connecting the dots Video

ontology vs skepticism

Save & Share:

23discordians: Why just focus on smoking? Why not focus on the meat industry? Is the number one cause the only cause that matters? If everybody stopped eating meat it would drastically reduce disease. I have made a decision to be a vegetarian, but I don't bash other people over the head with it because I prefer to focus on myself, and the differences I can make. I suggest you do the same. To be frank, the fact you want to focus on smoking but ignore meat-eating stinks of hypocrisy!

pyrrho314: how do you grade an independent thought?

Barklord: I don't bash other people about smoking either. I point it out. People feel better when they quit. Eating meat is biologically natural, especially in moderation. Inhaling poison isn't. In any case, people can damn well smoke if they want too. I have been a smoker. It's really ridiculous to hear someone chastise a basically decent person (such as Jack, togetherforpeace) about a childhood indiscretion when he's admitting to being willing to do the same thing "in the name of science".

2bsirius: You present a problem...Often not one that can be easily labeled as "right or wrong"...BUT one that encourages deep thought about how to evaluate evidence. Then you encourage students to think critically about the problem. I have a video about some of this: watch?v=nuC3Vd7YBDk After a student has thought about the problem, he or she writes a defense of his conclusion and discusses it with the class...It sometimes a good idea to find out what the consensus was before/after to gage change.

pyrrho314: sweet! nice answer! way to step up to the plate! You get an apple!

2bsirius: I think that was exactly what Eve said to Adam...So not sure what to think exactly ;)

pyrrho314: the good teachers redeemed the rest of my education.

Cashify: so abstractions "are" separate from forms that "are not" abstractions? Yet "being/becoming temporal" abstractions are dynamic becomings, the line of distinction being a moving target, targeted by a definer in motion, in an everchanging reference frame. If there were a one separate from the others, one could hypothetically attribute the "being becoming temporal" quality of dynamic becomings to the definer in motion as much as to the "becoming being" in question. Back to observer bias...

Cashify: By how closely it resembles the definition of independent thinking given to MOI by my indoctrinators, naturally.

Cashify: One teacher likes apples, one does not. One BDSM painslut likes caning, another prefers clamps and branding. Some cringe at the thought of any of that. It becomes EVIDENT that there is no inherent pleasure in "becoming beings." Pleasure and pain, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and not in the beholden. Even observable trends like "most observers enjoy a good fight, or a good piece of fruit," depends upon filtering out those possibilities which might negate our view.

Cashify: Even the good ones get C++ for being too object oriented.

Cashify: Your voice sounds much like Tony Robbins the motivational speaker Whem you talk about doubt in this vid. Maybe it is the passion.

Cashify: Indoctrinated for what purpose is a much better inquiry than to pretend there is thought that is independent or that it could be measured against an independent standard idependently.

Cashify: Great thinkers will be emulated. No man is an island. We are interconnected and our "choices" have many effects. So quit bitchin. There's a patch for that.

Cashify: Bias is created and maintained by indoctrination, conditioning, vasanas. Bias is Vikalpa, imaginination, and every particle or wave creating every dynamic form is this bias. Every bias is caused by indoctrination. Every indoctrination, every CONCLUSION about what is in reality endless, this tendency to imagine limits where there is limitlessness in reality, (a particle where there was nothing but waves etc.) this is all delusion or all ignorance. Everpresent Existence is UNCAUSED.

Cashify: Then again it could be smokers' voice, like Marge's sisters have on the Simpsons.

Barklord: I'm not sure who you're replying too.

Cashify: See "everything is a teacher" by pathlesspath. Existence, needing nothing to be, requires neither a knower nor knowledge. But all dynamic knowings, all forms abstract or other than abstract, appear only because existence always is. Anything may appear in flux, while existance always is. You are that.

silversoul7: What I took from Professoranton's video on ontology was that you have to assume a certain ontology before you proceed to epistemology in order to avoid the regress problem.

pyrrho314: how do you judge your ontology then? if not epistemologically? How can there be knowledge of the ontology with no concept of "knowledge of". The solution is that the world of idea is not drawn from logic, it is draw from experience, that is how the regress is stopped... at experience and the percpetions of which they are made.

Israe5l: In mathematics education, you first learn some math elements like length and area. (We already have the ideas of them. Ontology). Then we go back and learn how to prove facts about them (epistemology). Elements like One and Two are not even brain structures. Its the sturcture of Being. Ontology is the structure of Being. "I exist in the world", implies a lot of things.

pyrrho314: the problem here is the distinction between learning and proving... knowing and proving. The real, historic process of coming to that ontology is preceded by epistemology-in-practice... brains are epistemological machines... not proving machines. KNOWLEDGE cannot be proved, only demonstrated.

Israe5l: You have a point. But the problem is between knowing and proving. Ontology, you know. I don't see much difference between proving and desmonstrating (epistemology). They are both reflexive, therefore a secondary operation. "Brain" is only good as a metaphor.

pyrrho314: where does the ontology come from?

Israe5l: epistemology is about "how". How knowledge came about. ontology is about "what". what does the subject come to know. "what" seems to come before "how". true, whenever one describes how "what" comes into being, "how" comes before "what". but, you are tangled in language. in ontology you give that up. come back naive, and ask "what".

Author: pyrrho314; Uploaded: Nov 9, 2009; Duration: 3:41; Views: 205

Tags: webcam  video  pyrrho314  education  philosophy  ontology  epistemology  knowledge  connecting words connecting laptop to tv connecting singles connecting for health connecting classrooms connecting xbox 360 to pc connecting wii to internet connecting computer to tv connecting pc to tv connecting ps3 to internet