no. drugs are scary.
drop acid bro its awesome
Alright then, what's an abstraction? You realize you now have admitted that things exist that have no physical basis and this can't be studied with empirical methods, right? This is why your thoughts are so inane: you have no consistent theory and make no attempts to rectify the contradictions
abstractions are also brainstates. the human brain has a function that lets it construct abstractions, somehow. it is intuitive enough that you can use it without doing metaphysical study on it, just like you can use language without doing metaphysical study on language.
i feel like the critical problem here is that you are confusing your idea of the thing with the actual thing. the abstraction is not real. the abstraction is how your brain is thinking about it. this includes the concept of "abstraction". you can try to think about "what an abstraction really is" and in fact this may help you come up with better abstractions.
this was a huge part of the motivation for this particular work itself btw; a large part of PI was a response to other philosophers of language including earlier-himself who tried to do that in questionable ways
1 Like
i approve of this.
if you're taking away that he's trying to do that kind of analysis, you're prematurely judging or misreading something i think
yes. apparently this book is in reference to his earlier book. i did not know that.
im not sure what the point is of all this reduction to "all perception is just brainstates" is though it seems like a tangent that doesnt actually arrive anywhere useful
What in the fuck are you talking about?
Holy shit, you realize you're just echoing postmodern philosophy, right? This is straight up post-Lacanian shit
im not convinced you understand what metaphysics is
its like ur studying conways game of life and there is a glider and u start metaphysically investigating the glider. the glider is just an abstraction. you assigned it a unit to make thinking about it easier. maybe if you do a metaphysical escalation you will find that the glider is a suboptimal abstraction in the sense that you would do better math if you used a different one. maybe if you do a metaphysical investigation into the nature of abstractions you will find thought-patterns that produce better abstractions in general.
i think its silly how "but what are abstractions, huh?" is a retort. its literally the language problem we are criticizing. i think i sufficiently communicated what i mean by "abstraction". once the communication is over then we are done. indeed, there wouldnt be abstractions and the concept of language wouldnt exist without brains. language, and abstractions including the concept of language both exist in brains.
at the very least, its a direct refutation of mind body duality. which seems to be a contentious issue.
His entire schtick is that "everything we think can be studied by studying the brain." He denies any philosophy is useful whatsoever and nothing that isn't empirically verifiable matters. He thinks empiricism can be used to study everything and make metaphysical and ontological claims because he doesn't know what empiricism is despite being a huge cheerleader for science. He also thinks everything can be encoded in formal languages and anything that can't be done in ZFC is not worth doing. He thinks interpretations of quantum physics are useless and don't matter because they're metaphysical studies.
You know, the typical "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" dumbass who's never actually studied science or math.
1 Like
He doesn't
i never said everything can be studied by studying the brain. i explicitly denied that idea.
rejecting all of the things you seem to reject does not necessarily follow from rejecting dualism
but i didnt read enough of the posts to figure out all of the things you think idk i still have an aversion to getting myself involved in this more than i already am
You don't understand what metaphysics is.
This is even more of a mess. More proof you don't know what metaphysics is and proof you still don't understand what mathematics is.
The retort is because you've introduced something that doesn't exist at a physical level and can't be reduced to it when you create an abstraction, i.e. your entire "project" (not that your inane posts actually qualify) contradicts itself
You're making a huge leap here and you have to fucking justify it
no, i reject the things i reject first, and then rejecting dualism seems obvious following that. you asked what the value of my rejections are, and i said at least one of them is answering that specific question.
i also assert that it makes it less likely for philosophers to get confused. but maybe i am wrong and there are no philosophers would would be less confused.
You explicitly said it for natural language in the now-deleted thread