susanpohthompson wrote:
i love the idea that the severe delimits i place upon the mass of ways in which we can hail 'noumenon' in mitigated form is 'a context like any other ' we can be step outside of!
aaaaarrgghh it's a lovely notion! a fantasy that pleases with possibility as well as with it's guile!
Before you give up on the possibility; consider this, posted in another thread:
Msafwan wrote:
As everyone have seen in shout box, Xanadu posted a paper; edisk.fandm.edu/tony.chemero/papers/philmindisover4.pdf . I've read it to this part:
In addition to the level at which explanations are pitched, these views differ over the nature of mental representations. For GOFAI, representations are sentence-like; connectionists typically take mental representations to be distributed across clusters of simple processing units, and representable in terms of a vector in a n-dimensional state space, where n is the number of simple processing units. Some connectionists doubt the explanatory value of representational understandings of their networks (e.g., Ramsey 1998). In this respect, they are like Walter Freeman and other proponents of a dynamical approach in neuroscience. Freeman has argued for years that it is a mistake to think that cognitive systems represent their environments (Freeman and Skarda 1990; Freeman 1999). It is also hard to imagine representations among neurotransmitters, though Bickle makes no commitment either way as to the value of representations in explaining cognition
It is in my knowledge that; a real AI (particularly the one that's in use to interpret human voice and visual input) is using some-sort of "mathematical virtual space" (quoted above as: "n-dimensional state space") inside its physical memory. (And dare I say: this space is) For/to re-map its input value (visual or acoustic), into a shape and pattern that's processable by the AI algorithm.
There is a conflict here between what are apparently two schools of thought on the nature of consciousness but; a careful consideration of the ideas involved will demonstrate only a misunderstanding and a sloppy use of language. The misunderstanding stems from a failure to recognize the difference between cogitation and basic consciousness and; the sloppy use of language is a result of the oversight previously mentioned, coupled with the definition of 'cognitive.'
You are right to point out that here in ink on page we are heavily constrained by the concepts that precede us but; in the movement from conscious experience to recognized idea there is a freedom, from which the articulation is viewed as constraining but yet to be determined (eg. am i working for the corporation or, for my fellow citizens?)
for me, the lack of 'productiveness' begins when we derive meaning from absolute concepts which are then limited by being a particular 'description' that is prioritised as a 'given' and yet delimited by only referring to something else again...
Do you mean that the lack of productiveness begins when we actually do something?
it's like removing a garment to reveal another garment... isn't the idea of uncovering to get beneath the realm of limited (and particular) absolutes to adduce the epistemological possibility of knowing something unmitigated by the particularity of one's own limit.
sometimes i feel that my 'position' is the only one without guile (though i know you think opposite) as in the context of your and my discourse, you are the positivist non-idealist and i am the immaterialist idealist.
Maybe it's because i'm trying to talk about a common ground from which we might be able to move together toward the truth and, you're talking from a literary/philosophical perspective that has evolved for thousands of years with a strong political influence overlaid onto whatever reason it could muster. See, now i'm the idealist and you're the materialist
having just awoken not knowing whether the 6 on the clock was morning or evening, today or the next day, perhaps i am dreaming that you think me some post-modernist pluralist type who won't touch the bark of trees because i am transfixed by looking at my own hand(!) the idea you 'sense' the flow of a particular position of non-moving ideas... the fact you refute the concept of the idea referring only to itself (and not to yet more ideas that also require contexts...) makes you the 'too immaterialist absolutist idealist' to me!
I don't think you're thinking about what i'm writing.
i feel that once we establish the boundaries of 'accuracy' regarding what we understand the ideas of 'being and 'actuality' to mean - to be in themselves - and also how they relate to our ability to enquire of our minds about our mind, then we can finally and forever begin to generate a absolute concept of actuality(!)
Really?
i am ready with pen and paper to begin (no pencil and erasure necessary!) to 'get on with it'!
this you can take as a given, but not the notion that we can get closer to knowing stuff by not examining the possibility of their non-referential nature and the non-veracitatiousness(eeek what a word! sorry) of simple (christian-like) belief in the obviousness of things that you appear to find meta-referential absolute particulars of a 'given' which you question without needing to feel you want a difficult answer!
As i see it, the least obvious of 'things' is personal identity but, that just opens up possibilities; not constraining in the least.
aarrggghhhh! sorry for calling you a christian type, i have a angry temperament right now and it's the best insult i can casually lay down to appease my current bloodymindedness!
i hope you take it as a insult! if not... my god, christians questioning the nature of reality... what kind of post-modern shizzzz is that!
(!) i am too lazy a type to 'review' and 'preview' stuff so i guess this reply is noumenon intersubjectivity! hilarious. Don't worry; i'm grievously insulted
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
