Consider a robot who has evidence of emotions; Seemingly non-emotion cannot be proved a posteriori;
So, despite the appeal of a posteriori claims like causality, they are not universal;
(But do they describe what we do not know?);
But let us claim that time travel is not refuted: it is natural; We are only refusing causal reasoning;
Now, the question goes, can we refute rationalism or irrationalism?;
I see no reason to refute rationalism, according to the view that it is a strong claim on minimalism, e.g. 'definitions'; Outside of definitions we are referring to something less universal (in reference to rationalism);
Indeed, irrationalism is a larger claim, since in some view, which is equivalent to a nominal theory, something that can be imagined to be true, all rational claims are potentially irrational; This is not true of irrationalism;
This goes to show that it is possible to have a theory that is mind dependent and reality-independent, which in my view supports coherentism, e.g. conceptualism.
"all rational claims are potentially irrational; This is not true of irrationalism"
ReplyDeleteThis is where I got to the conclusion that all people, and society, are insane before sane (and sanity is "just" a consistent state of sanity across society) http://sanity-death.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/stuff-from-discussion-about.html
But I don't get what point you're making with "mind dependent and reality-independent". As I see it, knowledge, consciousness and all experience happen in the mind, through biologically-engineered processes, and those processes must each be a part of the universe.. a truth in and of themselves, because physical reality encapsulates all those things[non-dualism], and as we know in software development, you must do all the work to get an arbitrary result, and the only shortcuts you can take are more efficient paths towards the same end (computer memory) state.
So basically, minds are a subset of physical reality "acting", just as with the notion the mind is ultimately made of atoms or whatever (and everything can be accounted for). And, that ISN'T independent of physical reality. I also cover why the human concept of self, let alone the entire mind, CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM PHYSICAL REALITY[the universe]. Because.. everything is interconnected, and becomes the result of its neighbor. You are the result of what happens to enter your visual field and prompt you; the specific balance of temperature in the room propagated by its particular interior design, in that you have the radiator at the other end of the room on and not an opened window that would bring the unconscious influence of traffic sounds...
..and, is that what you're talking about? That the mind can be independent from physical reality?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy earlier comment was interrupted. I essentially said the following:
ReplyDelete1. The argument was intended as a free-standing argument for the general theory of irrationalism, which I see as being pure philosophy, or perhaps a form of ismic study, similar to generalitic study such as the art of writing encyclopedias.
2. My last commnent in the post was not as thought out as the main quotations, but
3. It was based on a theory of multiple interpretations which determines that when we arrive at a concept of factuality, there is always a further more complex, more ersatz explanation which also serves to explain reality. The limit of such an explanation (multiple interpretability) to some extent is the limitation of reality.
4. To a large extent I agree with biology as a form of knowledge, with the caveat that it may not always be fully understood, and as a detail science it does not always promote intelligent coherency. For example, Shakespeare would be interpreted in the context of a biological lens, in this sense biology does not accept other disciplines. Also, the existence of other disciplines necessitates that there are other forms of interpretability, some of which may be older or more adequate than biology (if they continued to develop).
5. In the context of atomics, multiple-interpretability suggests that atoms must be mental events. But since they clearly do not respond to the will, one adequate response to atoms might be that they are not something to study (at least to a philosopher). Perhaps the physics motive is actually the quest for god, but not the quest for knowledge.
However, my blog post was not aimed as a critique of science, but instead as a free-standing support for the general theory of Irrationalism, in all its peculiarity.