Mcattack Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 I've just starting making some videos for a full course on logic. Totally politically incorrect and from a voluntaryist perspective. Here is the first - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6OXLS5urUY
Rick Horton Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 The way I see it, and this doesn't impact anything outside of my reality, is that it's not really a thing to have to argue for. In my life I demand it when possible. There are forces leaning on reality that tarnish it, and they will always be there. The goal for me isn't to change the world, but change MY world. The world that I can affect in my proximity, and control. Lead by example. Don't enter into forceful relationships if you can help it, be nice, moral, thoughtful, and authorative in your experience of your reality. Direct YOUR reality the most efficient and beneficial way to bring harmony to yourself and those most important to you in your existence. Hey, you only have one shot. Life is short, and your reality is the only thing that you're sure of. When you die, so does reality anyhow. Make it the best reality you can for yourself. As far as activism goes, that creates far too much friction and distraction from "being" and living the philosophy. There is FAR from any guarantees apart from that.
Rick Horton Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 The way I see it, and this doesn't impact anything outside of my reality, is that it's not really a thing to have to argue for. In my life I demand it when possible. There are forces leaning on reality that tarnish it, and they will always be there. The goal for me isn't to change the world, but change MY world. The world that I can affect in my proximity, and control. Lead by example. Don't enter into forceful relationships if you can help it, be nice, moral, thoughtful, and authorative in your experience of your reality. Direct YOUR reality the most efficient and beneficial way to bring harmony to yourself and those most important to you in your existence. Hey, you only have one shot. Life is short, and your reality is the only thing that you're sure of. When you die, so does reality anyhow. Make it the best reality you can for yourself. As far as activism goes, that creates far too much friction and distraction from "being" and living the philosophy. There is FAR from any guarantees apart from that. To add to this. I'm a Cossapist, not a Volentaryist. So I have a different philosophy, although there are a LOT of similarities.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 To add to this. I'm a Cossapist I would like for you to define this term as I can't find any reference to it.
Rick Horton Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Chief Observer's Supreme Self Authority Principal.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 I'll need a little better than "this is what the acronym stands for," and "it is like UPB," if you are serious about conveying your meaning.
Rick Horton Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 I'll need a little better than "this is what the acronym stands for," and "it is like UPB," if you are serious about conveying your meaning. It's about arguing correctly from first principals. The only provable existence is the sum of my experience of reality. It is self evident. It needs no proof. Everything else needs proof. Everything else is unprovable. Therefore arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals. Arguing from anything else, starts off flawed.
Rick Horton Posted February 16, 2013 Posted February 16, 2013 But as with other theories put forward by other philosophers I am willing to have it blown up if there is an inconsistency. So if you want to play devils advocate I'm game. I'm very confident it will stand up to any test, though. But if it doesn't I'll concede.
ribuck Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 ... arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals ... In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. But if your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful.
Rick Horton Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 ... arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals ... In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. But if your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful. Exactly []
Rick Horton Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 There's no contradiction there at all. Everybody I experience is a subject of my reality. I know that for sure. Scientific principals seem to apply to my experience of reality. I've never seen them not, until they are disproven. All of the subjects in reality that have influence on me affect my experience, therefore all subjects of my reality are real, whether as an idea, concept, or thing. For example, the idea of God (the Christian one) is real because it affects my life due to other people using that idea to cause me to have to adapt different approaches in my life to maneuver through my experience of reality. However God (the Christian one) is not a real "thing". at all. But since the idea has affect, the idea is real. All of the subjects in my reality, which is the only thing that needs no proof and is self evident, DO exist as things, within my reality. Things that scientific method seem to support being in existence, in my reality as "things". Whether or not they can be proven to exist outside of "my" reality doesn't change anything, BUT ignoring the influence they have on my reality is pointless because they do have affect.
Rick Horton Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Needless to say, I'm very PROUD to have organized this mechanism in my life, to properly organize my moral actions. I haven't had it knocked down yet, and I haven't been able to disqualify Cossap, myself, and I've tested it rigorously HOPING I can disqualify it, but it's still standing, and is (I think) more useful than UPB.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 ... arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals ... In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. But if your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful. Exactly /emoticons/emotion-1.gif So which is it?
ribuck Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 ... arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals ... In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. If your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful. Exactly /emoticons/emotion-1.gif So which is it? My use of the word "but" is probably the source of the confusion. I didn't mean "but, alternatively". I meant "but, additionally". I've removed the word "but" from the quoted copy above, to see if that makes my intended meaning more clear. Moncaloono says that he argues from the sum of his experience of reality. I commented that this will be more productive if his experience of reality includes the experience that "the scientific method is useful". Moncaloono agreed. So I think he interpreted my post as I had intended it.
Rick Horton Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 *delete* not actually curious and that absolutely doesn't matter.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 ... arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals ... In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. If your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful. Exactly /emoticons/emotion-1.gif So which is it? My use of the word "but" is probably the source of the confusion. I didn't mean "but, alternatively". I meant "but, additionally". I've removed the word "but" from the quoted copy above, to see if that makes my intended meaning more clear. Moncaloono says that he argues from the sum of his experience of reality. I commented that this will be more productive if his experience of reality includes the experience that "the scientific method is useful". Moncaloono agreed. So I think he interpreted my post as I had intended it. I don't agree that the "sum of my experience," can be said to encompass empiricism unless I carry out the tests and do all the math myself. Even a computer doing the work would render it problematic, unless I wrote the code. Perhaps Moncaloono would like to further describe the philosophy from which he gains so much pride? On a related note, I also fail to see the claimed correlation with UPB.
Arius Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing. What do you mean, objectively? Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality. Rick, I think you're a solipsist.
Rick Horton Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 I can prove myself. I can't scientifically prove this outside of myself thing. What do you mean, objectively? Outside of myself? Because, nothing can be proven outside of my experience of reality. Rick, I think you're a solipsist. It's not solipism. There are a lot of differences there.
Arius Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 How does the epistemology of COSSAP differ from solipsism?
Rick Horton Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 ... arguing from the sum of my experience of reality equals arguing from first principals ... In that case, the conclusions reached from your arguments will only be applicable to yourself, since others have a different sum of experiences. If your personal experience includes noticing that the scientific method makes it possible to know which theories have predictive power, then your method becomes more useful. Exactly /emoticons/emotion-1.gif So which is it? My use of the word "but" is probably the source of the confusion. I didn't mean "but, alternatively". I meant "but, additionally". I've removed the word "but" from the quoted copy above, to see if that makes my intended meaning more clear. Moncaloono says that he argues from the sum of his experience of reality. I commented that this will be more productive if his experience of reality includes the experience that "the scientific method is useful". Moncaloono agreed. So I think he interpreted my post as I had intended it. I don't agree that the "sum of my experience," can be said to encompass empiricism unless I carry out the tests and do all the math myself. Even a computer doing the work would render it problematic, unless I wrote the code. Perhaps Moncaloono would like to further describe the philosophy from which he gains so much pride? On a related note, I also fail to see the claimed correlation with UPB. I don't understand your point. Can you point out an inconsistency? In order to discribe Cossapism to satisfy you further I might need to write a book, and I understand how frustrating it is to only have an idea about what it is. Hmm.... Okay, so you know that it says that in order to argue from first principals it is necessary to argue from your experience of reality. Another aspect about it is that moral actions should be prioritized to one's hierarchy of value of the subjects of his experience of reality. When dealing with conflict or any other subject relevent to a problem it is most effiecient to communicate with all of the subjects that have an affect, or will be affected by the conflict, in order to bring satisfaction or closure. Another aspect is that there is you cannot own what you cannot conceal. If you can conceal it, you own it. Once you reveal it, it is released to all subjects in your reality, thus reality. The only thing one can own is the sum of his experience of reality, since that cannot ever be shared with anybody else even if you wanted to. Since your reality is the only self evident and provable reality and everything else requires a certain amount of faith on even the most minute level, arguing from the sum of your experience of reality IS arguing from first principals. The philosophy doesn't say that an external world doesn't exist, but it says that there is less certainty that it does, and that it's more rational to argue from certainty than uncertainty. These are some of the key concepts. I've thrown boulders at the philosophy to see where it will break down, but it hasn't yet, and I think that shows it's very useful. I haven't had any flaws proven to me, yet.
Recommended Posts