Category: Epistemology and Method

(FB 1550423126 Timestamp) CLOSING IN ON METAPHYSICS AS NON-EXISTENT, or simply cogn sci: demarcation between observable and experienceable. What is metaphysics other than either operational description(existential) or fiction(inexistential)? Why is M not just another scale of physics just as chemistry another scale of atomic states, and atomic states just another scale of particles, and particles just another scale of fundamental forces, and fundamental forces just another scale of information? Sentience and consiousness are just another scale of the physical world in operation. So just as space time is the result of underlying physical reactions, so are experience and consiousness. I am getting closer I think to understanding the confusion of those who claim it exists but I still have to agree with those who say it is handwaving. AFAIK. the human experience is just a continuation of physics, and all operations and experiences explicable in fairly simple terms the underlying mechanics of which only matter in producing aggregates. Metaphysics as far as I know, simply means the ontology(paradigms) of cognitive science at different levels of commensurable operations (scales), just as physics consists of ontologies(paradigms) at different levels of commensurable operations(scales), and I have seen nothing to alter that understanding (even in aristotle) that proposition other than attempts at sophism, pseudoscience, occult, and fraud. And I am absolutely positive that this will persist. My understanding of the reason is that different disciplines use incompatible (incommensurable) paradigms (ontologies) and as such people have to fictionalize relations between them. However, operatios (analogy to experience no matter how difficult to experience) serves as a universally commensurable system of measurement within and across all scales whether physical or cognitive (or linguistic) and as such M is not a discipline but simply cog sci, and all attempts to say otherwise are simply fictionalisms to compensate for incommensurability generating demand for fictions. In other words fictions produce conflation inflation and opportunity for inductive and deductive error from false premises (ontologies, paradigms), and simply serve as sources of ignorance, fraud, and deceit (Popper). Ergo, metaphysics consists simply an extension of physics in the same commensurable language of operations, and there are not multiple metaphysics, just ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.. And I can’t find any alternative explanation. And I’m not at all unique in this understanding. (Van Frassen, McGinn, Thomassen cited in SEP). And the anti-positivist criticism does not hold against falsificationism/critical naturalism – only asks for commensurability across scales, to maintain coherence and parsimony in defense against error, bias, fiction and deceit. And I am still stuck with the non-anglo desire for empathy with ontologies (experiencing) rather than objectivity(describing). Is this purely cultural or are scandinavian(northern european) peoples genetically different in that we have greater distance (agency) between intuition and cognition. AFAIK every problem I have encountered that we call metaphysics is simply a grammatical error. In fact, I’m not sure philosophy exists of much other than grammatical errors (Malformed calculations). And this is because language is a system of measurement that is only as useful as grammatical demands (tolerances) allow. And that as a system of measurement the only deflationary and inflationary method of speech is operations. While certain philosophers have made this claim and have been attacked, these attacks occur under the fallacy of closure in the system of language itself. Which is a common sophomoric argument in philosophical discourse. The only closure is reality itself in toto.