You didn’t come close to understanding what I wrote.

I've known smart, perceptive people who believe some of them. They're just wrong. — T Clark

Give me a break. If they’re “smart and perceptive” and yet buy into what a 10 year old could recognize as complete bullshit, I question more your judgment of their “perception” than anything else.

What happened? One conscientious scientist, Mordechai Vanunu, managed to blow the whistle and let the world know that Israel had nukes. Of course, he's now under arrest, can't leave the country, labeled as a traitor, etc. Yet, if in such a secretive country, with relatively few people in the know about such a delicate subject could not keep such a secret, how in the world would an inside job, involving hundreds of people, if not more, possibly commit 9/11 without anyone saying something substantial about it? — Manuel

Yes, this and a thousand other reasons. But to quote Strangelove: “There’s nothing to figure out—the man’s obviously psychotic.”

To bring it back to “bad physics,” it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.”

This is the same crew who glibly parrot jingoist slogans about American exceptionalism and vote for Donald Trump. Skepticism and questioning about everything except what matters in the real world, because the latter would mean you may have to actually do something. And that’s hard work. Better to sit and get your feeling of superiority from self-created labels like “dissenter” and “nonconformist.”

Easy, cheap, predictable, and common. But can also be quite amusing. It’s almost too easy, and I know I shouldn’t ridicule— but I can’t help myself.

That was a delightful romp, X. :cheer: — Tom Storm

I really was laughing through most of it.

But remember: in alternative world, he’s the one “needling” ME. Classic Trump mentality: “No, you’re the puppet.” Patterns of similarity are emerging.

It's about looking at the obvious. Keep a (very very very very) open mind about it, and you'll get there. :wink: — Manuel

Yes— not open minded enough. Exactly. That’s my problem. After all, it’s about facts and evidence... nothing about conspiracies!

In short, these "theories" are nonsense. — Manuel

And it should take a person about 15 seconds to come to that conclusion, without even hearing “the pitch.” To tweak Hitchens: delusions can be dismissed without evidence.

How do we tell? I’m beginning to think it can’t be formally taught. You have it or you don’t.

Q is in the building... — Manuel

Don't you mean the natural born rebel, you conforming Nazi you?

You can mock Q all you want, but what about the EVIDENCE? Why don't you want to talk about the EVIDENCE instead of just ridiculing?

But there are actual conspiracies' people could look at that are useful: just open The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, you'll learn how money moves and shapes interest. Or try Foreign affairs to see how the military thinks the US should treat China. It's enough to send chills down your spine. Apparently these things aren't interesting... — Manuel

This is an important point. Very important.

I don't follow your claim that there are subjects that we have no right to question. — fishfry

I never once said that.

And so forth. Surely it's perfectly clear, beyond dispute, that the commission didn't do a thorough investigation. So why shouldn't one be done? — fishfry

I'm talking about 9/11 truthers -- those who believe the towers were an "inside job," brought down by the government -- through use of remote control planes or dynamite installed in the buildings, etc. The "Building 7" crowd. If you're talking about something else, fine -- yeah, there are holes in all kinds of commissions. But the evidence isn't restricted to one official governmental commission.

How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history? — fishfry

:roll: Ask a civil engineer.

Yes, it was the first time in history. It was also the first time in history the US was attacked in such a way on its own soil (besides Pearl Harbor). So what? It happened: the planes flew into the buildings, and the buildings collapsed. If you want to learn about it, there's plenty of credible information out there. The NIST comes to mind. Direct your very free-thinking questions to them. While your at it, direct your skepticism towards electromagnetism -- isn't THAT theory a little funny?

Look I am not interested in debating 9/11 here. You brought up 9/11 as a subject that cant even legitimately be discussed. I just don't get this at all. — fishfry

Actually you seem rather neck-deep in conspiracy bullshit. You're not even hiding it well.

But I've never said things can't be legitimately discussed. Some things can, some things can't. I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones -- they're not after "truth," they -- like Creationists and Holocaust deniers before them -- start with an idea that's been planted into their heads and they try to poke holes, distort and exaggerate every word and every detail, use false arguments and sophisticated sophistry to confirm their gut feelings. All with either no alternatives, or stories that are so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. Flat earthers do the same thing -- are their questions "legitimate"? Maybe to you -- not to me. 9/11 truthers are in the same group, in my judgment. Again, your circle of legitimacy needs to be shrunk -- by a lot.

In the case of Reagan there was no investigating board whose obvious purpose was to cover up and bury the truth rather than reveal it. — fishfry

No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something.

There's plenty of problems with that assassination attempt I could conjure up right now. How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc. I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming?

Psychological theories aren't evidence. — fishfry

Again, not a surprise you miss the point. What psychology does do is show why people like you even care about evidence in the first place.

You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.
— Xtrix

Ok. But notice how you have zero interest in the facts of the case — fishfry

you want to talk about the psychological proclivities of people "like me," — fishfry

Indeed. I do the same with Creationists and Flat Earthers as well. Normally I don't even bother with the claims about "facts" or "evidence" at all -- so you're an exception in that case!

But still ultimately another deluded individual. And again, me saying so won't sway you. I already know that. I'm writing mainly for others -- you're a good demonstration of thinking gone awry.

The government's description of the collapse of the buildings violates the laws of physics. — fishfry

Especially the infamous building 7, which collapsed perfectly symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint from "office fires" without ever being hit by a plane. — fishfry

:lol:

Guess I caught a real one here. Funny I anticipated the building 7 thing above -- without having read further. Shocker.

I see you've never actually take the trouble to study the case. — fishfry

Another typical response. Actually in the 9/11 case I have, a little. But I regret spending even a second on it -- the most it deserved was 0 seconds, like the claims of flat earthers. Of course I could be wrong about them too! But that's a risk I'm happy to take. I trust my bullshit-detector.

But how can you say I have no right to question these things? I have every right — fishfry

I would say that every American has a civic and patriotic duty to study and question this case. — fishfry

I'm simply questioning your belief that I am somehow beyond the pale as a human being for even daring to question the government's account or to even remind you that the commissions OWN CO-CHAIRs questioned their own account. — fishfry

Calm down...

Why do they need to stay home, socially distance, and wear masks if every single one of them is vaxed? — fishfry

Why? WHY?

You and I have different personality types. — fishfry

Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference.

I would say that if we draw a continuum between "natural born rebel" and "natural born conformer," I'm closer to the former and you to the latter. — fishfry

I actually did laugh at this one. You rebel you! Just a natural born rebel!

Or naturally born deluded. But go with whichever is more psychologically pleasing.

You may have heard of the famous Milgram experiment, in which normal people were induced to subject others to fatal doses of electrical shock when told to by authorities. It's a frightening experiment. — fishfry

Yes, and I suspect you'd go right to the end of that experiment -- if the experimenter was a 9/11 truther, of course.

When told to jump, you say "How high?" and I say, "Why should I?" — fishfry

Yes, nailed it. That's what's happening here. :lol:

I know that one loses the debate when they bring up the H-word, but you'd have made a fine Nazi. — fishfry

Sorry I just can't help needling people like you. — fishfry

Yeah...that's definitely what's happening. I'm totally being needled by you.

I am interested in math cranks. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I find alternate takes on things to be interesting. I just don't see why you think that makes me a bad person. — fishfry

Calm down. I never said you're a bad person. I take interest in cranks like you just as you take interest in math cranks. Do many of the math cranks you encounter readily admit that they're cranks? Probably not....

But then again, for a super-conforming Nazi like me, it's hard to know unless some expert tells me. :kiss:

a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

Yes -- a common defense for all quacks, charlatans, and bad faith actors. Knowing the difference between honest, healthy skepticism/questioning and quackery? That's what I meant by "weeding it out." There's no algorithm to do so. "Or you got it, or you ain't."

We start with some basic axioms, and then to differing degrees of success, end up with intricate systems that we then apply to practical situations. But the axioms themselves are not susceptible to proof, it seems. — Philguy

I think that's basically it, yeah. I'd just add that the axioms (or principles) are generally not even thought. Most of our activity (read: behavior, morality, actions, etc) is unconscious and non-rational. It doesn't really follow rules, recipes, and algorithms -- that is abstracted after the fact, constructed and projected on what happens. But these rules and principles -- these axioms -- are extremely useful, and even though they tend to be "absorbed" through experience and development in one's culture (like language) in a kind of reflexive/habitual way, doesn't mean they're not "real."

In the end, it does seem to be based largely on "faith." You accept these axioms (consciously or not), as beliefs or assumptions, and operate on the basis of them. Long before the formulation of "gravity" people were still avoiding walking off of cliffs, and long before the formulation of the "Golden Rule" people were still treating each other in ways they would want to be treated. Rationality, logic, abstract thinking, and even conscious awareness only goes so far.

The "lived world" seems much more fluid and, in a way, groundless than what philosophers and scientists (especially in the West) have wanted -- in the sense of making everything explicit, abstract, rule-based, theoretical, mathematical and measurable.

And no -- I'm not advocating or trying to open a door for "religion."

No, no. Those people have it wrong. In my theory, it's Ethiopian space lasers.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think we know the full truth of 9/11, despite the commission's own co-chairs telling us that we don't? Or do you just not care? I'm curious to understand. — fishfry

No, you're transparently attempting to make a point which you believe supports your call to question things. Nevertheless: what exactly would the "full truth" be? It's a ridiculous phrase. Am I certain that the WTC was hit by airplanes that were hijacked by Islamist extremists plotted by Al Qaeda? Yes, I am. But that's not what's important here.

What's important, as I mentioned before, is the reason why people like you want to enter into "debate" about it in the first place and not, say, about the assassination attempt on Reagan. There's a reason we learn from psychology: with big events (just look around during this pandemic), especially very emotional ones, people want to look for special explanations of why it happened. They also want to appear like they have "special knowledge." So suddenly they become cheap skeptics -- even when otherwise they couldn't think themselves out of a paper bag -- and get drawn into the sophistry of conspiracy theorists and other quacks, who of course are just "questioning" and "thinking for themselves" (what could be wrong with that?).

You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.

So yes, to answer your question: I'm fairly certain, given the evidence -- and common sense (uh oh -- that controversial term! Have a field day with that one!). But this doesn't have anything to do with physics, which was the OP. With the sciences, I'm even more certain. (It's like gambling, where I win time and time again because I know how to bet on winners -- i.e., the scientists.)

Again, if you want to waste your time chasing every claim that literally anyone can conjure up, have at it. I've got one for you now: the WTC was brought down by space lasers. All the video footage of the planes was CGI. Behind it was a secret deal involving the Business Roundtable, George Soros, and Dick Cheney.

Have fun with that one. Could be true, after all. Where do you draw the line, exactly? Because wherever you do draw the line, it needs to be re-calibrated. But as Bob Dylan once said, "I can't teach you how to weed it out."

Myself I'd like to know the truth. And for that you said I'm not worth talking to. I'd like to understand that too. That's like a physicist saying they want to know the truth about nature, and you go, "Oh, a nature truther! I don't want to talk to YOU anymore!"

As Plato said: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

And you hate people who even ASK about the truth. How bad is that? — fishfry

:lol: Exactly. Something Donald Trump could say, too.


* I'm fully vaccinated, as well. I was the first one at my job to sign up. No hesitation whatsoever, despite all the BS surrounding it and some of the concerns of my co-workers. Did I have to refute every one of their claims beforehand? No. Did I have to go through every internet theory and debunk them all? No. I had a friend who is a very bright anti-vaxxer try to convince me not to do it -- and she had a mountain of information about it, too. Information that I would have had to spend months unraveling. I took it anyway, and I've been absolutely fine -- no surprise whatsoever. Why? Why was I so certain it would turn out that way, given all this "controversy"? It's a matter of common sense, critical thinking, probability, BS detector, etc. But mainly it's just going with what the consensus of experts say. I do this same thing with all kinds of issues in life and, as I said before, I come out looking super smaht, when in reality it's just extending what we do all the time -- going to a doctor, a mechanic, a lawyer, etc. It's trusting in expertise, and not getting sucked up into the vortex of bullshit that always surrounds "big" issues (and which gets amplified with social media these days). It's picking your battles and weighing probabilities.

Yes, maybe the buildings were brought down by dynamite. Maybe JFK wasn't killed by Oswald. Maybe Pearl Harbor was planned (or allowed). Maybe we DID fake the moon landing. If you want to doubt everything -- especially things that are "important events" -- that's your business. In that case, spend the rest of your life debating creationists and flat earthers.

Again -- when it comes to science, and I'm neither an expert nor have time to reach an even intermediate level of knowledge, I go with the consensus view. As we all do for everything else -- everything that hasn't been manufactured to be "controversial," I mean. Manufactured controversy which leads to all kinds of armchair "theories" that "could be true," because science is "never settled," after all, and a lot of it is "just theory," etc. I have no time to waste on nonsense like that. Life is too short.

What the government says about something hardly makes it a scientific consensus. Nor does public opinion -- as most can't identify the US on a world map. Hardly the same thing. Different than, say, what civil engineers say about the impact of planes crashing into buildings. You're confusing categories.

Thinking for yourself and healthy skepticism is important. But notice the italics. Letting your imagination run wild and questioning everything always, under the guise of simply being a "contrarian" (a very self-serving view), is completely hopeless. But you're welcome to it.

But one doesn't have the time to get a Ph.D. in physics and a Ph.D in climate science and a Ph.D in epidemiology in order to have an opinion on these things. — fishfry

True. Again, this is why I said it's tricky, but in the end a good rule of thumb is go with the consensus, if there is one -- and especially when it's an extremely high one (evolution, climate science, relativity, electromagnetism, atomic theory, germ theory, and so on).

, 9/11 truthers,
— Xtrix

It always strikes me as a bad sign of our postmodern world that when we want to marginalize and dismiss someone's ideas, we accuse them of being interested in the truth. How quaint! Don't they know that narrative is all that matters?

The 9/11 commission report was a very shoddy piece of work. The commission's own co-chairs Hamilton and Keane said publicly that the commission was set up to fail and that the Bush administration blocked them at every turn. There are still many unanswered questions about the event.

One doesn't need to believe that Dick Cheney personally gave the order to want to find out what really happened. Don't you? The government's account is seriously incomplete and riddled with problems. — fishfry

So you're a 9/11 truther. Got it. I'll skip the rest of your post. Be well.

That having watched a few dozen videos on youtube does not give you licence to re-write General Relativity. — Banno

Yes indeed.

Ok. Suppose I phrased it somewhat differently:

I've been reading some books and articles, and watching some videos, in which professional physicists criticize the current practices of some areas of physics on the grounds that they have substituted abstract math for experimental contact with the world. I do tend to agree with this point of view; but of course the physicists being so criticized would disagree, and I lack the professional competence to have certainty on the matter.

That said, I am sharing these links with the forum because they are interesting and educational in and of themselves, whether you agree or disagree with their point of view.

Would that be better? — fishfry

In my opinion, there's a danger in the very idea of "debate" -- as if we're qualified to judge whether there's even "two sides" to the story. I don't think, most of the time, we're even competent enough to make that judgement. Again I refer to creationism, 9/11 truthers, holocaust denial, anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, etc. To even say "I've read both sides of this debate, and I align myself with x" is itself ridiculous. Flat earthers are out there -- does that mean we should read their books and conclude that there's debate?

That being said, for those of us who aren't experts in a given domain, it's our responsibility to weed out who to listen to. This is a very tricky thing, and we're living in the midst of a real dilemma of this very thing.

For me, I go with the whatever consensus is reached among experts. The vast majority of the time, I turn out to look like a genius because of that simplistic, 3-year-old strategy. I'd say that's a good rule of thumb for anyone. If one wants to learn more about a topic, listen to them. That's not to say dissent is not valuable -- it is. But within boundaries.

It seems to me, if I'm reading you correctly, that I am entitled to opine (ignorantly as it happens in this instance) on Wittgy; but not on Witten. I wonder if you can help me understand the distinction. — fishfry

You're entitled to opine about anything you want. But since you asked for my opinion: I don't take either very seriously. Not just from you but from anyone. If I know a little something about a topic, and someone has something to say that I find interesting on a philosophy forum, then I take it from there. 95% of what I read here is so uninteresting to me that it's not worth bothering with. I'm sure you feel the same way.

When it comes to science, especially mathematics and physics, I have less patience for people's armchair opinions. It's much easier to be a bullshitter in philosophy (and sociology, and literary criticism, etc) than it is in the hard sciences. In my opinion. And so yes, I do perhaps come down more harshly on that class of opinions.

Do you at least take my point? — fishfry

I do.

Did I say something that bothered you? By way of conversation, I'm wondering why you think the public is entitled to a voice in which highways to build, which public projects to fund, but not which scientific projects to fund? — fishfry

They do have a say in that -- a limited one.

That has nothing to do with whether physics has been "bad" for the last few decades. The OP isn't about funding science.

I can't speak for you. But I'm entitled to (and do in fact have) an informed opinion on the matter. I can refer you to some recent books by physicists on the subject. And since the work of modern physics is primarily supported by government grants and I'm a taxpayer, I most definitely have say. — fishfry

Well we can't all recognize our delusions. If you're not a physicist, I'm not interested in your amateur opinion -- no matter how many pop science books you read.

Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. — fishfry

Yes, and I'm sure there are plenty of responses to "The Trouble With Physics" by physicists (in fact, I'm certain of it). Debate within the sciences are wonderful. But, much like the creationists, to pretend we know something we don't simply because a few outliers publish books -- ditto with the climate change "debate" -- is absurd.

You're welcome to your delusions.

What explains the recent (past several decades) of bad physics from the hard-working professional physicists? — fishfry

I leave that to physicists to decide. To presume I have any idea that its "bad physics" is delusional. Ditto for you (unless you're a physicist, of course).

Any explanations? — Banno

Yes: understanding physics takes work. Hard work.

The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution by Michael Klarman

Highly recommended.

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim — 3017amen

Well said. My apologies. A trap I often fall into indeed. Be well.

You're in a Metaphysic's thread, not a uninformed political one. — 3017amen

This response is as coherent as anything else you’ve said.

What does politics have to do with ANYTHING I said?

Also, “metaphysics” is not an excuse for rambling incoherently. Perhaps try a new age thread.

My only axe to grind is with your mantra about “self organization,” which is devoid of meaning.

Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation? — Manuel

It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a word used to explain another word, and this is supposed to be interesting. It’s really the incoherent ramblings of someone on the Internet. Even if it were true— who cares? Maybe everything is organization. Yes. Maybe everything is God, nature, energy, will, reason, objectivity, etc etc. Just add it to the list and then we can feel like we’ve accomplished something.

You may want to take a refresher on the basics of logic. — 3017amen

:lol: This coming from a guy who says a symbolism isn’t abstract? Give me a break.

As a living organism you need to self organize. You need to create a self, If you are to avoid fragmentation. — Pop

We have no idea what “self” is either. But even if we did, to say it needs to be “organized” is meaningless to me. Is the self a collection of puzzle pieces, or parts that need to be put together to create the “self”? Who knows... and who cares.

Internally you are self organized, down to the smallest particle , and externally you organize the whole in relation to the information effecting you, so you are self organizing. — Pop

This is simply rambling to me.

:yawn:

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
— Xtrix

Actually consciousness is extremely difficult to define, because its manifestations are endlessly variable and open ended. — Pop

No, we can define it any way we'd like precisely because we don't understand it. Something we don't understand isn't "hard to define" -- it's just unknown. So the "its" in your sentence refers to essentially nothing.

If we're talking in ordinary conversation, fine -- then everyone knows what consciousness is. But that doesn't mean we have any understanding in a philosophical or scientific sense. Just like using "energy" or "work" -- we can use those words in everyday life and most of us know exactly what it is. But that's not how the physicists use the terms.

That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization seems difficult to dispute. — Pop

In a way, yes. Because most incoherent sentences are difficult to dispute. You've been going on and on about "self-organization" for a while now, yet have no idea what it means. So now we have two terms we don't understand. So saying "x is y" doesn't tell us anything whatsoever.

That wouldn't meet the definition standards of incoherence. To ask why do things happen vis-a-vis consciousness one of many answers would be the Will. — 3017amen

So consciousness, which we don't understand, happens because of the "will," which we also don't understand.

Maybe ectoplasm happens because of a zflectov? Or whatever else you like. Regardless, it gets us exactly nowhere.

No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
— Xtrix

How do you reconcile the fact that a simple a priori syllogism is not abstract yet the nature of such is abstract (formal logic equals mathematics)? — 3017amen

They're both abstract. Whatever an "a prior syllogism" is, I don't know. But if it's a syllogism, it's abstract.

You're using terms like "abstract" and "logical" in a very strange way. Either define your terms or stop wasting everyone's time.

No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.
— Xtrix

I'm not exactly following that can you provide an example? — 3017amen

This is meant as a joke, right? If not -- I'm done with this conversation.

In that same sense as we know metaphysics includes all that which is behind reality, does this mystery you & I refer to also relate to the Christian (Jesus who had a consciousness) or Cosmological God? — 3017amen

If by God we mean anything we don’t understand, sure.

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd
— Xtrix

Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal?
— 3017amen

This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"

Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult.
— Xtrix

This seems to be a little confusing, are you saying the nature of conscious existence is abstract like mathematical structures? — 3017amen

No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.

However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent? — 3017amen

Because it’s like asking about the molecular structure of ectoplasm. Or like asking “Why do things happen?”

You seem to be referring to self awareness or self-consciousness is that correct? — 3017amen

No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.

Yes. He said the same thing to me. Not with Nietzsche, didn't ask him about that, but about Heidegger. He did begin to read his "Introduction to Metaphysics", but that book expresses sympathies for Nazism. So he can't understand the vocabulary and he doesn't like his Nazism, I get it. Unfortunately Being and Time was translated later on. But after his initial experience with Heidegger, he probably saw no reason to return to him. Which is a bit sad, maybe he would've thought better of B&T, but I doubt it. He does mention other people who are interesting, and not known: Ralph Cudworth, Joseph Priestley and a few others. So there's a give and take there. — Manuel

In an interview recently, I heard him say that it was a personal choice not to go on reading Heidegger, and that the issue may ultimately lie with him (Chomsky). But he also says a lot of it appears to be "empty verbiage." Again, he's not wrong! It's not entirely fair, of course, given what Heidegger is discussing (and added to that the translations involved), but so be it.

Cudworth I've heard him mention, but I've never read. Never got around to it. I know that there's an interview with Bryan McGee on YouTube where McGee compares his ideas on UG to Immanuel Kant, which Chomsky doesn't deny. I think that's accurate.

I still read him and talk to him frequently — Manuel

No kidding? Did you study under him as well or is it exclusively e-mail (which of course he famously and amazingly responds to quickly, even at 92 years old)?

I'm moving away from calling myself a "Chomskyian", it's not a good idea generally to associate as belonging to the thought of one person, a bit like can happen with Marxism. But I see where you are coming from. — Manuel

I agree wholeheartedly. The Marx comparison is a good one. Interestingly enough, Chomsky would be the first to agree as well -- another clear trait of great teachers. They encourage you to think for yourself, not just blindly follow.

Though you have an advantage over me, I find it really hard to disagree with him. I can't speak about his technical linguistics, but overall, it's very hard to disagree with him. Maybe on like 2 small points, but I'm sure it would be semantic issues at bottom. — Manuel

My main disagreements really come from the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger, whom Chomsky hasn't really dealt with (unfortunately). When I asked him if he'd ever read Nietzsche, he said he hadn't read carefully enough to really have an opinion about him. As for Heidegger, he finds him incomprehensible from what he's read (which, given the association with Nazism, is very little). So there's little to discuss with him there.

As far as his linguistics -- yeah, it's hard to disagree because he points out things that should be obvious to everyone. It's always hard to disagree with great minds. I have a hard time "disagreeing" with the Buddha, too. Doesn't mean I'll become a Buddhist, but he's very rarely wrong about anything.

Are you basically saying consciousness is a mystery? — 3017amen

Yes, in a scientific sense. In a practical sense, it's the most obvious thing in the world.

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd
— Xtrix

Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal? — 3017amen

This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"

Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult.

Ahhh, now I think you're getting it:

1. What are feelings?
2. What are my experiences made of?
3. Where do my needs reside? For example, is that some sort of metaphysical Will (Schopenauer)? Are the manifestations of the Will itself abstract?
4. Are junk thoughts a euphemism for Maslonian stream of consciousness, and if so, does the law of non-contradiction/excluded middle logically apply to the conscious and subconscious mind?

Maybe just pick one, if you care to... I'm trying to understand your assertion that consciousness is not abstract. — 3017amen

I'm saying the sentence "consciousness is abstract" is completely meaningless. Abstraction is a cognitive process -- conceptualizations, symbols, words, etc., are all involved in abstraction. Consciousness -- in the ordinary use of the word -- is simply human life, human experience. Abstraction -- like thought, like language, like vision, like hunger -- is one feature of human experience.

So to make a wild statement like that is equivalent, in my view, of saying "experience is hunger," or "consciousness is vision." It's just confusion through and through.

Question 2 is completely incoherent, as I've pointed out before. It assumes there's a materialist explanation for something we have no concrete understanding of, apart from our own subjectivity.

Can't say anything general about "feelings." Needs and feelings arise in my body -- again to talk in ordinary language. If we want to call craving/aversion or approach/avoidance "will" or "want", we can. What Schopenhauer says about it is interesting, but he's trying to distinguish will from representation (hence the title of his main work), claiming that will is (essentially) the thing-in-itself. Very different topic.

By junk thought I mean the same as phatic communication, so maybe "phatic thought" is better. It's what goes on all day long when you're talking to yourself.

Sounds very Chomskyian to me. — Manuel

No surprise. He was (and is) my teacher. Still very much in what most call the "analytic" tradition, and so I'm not in complete agreement with everything he says, but he's one of the few people really worth listening to.

Words are logical, not abstract. Consciousness is abstract, just like mathematics. Sure, mathematics is logical in the a priori sense, but it accurately explains how things work. — 3017amen

I think most of what you said is rife with confusion, to be honest.

The difference between what’s abstract and what’s logical isn’t that clear.

Russell, as you know, tried to show that mathematics could be reduced to logic, in fact.

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd — anyone who’s taken even an introductory course in logic can see the similarities between it and mathematics. All use symbols, all abstract. The basis for them is in abstract/symbolic thought, which is one form of thinking (albeit the only kind philosophers have cared about for most of the modern period), which is itself one part of human being.

To say “consciousness is abstract” to me is utter nonsense. I think you’re just confusing yourself with semantics—a common occurrence.

We don’t know anything about consciousness. Let’s start there. We’re also not interested in just-so stories or armchair definitions. If we want to formulate a technical notion of consciousness, it should be done in the context of an explanatory theory—biological or otherwise. But none of this has been done so far.

If we want to talk in ordinary speech, then yes, I’m conscious. So are you. We’re alive, we see and hear things, we have experiences, feelings, emotions, needs, etc., and much of our lives consist of junk thought, phatic communication, and unconscious activity. What’s left to say about it?

And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material. — 3017amen

This is like saying we don't see the "words" behind things. Mathematics is something humans do. There's little reason to think the structure of everything is essentially mathematical. That's a projection.

There's all kinds of questions here -- what mathematics is, what numbers are, whether it's subjective or objective, etc. The experience of light is different than the equation for light. The experience of "tree" is different from vocalizing the English word. The world is interpreted by human beings, whose perspectives are varied.

There's also the point that most of our activities, as human beings, are completely unconscious -- automatic, habitual, instinctive. Something like the use of a broom is hardly explainable through mathematics or even scientific reasoning, for example. Thinking of the world theoretically, scientifically, mathematically, and even philosophically, is one kind of thinking. It's one mode of human being. To presume the world is reducible to whatever shows up within this mode is unfounded.

It's like the common idea that language is for communication. If you look at characteristic use to determine the function of something, whether language or human activity generally, you find something very different than what the prevailing dogma states.

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity. — 3017amen

The very idea of “matter” is itself undefined, and itself comes out of the human being. So to say consciousness is matter is like saying x is y. We have no idea about either.

So as a starter can we safely say that consciousness much like matter, comes back to mathematical structures which in turn suggests some abstract platonic realm of existence? — 3017amen

Language and mathematics are aspects of the human being, of the human mind—related to thought. If we call all of this consciousness, that’s fine—at least it’s a tentative definition. In that case, you’re saying what Descartes said—conscious awareness as “thought” can’t be doubted.

I think there’s more to say about this, of course. Like why consciousness should be a priority, and not the “sum” in the Cartesian formulation, “being” itself. Etc.

All kind of fun.

Yet it has to be pointed out, again and again, that before any discussion gets off the ground it's helpful to know a few things -- like, "what is metaphysics"? and what is "consciousness"? This thread presumably takes these things for granted. If we don't give even a tentative definition, it's hard to know what we're really talking about.

So, for example, when the question is asked "What are experiences made of?" it's a difficult to even imagine a serious answer, since we have no technical notion of "experience" -- and, in fact, we lack even a tentative definition. Are we simply saying "what is being alive made of?" or "What is being made of?" Seems odd.

FYI I'm not claiming that I'm right; all I'm attempting to do is offer a different perspective, one in which what you assert is not wrong of course but is deficient in the sense that it ignores/overlooks an entire side of the story. — TheMadFool

Anything is arguable. There's “another side” to anything as well, sky’s the limit.

It’s not that it’s unphilosophical — it’s right in the middle of what’s usually interpreted as philosophy. But we have no clue what philosophy “really is,” and if this kind of thinking is what leaps to mind, we’re in sorry shape indeed.

My post was not geared toward extreme (and endless) hypotheticals. Take it as an appeal to common sense, if you must. For the purposes of a better life — for an individual and for humans writ large— I’m talking about real action in the real world.

Yes, certain tentative assumptions need to be made. But they’re so trivial that you questioning them is like questioning gravity. Maybe some people find that fun or profound— I don’t. So forgive ME if that’s unphilosophical — but I hope it is.

Recall from OP: “ Let's not get caught up in abstract thought at the expense of everything else.”

The subject of this thread has an existential interpretation. If one creates meaning in their life by engaging in certain projects wholeheartedly, then, yes, to some degree you are what you do, and what you are transcends the biological creature accomplishing those functions. — jgill

Everything's an existential interpretation.

Besides, what's the alternative? That we are what we think and believe? Yeah, maybe -- but maybe that's true for cats and frogs, too. Who cares.

This is more or less the ancient Greek approach to things - it's a little more practical in contrast to later philosophy, especially 19th century philosophy which tended to concern itself more with abstract systems and questions. A lot of philosophy today is also more abstract and less concerned with daily life. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn’t realize it when I posted, but you’re exactly right: it is very much Greek. All the better!

This is largely why I've been posting here less. I'm actually doing work to better myself as opposed to spending all day arguing with internet strangers about some irrelevant topic or asking someone whether colors are real. — BitconnectCarlos

Me too. I hadn’t posted much in weeks prior to this. So little is accomplished. Ditto with other social media. And reading in general, for that matter.

Taking more time to simply walk and think for oneself without the aid of any inputs is a blessing, if one is so inclined to make it a priority.

It should and when people put philosophy first I hate to generalize but they end up bitter intellectuals who get upset that others don't recognize their greatness or brilliance. Sounds like a great life to live. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah— and so what comes of all this philosophizing if one ends up stressed, bitter, egotistical, angry, and obsessive? We’re at a point in history where it just won’t do to put your head down and concentrate on minutia of one kind of another. We need all hands on deck— ESPECIALLY those more intellectually inclined.

doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life
— Xtrix

To each his own I suppose — TheMadFool

What a strange position. Again, if this is the kind of conclusion that “philosophy” results in, then it’s no wonder it’s become a joke.

I don’t see how that statement should be controversial. You’re stuck in some abstracted world of hypotheticals.

My point is that at least such people doesn't add to our woes. Sometimes, in my humble opinion, not creating a problem is far far better than being even a perfect solution to one. That's all. — TheMadFool

Yes, theoretically. But that’s a truism. In the real world, anything we do can unwittingly become awful. If we fight against a repressive government, and overthrow it, who’s to say it wouldn’t provoke the next reign of terror?

Perhaps not killing Hitler is better than killing him. Perhaps doing nothing about climate change is better than doing something. Etc.

I don’t see the real world relevance here. I stand by my statement: doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life.

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone
— Blaise Pascal

Just thought you might want to know. — TheMadFool

Right. Notice he didn't say that's all he does.

I’ll leave you to ponder it for yourself. Your guess is probably as good as mine.

Ok, so intrinsic goods.. got it. What I'm trying to get at is that some of these things are ones that your OP seem to deem as useless.. Poetry, playing music to yourself, joy doing something non-social, etc. — schopenhauer1

I can see now how what I wrote could be seen in this way -- not unreasonably. So to be clear: no, that's not what I believe, of course. Then life would indeed not be worth saving. Now the argument that philosophy is an intrinsic good, quite apart from its effects or "usefulness," is one I sympathize with and recognize to have plenty of truth, but I feel it's incomplete and out of balance if its effects on one's life (and humanity's collective existence) isn't taken into account, because unlike music and dancing I argue it's not done only for its own sake. (It's arguable that music and dancing are done for their own sake either -- as Handle said: "“I am sorry... if I have only succeeded in entertaining them; I wished to make them better.”)

Again, my view of philosophy as an activity similar to that of spiritual or religious activity is idiosyncratic. But given that belief, I don't treat or judge philosophy as only a matter of enjoyment or as an activity to be done "in itself," although it in many ways often is that.