Transcendental Signifier Argument

Star Facts 🌟 - Interesting Facts about Stars

Definitions

(1)Transcendental Signifier (TS):

The signification mark (word) which refer to the top of metaphysical hierarchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corollary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Transcendental Signified (designated as TSed)"

(2) Signifier:

The term used of written words in the linguistic theories know as "structuralism" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writing, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a physical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."


Preliminary Observations:

(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)

(3) It is impossible to do without a Transcendental Signifier, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we cannot organize the universe without a principle of organizing.

(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Hierarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.


Argument:



P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through organization of concepts.

P2)We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TSP

3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.

P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.

P5) The signifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine economy exactly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.

P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conclusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is discretion of the Transcendental Signified.

P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED..


It was my hope that this argument would suffice as a Postmodern update of the Ontological argument. I wont go into all the reason why I consider it to be an ontological argument. My only concern here is, do I have a decent idea here, or has it been so long since I studied Derrida that I've forgotten everything?

Like most of my arguments in recent years it turns on the notion of identity, linking God to some aspect of reality that we know or must agree exists, and then demonstrating mutual identity in a manner that is mutually exclusive; such that to share quality x is to share identity. But since we don't have an already proven God to compare it to, I'm comparing a god concept to this quality. I feel like that will get me in trouble. It must be the violation of some formal fallacy or other, but it seems logical and I've thought about it from any stand points. In that sense it's like saying X fits the description of Y so X must be Y. Yet, that is not necessarily a valid conclusion, the mediating point is; if and only if the qualities of the description are mutually exclusive.

I'll take up more about this after lunch.

Comments

Pix knows he cat win this argument he' ia ignoring it,but he;s gong after ny civiolization idea



http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/see-metacrocks-blog.html?showComment=1588062811844#c7188468282683556499
Pix knows he cat win this argument he' ia ignoring it,but he;s gong after ny civiolization idea



http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/see-metacrocks-blog.html?showComment=1588062811844#c7188468282683556499
Anonymous said…
Joe: The signification mark (word) which refer to the top of metaphysical hierarchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.

What does "organizing principle" mean? It would appear to be a mental construct, given it makes sense of sense data. Sense data is exclusively in the mind, and making sense of that data is likewise something that happens in the mind.

So the "Transcendental Signifier" is the word for the top level mental process by which we handle what we perceive. Right?

Joe: (1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

I.e., if we are to understand the universe, we need in our minds a mental process that can organise, that make make sense of what it perceives.

Joe: P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.

How does this follow? The word "create" does not appear previously in the argument or, as far as I can see, any similar idea.

Everything up to his point has seemingly been about things in the mind. Suddenly it has leaped to a physical thing. Does that make sense? Let us go back...

Joe: The signification mark (word) which refer to the top of metaphysical hierarchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.

Is the top of a metaphysical hierarchy an actual thing? What exactly is this metaphysical hierarchy?

Is an organizing principle a thing? Not as I understand the term "principle", which is a mental construct. Should that be "organizing principal"?

The phrase "all sense data" has to be about mental states, and so likewise make sense of that data. These are what is going on in your mind. Furthermore "meaning can be understood" can only be about what happens in your mind when you make sense of that data.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: The signification mark (word) which refer to the top of metaphysical hierarchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.

What does "organizing principle" mean? It would appear to be a mental construct, given it makes sense of sense data. Sense data is exclusively in the mind, and making sense of that data is likewise something that happens in the mind.

Since math is behind it all it would seem there is a universal mind behind the world. law implies law giver, so the biased language that implies mind is there anyway,


So the "Transcendental Signifier" is the word for the top level mental process by which we handle what we perceive. Right?

more or less

Joe: (1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

I.e., if we are to understand the universe, we need in our minds a mental process that can organise, that make make sense of what it perceives.

that explains organization

Joe: P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.

How does this follow? The word "create" does not appear previously in the argument or, as far as I can see, any similar idea.

you have no other bass upon which to explain order



Everything up to his point has seemingly been about things in the mind. Suddenly it has leaped to a physical thing. Does that make sense? Let us go back...


there is a relationship between mind and the world.


Joe: The signification mark (word) which refer to the top of metaphysical hierarchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.

Is the top of a metaphysical hierarchy an actual thing? What exactly is this metaphysical hierarchy?

Of course it's an actual thing or there would be no organizing


Is an organizing principle a thing? Not as I understand the term "principle", which is a mental construct. Should that be "organizing principal"?


you think all principles are just pretend ideas put over reality like a vial how do you explain natural law? how does friction make heat if its mot?


The phrase "all sense data" has to be about mental states, and so likewise make sense of that data. These are what is going on in your mind. Furthermore "meaning can be understood" can only be about what happens in your mind when you make sense of that data.

all that old mental sense data represents real stuff. that;s how science works,

Reid argued no one stands in front of a bayonet on the principle that the attacking enemy first first prove his existnece.
Anonymous said…
Joe: Since math is behind it all it would seem there is a universal mind behind the world. law implies law giver, so the biased language that implies mind is there anyway,

So why does the word "math" not appear in your post at all?

Joe: Since math is behind it all it would seem there is a universal mind behind the world. law implies law giver, so the biased language that implies mind is there anyway,

You are conflating two meanings of the word "law". The laws of nature are quite different to the laws of the land. People choose whether or not they will obey the laws of the land; the laws of nature cannot be broken.

Joe: you have no other bass upon which to explain order

So it come down to claiming victory by default. There is no explanation, therefore you get to insert your pet theory.

In science, we would conclude "we do not know".

Joe: there is a relationship between mind and the world.

Well that is vague enough to cover every eventuality. And therefore meaningless.

Joe: Of course it's an actual thing or there would be no organizing

Organisation of the world or or ideas in the mind? You seem to flip between the two.

Joe: you think all principles are just pretend ideas put over reality like a vial how do you explain natural law? how does friction make heat if its mot?

Yes, I think principles are ideas. That in no way excludes natural laws.

However, this does again illustrate how you flip between the mental and the physical.

Joe: all that old mental sense data represents real stuff. that;s how science works,

The organisation of ideas is quite a different thing to the organisation of matter for all your desparate attempts to conflate the two.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: Since math is behind it all it would seem there is a universal mind behind the world. law implies law giver, so the biased language that implies mind is there anyway,

So why does the word "math" not appear in your post at all?


it just did can't you read it?


Joe: Since math is behind it all it would seem there is a universal mind behind the world. law implies law giver, so the biased language that implies mind is there anyway,

You are conflating two meanings of the word "law". The laws of nature are quite different to the laws of the land. People choose whether or not they will obey the laws of the land; the laws of nature cannot be broken.

Now where did I say that laws of nature are passed by legislators. Obviously the same word with the same meaning is used in both senses of law the sane word is used for a reason so there clearly is some sense of connection or synonymy.

Joe: you have no other bass upon which to explain order

So it come down to claiming victory by default. There is no explanation, therefore you get to insert your pet theory.


yes and I get cup cakes

In science, we would conclude "we do not know".

I still get cup cake

Joe: there is a relationship between mind and the world.

Well that is vague enough to cover every eventuality. And therefore meaningless.

more cake very probably



Joe: Of course it's an actual thing or there would be no organizing

Organisation of the world or or ideas in the mind? You seem to flip between the two.

I am pretty sure things exist and are really organized



Joe: you think all principles are just pretend ideas put over reality like a vial how do you explain natural law? how does friction make heat if its mot?

Yes, I think principles are ideas. That in no way excludes natural laws.

which are ideas

However, this does again illustrate how you flip between the mental and the physical.


O does it? you sure it's not property dualism?

Joe: all that old mental sense data represents real stuff. that;s how science works,

The organisation of ideas is quite a different thing to the organisation of matter for all your desparate attempts to conflate the two.

that's a red hearing, yous til can;t account for it
Anonymous said…
Joe: it just did can't you read it?

It appeared in a comment, not the post.

If you want people to accept your ideas, you need to explain them well. That explanation should be right there in the post where you present the ideas, not buried in the comments.

Joe: Now where did I say that laws of nature are passed by legislators. Obviously the same word with the same meaning is used in both senses of law the sane word is used for a reason so there clearly is some sense of connection or synonymy.

They are not entirely unrelated, but nevertheless they have two different meanings.

Your claim that the laws of nature require a law maker is founded upon conflating the two meanings. That might fool the ignorant, but no one who understands science or philosophy will fall for it.

I guess it depends who you are targeting here.

Joe: yes and I get cup cakes

But you do not anyone accepting your ideas.

Pix: Organisation of the world or or ideas in the mind? You seem to flip between the two.

Joe: I am pretty sure things exist and are really organized

No one said otherwise.

Now, how about you address the point?

Let's get specific..

For your definition of TS, does that refer to mental states or to matter?

For your preliminary observations, do they refer to mental states or to matter?

For your argument, do P1 and P2 refer to mental states or to matter?

I very much suspect that you will fail to clarify, because you know your claims are founded on keeping that vague, allowing you to flip from one to the other as convenient.

Pix: Yes, I think principles are ideas. That in no way excludes natural laws.

Joe: which are ideas

I was using "natural laws" to mean the regularity that the universe invariably follows. The laws of science approximate the natural laws, so it would be fair to say the laws of science are ideas, but not the laws of nature.

Joe: O does it? you sure it's not property dualism?

There is a fundamental difference between the way atoms organise and the way I organise ideas in my head.

Pix: The organisation of ideas is quite a different thing to the organisation of matter for all your desparate attempts to conflate the two.

Joe: that's a red hearing, yous til can;t account for it

It is not a red herring. Your whole argument appears to be based on conflating the two. That may be because I have misunderstood - in which case you will be able to tell me which it is your are talking about at each point.

Furthermore, I do not have to account for it to know that the distinction is real.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: it just did can't you read it?

It appeared in a comment, not the post.

No wrobg I pit a link in the major post

If you want people to accept your ideas, you need to explain them well. That explanation should be right there in the post where you present the ideas, not buried in the comments.

you can;t know if you don't read it.


Joe: Now where did I say that laws of nature are passed by legislators. Obviously the same word with the same meaning is used in both senses of law the sane word is used for a reason so there clearly is some sense of connection or synonymy.

They are not entirely unrelated, but nevertheless they have two different meanings.

Your claim that the laws of nature require a law maker is founded upon conflating the two meanings. That might fool the ignorant, but no one who understands science or philosophy will fall for it.


we have argued this a number of times so you should know by now you are so arrogant you don't listen,Natural laws are not passed by legislators nor are they drawn up by lawmakers but clerical the as law-like aspect is the reason that word is used, nonoe has come up with a way to remove it so there is a corrolation between the law like aspect and the function it serves such that it suggests planning.

I guess it depends who you are targeting here.

Joe: yes and I get cup cakes

But you do not anyone accepting your ideas.

Yes I do, all who have read then like them.

Pix: Organisation of the world or or ideas in the mind? You seem to flip between the two.

Joe: I am pretty sure things exist and are really organized

No one said otherwise.

Now, how about you address the point?

Let's get specific..

For your definition of TS, does that refer to mental states or to matter?

For your preliminary observations, do they refer to mental states or to matter?

For your argument, do P1 and P2 refer to mental states or to matter?

you really don't know shit about this stuff. trying to play off ideas against reality by commending ideas about mind takes down natural law, and hyphenates testing you cant test if you never frigate a hypithsis uniteding ideas with reality,


I very much suspect that you will fail to clarify, because you know your claims are founded on keeping that vague, allowing you to flip from one to the other as convenient.

I have gone to great lengths to answer this kind of thing in three chapters of the book i wrote to back up the argument,are you willing to read those chapters? it's a matter of choosing either Humean concept of science or scientific relativism. tour argumemt destroys science.I opt for an augmented realism.



Pix: Yes, I think principles are ideas. That in no way excludes natural laws.

Joe: which are ideas

I was using "natural laws" to mean the regularity that the universe invariably follows. The laws of science approximate the natural laws, so it would be fair to say the laws of science are ideas, but not the laws of nature.

there is a correlation idea and reality, that is the sign and signified,

Joe: O does it? you sure it's not property dualism?

There is a fundamental difference between the way atoms organise and the way I organise ideas in my head.

The way you organize things in your mind is not the relation between sign and signified those are totally different,,

you totally dropped my narrower on property dualism probity because you don;t know what it is



Pix: The organisation of ideas is quite a different thing to the organisation of matter for all your desparate attempts to conflate the two.

Joe: that's a red hearing, yous til can;t account for it

It is not a red herring. Your whole argument appears to be based on conflating the two. That may be because I have misunderstood - in which case you will be able to tell me which it is your are talking about at each point.


You are trying to outlaw philosophical understanding of naturalistic processes purely to prevent losing a God argument then take no responsibility for what that dies to the rest of science,

The fallacy in your argument can be illustrated Thessaly: I might arrive at my understanding of the chemical make up of steel by craning for a test and by memorizing the table of elements. that does not make steel be made up of the whole talk of elements..I might get it all wrong and not understand the relationship, that has no bearing on the relationship itself.




Furthermore, I do not have to account for it to know that the distinction is real.

you do to beat my argument,
Anonymous said…
Joe: No wrobg I pit a link in the major post

What major post? Not the one we are commenting on, that is for sure.

Joe: you can;t know if you don't read it.

And I cannot read it if it in on a page linked from another post.

Joe: we have argued this a number of times so you should know by now you are so arrogant you don't listen,Natural laws are not passed by legislators nor are they drawn up by lawmakers but clerical the as law-like aspect is the reason that word is used, nonoe has come up with a way to remove it so there is a corrolation between the law like aspect and the function it serves such that it suggests planning.

Hey if you want to base your argument on conflating the two meanings, you do so. I am not going to believe it, but maybe you will fool others as you have yourself.

Joe: Yes I do, all who have read then like them.

Clearly not true, as I do not.

Joe: you really don't know shit about this stuff. trying to play off ideas against reality by commending ideas about mind takes down natural law, and hyphenates testing you cant test if you never frigate a hypithsis uniteding ideas with reality,

The fact that you cannot tell me which of those claims is about the mind and which is about the external world tells me enough. It confirms you are deliberately conflating the two.

Joe: I have gone to great lengths to answer this kind of thing in three chapters of the book i wrote to back up the argument,are you willing to read those chapters? it's a matter of choosing either Humean concept of science or scientific relativism. tour argumemt destroys science.I opt for an augmented realism.

All I am asking is a one word answer to five questions. Apparently too much to ask of someone who has written three chapters on this.

But then your argument is foundered on obscuring the distinction.

Joe: there is a correlation idea and reality, that is the sign and signified,

That is the second time you have used that red herring.

Joe: The way you organize things in your mind is not the relation between sign and signified those are totally different,,

Well, I guess that is a start; at least you admit there is a big difference. Now if you could only reveal which one you are talking about in each of your claims...

But we know that will never happen.

Joe: you totally dropped my narrower on property dualism probity because you don;t know what it is

I know exactly what it is; another red herring.

Joe: You are trying to outlaw philosophical understanding of naturalistic processes purely to prevent losing a God argument then take no responsibility for what that dies to the rest of science,

I have no idea where you get that from. Another red herring I guess.

Joe: The fallacy in your argument can be illustrated Thessaly: I might arrive at my understanding of the chemical make up of steel by craning for a test and by memorizing the table of elements. that does not make steel be made up of the whole talk of elements..I might get it all wrong and not understand the relationship, that has no bearing on the relationship itself.

How does that relate to what I said? It does not.

It does, however, illustrate the difference between a mental state and the real world.

Joe: you do to beat my argument,

I only have to point out that your argument conflates mental states and the real world to do that.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
My comments can be found here.
Joe: No wrong I put a link in the major post

Pix:What major post? Not the one we are commenting on, that is for sure.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/see-metacrocks-blog.html?showComment=1588062811844#c7188468282683556499


Joe: you can;t know if you don't read it.

Pix:And I cannot read it if it in on a page linked from another post.

you can;t follow a link? That's what they are for

Joe: we have argued this a number of times so you should know by now you are so arrogant you don't listen,Natural laws are not passed by legislators nor are they drawn up by lawmakers but clerical the as law-like aspect is the reason that word is used, nonoe has come up with a way to remove it so there is a corrolation between the law like aspect and the function it serves such that it suggests planning.

Pix:Hey if you want to base your argument on conflating the two meanings, you do so. I am not going to believe it, but maybe you will fool others as you have yourself.

what is being conflated? Science uses the temr Law that's where we get it in the sense of natural laws of physics. You did not answer my argument,I said it has a law like quality that is the basis for using that word you have not disproved that.


Joe: Yes I do, all who have read then like them.

PixClearly not true, as I do not.

I said those who have read it not those who pretend they read it.


Joe: you really don't know shit about this stuff. trying to play off ideas against reality by commending ideas about mind takes down natural law, and hyphenates testing you cant test if you never frigate a hypithsis uniteding ideas with reality,

Pox:The fact that you cannot tell me which of those claims is about the mind and which is about the external world tells me enough. It confirms you are deliberately conflating the two.

You are not being specific. You made general statements we have no idea what you are talking about. I said the argument you made takes out regular science you have not answered that.


Joe: I have gone to great lengths to answer this kind of thing in three chapters of the book i wrote to back up the argument,are you willing to read those chapters? it's a matter of choosing either Humean concept of science or scientific relativism. tour argumemt destroys science.I opt for an augmented realism.

All I am asking is a one word answer to five questions. Apparently too much to ask of someone who has written three chapters on this.

where did you innumerate the five? I can't answer them if you don't ask them.

But then your argument is foundered on obscuring the distinction.

what distinction? how have I obscured it?


Joe: there is a correlation idea and reality, that is the sign and signified,

Pix:That is the second time you have used that red herring.

knock this shit off or I wont talk to you! you cleanly play games because you know you have no argument. You are saying in essence that unless i can answer a certain kind of philosophical argument about phenomena then my argument is invalid. That is clearly fallacious since the thing my argument proves is not even related to the issues invoked in your bail out argument,



Joe: The way you organize things in your mind is not the relation between sign and signified those are totally different,,

PixWell, I guess that is a start; at least you admit there is a big difference. Now if you could only reveal which one you are talking about in each of your claims...

what Bullshit I con't believe you resort to such bull shit when you are losing.


Joe: Now where did I say that laws of nature are passed by legislators. Obviously the same word with the same meaning is used in both senses of law the sane word is used for a reason so there clearly is some sense of connection or synonymy.



PixThey are not entirely unrelated, but nevertheless they have two different meanings.

your argue tin essence is asking me to deal with what philosophers call the correspondence theory of truth.

PXYour claim that the laws of nature require a law maker is founded upon conflating the two meanings. That might fool the ignorant, but no one who understands science or philosophy will fall for it.


that is not my argument. Here is what's happening. You don't understand my argument, you because it's something you think you can answer. so you are trying to make that my argument because you this you can answer it. You also think it's sufficiency studio so it must be what I'm saying.

the phrase about laws and law giver has next to nothing to do with the TS argument. That is not what the discussion is about so answering stuff related to that is nowhere's ville.



here is my actual argent:

P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through organization of concepts.

P2)We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TSP

3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.

P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.

P5) The signifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine economy exactly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.

P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conclusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is discretion of the Transcendental Signified.

P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED..

(1) what does that have to do with the correspondence theory?

(2) you have not made an actual argument against this view.



Anonymous said…
Joe: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/see-metacrocks-blog.html?showComment=1588062811844#c7188468282683556499

That link: (1) is not in the original post; (2) is to a comment made by me (which admittedly is very insightful); and (3) is to a discussion about civilisation in which the word "math" DOES NOT APPEAR.

Previously you claimed "No wrobg I pit a link in the major post". That is patently not true.

Joe: you can;t follow a link? That's what they are for

The link is to a comment by me. It is part of a discussion on the nature of civilisation, so unrelated to this. Apparently YOU are the one unable to follow your own link.

Joe: what is being conflated? Science uses the temr Law that's where we get it in the sense of natural laws of physics. You did not answer my argument,I said it has a law like quality that is the basis for using that word you have not disproved that.

You argument is predicated on the laws of nature being the same as the laws of the land. They are not, as anyone with the first clue of science or philosophy should know.

Read this, then may be you too will have the first clue.
https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

Pix: The fact that you cannot tell me which of those claims is about the mind and which is about the external world tells me enough. It confirms you are deliberately conflating the two.

Joe: You are not being specific. You made general statements we have no idea what you are talking about. I said the argument you made takes out regular science you have not answered that.

Actually I was very specific. The problem, I suspect, is that I was too specific, and you do not want to be nailed down to single answer. I will repeat what I said before:

Let's get specific..

For your definition of TS, does that refer to mental states or to matter?

For your preliminary observations, do they refer to mental states or to matter?

For your argument, do P1 and P2 refer to mental states or to matter?


Now, how is that not specific?

Joe: where did you innumerate the five? I can't answer them if you don't ask them.

Apparently you cannot answer them when I do either. It is above in bold, which is copy-and-pasted from when I asked earlier.

Joe: what distinction? how have I obscured it?

The distinction is whether the above refer to mental states or to matter.

You employ various tricks to obscure it, such as this example of you playing dumb. Anything to avoid clarifying.

Joe: knock this shit off or I wont talk to you! you cleanly play games because you know you have no argument. You are saying in essence that unless i can answer a certain kind of philosophical argument about phenomena then my argument is invalid. That is clearly fallacious since the thing my argument proves is not even related to the issues invoked in your bail out argument,

I am saying that unless you are clear on whether the above refer to mental states or to matter then your argument is invalid. If you cannot, then it is clear it is based on you flipping from one meaning to another within your argument.

Joe: what Bullshit I con't believe you resort to such bull shit when you are losing.

Wow, that is some projection. Perhaps we should review...

Firstly, you claim to have a link in the original post that relates math to your argument. The truth is that the link was in a comment, not the original post, and it is to an unrelated page. That is your bullshit.

Secondly, you are conflating laws of nature with man-made laws. That is your bullshit.

Thirdly, you are conflating claims about mental states with claims about the real world, and pulling out every trick you can to avoid having to clarify. That is your bullshit.

I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror before your next reply.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/see-metacrocks-blog.html?showComment=1588062811844#c7188468282683556499

That link: (1) is not in the original post;

I am not sure where that link comes from I know where it goes to. it goes to the post by e called "see Metacrock's blog"


(2) is to a comment made by me (which admittedly is very insightful); and

there's a comment by you on the thread but the link is to my post.


(3) is to a discussion about civilisation in which the word "math" DOES NOT APPEAR.

there is no intrinsic reason why the word math has to appear on discussions about civilization. Schweitzer wrote the major work on philosophy of civilization and never used the word math

Previously you claimed "No wrobg I pit a link in the major post". That is patently not true.

yes, this is it, follow it


https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/04/excerpt-from-work-in-progress.html

that link is in that thread that just says see Metaacrock;s blog

Joe: you can;t follow a link? That's what they are for

The link is to a comment by me. It is part of a discussion on the nature of civilisation, so unrelated to this. Apparently YOU are the one unable to follow your own link.

No it is to a post by me to which you put on a comm met.

Joe: what is being conflated? Science uses the temr Law that's where we get it in the sense of natural laws of physics. You did not answer my argument,I said it has a law like quality that is the basis for using that word you have not disproved that.

You argument is predicated on the laws of nature being the same as the laws of the land. They are not, as anyone with the first clue of science or philosophy should know.

No it's not predicated upon "the laws of nature being the same as the laws of the land." I deal with that specifically and carefully in my chapter.

there is a basis for drawing that analogy but there are problems with it to one being that natural laws are not passed by legislatures but there is a law=like quality that's the basis for the analogy.




Read this, then may be you too will have the first clue.
https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

I'll be making a whole post om this matter on Monday. you know in your heart of hearts you only ceased upon this issue because you have nothing ti say you don;t understand my argument, you had nothing to say you know it,


Pix: The fact that you cannot tell me which of those claims is about the mind and which is about the external world tells me enough. It confirms you are deliberately conflating the two.

Your use of that formulation gimmick tells me you don't how to do philophy of science, Clumsy attempt to turn a standard issue into a gimmick.


Joe: You are not being specific. You made general statements we have no idea what you are talking about. I said the argument you made takes out regular science you have not answered that.

Actually I was very specific. The problem, I suspect, is that I was too specific, and you do not want to be nailed down to single answer. I will repeat what I said before:

Mon prof that BS can be employed in any argent against any position. you know it. You are insulting me because you have not bothered to understand my idea. now you can't admit that so you try to sound like you have a big universal answer,

Let's get specific..

For your definition of TS, does that refer to mental states or to matter?


a stupid question, if that invalidates my argument it invalidates all of science. Here is why, it refers to language so that is a mental state,then to say that can't influence physical things would be like saying science can;t talk about laws because that;s just analogy so it can't effect anything, But the actual referent it goes with does refer to physical things.

If you getaway with that I can use the same about all of science so all of science is invalidated.


For your preliminary observations, do they refer to mental states or to matter?

For your argument, do P1 and P2 refer to mental states or to matter?

Now, how is that not specific?

p1 IS MENTAL P2 TRANSLATES IT INTO THE PHYSICAL


Joe: where did you innumerate the five? I can't answer them if you don't ask them.

Apparently you cannot answer them when I do either. It is above in bold, which is copy-and-pasted from when I asked earlier.

here:
"For your definition of TS, does that refer to mental states or to matter?

For your preliminary observations, do they refer to mental states or to matter?

For your argument, do P1 and P2 refer to mental states or to matter?"

do chemicals refer to physical things to matter? chemicals are physical substances but all the ways you understand them go through ideas in your mind so they are just mental constructs, do they refer to mental states or to matter?



Joe: what distinction? how have I obscured it?

PxThe distinction is whether the above refer to mental states or to matter.

what does chemistry refer to ?


You employ various tricks to obscure it, such as this example of you playing dumb. Anything to avoid clarifying.


If I am playing dumb you are playing stupid! because real philosophers of science do not do this. no one would hit Sankie with some bull shit about are your ideas references to physical things.

Just to break through your ego iduce haze I am acting this way because you are showing me you don't take my ideas serous you don't see me as a real thinker. That or your understanding of how to do philosophy of science is super naive.



Joe: knock this shit off or I wont talk to you! you cleanly play games because you know you have no argument. You are saying in essence that unless i can answer a certain kind of philosophical argument about phenomena then my argument is invalid. That is clearly fallacious since the thing my argument proves is not even related to the issues invoked in your bail out argument,

PixI am saying that unless you are clear on whether the above refer to mental states or to matter then your argument is invalid. If you cannot, then it is clear it is based on you flipping from one meaning to another within your argument.

when Derrida spoke of the TS was he talking about mental states? why didn't anyone ever ask him that?


Joe: what Bullshit I con't believe you resort to such bull shit when you are losing.

Wow, that is some projection. Perhaps we should review...

Firstly, you claim to have a link in the original post that relates math to your argument. The truth is that the link was in a comment, not the original post, and it is to an unrelated page. That is your bullshit.


are you kidding me? I went into history so I wouldn't have to use math! I never talk about math, you must have been misled by my horrible spelling.


Secondly, you are conflating laws of nature with man-made laws. That is your bullshit.

clearly not. I really did do half a chapter on that just to show that I don't do it.I used that phrase in answer to a sub sub sub point not in the real argument,



Thirdly, you are conflating claims about mental states with claims about the real world, and pulling out every trick you can to avoid having to clarify. That is your bullshit.

I am not doing that either, but let me assume you have a legitimate concern.


I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror before your next reply.

You hit the mail on the head, one of us needs to do that. which one? I've been working on this argument since late 90s
btw that link is on the civilization issue not the TS argent,
Anonymous said…
That Elusive Link

Joe: I am not sure where that link comes from...

And yet earlier you insisted it was in the original post of this discussion, and mocked me for not being able to use.

Joe: ... I know where it goes to. it goes to the post by e called "see Metacrock's blog"

Which is about your chapter on the decline of civilisation, and is utterly unrelated to this discussion, and on which the word "math" does not appear.

Joe: there's a comment by you on the thread but the link is to my post.

Click it and try it: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/see-metacrocks-blog.html?showComment=1588062811844#c7188468282683556499

The last part of the URL, the bit after the # sends you to an anchor on the page. The anchor in this case is "c7188468282683556499", which signifies a comment. A comment by me.

Joe: there is no intrinsic reason why the word math has to appear on discussions about civilization. Schweitzer wrote the major work on philosophy of civilization and never used the word math

No reason at all. The discussion on civilisation is utterly unrelated to this discussion. So why did you link to it?

Joe: yes, this is it, follow it

No you did not. The link - to an unrelated page - is in a comment, not in the major post. When you claimed "No wrobg I pit a link in the major post" that was patently not true.

Joe: that link is in that thread that just says see Metaacrock;s blog

So when you said there was a link "in the major post" to an explanation that makes the link to math, what you meant was there was a link in a comment, that links to another page and that in turn has a link to another page, and that page has no relevance to this discussion.

Joe: No it is to a post by me to which you put on a comm met.

I suggest you check your facts before posting next time. Actually look at where the link is. Actually follow the link. Then apologise.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Laws and laws

Joe: No it's not predicated upon "the laws of nature being the same as the laws of the land." I deal with that specifically and carefully in my chapter.

So what is your basis for saying the laws of nature need a law maker?

Joe: there is a basis for drawing that analogy but there are problems with it to one being that natural laws are not passed by legislatures but there is a law=like quality that's the basis for the analogy.

So it is argument from analogy?

Joe: I'll be making a whole post om this matter on Monday. you know in your heart of hearts you only ceased upon this issue because you have nothing ti say you don;t understand my argument, you had nothing to say you know it,

I mention it because it is wrong. But I will drop it for now and see what you say on Monday.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Real or in your head

Joe: Mon prof that BS can be employed in any argent against any position. you know it. You are insulting me because you have not bothered to understand my idea. now you can't admit that so you try to sound like you have a big universal answer,

In a sense you are right - I do not understand you. I have repeated asked you to clarify if your claims refer to the real world or mental constructs. You repeatedly fail to say.

I therefore very much suspected that your argument relies on others not understanding it.

Pix: For your definition of TS, does that refer to mental states or to matter?

Joe: a stupid question, if that invalidates my argument it invalidates all of science. Here is why, it refers to language so that is a mental state,then to say that can't influence physical things would be like saying science can;t talk about laws because that;s just analogy so it can't effect anything, But the actual referent it goes with does refer to physical things.

If you getaway with that I can use the same about all of science so all of science is invalidated.


I will skip over your BS, and focus on the fact that you have finally revealed that the TS is about a mental state. That is one step forward.

Pix: For your preliminary observations, do they refer to mental states or to matter?

For your argument, do P1 and P2 refer to mental states or to matter?

Now, how is that not specific?


Joe: p1 IS MENTAL P2 TRANSLATES IT INTO THE PHYSICAL

And what of your preliminary observations? Well, I guess you managed to do three out of five. Now, why did it take so long to get just 60% of the questions answered?

Joe: do chemicals refer to physical things to matter? chemicals are physical substances but all the ways you understand them go through ideas in your mind so they are just mental constructs, do they refer to mental states or to matter?

Chemicals are real substances that exist in the real world. It is not difficult.

Joe: what does chemistry refer to?

It has more than one meaning, but one is that chemistry is a science, a set of ideas about chemicals, so is in the head.

Joe: If I am playing dumb you are playing stupid! because real philosophers of science do not do this. no one would hit Sankie with some bull shit about are your ideas references to physical things.

I am guessing Sankie would not trot out this sort of nonsense.

Perhaps we should re-evaluate your conclusion:

"P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED.."

The TS, you have now revealed, is merely a mental state. The God you have proven is something inside your own head! It is a mental construct capable of organising concepts in your mind.

That is a long way from any definition of God I know of.

Joe: Just to break through your ego iduce haze I am acting this way because you are showing me you don't take my ideas serous you don't see me as a real thinker. That or your understanding of how to do philosophy of science is super naive.

You just proved God is merely what organises the ideas in your mind; why would I take you seriously?

Joe: when Derrida spoke of the TS was he talking about mental states? why didn't anyone ever ask him that?

Derrida seems more interested in the TSed, rather than the TS; that would be the thing in the real world that the TS points to.
https://literariness.org/2016/03/22/jacques-derrida-transcendental-signified/

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
That Elusive Link

Joe: I am not sure where that link comes from...

And yet earlier you insisted it was in the original post of this discussion, and mocked me for not being able to use.

Joe: ... I know where it goes to. it goes to the post by e called "see Metacrock's blog"

Which is about your chapter on the decline of civilisation, and is utterly unrelated to this discussion, and on which the word "math" does not appear.

I told you that

Joe: there's a comment by you on the thread but the link is to my post.

Click it and try it: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/see-metacrocks-blog.html?showComment=1588062811844#c7188468282683556499

The last part of the URL, the bit after the # sends you to an anchor on the page. The anchor in this case is "c7188468282683556499", which signifies a comment. A comment by me.

you swooped one link for another, the point the link had has been long lost so screw it.
Anonymous said...
Laws and laws

Joe: No it's not predicated upon "the laws of nature being the same as the laws of the land." I deal with that specifically and carefully in my chapter.

So what is your basis for saying the laws of nature need a law maker?

to be sarcastic about the way you reason

Joe: there is a basis for drawing that analogy but there are problems with it to one being that natural laws are not passed by legislatures but there is a law=like quality that's the basis for the analogy.

So it is argument from analogy?

No it's a valid use of analogy not reasoning from analogy.



Joe: I'll be making a whole post om this matter on Monday. you know in your heart of hearts you only ceased upon this issue because you have nothing ti say you don;t understand my argument, you had nothing to say you know it,

I mention it because it is wrong. But I will drop it for now and see what you say on Monday.

Pix


you have no idea what my argument says so you have no idea if it's riht or not.

4/30/2020 12:41:00 AM Delete

tell me in your own words, of 50 words what you think the TS argument says? u CHALLENGE YOU i DARE YOU.



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Real or in your head

Joe: Mon prof that BS can be employed in any argent against any position. you know it. You are insulting me because you have not bothered to understand my idea. now you can't admit that so you try to sound like you have a big universal answer,

In a sense you are right - I do not understand you. I have repeated asked you to clarify if your claims refer to the real world or mental constructs. You repeatedly fail to say.

I you know anything at all about philosophy of science or Derrida or any modern thinker you should know that, without asking the things I've said should tell you so. Your assertion that mental constructs can't refer to the world speaks volumes. Clue,why would I say you ditch science if you pursue the direction you are taking? because obviously mental constructs are the basis of our understanding of the world. That is especially true in science where we shape sense data into justification for belief.


I therefore very much suspected that your argument relies on others not understanding it.

that's because you are not willing to go to the effort to listen.



Pix: For your definition of TS, does that refer to mental states or to matter?


I resist taking that seriously because it's so ignorant. You are trying to belittle the idea as thought it's just me I just made it up.you are too lay to actually look it up

Logocentrism is described by Derrida as a “metaphysics of presence,” which is motivated by a desire for a “transcendental signified.”[6] A “transcendental signified” is a signified which transcends all signifiers, and is a meaning which transcends all signs.Nov 19, 2007

Some Key Terms – Derrida: The Father of Deconstruction


I am guessing Sankie would not trot out this sort of nonsense.

Perhaps we should re-evaluate your conclusion:

"P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED.."

The TS, you have now revealed, is merely a mental state. The God you have proven is something inside your own head! It is a mental construct capable of organising concepts in your mind.

That is a long way from any definition of God I know of.

Joe: Just to break through your ego iduce haze I am acting this way because you are showing me you don't take my ideas serous you don't see me as a real thinker. That or your understanding of how to do philosophy of science is super naive.

You just proved God is merely what organises the ideas in your mind; why would I take you seriously?

where did I prove that? show me the inference

Joe: when Derrida spoke of the TS was he talking about mental states? why didn't anyone ever ask him that?

Derrida seems more interested in the TSed, rather than the TS; that would be the thing in the real world that the TS points to.
https://literariness.org/2016/03/22/jacques-derrida-transcendental-signified/




that argument negates all scientific theory.

You have proved that atheist thinking is really just solipsistic
Anonymous said…
Joe: I told you that

You did indeed, so we both agree the link had no relevance to this discussion,

Joe: you swooped one link for another...

It is the link you gave in the first comment on this thread, and again in the second.

Look where you said "No wrobg I pit a link in the major post". At that point, that was the ONLY link you had given in the discussion. When you say I "swooped one link for another" that is not true and I really do not like the implication that I have done anything dishonestly.

Do not blame me for this. This is all down to you.

You claimed you had a link in the main post. You do not. You have now claimed I swapped the links. i have not. It is you who have saying things that are not true.

Joe: ... the point the link had has been long lost so screw it.

Which was undoubtedly your the strategy from the start. Obfuscate, delay, misdirect. Do all you can to hide the fact that you were wrong. Heaven forbid you could just admit you made a mistake.

The original point was that your post fails to explain; specifically you failed to say in the main post: "Since math is behind it all it would seem there is a universal mind behind the world". It had to be dragged out of you in the comments, and then you lied and pretended it was in a link in the main post when you said: "No wrobg I pit a link in the major post".

Why you could not just admit that you made a mistake I have no idea.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: tell me in your own words, of 50 words what you think the TS argument says? u CHALLENGE YOU i DARE YOU.

I have spent most of this discussion trying to find that out. If I do not understand it, that would be because you continually refuse to clarify.

Joe: I you know anything at all about philosophy of science or Derrida or any modern thinker you should know that, without asking the things I've said should tell you so. Your assertion that mental constructs can't refer to the world speaks volumes.

The fact that you are obliged to pretend I said that speaks volumes. I have NOT said that, and I do NOT believe that.

Joe: that's because you are not willing to go to the effort to listen.

Still you cannot tell me if these "organizing principles" are real or in your head:

(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)


I am happy to listen, but you are determined not to clarify.

Joe: I resist taking that seriously because it's so ignorant. You are trying to belittle the idea as thought it's just me I just made it up.you are too lay to actually look it up

In Derrida's view, the TS is a mental state. It relates to the real TSed. Given you say this is something I can look up, then clearly your TS is purely in your head.

Glad we have that sorted.

Joe: Logocentrism is described by Derrida as a “metaphysics of presence,” which is motivated by a desire for a “transcendental signified.”[6] A “transcendental signified” is a signified which transcends all signifiers, and is a meaning which transcends all signs.Nov 19, 2007

Right. The TSed is real, the TS is the idea of it in your head.

Now either:

you think that anything we can imagine is real, and your argument is that because God is the TS, there must be something real that it signifies (so if I imagine unicorns and fairies, then they must be real)

Or:

your God is just a mental construct

Frankly, I think you have confused TS and TSed, given your are offering Derrida's definition of TSed to support your definition of TS. As I have said from the beginning, you are confusing what is in your head with the real thing, confusing the TS in your head with the TSed in the real world.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: I told you that

You did indeed, so we both agree the link had no relevance to this discussion,

Joe: you swooped one link for another...

It is the link you gave in the first comment on this thread, and again in the second.

whatever

Look where you said "No wrobg I pit a link in the major post". At that point, that was the ONLY link you had given in the discussion. When you say I "swooped one link for another" that is not true and I really do not like the implication that I have done anything dishonestly.

Do not blame me for this. This is all down to you.

ok


You claimed you had a link in the main post. You do not. You have now claimed I swapped the links. i have not. It is you who have saying things that are not true.

Joe: ... the point the link had has been long lost so screw it.

Which was undoubtedly your the strategy from the start. Obfuscate, delay, misdirect. Do all you can to hide the fact that you were wrong. Heaven forbid you could just admit you made a mistake.

dose that prevent you from making a point? you can't just sa "I don't understand," you have to pretend your making a point


The original point was that your post fails to explain; specifically you failed to say in the main post: "Since math is behind it all it would seem there is a universal mind behind the world". It had to be dragged out of you in the comments, and then you lied and pretended it was in a link in the main post when you said: "No wrobg I pit a link in the major post".

that's not really the point of the argument,it's true but it's not what the argument asserts. It worked out that way based upon answering your attempts at pretending you knew what was being said.

Why you could not just admit that you made a mistake I have no idea.

I did not make a mistake you did not understand the argument,




Anonymous said…
Joe: tell me in your own words, of 50 words what you think the TS argument says? u CHALLENGE YOU i DARE YOU.

I have spent most of this discussion trying to find that out. If I do not understand it, that would be because you continually refuse to clarify.

bur did not admit it until now. That made dealing with it impossible because i had to find out you are winging it.


Joe: I you know anything at all about philosophy of science or Derrida or any modern thinker you should know that, without asking the things I've said should tell you so. Your assertion that mental constructs can't refer to the world speaks volumes.

The fact that you are obliged to pretend I said that speaks volumes. I have NOT said that, and I do NOT believe that.

you said it. stop your games

Joe: that's because you are not willing to go to the effort to listen.

Still you cannot tell me if these "organizing principles" are real or in your head:

of course they are real. how could there be an argument otherise?

(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an organizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)

I am happy to listen, but you are determined not to clarify.


you have to tell me you need clarification.


Joe: I resist taking that seriously because it's so ignorant. You are trying to belittle the idea as thought it's just me I just made it up.you are too lay to actually look it up

In Derrida's view, the TS is a mental state. It relates to the real TSed. Given you say this is something I can look up, then clearly your TS is purely in your head.

that's like saying for Einstein reactivity is just a mental state because he thought about it. that's what you are saying this is just in my head because i think about it

Glad we have that sorted.

sort of




Joe: Logocentrism is described by Derrida as a “metaphysics of presence,” which is motivated by a desire for a “transcendental signified.”[6] A “transcendental signified” is a signified which transcends all signifiers, and is a meaning which transcends all signs.Nov 19, 2007

Right. The TSed is real, the TS is the idea of it in your head.

NaCl is in your head but salt is real


Now either:

you think that anything we can imagine is real, and your argument is that because God is the TS, there must be something real that it signifies (so if I imagine unicorns and fairies, then they must be real)

Or:

your God is just a mental construct

this is the kid of bull shit I knew you would pull. anyone one could say these thugs about everything you think, no theory is immune from this kid of f sophistry. obviously I think God is real I think the nature of the universe hints at that reality. then to obfuscate that you have to make up bull shit to obscure the issues,


Frankly, I think you have confused TS and TSed, given your are offering Derrida's definition of TSed to support your definition of TS.


stop trying to cleverly disprove my ideas and use your brain. U should not have to go thorough the song and dance about signified and signifier every time make the argument, you hear it once you should know it.

signifies is a word, signified is the thing to which that word point, TS is word that sums up relativity under a first metaphysical principle. TSED is the thing that word refers to. Physics might be understood as a TS. Thus things as they follow the laws of physics would be the TSED. I should not have to explain this to you every time I talk about it.


As I have said from the beginning, you are confusing what is in your head with the real thing, confusing the TS in your head with the TSed in the real world.

No you fail to understand the relationship.
\
Anonymous said…
Joe's pretend link

Joe: whatever

So now you are going to act like a petulant teenage?

Joe: dose that prevent you from making a point? you can't just sa "I don't understand," you have to pretend your making a point

I have several times said I do not understand in as many words.

Joe: that's not really the point of the argument,it's true but it's not what the argument asserts. It worked out that way based upon answering your attempts at pretending you knew what was being said.

I felt that your original argument would be clearer if you had included that point. okay, maybe you disagree. However, you then started to make a whole bunch of claims that were clearly not true.

You did NOT put a link in the main post.

The link you put in a comment did NOT go to a page that relates maths to this argument.

When I called you on these false claims you make false accusations about me swapping links. That did NOT happen.

Joe: I did not make a mistake you did not understand the argument,

Whether I understood the argument has no bearing on the fact that you pretended to have a link in the main post, that you pretended that the link in the comments goes to a page that relates maths to this argument, that you pretended I had swapped the links.

If you cannot be honest about something as trivial as this, frankly I cannot trust anything you say.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Real or in your head (part 1)

Okay, here is what I understand. There is the thing, and there is the concept of the thing. There is territory, and then there is the map of the territory. I am typing at a desk. It is real. I can think about the desk. The idea of the desk is in my head. There is "real" (the desk) and there is "in my head" (the concept of the desk).

With me so far?

Derrida uses the terms "signifier" and "signified". The concept of the desk in my head is the signifier. It signifies the actual desk. The actual desk is the signified.

You argument leads to the conclusion that God is the transcendental signifier. If you are using Derrida's terminology, then that is merely the concept of God in your head. It gives us no indication if the signified is real, i.e., whether God actually exists.

I very much think you have got this confused, and you believe your argument proves God is real. However, that can only be the case (under Derrida's terminology) if you prove God the transcendental signified (TSed) is real, and you clearly make no attempt to do that because the TSed is not mentioned in the conclusion.

As far as I can see your whole argument is based on concepts in your head, not what is real.

Joe: bur did not admit it until now. That made dealing with it impossible because i had to find out you are winging it.

I kept asking you to clarify your argument. What were the first words I said on this thread? "What does "organizing principle" mean?" Is that not a hint I do not understand? I took a guess, but qualified it. Some further hints I made, that you failed to pick up on:

The fact that you cannot tell me which of those claims is about the mind and which is about the external world tells me enough. It confirms you are deliberately conflating the two.

All I am asking is a one word answer to five questions. Apparently too much to ask of someone who has written three chapters on this.

It is not a red herring. Your whole argument appears to be based on conflating the two. That may be because I have misunderstood - in which case you will be able to tell me which it is your are talking about at each point.

In a sense you are right - I do not understand you. I have repeated asked you to clarify if your claims refer to the real world or mental constructs. You repeatedly fail to say.
I therefore very much suspected that your argument relies on others not understanding it.

Still you cannot tell me if these "organizing principles" are real or in your head:

I have spent most of this discussion trying to find that out. If I do not understand it, that would be because you continually refuse to clarify.


Joe: you said it. stop your games

So quote me. I can quote you pretending there is a link in the original post; you should be able to quote me asserting that mental constructs cannot refer to the world. But then, I have the advantage of truth...

Pix
Anonymous said…
Real or in your head (part 2)

Joe: of course they are real. how could there be an argument otherise?

Most people organise ideas in their head. In fact, it is fundamental to language; we organise all the things we identify as tables under the word "table" in our heads. This is an organising principle in your head.

So I have to ask: what is an organising principle in the real world? Do you mean the laws of nature, and the manner in which they organise matter?

Joe: you have to tell me you need clarification.

Is there any point? You have a long history of failing to clarify when asked. I just quoted a bunch of examples. Why would I imagine this is any different?

Joe: that's like saying for Einstein reactivity is just a mental state because he thought about it. that's what you are saying this is just in my head because i think about it

Of course relativity is a mental state. It is a theory in a guy's mind, which relates (models) the real world. Relativity is the signifier, the universe is the signified, to use Derrida's terminology.

I really think you have misunderstood what he is talking about.

Joe: NaCl is in your head but salt is real

That sounds more like you get it.

Joe: this is the kid of bull shit I knew you would pull. anyone one could say these thugs about everything you think, no theory is immune from this kid of f sophistry. obviously I think God is real I think the nature of the universe hints at that reality. then to obfuscate that you have to make up bull shit to obscure the issues,

Yes, obviously you think God is real. This is why I think you have confused TS (the mental state you have proven) with TSed (something that is real, but not menmtioned in your conclusion).

Joe: stop trying to cleverly disprove my ideas and use your brain. U should not have to go thorough the song and dance about signified and signifier every time make the argument, you hear it once you should know it.

signifies is a word, signified is the thing to which that word point, TS is word that sums up relativity under a first metaphysical principle. TSED is the thing that word refers to. Physics might be understood as a TS. Thus things as they follow the laws of physics would be the TSED. I should not have to explain this to you every time I talk about it.


That sounds like you get it. Now look at your conclusion:

P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED..

Your conclusion is that God is the TS, which is the word that signified God.

Great. But no one doubted the existence of the word. What we are debating is the existence of God himself, the TSed.

Joe: No you fail to understand the relationship.

I fail to understand how you use it, certainly.

Pix


Whether I understood the argument has no bearing on the fact that you pretended to have a link in the main post, that you pretended that the link in the comments goes to a page that relates maths to this argument, that you pretended I had swapped the links.

I had a whole post om the TS argument the link was to the civilization thing,TS argument I've discussed many times I had a whole post on it.

https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/04/transcendental-signifier-argument_27.html
Transcendental Signifier Argument
By Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) - April 27, 2020


If you cannot be honest about something as trivial as this, frankly I cannot trust anything you say.

Pix

amen brother


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Real or in your head (part 1)

Okay, here is what I understand. There is the thing, and there is the concept of the thing. There is territory, and then there is the map of the territory. I am typing at a desk. It is real. I can think about the desk. The idea of the desk is in my head. There is "real" (the desk) and there is "in my head" (the concept of the desk).

With me so far?

Derrida uses the terms "signifier" and "signified". The concept of the desk in my head is the signifier. It signifies the actual desk. The actual desk is the signified.

You argument leads to the conclusion that God is the transcendental signifier. If you are using Derrida's terminology, then that is merely the concept of God in your head. It gives us no indication if the signified is real, i.e., whether God actually exists.


No, you got the relationship between signfier and signified correct but that does not mean that signers are only in your head. Because all signfiers relate to a signfied. Some of them the signfieds are only theoretical but some are real. The fact that "G-o-d" is a signfier does not make it unreal or only in your head, It can just as easily have a real actual signied. It's begging the question to make your assertion, the whole point of the argument is that we should assume there is a real sinified for that signfier,


I very much think you have got this confused, and you believe your argument proves God is real. However, that can only be the case (under Derrida's terminology) if you prove God the transcendental signified (TSed) is real, and you clearly make no attempt to do that because the TSed is not mentioned in the conclusion.

sure as hell do. I present reasons to believe it *(not proof but warrant) and a conclusion based upon those reasons that's just what it says


As far as I can see your whole argument is based on concepts in your head, not what is real.

Order in the inverse is not real? again why the **** don't you read it ?

to wit:P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.

P5) The signifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine economy exactly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.

P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conclusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is discretion of the Transcendental Signified.

P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED..




The fact that you cannot tell me which of those claims is about the mind and which is about the external world tells me enough. It confirms you are deliberately conflating the two.

I did tell you that. what I just said answers it

All I am asking is a one word answer to five questions. Apparently too much to ask of someone who has written three chapters on this.

why? if you understand the concept you know that is unnecessary

It is not a red herring. Your whole argument appears to be based on conflating the two. That may be because I have misunderstood - in which case you will be able to tell me which it is your are talking about at each point.

I just explained why it's not and it applies to argument. In any given argument a fieriness could correspond to a real signified.

I argue there's a tree in the court yard, "tree" related to thick hunk of biomass growing out of the ground; there is one so the sigifer is about a real signfied,

argument: there is a dragon in the cout yard, this one is no true but it;s not because being a signier means it;s only in head it;
'


In a sense you are right - I do not understand you. I have repeated asked you to clarify if your claims refer to the real world or mental constructs. You repeatedly fail to say.

I told you they do
Anonymous said...
Real or in your head (part 2)

Joe: of course they are real. how could there be an argument otherise?

Most people organise ideas in their head. In fact, it is fundamental to language; we organise all the things we identify as tables under the word "table" in our heads. This is an organising principle in your head.

what you just said answers your argument and it shows you are grasping at straws.

So I have to ask: what is an organising principle in the real world? Do you mean the laws of nature, and the manner in which they organise matter?

I've given several examples

An Article in Nature entitled “Organizing principles” discusses a famous experiment in developmental biology: in 1924 carried out by Hilde Mangold, a Ph.D. student in the laboratory of Hans Spemann in Freiburg. “It provided the first unambiguous evidence that cell and tissue fate can be determined by signals received from other cells…This experiment therefore demonstrated the existence of an organizer that instructs both neuralization and dorsalization, and showed that cells can adopt their developmental fate according to their position when instructed by other cells.”[6]vi

M.J. Bissell et. al. Discuss malignancy in breast cancer. “A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.”[7]


[6]Barbara Marte, “Milstone 1: Organizing Principles,” Nature.Org (july 1,2004) doi:10.1038/nrn1449

URL: http://www.nature.com/milestones/development/milestones/full/milestone1.html accessed 6/3/16

Marte is senior editor Nature.

[7]viiM.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki, “The Organizing Principle:Microenvironmental Influences In The Normal amd Malignant Breast.” Pub Med, NCB, Dec;70(9-10): 2002, 537-46. on line resource URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492495 accessed 6:3/16

you can answer if you want to but I'm re presenting the argument on monday
Anonymous said…
Joe: No, you got the relationship between signfier and signified correct but that does not mean that signers are only in your head. Because all signfiers relate to a signfied. ...

How does that follow? Your argument appears to be:

All signifiers relate to a signified
Therefore some signifiers are not ideas

As far as I can tell, "signifiers" means the idea, so it must be in your head.

Joe: ... Some of them the signfieds are only theoretical but some are real. ...

Agreed.

Joe: The fact that "G-o-d" is a signfier does not make it unreal or only in your head, It can just as easily have a real actual signied. It's begging the question to make your assertion, the whole point of the argument is that we should assume there is a real sinified for that signfier,

If God is a signifier, then God is just in your head, because signifiers are ideas and ideas are just in your head.

You could say the idea of God is in your head (the signifier), and there is a signified God that is theoretical or real.

Joe: sure as hell do. I present reasons to believe it *(not proof but warrant) and a conclusion based upon those reasons that's just what it says

The conclusion of your argument is that the signifer exists. The signifier is the idea of the thing. Congratulations, you have proved the idea of God actually exists.

If you want to prove God himself exists, you need to prove the signified exists, the TSed.

Joe: Order in the inverse is not real? again why the **** don't you read it ?

I have read it. Maybe you should:

"P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Signified, and thus is an actual reality.rational warrant for belief in God's existence, QED.."

It is about the TS, not the TSed. It is about the concept of God, not God himself.

Pix
If God is a signifier, then God is just in your head, because signifiers are ideas and ideas are just in your head.

You could say the idea of God is in your head (the signifier), and there is a signified God that is theoretical or real.


Du that is in fact what I did say

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger