Primal

I have to side more with John on this as any epistemology that for example says "knowledge is tenable" presupposes some basic ontological positions: That I exist, that my mind exists, that the universe is open to some understanding, etc. In which case if any of the above were to fall, any epistemology would likely follow soon after.

John Page

Agreed, it is the view that meaning comes from/is implied by one's mind that makes it subjective.

Do you agree that no view can be absolutely objective? If so, do you agree that no knowledge can be absoluetly objective? Do you agree that there can be degrees of intersubjectivity (objectivity if you prefer) with different degrees of reliability in the views that pertain?

This does not seem to be what I meant. In the above, objective would refer to a viewpoint, whereas intrinsic would refer to the location of the properties/qualities observed.

Cheers, John

Plump-DJ

Hello John.

I've read your post and i'm still somewhat lost. In regards to meanings I understand that meanings are not completely 'universal' but I still think for meanings and definitions to have meaning they must be more then just concoctions of our mind. So even if my 'definition' or 'meaning' of dog is not complete it still has an essential essence that lies outside my own brain. So the Dog does have an 'intrinsic' component intrinsic to it's self, outside my head. Surely this foundational "principal" is the basis for all meaningful conversations about anything?

John Page

Agreed, I do not subscribe to absolute idealism.
Agreed, a dog is a set of sense data that you identify as a dog.
The "identity" dog is within you, the sense data some from outside you. The sense data does not have "dog" written on it when it arrives at your senses, it is inferred during the mind's analysis of the sense data.

I'm not sure what the foundational principle is that you're refering to.

Must run, cheers, John

John Page

Plumpie:

I was rushed this a.m., hope my reply was not too terse.

Here's what I'm trying to say (perhaps better this time).

The concept "dog" is stored within your mind.
You receive sense data.
The sense data is analyzed and matches the concept dog (or suffciently many of the sub-concepts comprising the concept "dog" such as size parameters, #legs, smell etc.).
At the point of 'matching' the instance of "dog" is perceived.

None of the above presumes this process occurs consciously. I believe the mind performs initial perception without conscious awareness and part of the function of consciousness is to focus the mind's "command and control" effort on unusual, anomalous or noteworthy perceptions. Thus, I imagine, there is a brain function that determines which phenomena are flagged for conscious perception.

So we can say that the dog exists at several levels:

1. The external physical level at the spacetime location the related sense data is coming from.
2. The level of the data impingeing upon our senses.
3. Deconstructed dog resides at the "sub-concept of dog" levels (see above).
4. The dog actually "becomes" a dog (relative to us) when the sense data is matched to the concept dog. I call this the axiomatic concept level. Note: as there is a constant stream of incoming sense data re the dog, the dog is in a constant state of becoming in our minds. i.e. our perceptions are ephemeral.
5. The dog does not exist at the conscious level of our mind until our conscious attention is required (by the 'alerting' functions of the mind).

We can say that the dog is epistemologically a dog at level 4 and levels 1 through 3 are the ontological processes enabling us to know the dog.

This is why I say there is no meaning intrinsic to the dog itself. In the above model, the dog consists of matter and all its qualities are inferred by the mind.

Sorry its long winded - hope its clearer!

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John asked:
"Do you agree that no view can be absolutely objective?"

Keith: What do you mean by 'asbolutely' objective? If you mean that--to be absolute--'knowledge' must be independent of consciousness, of course I believe that such a situation is impossible.

John asked:
If so, do you agree that no knowledge can be absoluetly objective?

Keith: Again, what do you mean by 'absolutely objective'?

John: Do you agree that there can be degrees of intersubjectivity (objectivity if you prefer) with different degrees of reliability in the views that pertain?

Keith: Yes, I agree, but I accept a full range of values, from absolutely untrue, to absolutely certain--

--as well as every point in between.

Keith.

John Page

Cool!
But is truth continuous? If truth is ultimately instatiated in matter, and if matter is subject to quantum effects, may there not be situations where we just don't know what the truth is?

Cheers, John

AnthonyAdams45

Reality, truth, beauty, meaning -- all that fun stuff is worked out by the interaction of the stuff that isn't me and the stuff that is me. Sometimes the stuff's input is more influential in the interplay, sometimes my input is more important. But remove either of us from the equation and reality, truth, beauty, meaning -- all that fun stuff disappears

So no particular ontology implies any peculiar epistemology, and likewise the converse, but an epistemology without an ontology doesn't have anything to know and an ontology without an epistemology is pretty much meaningless.