me a lot depends on what exactly you mean by „match“.

In fact, to make such a statement, don't you have to know reality?

No, I don´t. In fact I just need to know that I can´t know „external reality“. I just need to know that there is a sentient observer and the observed (which is our premise), I just need to know that the observer is the active part in this relation, and I just need to know that the observer seeks for abstractions (which you have repeatedly implied to be the nature of the attempt to„understand“) – and I know that my reality is necessarily something completely different than „what is“.
Using another (imperfect) analogy, I just need to know that the menu isn´t the meal, and that the map is not the landscape.

 

[Silenus]

If there is a change in your brain (like certain cells are dying, new ones grow, a certain part of your brain is injured, brain-chemistry changes due to whatever reason, or new neural connections evolve) – is that a change in „external reality“ or an internal change? Is it, in my analogy, a change in the local image/structure, or a change in the image projected upon it?
If you say „internal“ – there you are. There needn´t be any change in „external reality (the observed)“ for there to be a change in my opinions/beliefs/ideas.
If you say „external“ this change is not caused by the observed part of „external reality“ - the phenomenon - (as your approach presumes), but by something else which does not constitute the sort of connection between „external reality“ and my reality that you actually want to establish.

sure and its a good example I haven't considered. But, if I say it is internal, it is the only internal apparatus you have listed which can adequately explain a change in belief. None of the other's could without an external reality working on them. However, to place all change on the decaying process of the brain doesn't explain how many of those changes lead to greater instrumental accuracy and experimental confirmation.

Why sure, they downright shape my reality. They do not affect „external reality“ (which simply is what it is). And that´s where the systemic, unavoidable incongruence between „eternal reality“ and my reality. I create patterns as I need them, impose them on „what is“, and the result is my reality. Exactly that which we call „understanding“ or „getting a grasp“ (creating patterns, categories and concepts) is the very part that makes the difference between my reality different from „external reality“. As soon as I want to understand, I am moving away from „external reality“ as it is, in favour of creating my reality.

I think the way you and I are conceiving it are different. You seem to believe that abstractions have nothing to do with a reality. You used the term "moving away" from external reality. Why can't this be seen rather as a moving toward? As a greater understanding of the objects and forces of reality itself. A greater unification and incorporation of all that which is . . . a identification of the connections of these concrete things and forces. There is no reason to believe that my patterns are moving me away, that my understanding is moving me away from reality simply because they are abstractions. As per my theory of gravity example, the theory of gravity led to greater instrumental accuracy and the ability to predict outcomes. Why assume this is a moving away when it seems to be the opposite, a moving toward? For something to be useful, as you say, it has to be useful for something. Now, yes, you have a particular goal (i think yours was a decrease in suffering if I remember from previous conversation) but, in the context of an ultimate reality, that goal must be achieved visa vie that reality. Your abstractions then, must be accurate vise a vie that reality to successfully achieve your goal. In that case, usefulness would have to be true to be useful.

I just need to know that there is a sentient observer and the observed (which is our premise), I just need to know that the observer is the active part in this relation, and I just need to know that the observer seeks for abstractions (which you have repeatedly implied to be the nature of the attempt to„understand“) – and I know that my reality is necessarily something completely different than „what is“.
Using another (imperfect) analogy, I just need to know that the menu isn´t the meal, and that the map is not the landscape.

I'll cut out the dissection of the analogue because the map and menu play into my hands and you admitted it is imperfect. However, I find one word I want to change here . . . I don't agree that, in the context that external reality has some determining factors on phenomena, MY REALITY can ever be completely different that "what is." it will always be somewhat different. To say its completely different is to then remove external realities determination and impact on phenomena.

 

[quatona]

sure and its a good example I haven't considered. But, if I say it is internal, it is the only internal apparatus you have listed which can adequately explain a change in belief. None of the other's could without an external reality working on them. However, to place all change on the decaying process of the brain doesn't explain how many of those changes lead to greater instrumental accuracy and experimental confirmation.

I didn´t speak of a „decaying“ process of the brain specifically. I spoke about all changes in the brain.
In pointing to greater instrumental accurady and experimental confirmation you are begging your actual question for a proper epistemological approach. Without having established such an approach you can´t judge any results.

I think the way you and I are conceiving it are different. You seem to believe that abstractions have nothing to do with a reality.

No – I do not necessarily think they have „nothing to do with it“. I am positing that our mind structures „external reality“ according to its needs.

You used the term "moving away" from external reality. Why can't this be seen rather as a moving toward?

Because external reality is not abstract but concrete. The abstraction is what my mind creates.

As a greater understanding of the objects and forces of reality itself.

„Forces“ is an abstraction.
„Understanding“ is structuring reality so that it matches my that which my mind regards meaningful.

A greater unification and incorporation of all that which is . . . a identification of the connections of these concrete things and forces.

Hadn´t my mind divided that which is into distinct objects, categories and concepts in the first place, there wouldn´t be any need to search for connections that make sense within this my reality of distinct objects.

There is no reason to believe that my patterns are moving me away, that my understanding is moving me away from reality simply because they are abstractions.

Yes, it does, in that reality is not abstract.

As per my theory of gravity example, the theory of gravity led to greater instrumental accuracy and the ability to predict outcomes.

That makes it very useful for me.

Why assume this is a moving away when it seems to be the opposite, a moving toward?

I sense that the meaning of „moving towards/away from“ is slowly shifting during the discussion. Originally I understood it to be a statement about greater or lesser congruence between my reality and external reality.
The fact that the patterns that a pattern creating mind creates appear to be very useful to the pattern creating mind is undisputed.

For something to be useful, as you say, it has to be useful for something.

Sure. It has to be useful to me. Usually it is even more useful when others perceive it as useful as well.

Now, yes, you have a particular goal (i think yours was a decrease in suffering if I remember from previous conversation) but, in the context of an ultimate reality, that goal must be achieved visa vie that reality.

I don´t know what an „ultimate reality“ is supposed to be. So far we have agreed to work from the assumption of an „external (i.e. physical)“ reality.
Yes, the goal in regards to which a concept is useful must be achieved visa vi external reality, and interestingly my current concept (no matter how many other, different, contradicting concepts are out there) is the one that´s always doing that job quite fine. Sometimes my concepts change, due to causes that can not conclusively be identified.

Your abstractions then, must be accurate vise a vie that reality to successfully achieve your goal.

I don´t see how this follows. Whether they work depends on what I consider „working“.

In that case, usefulness would have to be true to be useful.

It doesn´t. „Humans are inherently good“ is a useful concept to me – I don´t care whether it is accurate or not. It helps me achieving my goals. I know of other persons who hold the opposite concept („humans are inherently evil&#8220 and find this view confirmed just as solidly as I do find mine confirmed.

All I am interested in is my reality being a workable, usable construct. If, as you postulate here, this approach will result in a "true" construct of reality - what´s your problem with my approach anyway?
I see a great advantage in my approach: Being only occupied with making my reality work for me (and not concerned with concepts such as "truth" or "accuracy" - congruence of my reality with "external reality") I can live with others having a different my reality than me quite fine. I have no need to prove theirs wrong, untrue or inaccurate. There are simple explanations for those differences, and they aren´t found in "external reality".

I'll cut out the dissection of the analogue because the map and menu play into my hands and you admitted it is imperfect.

I think that along with the conclusion that it plays into your hands it would be good idea to spell out the reasoning that led you to it.
Like any analogy it is imperfect in that it only goes a certain way.

However, I find one word I want to change here . . . I don't agree that, in the context that external reality has some determining factors on phenomena, MY REALITY can ever be completely different that "what is." it will always be somewhat different.

Well, for starters it is essentially different in the way the map and the menu are completely different.

To say its completely different is to then remove external realities determination and impact on phenomena.

Not really. An impact of external reality on my reality is undisputed. What has yet to be established is the kind of impact you are assuming. You are assuming that the impact is causing a certain congruence. I don´t see any reason to assume that.
I am in fact working from the assumption that my reality is completely determined (in view of the fact that I have yet to see a convincing distinction between „external“ and „internal“ I don´t care much for dividing factors by virtue of these categories, though.)

Quite apparently the sort of impact you are looking for can not conclusively be assumed. Else we would all agree all the time. The fact that „epistemology“ is an issue for you demonstrates that your premise is invalid.
As long as everybody agrees, there is no need for „epistemology“. As soon as people disagree your premise is severely threatened. In case people change their views in different directions when being exposed to the same addition of „external“ input it is out of the window.

Today I had to have my cat put to death. I am pretty sure her reality was completely different than mine. I see no reason to assume that mine was more „accurate“ (as in: congruent with external reality) than hers.
I tend to think that hers would not have been useful to me, and mine would not have been particularly useful to her.