On Exactitude in Science . . .

[Futureghost]

Read and discuss Borges famous allegory of thought.

In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

Suarez Miranda,Viajes de varones prudentes, Libro IV,Cap. XLV, Lerida, 1658
From Jorge Luis Borges, Collected Fictions, Translated by Andrew Hurley Copyright Penguin 1999 .

 

[Cint]

onder: Sounds like a fairy tale...........

As a matter of fact, Jorge Luis Borges was a short story writer, poet.

Jorge Francisco Isidoro Luis Borges (24 August 1899 – 14 June 1986), known as Jorge Luis Borges (Spanish: [ˈxorxe ˈlwis ˈborxes]), was an Argentine short-story writer, essayist, poet and translator born in Buenos Aires. His work embraces the "character of unreality in all literature". His most famous books, Ficciones (1944) and The Aleph (1949), are compilations of short stories interconnected by common themes such as dreams, labyrinths, libraries, mirrors, animals, fictional writers, philosophy, religion and God. His works have contributed to philosophical literature and also to both the fantasy and magical realism genres. The magical realism genre reacted against the realism/naturalism of the nineteenth century. In fact, critic Angel Flores, the first to use the term, set the beginning of this movement with Borges's Historia universal de la infamia (A Universal History of Infamy) (1935). Scholars have also suggested that Borges's progressive blindness helped him to create innovative literary symbols through imagination. His late poems dialogue with such cultural figures as Spinoza, Camões, and Virgil.

 

[Futureghost]

onder: Sounds like a fairy tale...........

As a matter of fact, Jorge Luis Borges was a short story writer, poet.

Yes he was.

just so we can get any possible debate about whether or not this is an allegory of thought out of the way (since it's well established)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation


Any thoughts to offer?

Did you not like the notion that thought is a limited model of reality?

 

[Cint]

Any thoughts to offer?

Did you not like the notion that thought is a limited model of reality?

Of course thought is only a limited model of reality. Your thought is your reality. My thoughts are my reality. And thoughts are not facts as they are ever changing as some reality in science changes with time. So in that sense, nothing is real, but that is just a philosophical view, not reality.

 

[Futureghost]

Of course thought is only a limited model of reality. Your thought is your reality. My thoughts are my reality. And thoughts are not facts as they are ever changing as some reality in science changes with time. So in that sense, nothing is real, but that is just a philosophical view, not reality.

please explain how comprehensive, complete facts change with time without it being easily shown that they failed to include time and were thus incomplete?

Other than the above it seems as if you actually agree with Baudrillard. The logical extension of his statement about the Simulacrum is that there is only the Simulacrum, I.E. that nothing is real, which is what you have said.

When you say that he has lost touch with reality , are you in fact paying him a compliment?

 

[Futureghost]

There are subjective facts and objective facts...have you simply failed distinguish between the two in your replies? (easily forgivable BTW, it's a complex subject).

Thoughts are not realities. It would appear to be true but not because of their variability, it's an issue of proximity. They simply do not occupy the same existential space, that is to say the one is not the other. But a comprehensive, objective reality likely does not change and so it is that any thought which intends to signify some property or characteristic of such a comprehensive reality will also not change if the person who holds said thought wishes for that thought to be an analogue to said objective reality and by way of this to be justified in calling the truth a fact as well.

 

[Cint]

Other than the above it seems as if you actually agree with Baudrillard. The logical extension of his statement about the Simulacrum is that there is only the Simulacrum, I.E. that nothing is real, which is what you have said.

When you say that he has lost touch with reality , are you in fact paying him a compliment?

I didn't say nothing is real. I'm saying it is all in the eyes of the beholder. If you want to think that someone has lost touch with reality is a compliment, then, yes, I assume you would take it as a compliment.

All I said in the other post is that when I have an "aura" I do loose touch with reality momentarily, sometimes I hear "other voices", but I do know that this isn't real. But I suppose to folks like you, it would be real.

All I'm saying is this Baudrillard was one big time story teller. Of course, nothing to him and his believers is/was real.

 

[Cint]

Thoughts are not realities. It would appear to be true but not because of their variability, it's an issue of proximity. They simply do not occupy the same existential space, that is to say the one is not the other. But a comprehensive, objective reality likely does not change and so it is that any thought which intends to signify some property or characteristic of such a comprehensive reality will also not change if the person who holds said thought wishes for that thought to be an analogue to said objective reality and by way of this to be justified in calling the truth a fact as well.

So these are just your thoughts. This IS NOT MY REALITY. Your are not real.... your just taking up time and space...... my objective reality.

 

[Futureghost]

I didn't say nothing is real. I'm saying it is all in the eyes of the beholder. If you want to think that someone has lost touch with reality is a compliment, then, yes, I assume you would take it as a compliment.

All I said in the other post is that when I have an "aura" I do loose touch with reality momentarily, sometimes I hear "other voices", but I do know that this isn't real. But I suppose to folks like you, it would be real.

All I'm saying is this Baudrillard was one big time story teller. Of course, nothing to him and his believers is/was real.

Well you know, if there is no reality and you've lost touch with it (the reality that doesn't exist) then logically that would be a compliment. i am not saying *I* personally think that, I just wasn't sure whether or not it was what you meant.

"But I suppose to folks like you, it would be real. "
in some sense yes...it's Subjectively real, insomuch as it is a real experience but it is not objectively confirmable so i don't choose to construe such experiences as objectively true real things, however when those experiences begin to analogue ontological truths which are normally not things a human being experiences would I say "hey that's just an aura" then dismiss it?
I highly doubt it. Does it even matter by what means one comes to experience an ontological truth which is not normally experienced?

 

[Cint]

Does it even matter by what means one comes to experience an ontological truth which is not normally experienced?

Does it?

 

[Futureghost]

Suppose i were blind, but prone to vivid profoundly accurate hallucinations of everything around me, would you seek to cure me of them?

 

[Havok]

Reality is a false concept. It is based on quantitative and qualitative measurement of the person doing the measuring. For instance, you see light that bounces off objects. You hear sound waves that bounce off objects. You feel things due to the receptors in your fingers. You perceive this information and put it into a quantifiable medium.

By the very definition of reality, there would be multiple realities depending on the person perceiving it because that perception is the basis of measuring reality.

First, your level of ability to see/hear/touch things would give you a separate reality. Person A sees a green tree. Person B is color blind and sees a grey tree. Both trees are present, and that is two separate realities.

A person who is deep into hallucinations will see, hear, and feel things that "aren't there."
Their reality is further from the mean, but it is a true reality by definition.

You can't measure a reality separate from your own, and thus it is impossible to say what is real and isn't real.

Plus, factoring in the theory of the universal wavefunction, then how would you differentiate between a possible movement between dimensions in the deviation from the norm? The so called hallucinations could be rooted in physics that we do not understand yet.

 

[Futureghost]

Reality is a false concept. It is based on quantitative and qualitative measurement of the person doing the measuring. For instance, you see light that bounces off objects. You hear sound waves that bounce off objects. You feel things due to the receptors in your fingers. You perceive this information and put it into a quantifiable medium.

By the very definition of reality, there would be multiple realities depending on the person perceiving it because that perception is the basis of measuring reality.

First, your level of ability to see/hear/touch things would give you a separate reality. Person A sees a green tree. Person B is color blind and sees a grey tree. Both trees are present, and that is two separate realities.

A person who is deep into hallucinations will see, hear, and feel things that "aren't there."
Their reality is further from the mean, but it is a true reality by definition.

You can't measure a reality separate from your own, and thus it is impossible to say what is real and isn't real.

Plus, factoring in the theory of the universal wavefunction, then how would you differentiate between a possible movement between dimensions in the deviation from the norm? The so called hallucinations could be rooted in physics that we do not understand yet.

are you talking about the subjective interpretation of reality or the objective fact of being ? it seems like you are talking about the interpretation of it.

 

[Havok]

Both mixed together. We can't accurately interpret reality because of possible observational error. It's like using a sample size of 1.

As far as the state of being, well we exist and don't exist, and exist multiple ways all at the same time. Quantum physics

 

[DayDreamer]

Imagine if they could do brain tissue transplants. Then we could really learn to see the world through other peoples eyes.

 

[Futureghost]

So these are just your thoughts. This IS NOT MY REALITY. Your are not real.... your just taking up time and space...... my objective reality.

If I am not real and yet i am taking up time and space uselessly then you have only got yourself to blame.