Well, that's 5 minutes of good points. Also, I didn't know that thing about the "goddamn particle" you wrote about. That makes me feel like reading comments on youtube is still worth the effort :)
I'll try to put this in terms you will relate to: Hayek explained how central planners cannot effectively run an economy because they don't have access to the information (prices) needed to allocate resources efficiently. We know that the best way to run an economy is unknowable. (Therefor we shouldn't run it, but instead let it run itself.)
What an amusing dose of self-refutation ---- the best way to run an economy is unknowable, so the best to run it is to *not* run it, i.e. let it run itself.
Ya, LING, I was hoping someone would make this video, and you were spot on.
I also like JBC, and I also even liked his video and think he makes many valid points within it, but I think, ultimately, he is simply arguing from ignorance.
Knowledge rests on a fuzzy spectrum of certainty, though that isn't to say that what people call knowledge can't be true or false. To what degree something can be shown true or false is another matter.
i can guarantee you whatever standard you're using to judge reality (eg. physicalist materialism) is at its base circular and requires a subjective presupposition of its validity.
yes, it does. it makes your criticism of a "circle of self-refutation" similarly circular and self-refuting by the very terms youre using. calling anything that is outside what we know of "space and time" an "appeals to magic" has no more basis for objective argument than the "appeals to magic" youre criticizing.
A circular or axiomatic base is a rather different animal than a self-refuting proposition. For some bizarre reason, you mistake "circle of self-refutation" with me accusing JBC of circular reasoning. There's nothing wrong with what I actually said, but you, on the other hand, seem very confused. Feel free to ask for clarification if you don't understand something. Otherwise, don't comment.
"Outside of space and time" isn't even a coherent concept, but that's beyond the scope of this video.
circular and axiomatic are not the same thing. a base is circular if you are using one postulate to demonstrate the same postulate that is demonstrating the first one. an axiom is simply taken as self-evident. that's a big difference.
you engage in what is ultimately exactly the same thing by claiming that being outside of what we understand as "space and time" is not conceptually coherent. that is not axiomatic. it is circular
you seem completely unaware of postmodern philosophy or metalogic.
I am quite aware of what circular and axiomatic mean, padawan. The point is that I mentioned neither, which eludes you. You're intent on constructing straw to play with since you apparently have nothing else.
I have gone into "outside of space and time" on numerous occasions, but not here. That isn't the subject here, nor is it pertinent to anything in the video. It's made a fine red herring for you, though.
You seem completely unfamiliar with the fundamental skill of listening.
i am responding specifically to what you said about "theists" and equivocating talking about x being outside what we know as time and space to "appeals to magic"
thats why i quoted those things you said.. because i was responding to them
you also said that "even talking about" such things "meaningless"
you also conflated being "beyond our capacity to grasp" with being "not being able to ponder it at all" or subject it to any "reason" and called the language a "circle of self-refutation"
You are responding to something that has nothing to do with the point of the video and attacking me for not elaborating on a single irrelevant detail.
Yes, talking about something that one defines as beyond our capacity to grasp is meaningless, and the rest of the video explain why those things aren't quite so beyond. Meaning is also subjective, so you're welcome to find meaning is the allegedly incomprehensible.
If you are "pondering," what are you pondering if you can't even grasp it?
i was not "attacking you," nor was i criticizing you for "not elaborating." you made an equivocation and a number of claims that were imo unjustified.
if it was actually "irrelevant" you by definition wouldnt have mentioned it at all. if it was actually "beyond our capacity to grasp" you by definition could not talk about it at all.
see why that's wrong?
would you claim that "unknown unkowns" is a meaningless concept? "known unknowns?"
Yes, were attacking me for not elaborating on an irrelevant detail. I've already justified the claims. You simply failed to understand the point, so you decided to attack something else.
Regarding irrelevance, direct quote from video: "This is more an explanation of my own reaction rather than a direct comparison to anything you said."
See, you don't even understand what was going on.
I suspect a large percentage of potential knowledge falls into the "unknown unknown" category.
i merely used your use of the word "irrelevance" to demonstrate how language can be approximate, akin to the use of "graspable" ...
i also suspect a large percentage of potential knowledge falls into the "unknown unknown" category. so here we are saying *something* about that which we do not know. we could now ponder what the nature of such knowledge might be.
anyway, i by no means meant anything as an attack on you and if ive misunderstood something, apologies. i dont think i have tho..
By saying "unknown unknown," you aren't saying anything about anything, except expressing your own lack of knowledge relative to whatever may or may not exist. It doesn't tell us anything except that you don't know.
we are "talking about" it and could reasonably extrapolate and ponder as to what the nature of such knowledge might be. we are also giving it the quality of not being what we already know. again, i'm just talking about how language and knowledge are approximate here. once you go from there to interpersonal demonstration, you have very little ground from which to make the strong claims i quoted from yr video. hence my first comment re: yr epistemic basis for making those claims.
What are you talking about? I have no idea. Something may or may not exist, and you don't know. Again, that doesn't tell me anything about it or whether "it" even exists. It just says that you are quiet literally ignorant and talking out of your ass, to put it bluntly.
What "claims?" God and space-time? I'm not talking about that. Apparently you want to, but that isn't the point here. Make a video or send a PM.
'you said that "even talking about" such things "meaningless"'
'you conflated being "beyond our capacity to grasp" with being "not being able to ponder it at all" or subject it to any "reason" and called the language a "circle of self-refutation"'
this was, it seemed to me, the very thrust of your video, was it not? that talking about what was in some sense "beyond our grasp" is necessarily meaningless/impossible/self-refuting?
It IS meaningless. Even you admit that you don't know what we're supposedly talking about. But I also said that meaning is subjective, so you are certainly free to find meaning even in a state of utter ignorance. Knock yourself out, padawan.
Assigning traits to something and then claiming it cannot be grasped, defined, conceptualized, etc. is indeed self-refuting, as you yourself have unwittingly and repeatedly demonstrated in this exchange.
i don't know how you can seriously so adamantly claim "it IS meaningless" and then a sentence later point out that "meaning is subjective" ..apply that to perception and then try to talk about "utter ignorance"
anyway, the point *again* that language is approximate. saying that something youre talking about is "beyond our grasp" is not necessarily saying it is 100% impossible to conceptualize, ponder, talk, reason about at all. it is only self-refuting if its 100% binary. employ contextualism.
I simply don't find meaning in it. End of story. That doesn't preclude someone else reveling it. Why are you thinking in such binary terms, padawan?
If you can't understand that this isn't about your language red herrings or other confusions, then make a video or send a PM.
"Beyond our grasp" is not the only qualifier used by JBC. In fact, he included "conceptualize" in that same list of impossibilities that you yourself now contradict. I'm not surprised you didn't listen, though.
Ascribing traits to something that allegedly cannot be grasped, framed, defined, conceptualized or seen, is self-refuting. Otherwise, how does one ascertain the traits?
This kind of nonsense, hand-waving and general listening impairment from people like you is one major reason why I was in no hurry to start posting videos again. Not even a five-month break gave me any more tolerance for this crap.
if someone says x "cannot be grasped" or may be outside what we think of as time and space, that itself indicates that something about it can in principle be talked about. if you saw a chalkboard full of figures you couldn't read, and thus couldn't "grasp," you could still say something about them.
are you a logical positivist?
misguided condescension will get you nowhere. do you pretend that no serious people disagree with you? do you disregard postmodern philosophy entirely?
If you see a chalkboard full of figures, you have already identified a chalkboard full of figures. You have grasped, framed, defined, et. al., though perhaps not completely.
What you call "misguided condescension" is just a statement of fact.
"Serious people" disagree with me all the time.
If you want to discuss generalities like positivism or pomo, you can make a video or send a PM. If you want to continue elucidating your confusion here, I'm not interested.
right, well go farther then. suppose someone who didn't know the words "chalkboard" or "figures" and didn't grasp what any of what was on the board meant or indicated. it could still in principle be "talked about." my point here is simply that language, like knowledge, is approximate. the way you framed much of your video was binary - either it is graspable or meaningless/impossible to talk about at all.
i addressed and quoted specifically what you said in your video. no more, no less.
Sure, it could still be talked about. You could talk about the colors, the shapes, the smell and even speculate on what all of it means. To do means you have identified something, even if you don't have a name for it. You have grasped, ramed, defined, et. al., though perhaps not completely.
You quoted, misunderstood, then started chasing a red herring. No more, no less.
take it all the way to not recognizing the colors, shapes, smell, etc. you cannot positively identify anything other than vague, momentary impressions or even a darkness that is vaguely silhouetted by light. all you can do is ponder and extrapolate based on what you potentially relate to those impressions. again, you can still obviously talk about it and reasonably ponder its nature or potential existence.
You have perceived a vague, momentary impression that is vaguely silhouetted by light. You have grasped, framed, defined, et. al., though perhaps not completely.
If you want to squirm out of this, I guess you can take it all the way to the point of unconsciousness, but then you're left in an awkward spot.
not just "not completely," effectively "not." again what you seem to be caught up in here is binary language. language and knowledge are approximate (and are entirely subjectively perceived, which is important for interpersonal reasoning and epistemology). if someone talking about x called it "beyond our grasp" they are obviously not saying "it cannot be talked about at all."
indeed, you could go to the unconscious, but you don't need to.
If not, then how did you come up with the "vague, momentary impression that is vaguely silhouetted by light?"
This has nothing to do with binary language or any of the other red herrings you are determined to chase in hopes of avoiding the actual point here.
"Beyond our grasp" was not the only qualifier JBC used. He also said this thing could not be framed, defined, conceptualized or seen. That is self-detonation. Binary language isn't the problem; your comprehension is.
you have "not" because language is approximate. this is not a red herring, it follows directly from my initial comment as a rebut to the binary language first criticized, the guise of "objectivity" or "meaning" from a subjective perception related by intersubjective medium (language). the same approximation and contextualism applies to framed, etc.
anyway, you seem consistently hostile and determined to not understand these rather simple points of modern epistemology. i'm out. peace.
Claiming that something cannot be grasped, framed, defined, conceptualized or seen, then assigning traits to that thing, is not a matter of binary or approximate language. It is a self-refuting proposition for reasons I have explained very clearly. That you have to retreat into such vague non-explanations just further demonstrates your inability to cope with this.
What you call "hostile" is just your subjective reaction to being cornered.
Declaring something to be "beyond the capacity of the human to intellectually grasp, frame, define, conceptualize or see," then making claims about it, is not a matter of linguistic approximation. It is a comprehensive list of things JBC claims cannot be done regarding this "stuff." You want to claim that he didn't say what he said, all while hoping no one notices. Sorry, padawan.
Simple, simple stuff. I expect you to respond with more hand-waving and bullshit.
given that you conceded you "might be strawmanning" him in the video, it seems your perception of the language was not absolutely binary either.. anyway, ask him about it to be sure.
my primary contention was with your claims as detailed above, claims that you cant defend now that youve given that knowledge (and meaning) is approximate and subjective and interpersonally subject to the approximation of language, 100% binary or otherwise.
It was a comprehensive list. No way around it. Sorry.
But let's temporarily grant the nice leeway of approximate language. How does one sufficiently soften terms in the phrase "beyond the capacity of the human mind to...grasp, frame, define, conceptualize or see," so as to make your criticism work? Hmm? And does this mean anything since it allows anyone to backpedal (as you have done)?
Padawan, I've defended my claims so well that you've gone out of your way to avoid dealing with them.
it would only be comprehensive if it actually came to "and not being able to talk about at all in any sense," which it did not... but you can ask him.
i already described how one could see a silhouette of darkness or a vague impression of something they couldnt identify or even unknown unknowns and could then 'talk about it' without "grasping, framing, defining, conceptualizing" it, which would necessarily be approximate language.
you havent and i havent, and im fairly sure you know it.
It wasn't my contention that it can't be talked about at all. Rather, I said he knows SOMETHING about it, so the "beyond the capacity of the human mind" claim is erroneous.
Did you listen to ANYTHING I said, or did you just drop in with an unquenchable to desire to attack someone, and just so happened to land on this video?
If something is utterly unknown or unknowable, there's nothing to talk about in terms of the thing itself. As I explained earlier, you can only speak on your own ignorance, and that doesn't tell me anything.
if i say something is "utterly" unknown and unknowable to me, yeah sure. if it's you saying that about me, that gets you back to how i can subjectively come to "know" things in the first place, how we determine what "objectivity" means, back to epistemology and my initial comment.
I didn't say a word about objectivity. I said it is self-refuting to claim that something is "beyond the capacity of the human mind" and then make claims about it, because clearly something is already known.
Your initial comment has no relevance to this video, as I have explained, and you have evaded with red herrings and confusions.
that wasn't the only thing you said, nor was it the only thing i've quoted or explicitly responed to. you're evading. if you make claims about someone else being "ignorant" then you are necessitating degrees of objectivity. otherwise you have no basis for the claim.
What exactly have I evaded, padawan? Give details.
Where did I make a claim about anyone being ignorant? I referred to YOUR ignorance in the context of you not being able to talk about something that YOU posited as unknown, but rather only being able to relay your ignorance, not impart any knowledge of the unknown thing itself. This entails no claim of objectivity on my part, though I suppose you can always backpedal by claiming "unknown" was just an approximation.
By describing something as a "vague impression" or a "silhouette," you have already grasped, framed, defined, conceptualized and seen. I didn't say a single word about "identify," and neither did JBC.
Yes, I've defended my claims, which is why you're chasing red herrings and waving your hands.
You need to go unconscious for what JBC and yourself seem to be proposing. Again, you've demonstrated this clearly, despite desperately trying to come up with a situation showing otherwise.
Nope, necessarily unconscious. If you're meditating, you're likely just focused on something else. If you're somehow meditating on the thing ostensibly in front of you (the blackboard, but you don't know that), you still are able to grasp, frame, define, etc., though perhaps not completely.
No, it wasn't in the original video. I'm not quoting the original video here. I'm responding to your hilarious failure at creating a scenario to support your nebulous claims. "Not completely" simply means there might be more in depth grasping, framing, defining, et. al. to be had, but that in no way means those things haven't taken place on some level.
the point is that knowledge is (A) approximate, (B) subjectively attained and determined, and (C) interpersonally communicated through approximation in language. adding "not completely" demonstrates the approximation involved here and makes the binary logic necessary for your claims of "self-refutation" untenable. you can't have it both ways. it's hardly a red herring given it deals explicitly with the thrust of your video. you said you might be strawmanning. stick to that possibility..
No, padawan. "Not completely" simply means there might be more in depth grasping, framing, defining, et. al. to be had, but that in no way means those things haven't taken place on some level.
You apparently missed that, so I typed it again.
You aren't dealing with the video. You're trying to avoid dealing with it.
Also, you never answered my question about how to soften the terms in JBC's list to make your approximate language defense work. I don't think you can.
yes, if you can "grasp more" then you can also "grasp less" and still be grasping. this demonstrates approximation.. that's what approximation means and its how language works.
how could you soften the terms? well, potentially, you could say "is in overwhelmingly likelyly large proportion beyond our grasp, etc." or add any other qualifier or context markers or whatever else would signify it's not a binary absolute. imo he did that just by talking about it, but ask to be sure.
Not just grasping, but framing, defining, conceptualizing and seeing. All JBC's terms. And whether one does more or less doesn't change the fact that he is apprehending something, even if he isn't apprehending everything.
That's a nice try at softening. Unfortunately, JBC didn't say that. I'm not talking about rephrasing to make his claim jive with your position. I'm saying define his terms in ways that make your position work, and I still don't think you can while staying coherent.
The point is, he said what he said. Your only defense is saying he didn't mean what he said, which might be true, but in that case he should have said it differently. You should be criticizing his choice of words, not attacking me for dealing with them.
Von, it's a red herring because it has nothing to do with my point, which you would know if you understood what the point is.
Humorously, Higgs himself says Lederman (who wrote "The God Particle") wanted to call it the "goddamn particle" in sheer frustration, but his editors wouldn't let him, so it got shortened. It doesn't have anything to do with "god," or at least didn't initially. People like you seem determined to put words in scientists' mouths, however.
No, it's true. Google "goddamn particle." The article about Peter Higgs is in the 6/8/08 edition of the Guardian.
The Higgs boson hasn't been discovered yet, Von. You don't know what it is or if it even exists. Nobody does. CERN has had too many problems to get that far.
CERN's website does not say they are looking for "God," and it does not say that the theoretical particle is "absolute perfection" or "God." That IS what *YOU* say. CERN is looking or the "god particle," which has nothing to do with any imaginary being (though the particle itself might not exist, in which case it is aptly nicknamed).
Funnier still, Peter Higgs is an atheist.
As for CERN's problems with the LHC, they are well documented on Wikipedia, in science mags and in newspapers.
@LibertyIsNotGiven I don't think meaning is constrained by external verification. The question of what in particular it means isn't what I'm addressing, but the question of what it would take for it to mean something or anything, whatever that may be.
So you have no idea what it means. That's significant, whether you would address it or not.
I don't know what it means, either. JBC went to great lengths to make "it" inaccessible. Discussing something that is beyond the capacity of humans to grasp, define, conceptualize, etc. strikes me as meaningless. Just what is the subject?
Like I told your friend asdf, however, anyone is free to find meaning in whatever, and all are free to revise language that it is shown inadequate or incoherent.
We're treading on philosophical ground in which the normal way of talking about these things leads to paradox. I would say that the very concept of non-conceptualizability has meaning by virtue of us talking about it right now. At a minimum, it could be said to have its meaning by virtue of being the opposite of something else that we have a meaning for (conceptuality).
I'm not talking about the concept of non-conceptualizability (is that even a word?). I'm talking about some unnamed thing that is put forth as *not* being open to conceptualization, then purporting to conceptualize it. That's it. Both you and asdf have entirely missed this point of this video.
I'd say that the very concept of non-conceptualability has meaning at least by virtue of its relation to its opposite. I think you might be conflating knowability (in some empirical sense) with meaning. In my view, there is meaning in plenty of things that aren't empirically verifiable or have any concrete root. The opposite premise (that meaning requires verification) is what the cry of logical positivism is made against.
"the very concept of non-conceptualability" has meaning"
I have no disagreement, and I never claimed otherwise in the video. What I claimed is that claiming to conceptualize something that allegedly can't be conceptualized is a self-refuting proposition. Asdf tried to escape this by saying JBC simply didn't mean what he said. You incorrectly seem to think I was saying something else entirely.
It would behoove you to realize the terms "meaning" and "meaningless" existed before positivism.
It isn't the terms meaning or meaningless that's in question, it's the notion that something is meaningless if it doesn't pass a verification test or isn't explicitly derived from some empirical object.
What does "meaningless" mean? Is there some objective standard of meaning?
When did I say anything about any verification test or empirical derivation?
Is claiming to conceptualize something that cannot be conceptualized a coherent position?
Mind you, JBC has kindly since responded to this video to clarify. I haven't gotten around to watching it yet, but neither you nor asdf has a leg to stand on here, given what JBC said in his original and what I said in response to him.
Well, that's 5 minutes of good points. Also, I didn't know that thing about the "goddamn particle" you wrote about. That makes me feel like reading comments on youtube is still worth the effort :)
Mindlabytinth 2 years ago
We also know that it is impossible to know both the location and velocity of an electron because the act of observing it changes the properties.
Science has limits.
billyjoeallen 2 years ago
And thanks to Science, we know that too, whats your point? Are you trying to say because of the uncertainty principle, that means god did it?
MilesB1975 2 years ago
"And thanks to Science, we know that too...."
+1
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
I second the question: what's your point?
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
I'll try to put this in terms you will relate to: Hayek explained how central planners cannot effectively run an economy because they don't have access to the information (prices) needed to allocate resources efficiently. We know that the best way to run an economy is unknowable. (Therefor we shouldn't run it, but instead let it run itself.)
billyjoeallen 2 years ago
What an amusing dose of self-refutation ---- the best way to run an economy is unknowable, so the best to run it is to *not* run it, i.e. let it run itself.
Did you even think before posting that?
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
Some excellent points well put.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
hey, thanks for the response LING.
i'm gonna make a response here and try to clarify everything as best as i can, and see if i can't respond to all the points you made.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
GRAND !!!!
HES BACK !!
the unconfermed love chield of Mr. Spock and Elvis Presly
nice to see you back swinging logic !
some day i like to challange you to a debate
i just have to fiend somthing we disagree enough on
cheers
glasseay 2 years ago
Spock and Elvis?
Damn, daddy lied......
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
The "two slits" conundrum v. "God"?
The first is at least visible - the second REMAINS a notion, which will waste your short period of consciousness
(This is pot & kettle!) :)
beachcomber2008 2 years ago
This video isn't about "God."
What are you grinning at?
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
Smiling. Not grinning or smirking.
Sorry to waste your time.
beachcomber2008 2 years ago
Ya, LING, I was hoping someone would make this video, and you were spot on.
I also like JBC, and I also even liked his video and think he makes many valid points within it, but I think, ultimately, he is simply arguing from ignorance.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
His use of the phrase "true knowledge" in his previous video, to me, demonstrates the impossibility of whatever he is pursuing here.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
Knowledge rests on a fuzzy spectrum of certainty, though that isn't to say that what people call knowledge can't be true or false. To what degree something can be shown true or false is another matter.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
LING made a video.
What sorcery is this?
RaymondDundas 2 years ago
i can guarantee you whatever standard you're using to judge reality (eg. physicalist materialism) is at its base circular and requires a subjective presupposition of its validity.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Likely, but that has nothing to do with anything I said here, does it? Nope, it doesn't.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
@LibertyIsNotGiven
yes, it does. it makes your criticism of a "circle of self-refutation" similarly circular and self-refuting by the very terms youre using. calling anything that is outside what we know of "space and time" an "appeals to magic" has no more basis for objective argument than the "appeals to magic" youre criticizing.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
A circular or axiomatic base is a rather different animal than a self-refuting proposition. For some bizarre reason, you mistake "circle of self-refutation" with me accusing JBC of circular reasoning. There's nothing wrong with what I actually said, but you, on the other hand, seem very confused. Feel free to ask for clarification if you don't understand something. Otherwise, don't comment.
"Outside of space and time" isn't even a coherent concept, but that's beyond the scope of this video.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
circular and axiomatic are not the same thing. a base is circular if you are using one postulate to demonstrate the same postulate that is demonstrating the first one. an axiom is simply taken as self-evident. that's a big difference.
you engage in what is ultimately exactly the same thing by claiming that being outside of what we understand as "space and time" is not conceptually coherent. that is not axiomatic. it is circular
you seem completely unaware of postmodern philosophy or metalogic.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
I am quite aware of what circular and axiomatic mean, padawan. The point is that I mentioned neither, which eludes you. You're intent on constructing straw to play with since you apparently have nothing else.
I have gone into "outside of space and time" on numerous occasions, but not here. That isn't the subject here, nor is it pertinent to anything in the video. It's made a fine red herring for you, though.
You seem completely unfamiliar with the fundamental skill of listening.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
i am responding specifically to what you said about "theists" and equivocating talking about x being outside what we know as time and space to "appeals to magic"
thats why i quoted those things you said.. because i was responding to them
you also said that "even talking about" such things "meaningless"
you also conflated being "beyond our capacity to grasp" with being "not being able to ponder it at all" or subject it to any "reason" and called the language a "circle of self-refutation"
...
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
You are responding to something that has nothing to do with the point of the video and attacking me for not elaborating on a single irrelevant detail.
Yes, talking about something that one defines as beyond our capacity to grasp is meaningless, and the rest of the video explain why those things aren't quite so beyond. Meaning is also subjective, so you're welcome to find meaning is the allegedly incomprehensible.
If you are "pondering," what are you pondering if you can't even grasp it?
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
i was not "attacking you," nor was i criticizing you for "not elaborating." you made an equivocation and a number of claims that were imo unjustified.
if it was actually "irrelevant" you by definition wouldnt have mentioned it at all. if it was actually "beyond our capacity to grasp" you by definition could not talk about it at all.
see why that's wrong?
would you claim that "unknown unkowns" is a meaningless concept? "known unknowns?"
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Yes, were attacking me for not elaborating on an irrelevant detail. I've already justified the claims. You simply failed to understand the point, so you decided to attack something else.
Regarding irrelevance, direct quote from video: "This is more an explanation of my own reaction rather than a direct comparison to anything you said."
See, you don't even understand what was going on.
I suspect a large percentage of potential knowledge falls into the "unknown unknown" category.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
i merely used your use of the word "irrelevance" to demonstrate how language can be approximate, akin to the use of "graspable" ...
i also suspect a large percentage of potential knowledge falls into the "unknown unknown" category. so here we are saying *something* about that which we do not know. we could now ponder what the nature of such knowledge might be.
anyway, i by no means meant anything as an attack on you and if ive misunderstood something, apologies. i dont think i have tho..
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
By saying "unknown unknown," you aren't saying anything about anything, except expressing your own lack of knowledge relative to whatever may or may not exist. It doesn't tell us anything except that you don't know.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
we are "talking about" it and could reasonably extrapolate and ponder as to what the nature of such knowledge might be. we are also giving it the quality of not being what we already know. again, i'm just talking about how language and knowledge are approximate here. once you go from there to interpersonal demonstration, you have very little ground from which to make the strong claims i quoted from yr video. hence my first comment re: yr epistemic basis for making those claims.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
What are you talking about? I have no idea. Something may or may not exist, and you don't know. Again, that doesn't tell me anything about it or whether "it" even exists. It just says that you are quiet literally ignorant and talking out of your ass, to put it bluntly.
What "claims?" God and space-time? I'm not talking about that. Apparently you want to, but that isn't the point here. Make a video or send a PM.
Have you caught that red herring yet?
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
as i said:
'you said that "even talking about" such things "meaningless"'
'you conflated being "beyond our capacity to grasp" with being "not being able to ponder it at all" or subject it to any "reason" and called the language a "circle of self-refutation"'
this was, it seemed to me, the very thrust of your video, was it not? that talking about what was in some sense "beyond our grasp" is necessarily meaningless/impossible/self-refuting?
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
It IS meaningless. Even you admit that you don't know what we're supposedly talking about. But I also said that meaning is subjective, so you are certainly free to find meaning even in a state of utter ignorance. Knock yourself out, padawan.
Assigning traits to something and then claiming it cannot be grasped, defined, conceptualized, etc. is indeed self-refuting, as you yourself have unwittingly and repeatedly demonstrated in this exchange.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
i don't know how you can seriously so adamantly claim "it IS meaningless" and then a sentence later point out that "meaning is subjective" ..apply that to perception and then try to talk about "utter ignorance"
anyway, the point *again* that language is approximate. saying that something youre talking about is "beyond our grasp" is not necessarily saying it is 100% impossible to conceptualize, ponder, talk, reason about at all. it is only self-refuting if its 100% binary. employ contextualism.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
I simply don't find meaning in it. End of story. That doesn't preclude someone else reveling it. Why are you thinking in such binary terms, padawan?
If you can't understand that this isn't about your language red herrings or other confusions, then make a video or send a PM.
"Beyond our grasp" is not the only qualifier used by JBC. In fact, he included "conceptualize" in that same list of impossibilities that you yourself now contradict. I'm not surprised you didn't listen, though.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
Ascribing traits to something that allegedly cannot be grasped, framed, defined, conceptualized or seen, is self-refuting. Otherwise, how does one ascertain the traits?
This kind of nonsense, hand-waving and general listening impairment from people like you is one major reason why I was in no hurry to start posting videos again. Not even a five-month break gave me any more tolerance for this crap.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
if someone says x "cannot be grasped" or may be outside what we think of as time and space, that itself indicates that something about it can in principle be talked about. if you saw a chalkboard full of figures you couldn't read, and thus couldn't "grasp," you could still say something about them.
are you a logical positivist?
misguided condescension will get you nowhere. do you pretend that no serious people disagree with you? do you disregard postmodern philosophy entirely?
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
If you see a chalkboard full of figures, you have already identified a chalkboard full of figures. You have grasped, framed, defined, et. al., though perhaps not completely.
What you call "misguided condescension" is just a statement of fact.
"Serious people" disagree with me all the time.
If you want to discuss generalities like positivism or pomo, you can make a video or send a PM. If you want to continue elucidating your confusion here, I'm not interested.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
right, well go farther then. suppose someone who didn't know the words "chalkboard" or "figures" and didn't grasp what any of what was on the board meant or indicated. it could still in principle be "talked about." my point here is simply that language, like knowledge, is approximate. the way you framed much of your video was binary - either it is graspable or meaningless/impossible to talk about at all.
i addressed and quoted specifically what you said in your video. no more, no less.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Sure, it could still be talked about. You could talk about the colors, the shapes, the smell and even speculate on what all of it means. To do means you have identified something, even if you don't have a name for it. You have grasped, ramed, defined, et. al., though perhaps not completely.
You quoted, misunderstood, then started chasing a red herring. No more, no less.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
take it all the way to not recognizing the colors, shapes, smell, etc. you cannot positively identify anything other than vague, momentary impressions or even a darkness that is vaguely silhouetted by light. all you can do is ponder and extrapolate based on what you potentially relate to those impressions. again, you can still obviously talk about it and reasonably ponder its nature or potential existence.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
You have perceived a vague, momentary impression that is vaguely silhouetted by light. You have grasped, framed, defined, et. al., though perhaps not completely.
If you want to squirm out of this, I guess you can take it all the way to the point of unconsciousness, but then you're left in an awkward spot.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
not just "not completely," effectively "not." again what you seem to be caught up in here is binary language. language and knowledge are approximate (and are entirely subjectively perceived, which is important for interpersonal reasoning and epistemology). if someone talking about x called it "beyond our grasp" they are obviously not saying "it cannot be talked about at all."
indeed, you could go to the unconscious, but you don't need to.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
If not, then how did you come up with the "vague, momentary impression that is vaguely silhouetted by light?"
This has nothing to do with binary language or any of the other red herrings you are determined to chase in hopes of avoiding the actual point here.
"Beyond our grasp" was not the only qualifier JBC used. He also said this thing could not be framed, defined, conceptualized or seen. That is self-detonation. Binary language isn't the problem; your comprehension is.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
you have "not" because language is approximate. this is not a red herring, it follows directly from my initial comment as a rebut to the binary language first criticized, the guise of "objectivity" or "meaning" from a subjective perception related by intersubjective medium (language). the same approximation and contextualism applies to framed, etc.
anyway, you seem consistently hostile and determined to not understand these rather simple points of modern epistemology. i'm out. peace.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Claiming that something cannot be grasped, framed, defined, conceptualized or seen, then assigning traits to that thing, is not a matter of binary or approximate language. It is a self-refuting proposition for reasons I have explained very clearly. That you have to retreat into such vague non-explanations just further demonstrates your inability to cope with this.
What you call "hostile" is just your subjective reaction to being cornered.
"i'm out."
You were out about an hour ago.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
"It is a self-refuting proposition"
only if the language is in fact binary. if it is approximate - as language tends to be - then it is not. employ contextualism.
simple, simple stuff. i expect you to respond with more hostility.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Declaring something to be "beyond the capacity of the human to intellectually grasp, frame, define, conceptualize or see," then making claims about it, is not a matter of linguistic approximation. It is a comprehensive list of things JBC claims cannot be done regarding this "stuff." You want to claim that he didn't say what he said, all while hoping no one notices. Sorry, padawan.
Simple, simple stuff. I expect you to respond with more hand-waving and bullshit.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
given that you conceded you "might be strawmanning" him in the video, it seems your perception of the language was not absolutely binary either.. anyway, ask him about it to be sure.
my primary contention was with your claims as detailed above, claims that you cant defend now that youve given that knowledge (and meaning) is approximate and subjective and interpersonally subject to the approximation of language, 100% binary or otherwise.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
It was a comprehensive list. No way around it. Sorry.
But let's temporarily grant the nice leeway of approximate language. How does one sufficiently soften terms in the phrase "beyond the capacity of the human mind to...grasp, frame, define, conceptualize or see," so as to make your criticism work? Hmm? And does this mean anything since it allows anyone to backpedal (as you have done)?
Padawan, I've defended my claims so well that you've gone out of your way to avoid dealing with them.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
it would only be comprehensive if it actually came to "and not being able to talk about at all in any sense," which it did not... but you can ask him.
i already described how one could see a silhouette of darkness or a vague impression of something they couldnt identify or even unknown unknowns and could then 'talk about it' without "grasping, framing, defining, conceptualizing" it, which would necessarily be approximate language.
you havent and i havent, and im fairly sure you know it.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
It wasn't my contention that it can't be talked about at all. Rather, I said he knows SOMETHING about it, so the "beyond the capacity of the human mind" claim is erroneous.
Did you listen to ANYTHING I said, or did you just drop in with an unquenchable to desire to attack someone, and just so happened to land on this video?
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
If something is utterly unknown or unknowable, there's nothing to talk about in terms of the thing itself. As I explained earlier, you can only speak on your own ignorance, and that doesn't tell me anything.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
if i say something is "utterly" unknown and unknowable to me, yeah sure. if it's you saying that about me, that gets you back to how i can subjectively come to "know" things in the first place, how we determine what "objectivity" means, back to epistemology and my initial comment.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
I didn't say a word about objectivity. I said it is self-refuting to claim that something is "beyond the capacity of the human mind" and then make claims about it, because clearly something is already known.
Your initial comment has no relevance to this video, as I have explained, and you have evaded with red herrings and confusions.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
that wasn't the only thing you said, nor was it the only thing i've quoted or explicitly responed to. you're evading. if you make claims about someone else being "ignorant" then you are necessitating degrees of objectivity. otherwise you have no basis for the claim.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
What exactly have I evaded, padawan? Give details.
Where did I make a claim about anyone being ignorant? I referred to YOUR ignorance in the context of you not being able to talk about something that YOU posited as unknown, but rather only being able to relay your ignorance, not impart any knowledge of the unknown thing itself. This entails no claim of objectivity on my part, though I suppose you can always backpedal by claiming "unknown" was just an approximation.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
By describing something as a "vague impression" or a "silhouette," you have already grasped, framed, defined, conceptualized and seen. I didn't say a single word about "identify," and neither did JBC.
Yes, I've defended my claims, which is why you're chasing red herrings and waving your hands.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
You need to go unconscious for what JBC and yourself seem to be proposing. Again, you've demonstrated this clearly, despite desperately trying to come up with a situation showing otherwise.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
meditative or numinous or something maybe, not necessarily "unconscious"
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Nope, necessarily unconscious. If you're meditating, you're likely just focused on something else. If you're somehow meditating on the thing ostensibly in front of you (the blackboard, but you don't know that), you still are able to grasp, frame, define, etc., though perhaps not completely.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
the "not completely" qualifier you keep throwing in there was not in the original video...
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
No, it wasn't in the original video. I'm not quoting the original video here. I'm responding to your hilarious failure at creating a scenario to support your nebulous claims. "Not completely" simply means there might be more in depth grasping, framing, defining, et. al. to be had, but that in no way means those things haven't taken place on some level.
Sigh. Yet another red herring.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
the point is that knowledge is (A) approximate, (B) subjectively attained and determined, and (C) interpersonally communicated through approximation in language. adding "not completely" demonstrates the approximation involved here and makes the binary logic necessary for your claims of "self-refutation" untenable. you can't have it both ways. it's hardly a red herring given it deals explicitly with the thrust of your video. you said you might be strawmanning. stick to that possibility..
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
No, padawan. "Not completely" simply means there might be more in depth grasping, framing, defining, et. al. to be had, but that in no way means those things haven't taken place on some level.
You apparently missed that, so I typed it again.
You aren't dealing with the video. You're trying to avoid dealing with it.
Also, you never answered my question about how to soften the terms in JBC's list to make your approximate language defense work. I don't think you can.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
yes, if you can "grasp more" then you can also "grasp less" and still be grasping. this demonstrates approximation.. that's what approximation means and its how language works.
how could you soften the terms? well, potentially, you could say "is in overwhelmingly likelyly large proportion beyond our grasp, etc." or add any other qualifier or context markers or whatever else would signify it's not a binary absolute. imo he did that just by talking about it, but ask to be sure.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Not just grasping, but framing, defining, conceptualizing and seeing. All JBC's terms. And whether one does more or less doesn't change the fact that he is apprehending something, even if he isn't apprehending everything.
That's a nice try at softening. Unfortunately, JBC didn't say that. I'm not talking about rephrasing to make his claim jive with your position. I'm saying define his terms in ways that make your position work, and I still don't think you can while staying coherent.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
The point is, he said what he said. Your only defense is saying he didn't mean what he said, which might be true, but in that case he should have said it differently. You should be criticizing his choice of words, not attacking me for dealing with them.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
That's not a "red herring". Either you can define something, or you can't. If you can't, and you say so, that's being HONEST.
Now that string theory is gaining wide acceptance, and CERN is searching for the "God Particle", I think it's time to admit defeat.
:)
VonHelton 2 years ago 2
Von, it's a red herring because it has nothing to do with my point, which you would know if you understood what the point is.
Humorously, Higgs himself says Lederman (who wrote "The God Particle") wanted to call it the "goddamn particle" in sheer frustration, but his editors wouldn't let him, so it got shortened. It doesn't have anything to do with "god," or at least didn't initially. People like you seem determined to put words in scientists' mouths, however.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
That's BS.......Nice story, but BS just the same. The Higgs is a particle of absolute perfection........IE, "God" (or at least a part of him/her).
VonHelton 2 years ago
No, it's true. Google "goddamn particle." The article about Peter Higgs is in the 6/8/08 edition of the Guardian.
The Higgs boson hasn't been discovered yet, Von. You don't know what it is or if it even exists. Nobody does. CERN has had too many problems to get that far.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
Well, then CERN needs to change their website, because that's what *THEY* say, not me.
VonHelton 2 years ago
CERN's website does not say they are looking for "God," and it does not say that the theoretical particle is "absolute perfection" or "God." That IS what *YOU* say. CERN is looking or the "god particle," which has nothing to do with any imaginary being (though the particle itself might not exist, in which case it is aptly nicknamed).
Funnier still, Peter Higgs is an atheist.
As for CERN's problems with the LHC, they are well documented on Wikipedia, in science mags and in newspapers.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
@asdfgasdfasdful I also balked at the claim of it being "meaningless", which made me immediately think of logical positivism.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
Bp, then what does it mean?
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
@LibertyIsNotGiven I don't think meaning is constrained by external verification. The question of what in particular it means isn't what I'm addressing, but the question of what it would take for it to mean something or anything, whatever that may be.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
So you have no idea what it means. That's significant, whether you would address it or not.
I don't know what it means, either. JBC went to great lengths to make "it" inaccessible. Discussing something that is beyond the capacity of humans to grasp, define, conceptualize, etc. strikes me as meaningless. Just what is the subject?
Like I told your friend asdf, however, anyone is free to find meaning in whatever, and all are free to revise language that it is shown inadequate or incoherent.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
We're treading on philosophical ground in which the normal way of talking about these things leads to paradox. I would say that the very concept of non-conceptualizability has meaning by virtue of us talking about it right now. At a minimum, it could be said to have its meaning by virtue of being the opposite of something else that we have a meaning for (conceptuality).
brainpolice2 2 years ago
I'm not talking about the concept of non-conceptualizability (is that even a word?). I'm talking about some unnamed thing that is put forth as *not* being open to conceptualization, then purporting to conceptualize it. That's it. Both you and asdf have entirely missed this point of this video.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
I'd say that the very concept of non-conceptualability has meaning at least by virtue of its relation to its opposite. I think you might be conflating knowability (in some empirical sense) with meaning. In my view, there is meaning in plenty of things that aren't empirically verifiable or have any concrete root. The opposite premise (that meaning requires verification) is what the cry of logical positivism is made against.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
"the very concept of non-conceptualability" has meaning"
I have no disagreement, and I never claimed otherwise in the video. What I claimed is that claiming to conceptualize something that allegedly can't be conceptualized is a self-refuting proposition. Asdf tried to escape this by saying JBC simply didn't mean what he said. You incorrectly seem to think I was saying something else entirely.
It would behoove you to realize the terms "meaning" and "meaningless" existed before positivism.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
It isn't the terms meaning or meaningless that's in question, it's the notion that something is meaningless if it doesn't pass a verification test or isn't explicitly derived from some empirical object.
brainpolice2 1 year ago
@brainpolice2
What does "meaningless" mean? Is there some objective standard of meaning?
When did I say anything about any verification test or empirical derivation?
Is claiming to conceptualize something that cannot be conceptualized a coherent position?
Mind you, JBC has kindly since responded to this video to clarify. I haven't gotten around to watching it yet, but neither you nor asdf has a leg to stand on here, given what JBC said in his original and what I said in response to him.
LibertyIsNotGiven 1 year ago
@LibertyIsNotGiven You're implicitly invoking positivist premises.
brainpolice2 1 year ago
@brainpolice2
You just won't answer the question, bp, because you know I'm right.
LibertyIsNotGiven 1 year ago
I give you both 5 stars because I like you both. But I think you're right.
fringeelements 2 years ago