Epistemology
A reasonable assumption for an individual mind reading this to begin with is that the perception of an event is the basis for possible knowledge.
The event could be a subjective experience (non-linguistic) or a linguistic *attempt* at communication.
*Successful* linguistic communication is not subjective because it is the transfer of information between minds.
Information transfer is not guaranteed to be successful in any given event (it may be a failed attempt), so subjective non-linguistic events are primary phenomenologically to successful linguistic events (linguistic events are regarded as an outcome of or a type of non-linguistic events *phenomenologically,* especially since in many cases one cannot know without experiencing).
Epistemically, however, the *act* of communication itself and possession of knowledge are of a higher order than (potentially contradictory) subjective experience, obviously, since possible universal truths are implicated; this is a different class of mental event than simple subjective perception, then, which is not inherently universal, “physical,” or potentially objective.
The mind uses, then, induction upon basic universal axioms (mathematical and logical) to conclude the existence of various highly complex (contextual) metaphysical cause and effect rules, which lead to the conclusion of the existence of an objective substance that is the source of perception and knowledge.
Skepticism leads us to doubt the truth of these rules and laws and their meaning in any sense, yet at the same time we have the act of communication and the basic syntactical structure; this leads me to conclude that there is an objective truth occuring, yet that is not entirely knowable in logic to any particular mind.
The conclusion of the substance as “physical” is based on the observations of the intellect through the lens of mathematics, primarily - reducing events to numbers, and assuming there is nothing more, ignoring the simple observation that we do not really know what the numbers mean and that every calculation in empiricism is probabilistic (there may be events that occur subjectively which lead to knowledge which are not empirical).
There is much more to say about the status of life and experience itself in subjective motivation to resolve this eternal logical ambiguity through some non-logical non-subjective direct knowledge of truth, yet to even begin to comprehend those statements one must have sufficient experience, so will not be elaborated here.
The event could be a subjective experience (non-linguistic) or a linguistic *attempt* at communication.
*Successful* linguistic communication is not subjective because it is the transfer of information between minds.
Information transfer is not guaranteed to be successful in any given event (it may be a failed attempt), so subjective non-linguistic events are primary phenomenologically to successful linguistic events (linguistic events are regarded as an outcome of or a type of non-linguistic events *phenomenologically,* especially since in many cases one cannot know without experiencing).
Epistemically, however, the *act* of communication itself and possession of knowledge are of a higher order than (potentially contradictory) subjective experience, obviously, since possible universal truths are implicated; this is a different class of mental event than simple subjective perception, then, which is not inherently universal, “physical,” or potentially objective.
The mind uses, then, induction upon basic universal axioms (mathematical and logical) to conclude the existence of various highly complex (contextual) metaphysical cause and effect rules, which lead to the conclusion of the existence of an objective substance that is the source of perception and knowledge.
Skepticism leads us to doubt the truth of these rules and laws and their meaning in any sense, yet at the same time we have the act of communication and the basic syntactical structure; this leads me to conclude that there is an objective truth occuring, yet that is not entirely knowable in logic to any particular mind.
The conclusion of the substance as “physical” is based on the observations of the intellect through the lens of mathematics, primarily - reducing events to numbers, and assuming there is nothing more, ignoring the simple observation that we do not really know what the numbers mean and that every calculation in empiricism is probabilistic (there may be events that occur subjectively which lead to knowledge which are not empirical).
There is much more to say about the status of life and experience itself in subjective motivation to resolve this eternal logical ambiguity through some non-logical non-subjective direct knowledge of truth, yet to even begin to comprehend those statements one must have sufficient experience, so will not be elaborated here.
Comments (2)
We do not have these basic universal axioms. We have no access to the Theory of Everything (ToE), also called, the Preserved Tablet of Wisdom. If we did, we would be able to flawlessly predict the future.
Therefore, the mind must necessarily use something else, which is less complete and less consistent. Humanity may use more than mere knowledge -- I also believe that -- but it is clearly not anything like perfect knowledge.
What definition of "information" are you using?