• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

HOW TO SHATTER HUME'S GUILLOTINE

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:55 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
2) If only the simulation existed, then your mind could never receive counter-evidence that shows part of the simulation is wrong. You'd think you were always right.

Any "thing" we don't have evidence of is an aspect of NOUMENON.

Part of the NOUMENON is potentially "knowable", Mysterium Invisus and part of it is fundamentally unknowable, Magnum Mysterium.

I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through nine-million-trillion-ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
Yesterday, we didn't have evidence that the sun came up today. So yesterday, the sun was a noumenon.

We have evidence that the sun came up today. So today, the sun is a phenomenon.

We don't have evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow. So today, the sun is a noumenon.

Tomorrow, we will have evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow. So tomorrow, the sun is a phenomenon.

In your description, everything is a noumenon until we've discovered it, and then it's a phenomenon. In which case, you're saying that things don't change until they tell us. Once we know the sun exists, then it's a different sun to the sun we discovered, because the sun used to be a noumenon and how it's a phenomenon. So we can never discover anything.

If on the other hand, that the sun was a phenomenon even before we discovered it, and then everything we think of as a noumenon is a potential phenomenon that we are ignorant of, then science and reason make sense.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:55 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
The Sun is objective and not subjective, because it fulfils the definition of "objective" and does not fulfil the definition of "subjective".

What you're highlighting here is QUANTA.

Certain characteristics of OBJECTS are QUANTIFIABLE.

Not every human can verify the chemical composition of THE SUN.

Not every human can verify the size of THE SUN.

HOWEVER, nearly every human throughout history (even the blind) has experienced some direct evidence of and developed some concept of THE SUN.

AND THEY WERE ONLY ABLE TO DO THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF THEIR FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL PERCEPTION.

There is no "perspectiveless" "objective" "reality".

There is no "view from nowhere".

There is no statement or claim that is magically free from SAMPLE-BIAS.
You seem to be interpreting the word "objective" as if it means "empirically quantifiable in an infallible way". As you explained, empirically quantifiable data is never infallible, and such a word doesn't make any sense.

But when people talk about "objectivity" outside of science, they mean things that are non-subjective, and by "subjective", they mean things that some people believe are true, and others believe are false.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:55 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
So we can never discover anything.

There are three categories outlined.

(1) KNOWN PHENOMENA

(2) UNREVEALED BUT KNOWABLE MYSTERIUM INVISUS (NOUMENON TYPE 2)

(3) UNKNOWABLE MAGNUM MYSTERIUM (NOUMENON TYPE 1)

As we discover and document phenomena, items move from category two to category one.

As we forget, items move from category one back to category two.

pretending

pretending that everything conceivable is potentially and or ontologically "real-true-fact" (even and especially before any evidence is confirmed) makes the division between the real and the imagined meaningless.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:55 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
You seem to be interpreting the word "objective" as if it means "empirically quantifiable in an infallible way". As you explained, empirically quantifiable data is never infallible, and such a word doesn't make any sense.

Well stated.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:55 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
But when people talk about "objectivity" outside of science, they mean things that are non-subjective, and by "subjective", they mean things that some people believe are true, and others believe are false.

They also commonly conflate "objective" with "unbiased" which is a logically impossible characteristic.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:55 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
We know things by our intuitions which is a perception of the unconscious. So we know the sun will rise tomorrow because of our causality intuition. Things happen and we know the reason behind them through intuition, which brings the unconscious into consciousness.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:55 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
We know things by our intuitions which is a perception of the unconscious. So we know the sun will rise tomorrow because of our causality intuition. Things happen and we know the reason behind them through intuition, which brings the unconscious into consciousness.

Once you have adequately confirmed an identifiable phenomena empirically beyond four SIGMA, you can very confidently move that item into the KNOWN category.

For personal use, four SIGMA might be a little high, but that's up to the individual to decide.

100% confidence is not prerequisite to action.

In the same way a general continuously gathers reconnaissance from the battlefield, and yet, imperfect intelligence does not paralyze them.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:55 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
So we can never discover anything.

There are three categories outlined.

(1) KNOWN PHENOMENA

(2) UNREVEALED BUT KNOWABLE MYSTERIUM INVISUS (NOUMENON TYPE 2)

(3) UNKNOWABLE MAGNUM MYSTERIUM (NOUMENON TYPE 1)

As we discover and document phenomena, items move from category two to category one.

As we forget, items move from category one back to category two.

pretending

pretending that everything conceivable is potentially and or ontologically "real-true-fact" (even and especially before any evidence is confirmed) makes the division between the real and the imagined meaningless.
But when people talk about "objectivity" outside of science, they mean things that are non-subjective, and by "subjective", they mean things that some people believe are true, and others believe are false.
They also commonly conflate "objective" with "unbiased" which is a logically impossible characteristic.
Items only move from category two to category one, or from category one to category two, when they have been objectively proved to exist without bias.

If you have bias, or you can only prove it subjectively, then you have no evidence to prove it exists.

Therefore, there is no difference between category 1 and category 2.

Moreover, since you cannot tell if an item is unknowable, till it's known, then because you can never state for certain if an item is known, then you cannot tell if something is in category 2 or category 3.

Thus, you can never know for certain if an item is in category 1, category 2, or category 3.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 5:55 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
We know things by our intuitions which is a perception of the unconscious. So we know the sun will rise tomorrow because of our causality intuition. Things happen and we know the reason behind them through intuition, which brings the unconscious into consciousness.

Once you have adequately confirmed an identifiable phenomena empirically beyond four SIGMA, you can very confidently move that item into the KNOWN category.

For personal use, four SIGMA might be a little high, but that's up to the individual to decide.

100% confidence is not prerequisite to action.

In the same way a general continuously gathers reconnaissance from the battlefield, and yet, imperfect intelligence does not paralyze them.

I do not need four SIGMA to know if I drop a cup it will fall to the ground. I know about space but I can figure out what will happen. Most things are this way. Things that do not require high-level statistics. What is a problem is called Humes problem of causality? Our senses do not tell us causality obeys rules. The rules may change.

I have spent time studying a.i. and these are the same problems of the structure of a.i. - a.i. is not even as smart as a 2yo. a 2yo understands cups. we are born into causality. but what is scary and we don't think about in order to function is that it could turn random. we could be Boltzmann brains. brains inside black holes. where the laws of physics are an illusion.

in that situation ought can derive from is. - The laws can be so in other worlds.

but we function in this world and we assume causality less than statistical verifiable.
 

LOGICZOMBIE

welcome to thought club
Local time
Today 6:55 AM
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
395
-->
1633085604502.png
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 12:55 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
Thus, you can never know for certain if an item is in category 1, category 2, or category 3.
Do you know some things and not know other things ?
Sure. I know that you can never know for certain if an item is in category 1, category 2, or category 3.

I don't know how tall you are.
 
Top Bottom