3 ms·

You have smuggled in a LOT of things that are not empirical in your response. "Ordered" - what is the empirical evidence for order? How can one know the differ

You have smuggled in a LOT of things that are not empirical in your response. "Ordered" - what is the empirical evidence for order? How can one know the difference between randomness and order with only empirical evidence? Order requires a concept of "orderliness" that one is comparing the evidence to. "Words" - the empirical evidence of a word is a squiggle on a piece of paper. Everything else about a word and its connection to a thing is purely abstract, and not empirically verifiable. "cultural" - what is the empirical evidence for a culture? What empirical properties does a culture have? Can it be defined merely by its physical characteristics? "context" - what does this even mean, empirically speaking. We have infinite number of facts. How does empiricism filter relevant and irrelevant facts? What does it even mean for something to be "relevant" empirically? "existed even before it was written down" - so something existed with no empirical evidence? How can you say it exists then? "Memory" - what is the empirical evidence for your memory? Can I hook you up to a machine and stimulate your brain in such a way that I could get the words of the poem to read out on the screen? "emotional association" - what does that even mean empirically? I could go on, but I have to get back to work. I hope I have helped you clarify your thinking about how "empirical" you actually are(n't), but I've probably just lost you, and for that, I'm sorry. Please forgive my inability to speak more clearly.

v-erne 5y ago
> You have smuggled in a LOT of things that are not empirical in your response. Those are mental models that are useful to me but unfortunately I'm not master at using them. And what is more they are inherently wrong (because they are models and not the real thing - putting aside if anything is real). I do not believe in them more than I need to. But they are the only way that we can communicate on high level - by establishing common model and that talking about its properties. And then we can empirically test if they really behave as we believe (if we want to, otherwise we can just leave it be and use it as toys and as a way to spend our time waiting for nothingness to take us back). > Please forgive my inability to speak more clearly. Likewise - as You may have guessed english is not my native language and those concepts that I speak about are not well developed in my mind - they are merly my intuitions (by which I openly admin that I use things that are not empirically proven - but only because that is the only way that our faulty mind can work - by substituting reality with simplified erroneous abstractions that sometimes work). >I could go on, but I have to get back to work Wish You a pleasant work! And thank You for good conversation.
lurker619 5y ago
This seems like a facetious word-salad. You asked if a poem that was written then burned, still exists. He answered that the poem exists in his memory. It doesn't make any sense to say, what is empirical evidence for order or culture or context. You can't ask him to redefine literally everything, before you accept his answer. I agree with your overall comment thread, that you separate empirical stuff like engines rooted in reality, from values like the highest good. You conclude that a way to achieve the highest good is to be religious. But are you sure? It's certainly good for you, your family and the community around you. But is it the highest good for the world? Across all nations, all the wars that have been fought over religion - I'd dispute that it's still the highest good.

v-erne 5y ago

> You have smuggled in a LOT of things that are not empirical in your response. Those are mental models that are useful to me but unfortunately I'm not master at using them. And what is more they are inherently wrong (because they are models and not the real thing - putting aside if anything is real). I do not believe in them more than I need to. But they are the only way that we can communicate on high level - by establishing common model and that talking about its properties. And then we can empirically test if they really behave as we believe (if we want to, otherwise we can just leave it be and use it as toys and as a way to spend our time waiting for nothingness to take us back). > Please forgive my inability to speak more clearly. Likewise - as You may have guessed english is not my native language and those concepts that I speak about are not well developed in my mind - they are merly my intuitions (by which I openly admin that I use things that are not empirically proven - but only because that is the only way that our faulty mind can work - by substituting reality with simplified erroneous abstractions that sometimes work). >I could go on, but I have to get back to work Wish You a pleasant work! And thank You for good conversation.

lurker619 5y ago

This seems like a facetious word-salad. You asked if a poem that was written then burned, still exists. He answered that the poem exists in his memory. It doesn't make any sense to say, what is empirical evidence for order or culture or context. You can't ask him to redefine literally everything, before you accept his answer. I agree with your overall comment thread, that you separate empirical stuff like engines rooted in reality, from values like the highest good. You conclude that a way to achieve the highest good is to be religious. But are you sure? It's certainly good for you, your family and the community around you. But is it the highest good for the world? Across all nations, all the wars that have been fought over religion - I'd dispute that it's still the highest good.