As my dad would "oh, a wise cracker are ya?"

is this one of your "intelligent" responses your so eager for everyone else to give?

We are innately capable.

--

We look out into the world and form thought/belief about that which we're looking at. We wonder what it is. We perceive that which is there(whatever that is and wherever there is). We detect subtleties about these objects of perception. We look. We wonder. We touch. We taste. We autonomously feed this external stimuli into our physiological being through our central nervous system. Complex thoughts, simple thoughts begin their formation; they begin to expand our mental activities beyond the limits of physical sensibilities. This can lead to pretentiousness, as we see in all confident young children who've yet to have become aware of their fallibility. These simple thoughts/belief begin to combine and create new ones. We call those original ideas.

This is a synopsis of how we learn things, and hold them as true. This is the framework that we all share. Holding them as true begins to form a basis for comparison. We measure, we weigh... old and new with what has already been accepted as true, as being the case, as being they way thing are.

That is how it works... in the abstract that is.

I don't think anyone would argue with that Micheal. That is indeed our macro physical classical experience of the world. That will always remain true.

But that doesn't mean that the classical picture of what we experience directly in our macro lives is the sole basis of existence. We have since become aware that the foundation of the physical world is not the same as what we actually experience with our natural sensory input.

So what you have just described above is indeed the "Classical Picture".

In fact, I would take your opening statement of your post above and expand upon it to be more precise:

We are innately capable of directly experiencing the macro world.

However, we are not innately capable of directly experiencing the true nature of the foundations of the macro world.

Fortunately we are capable of learning some things about it using methods that are not innate to our natural capabilities.

As far as I can see, you are still attempting to restrict your philosophical thinking to the Classical view of reality only, based solely upon what "meets the eye". In other words based solely upon what we can actually experience naturally from macro world stimuli.

However, some of us believe that we have already moved beyond that classical view. We see no reason to return to those restrictions when considering philosophical, or even scientific, ideas.

That was the worst piece of philosophy that I've written in some time...

There's nothing "classical" about it either. That's a rough draft(very rough) of how we learn things.

Well, for whatever it's worth, what you wrote would certainly pass for a fairly accurate summary of the classical view I would think.

I mean, if that was your answer on a test that asked, "What is the classical view". I think you'd pass that exam without any serious objections from the professor.

I'll leave the zombie thread to wander around on it's own... time for a new one.

So we have to DEFINE the DEFINITION now

Sad isn't it?

Before I read through the rest of this thread I wanted to add what I think would help to create a proper definition.

A proper definition is a cognitive construct which should include dominant characteristics or features of the word and address functionality. A proper definition may also include etymology, or the historical reference of the word’s common use through time, thus providing a broader framework within which the construct has developed.

Wow, I like it, I agree with it and I'm impressed with how easily and compactly you have explained how thoughts/belief become the foundation through which we compare & contrast new inforamtion and create new cognitive constructs.

(NOTE: my use of cognitive constructs in my previous post)

Yes Di... all good points, as we both know, people can obliterate the meaning of a word or concept through misuse.

yea

Ok guess I'll check out one of your new threads.

Yeah Di, that was my attempt at layman-speak so to speak.



I mean it makes sense and all, but it has no logical form, no explicit axiomatic foundation, and it is very very vague.