|helios (9239) Nov 20, 2011 at 4:40pm|
I'm encountering a bit of a paradox. velcro writes at the same time like he's received some form of formal physics training, and like he's absorbed it with all the rigorousness of a postmodernist pseudo-intellectual. I don't know what to make of this.
Just to clarify, I mean no offense. I just find it weird that someone with such education could convey so little in so much text. You seem to understand what you're talking about, while at the same time treating the natural language descriptions of the concepts in ways they were not meant to treated, and from that making... odd deductions.
It's just puzzling. It's perfectly possible that I just don't know enough physics to understand what you're talking about, but I have read postmodernist drivel before, and it resembles what you wrote.
epistemologically speaking, human beings are incapable of knowledge proper
Not really. Unless you're limiting yourself to the physical world. Otherwise there are many things that can be known.
I wrote my response to your pre-edited response, which was while I figured you meant offense. Also I was watching my disappointing zombie survivalist show at the same time as writing my response and working on coding three different programs. So, take no offense to my original response below:
I’m amused by your attempt to label (mislabel) my very straightforward rendering of basic facts as post-modern intellectualism, even though it’s a rendering arrived at by many adept scholars in the fields. Or perhaps your cheery approach more concerns my assertion that human beings are incapable of knowledge proper?
First, agreement upon a rigorous definition of terms is in order. As I stated, I am using the epistemological definition of knowledge, which I doubt I have to explain to you, much less rigorously. Knowledge != fact(s).
Second, I only offered my thoughts, as solicited by the creator of this thread. I wasn’t planning on a forensic dissection of arguments in this forum. But I can skate right on over there. Just because I’m a moron about computer programming doesn’t mean I’m a wholesale imbecile.
When you say you know something, you are saying literally there is a thing to be known and that you know it presently. Velcro hypes the obvious, you might be thinking. But tense is all important to the epistemological definition of knowledge. If you cannot know something in the present, then you cannot seriously believe that you have known the identically equal thing in the past via reflection and/or rumination upon the heretofore unknown.
There are ample reliable and valid studies demonstrating the limits of human sensation, perception, volition, memory, and cognition. Those limits include the fact that once you become aware of something on the cognitive level (an incomplete and informal but workable description of “knowledge”, so I don’t dilute the gist with too much verbiage), that event, be it internal or external to your own skin, is at least milliseconds in the past and gone. In other words, no human being registers information at the time the exact same information exists. In other words, at every juncture that you “know” something, it no longer exists in the exact same state and arrangement as you believe you “know” it. At best you can claim to have known a copy of a thing, a copy invariably altered by passing its way through that magnificent filter organ called your brain. In fact, formulating your conception as “knower” in order to split the field into knower and known is a direct hindrance to approaching sufficient understanding.
I don’t argue that it’s a pragmatic method constantly to be aware that you don’t really know anything. We operate in a utilitarian “as if” world, by and large. I am only arguing that ultimately, wherever you claim to know something, I can present a valid argument for why you don’t know something. Of course, part of that is due to the advantage I would have as a deconstructor. To construct an airtight argument for something is exceedingly more difficult than arguing against something. I liken it to the house of brick and mortar analogy, whereby you can spend hours designing and building your house (arguing for something), but all I have to do is find a tiny crack or unsettled sliver in the mortar or one brick out of alignment, and then I have the advantage of an automatic inroad into tearing down the house (arguing against something). So, I’m not trying to trick you into the sucker’s bet. I’m merciful that way.
Just curious…are you also aware that presupposed randomness in this world is also a useful fiction? A most accurate definition of a random event is that it is an event that has or had an equal probability of happening anywhere at any given time, regardless of all other preceding or surrounding or tangential events or outcomes. (That’s what would make randomness so unpredictable.)
The computer science guru who maintains the REG (random event generator) programs at my school, who’s a post-doctoral genius with the advantage in many arenas by way of sheer years on the planet and working on all sorts of stuff way over my head (like quantum computing with neural networks and who basically runs the grant game for several different departments), succeeded in teaching me a lot about why the REG craft is a faux craft in ultimatum. He plays mean strategy grid games (e.g. chess and Go) and he basically illustrated for me how “randomness” is really only about escaping detection of triangulation, of which such triangulation is rudimentary to writing any REG program.
Debate on, Dude? Or shall I expect another cheery retort from you?