John Page

Now that I agree with!

Cheers, John

Primal

I am not restricting its domain, the dictionary is.

Also John I have to ask what is the real difference between something being absolutely possible and provisionally possible?



Well perhaps I am not fully understanding the statement, are you saying opposites represent an existing possibility and impossibility or that possibility and impossibility are opposites?







But then again you are merely positing that a priori knowledge is a sort of experience, and in the broadest sense of the word experience I would agree-however at this point we are abandoning the empricist sense of the word experience and hence empiricism.



Yes but my point was how do we attain the concept that infinity is possible by means of a specific experience?

Yes but this shows us how we can be certain of a thing being possible, and hence retain an absolute as the claim is not empirical, hence not necessarily provisional.

Yes but then it is still mere difference for its own sake. Likewise I believe there is more to it then us making sense of different perceptions.




One can aim for that but such an aim itself contains underlying standards. For example, you have already presented a standard beforehand: that of balance. So for such an endeavor as to trying to find out how we believe, we will prove one explanation over another by an apeal to balance. How then do we ever disprove the notion of balance? Really you can't, less the explanation itself become suspect and we have to start from scratch. In which case, we lost the very reason itself to abandon balance, in which case we go in a vicious circle.

I think we can know via seeing if the field in question is highly technical and would require more then mere abstract reasoning to be understood. This is because our idea of what "could be the case" is simply too wide even with a rational purging, leaving the matter an empirical one.



That's true but I tend to leave the more fundamental big questions to philosophy and the more technical ones to science. This is because the tools of science cannot apply to philosophical, nontestable questions and the tools for philosophy are insufficient for the testable and progressive enterprise of scientific thought.

John Page

Real difference? To me, the term "absolutely possible" is a theoretical term that can exist in concept only. It describes something that is always possible, without limitation as to when or where. The term "provisionally possible" indicates that there are limitations on, or a domain boundary to, the "possibility" being realized in material fact.
To reiterate - Hmmmmm, remembering or recalling an experience brings in the a priori, whereas the experience itself of being alive is the here and now. How is this inconsistent with the empirical notion of experience? It seems (to me) that we continually or continuously "know" that we are consciously experiencing something "as it happens".
Through the knowledge that some things are possible and some things are not.
It shows how we think we can be certain. All claims are provisional upon the accuracy of our thinking/knowing.
More to it? Such as?
I have no escape from this, merely to say that if all things are related directly or indirectly in some way and all is in flux (as I believe) with no part of reality absolutely fixed, it seems to be the "balanced" path.

Must go - more later.

Cheers, John

Primal

I still fail to see the difference. Obviously conceptually possible means it can happen in time and location i.e. being realized in material fact.




I see now. However I make no distinction between possible and always possible, as to say something is possible sometimes and impossible other times seems somewhat contradictory.






Because there is more involved then current observation and memory, as I have no memory of a specific observation called "a possibility", the idea of possibility seems to exist as a concept only.

Yes but this is often not memory and again if it includes the a priori, is not experience in the empiricist sense.



But that's circular. I'm asking for the specific experience that showed us there was possible infinity in the first place.


But then you are saying all claims are possibbly wrong and that would then be something we are sure of. Unless you are saying it is impossible for some things we believe to be wrong, in which case we are again adhering to an absolute.




How we organize our perceptions. How we construct our memories. The underlying assumptions involved in each perception, the similarities observed.




Yes but then you are not a pure empiricist and are advocating a standard which must be either accepted on faith or proposed as self-evident. In which case there really is no basis for you to critique foundationalism, as you seem to adhere to it.

John Page

Equally ! Difference between what? I don't think conceptually possible means it can happen - just that one thinks it (the idea) could become materially real.
When there is an eclipse of the sun by the moon it is possible that my point on earth will be shielded by the moon from the direct rays of the sun. When there is no eclipse, it is impossible for the moon to shield my point on earth from the direct rays of the sun. Thus, the shileding by the moon of my point on earth from the direct rays of the sun is possible at some times and not others.
Please see eclipse example above.
What, then, is the empiricist's experience? If it is not direct experience as proposed then how was the empiricist able to "bottle" the experience and describe it in the form of knowedge (of that experience)?
Individuals may vary as to the route they follow. For example, experiences might include looking into two angled mirrors and wondering how many reflections of your face there are.
Here were back to viewpoints - I wish to refer you to the thread on dialetheism tk started.
Intreresting, I see our mechanism of perception as being self-organizing and *we* do not "organize" it as such. Agreed it is more than sense perception.
How is a "non-standard" a "standard"? I am not advocating a standard that must be taken on faith or impose what is self-evident to me on others. How is it that I seem to you to adhere to foundationalism? Your statements were made from your experience, not mine and if this is not self-evident to you you are free to reject it. Relativism rocks!

Cheers, John

Primal

How could something be possible yet never have a chance of happenning?


Yes and no. Yes it is a possibility that the moon can shield you from the sun during an eclipse, no it is not possible for this to happen when there is no eclipse. However that is because it is always impossible for you to be shielded from the sun by the moon without an eclipse whereas its always possible for the moon to shield you during an eclipse. I see the problem with vagueness, you are not specific enough in your descriptions, not with the concept of some event always being possible or impossible.


How does the eclipse example prove when something is possible or impossible via pure memory? I can for example say that "when there is an eclipse sometimes the sun's rays are blocked by the moon" there is no reason using pure memory to think this is a possibility, just something that happened.


Experience in the empiricist sense usually limits itself to the five senses. The empircist is able to use knowledge because he engages in a priori, not just empirical reasoning.



I fail to see how I derive infinity from that. I most likely will just look and say "I see x faces" which then settles the issue in a purely empirical manner.



Can you please be more eplicit.

Self-organizing? How do my perception simply organize themselves? How do mmy peception by themselves determine the order of perceptions or make comparisons? All they can do is observe passively, not organize actively.


When it becomes prescriptive i.e. an anti-standard, that's how.


So then you have no proof and IF I accept it, I do so as a matter of faith. Hence relativism is built on faith.

Keith Russell

Primal:

Hasn't it been said before, in this thread, that relativism is based solely on faith, on one's desire to believe that it is true?

I agree...

Keith.

John Page

Please, here's my post you are responding to: "I don't think conceptually possible means it can happen - just that one thinks it (the idea) could become materially real." I feel I'm just repeating myself when I say you can have an idea but it may be of something that is impossible to make material.
You are merely restating my example of possible and impossible and I therefore take this as concurrence as to how something can be both possible and impossible.
Pure memory? This is different than purely from memory. Anyway, you seem to have satisfied yourself of an impossibility in restating my eclipse example.
I don't think this makes any difference - the a priori is irrelevant without a way to experience it.
(Your response to the example of how one might come across the concept of infinity by looking into angled mirrors). Please quantify x. This is just an example - do you remember how you came across the concept of infinity?
You really need me to post a link to the Contradictions and Dialetheism thread?
That is your perception - this to illustrate that perception is more than just passive reception of sense data.
Well, my definition of a non-standard is "non-presriptive".
That you believe there is no proof is enough. I have provided many examples of how reality is consistent with relativism but I don't see a single solitary absolute truth to support your arguments. I though objectivism relied upon evidence , so your statements are like the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black".

Cheers, John

John Page

And your basis of argument is...?

Primal

See I don't get it. If it is conceivable I would think it as possibly real.


No, what I am saying is that it was always possible for the moon to shield you during the eclipse and always impossible for the moon to not shield you during an eclipse(by definition). Thus no event in question is possible sometime and impossible other times, you are simply describing different events and appealing to contradictions in terms. Kind of like saying "well an object cannot have four sides and be a triangle but with three sides can be a traingle." You are not saying that it is impossible for the object to be a traingle sometimes, but that it is impossible for the object to have four sides and be a triangle all the time and possible for it to have three sides and be a traingle all the time. The issue is with how specific you are, not with an event being possible or impossible.


By pure memory I mean one composed purely of inductive data collected by experience. With no a priori reasoning added.


Perhaps, but it is still a priori. Which undercuts empiricism.


Well with your mirror example I would just look and count how many reflections are shown. Lets say "4" are shown, I just count up to four and settle the matter.




No just present what you found relevant in that thread.




But how can my perceptions actively organize sense data by themselves? If that is the case are they really percieving or imposing the data?


But within your system you are actively ruling out the prescriptive, making your anti-prescriptive standard prescriptive.




Well I presented absolute truths and you simply rejected them a priori. So technically anything I presented to you as an absolute truth would be considered unacceptable no matter what.

Likewise you have not provided examples of how reality is consistent with relativism, you have only claimed so much.

My statement is also not the pot calling the kettle black as I believe my axioms are self-evident. Thus not matters of faith but matters of evidence.