Re: Operational Closure

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnM,
Interposing the interposed...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 3:13 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Operational Closure
>
>
> Tim, let me interpose.
> John M
-snip-
>
> You cannot argue whether you are solipisitc or not, there are no
> "objective"


TG: Sure I can argue that. Solipsism is a belief. Since I don't believe that
only my self exists, then I am no a solipsist...regardless of whether or not
actually only my self exists.


--snip--
> >
> > I suppose I could restate my view by saying that all our concepts and
> > terminology sit on the formal side and when we impute them to the
> > external world, we have decorated (somewhat in the sense of
> decorationg >
> a graph) the external world of phenomena with these concepts and labels.
>
> Decorated what? the unknowable "external world"? or the image our mind
> pictured upon some impact of unknown nature it received (or imagined to
> receive). This is how we get to those "objective phenomena" what you deem
> real enough to be decorated.


TG: If the external world were completely unknowable, then we would have no
evidence for such a thing. I believe the phenomena we experience - our only
evidence compelling us to consider strongly that there is actually an
external world - is what we decorate.  By decorate, I mean concepts and
labels imputed to those phenomena. This would be in addition to the use of
those concepts and labels on the formal side, in formal models, attached to
formal representations of phenomena.


> And please, do not refer to the 'many' who
> think (believe) similarly: they are all peers in the same culture.
> Another culture may do it differently.


TG: Yes, many people would agree.

<g>

-snip-
>
> A big Amen, I would formulate the Newtonian paradigm as a limited
> model with
> "nothing beyond it" - so it is complete for its deductions (self evident).


TG: Agreed.


> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "more real existence". In your
> > previous post, you said "HP: I agree we can't say much about what really
> > exists."
>
> If we turn loose from solipsism (and we should: nuthouses are full) then a
> secondary argument can be made for HP's sentence: our mind IS part of that
> "outside" world reality
> and if it perceives (even ununderstood)
> things, that
> should mean: there is something to select from.


TG: Maybe I don't follow. This seems circular. Doesn't this presume an
external world in order to argue for an external world??


Regards,
Tim