We think it means something tantamount to “engaging with concepts or problems that lack clear margins or precise definitions.” Okay… But what does it mean to “engage” with them?
Depends on your definition of "objectivity". In say journalism there is a decent standard for what is objective (and it's *not* bothside-isms).
In professional philosophy, on the other hand, it's a nerds jerk game and pointless waste of breath, but in that pure realm of wanky discourse then of course one can use a definition where the capacity to be objective on some matter is impossible, by definition. What's the point of that though? I'd just say "bully for them!" A pomo sort of, "no one knows anything 'true' therefore my opinion as is as good as yours!" --- that sort of shit destroys your ability to do science more than the incentive to grift from craving money. Luckily it does not ruin science. It just ruins such a person's ability to conduct decent honest science.
... and when all is said and done, all that often happens is that the wrestlers vaguely gesture at their alleged obscure and ill-defined concepts, utter some words that even they aren't sure make sense, and then think that just because they 'wrestled' — regardless of any sense having been made or not — they thereby act as if some grave, well-defined, huge, gaping, serious problems have been identified in frameworks that don't do this 'wrestling' for various reasons, and encrust their vibes that their wrestling is in fact not nonsense and oh so important and yowza! — in fact they might as well have demonstrated the grave gaps in the non-magical frameworks and the merits of 'wrestling'.
but did they wrestle or just bumble bamboozled, getting high on lush, empty imaginings?
Watching the fantastic TOE debate "Donald Hoffman meets Wolfram," at some point I felt that even Wolfram fell into this trap. My humble opinion was that it happens at the point when Wolfram had to confront his worldview based on determinism and realism, which is clearly in opposition to Hoffman's stance. I felt that only Hoffman was truly facing the hard problem of consciousness, while Wolfram was somehow denying this problem even exists.
Hey, "An intellectual would sooner ..." could be better written "A pseudo-intellectual would sooner ...".
Need a definition of "pseudo-intellectual"? Look it up on DuckDuckGo my dude. ;-) LOL.
Ahhh, F it!!! I could not resist the pedantry: A 'pseudo-intellectual' is an individual who pretends to possess a deep understanding or knowledge of complex subjects, often using jargon and sophisticated language, but who lacks genuine insight or critical thinking. Typically you'd use it to refer to someone who prioritizes appearance over substance in intellectual discussions, seeking to impress others rather than engage in meaningful discourse.
“Definitions are ephocal. You learn this as a researcher more and more.” You bet. As we struggle with even defining the neural correlates of consciousness (there’s no there there) it seems we will also struggle with the indeterminates of reality and the words used therein. In reading Nick Cook’s Substack serial “The Light Beyond the Mountains”, we come across Hoffman’s Interface theory of reality and Nick proposes the word “rogue” for “icons” that don’t meet our strict materialistic boundaries, what you would call ill-defined. I think you are wise to take a 50,000 foot view as to how we even approach such indeterminates knowing we are nobbled by our imprecise brain. Glad you’re here!
I'm not smart enough to fully understand this, but...
Is it fair to say that objectivity is impossible if each of us are intertwined with what we're claiming to be objective?
Depends on your definition of "objectivity". In say journalism there is a decent standard for what is objective (and it's *not* bothside-isms).
In professional philosophy, on the other hand, it's a nerds jerk game and pointless waste of breath, but in that pure realm of wanky discourse then of course one can use a definition where the capacity to be objective on some matter is impossible, by definition. What's the point of that though? I'd just say "bully for them!" A pomo sort of, "no one knows anything 'true' therefore my opinion as is as good as yours!" --- that sort of shit destroys your ability to do science more than the incentive to grift from craving money. Luckily it does not ruin science. It just ruins such a person's ability to conduct decent honest science.
Is there a copy or link available of Prof. Ivette Fuentes presentation titled: Rethinking the Foundation of Physics: What is Unification?
• The Breakthrough We’ve Been Waiting For -- 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj2TcZSlZc
MANY thanks
The conference proceedings will be available in a month or so. Compiling shortly. Thank you. - Curt
Curt, it was not a conference but your interview with Prof. Fuentes — she didn’t have time to go through her excellent presentation.
The interview was the best in form and content I have seen in years…
You mentioned in your comment that you will try to obtain a link to her full presentation…
... and when all is said and done, all that often happens is that the wrestlers vaguely gesture at their alleged obscure and ill-defined concepts, utter some words that even they aren't sure make sense, and then think that just because they 'wrestled' — regardless of any sense having been made or not — they thereby act as if some grave, well-defined, huge, gaping, serious problems have been identified in frameworks that don't do this 'wrestling' for various reasons, and encrust their vibes that their wrestling is in fact not nonsense and oh so important and yowza! — in fact they might as well have demonstrated the grave gaps in the non-magical frameworks and the merits of 'wrestling'.
but did they wrestle or just bumble bamboozled, getting high on lush, empty imaginings?
"ephocal" ? You mean 'epochal' ... ?
Watching the fantastic TOE debate "Donald Hoffman meets Wolfram," at some point I felt that even Wolfram fell into this trap. My humble opinion was that it happens at the point when Wolfram had to confront his worldview based on determinism and realism, which is clearly in opposition to Hoffman's stance. I felt that only Hoffman was truly facing the hard problem of consciousness, while Wolfram was somehow denying this problem even exists.
Hey, "An intellectual would sooner ..." could be better written "A pseudo-intellectual would sooner ...".
Need a definition of "pseudo-intellectual"? Look it up on DuckDuckGo my dude. ;-) LOL.
Ahhh, F it!!! I could not resist the pedantry: A 'pseudo-intellectual' is an individual who pretends to possess a deep understanding or knowledge of complex subjects, often using jargon and sophisticated language, but who lacks genuine insight or critical thinking. Typically you'd use it to refer to someone who prioritizes appearance over substance in intellectual discussions, seeking to impress others rather than engage in meaningful discourse.
Is there a copy or link available of Prof. Ivette Fuentes presentation titled: Rethinking the Foundation of Physics: What is Unification?
• The Breakthrough We’ve Been Waiting For -- 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj2TcZSlZc
MANY thanks
Is there a copy or link available of Prof. Ivette Fuentes presentation titled: Rethinking the Foundation of Physics: What is Unification?
• The Breakthrough We’ve Been Waiting For -- 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj2TcZSlZc
MANY thanks
“Definitions are ephocal. You learn this as a researcher more and more.” You bet. As we struggle with even defining the neural correlates of consciousness (there’s no there there) it seems we will also struggle with the indeterminates of reality and the words used therein. In reading Nick Cook’s Substack serial “The Light Beyond the Mountains”, we come across Hoffman’s Interface theory of reality and Nick proposes the word “rogue” for “icons” that don’t meet our strict materialistic boundaries, what you would call ill-defined. I think you are wise to take a 50,000 foot view as to how we even approach such indeterminates knowing we are nobbled by our imprecise brain. Glad you’re here!