THE ERRORS OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEIR CORRECTION (this is far deeper than first imp

THE ERRORS OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEIR CORRECTION
(this is far deeper than first impressions might suggest)

In this conversation, you have a tendency to use analogy as a tool of conflation, to convert from physical to verbal frames to evade causal relations claim relations and dependencies that do not follow.

This is only possible if you learn set reasoning (verbal, legal, scriptural, mythic) instead of causal (operational, empirical, scientific).

There are reasons to rely on such associations for the purpose of creating loose analogies so that the audience might grasp an otherwise tenuous pattern.

But just as justification and induction are useful only for such purposes, and operation and falsification are only useful for truth propositions, when you try to argue a truth proposition from an analogy you are engaging in sophistry, not reasoning, argument, or testimony (truth).

So in this context, external information can exist. Through sense perception that information can influence internal information. Our brains conduct an adversarial competition for successful prediction recursively across an ever-expanding time horizon to the limit of the individual’s knowledge and intelligence.

The individual then, choosing from this adversarial competition’s set of opportunities, solutions, and risks, and irrelevancies, may release those actions that were calculated along with them, depending upon their amplitude, will be involuntary and reactive to voluntary and persistent (being burned or hurt, to deeply considering to exhaustively computing).

So the individual’s sentience, consciousness, agency, rational choice, free will, and are simply categories of states or conditions along that sequential process of continuous recursive perception thru action (where inaction is also an action.)
… sentience=external awareness,
… consciousness=self awareness,
… agency=opportunity awareness,
… rational choice=valuative awareness,
… free will=moral awareness.

The fact that ‘philosophy was the best we could do in an age of ignorance’ does not impose limits on ‘science that is the best that we can do in the absence of prior ignorance’.

It’s for these reasons I argue to study cog sci, behavioral econ, political econ, law and computation instead of philosophy which is either proto-scientific in the case of natural philosophy, or fantasy moral literature otherwise.

However I recognize that few of us are capable of the time investment and comprehension of that spectrum of scientific disciplines necessary to explain the ‘science’ and ’cause’ of human experience, so I also accept that until there is a ‘philosophical narrative’ that reduces that scientific complexity to a work of sufficient generalization that it can function via simplicity in the service of that human need for understanding, that people will use the ‘fantasy literature’ version of science we call philosophy, just as people still rely on the ‘supernatural’ literature we call religion and theology for the same reason.

So we see and require:
Easy Fairy Tales Myths and Parables > Simple emotional religion > more difficult rational philosophy > more difficult empirical sciences > universal narrative computational explanation.

Now you don’t know this but my work (our group’s work) is in producing that universal narrative explanation so that it should be possible to teach the ‘science’ of all of human existence, unifying the sciences, in a foundational form, as a constructive falsificationary paradigm, vocabulary, and logic that will be about as difficult as Newtonian physics and can be taught incrementally from childhood just as reading, writing, grammar, and mathematics.

There is one very simple law and logic to the universe, and we need only understand it’s application in the hierarchy of existential contexts to explain all human existence at all human scales. From there, each discipline can be explored when one’s interests or needs exceed human scale.

– Cheers