thecommoncitadel-blog

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

Overstimulation: Sometimes my head is so full of thoughts that it feels like it could burst. It drains the physical energy I have out of the mental energy it uses, which is represented by the dim colour filter on this photo of a box overfilled with grapes. #simpleart #artofinstagram #psychology #millennial

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

Some morning theorising on the nature of acquiring, having or our relation to knowledge.

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

A reply to Descartes 13/2/18

I read Descartes and agree because I see the logic of his consciousness (or, conscious-logic) by proxy of his words in my copy of his Meditations. I  would like to explain some of what I believe which he stated, but in straightforward, common English. I hope you give yourself plenty of time to think about. Also comment below if you have questions. 

Conscious Logic is what Descartes was writing about

Conscious-logic tells us what is true in a direct, consistent manner. We can logically work with not ourselves by assuming ‘truth’ to ‘not-us’. ‘Not-us’ is anything which we do not identify with, or hold and identity relation to. Assuming that we must choose between the two, would you rather assume that experience or logic is correct, if, and only if, both cannot be correct at once? I cannot. I must assume that both rely on the truth of reality itself and that in some degree our reality is malleable by use of our consciousness. This is our freedom, this is our place in the universe and only conscious things may share experiences by proxy of information interpreted from their chosen actions. Their mind is not in the action, nor is the information, but in the experiences that make up its contents which are discerned by our consciousness. Our consciousness does cognitive work and it is by creating layers of logic over time. If we can layer and piece together our logics and conclude reliably from many small beliefs, and if we take input as ‘true’ from ‘not-us’ we can minimise the risk of holding false beliefs, then we will reliably be holding true beliefs. This is because investing a little belief, of which we have degrees of, into many types of belief allows for us to be incorrect in our reasonings, or logics. The more general the belief, the more belief we should have in it, the most general logic being deductive and therefore we should deduce from ourselves that we have induced a belief which agrees with the world and allowed it to become knowledge. This is a low-risk approach to knowledge which relies on a type theory which accounts for individuality by logic without jeopardising the simplicity of the theory, and uses the concepts of the object which has an identity relation to itself and not the object which has an identity to itself. Anything is such if puts certainty into it’s own identity and how best to be in a role. This changes over time, but deducing knowledge is a matter of taking in as much information and investing an average of the value of the beliefs that are truly internal into the general belief, which multiples knowledge and reduces risk of each belief to be incorrect.  Of course, there is much room for discussion but hopefully I’ve given your something to think about from a logical view. If I am to lecture in philosophy, I also require questions so feel free to comment.

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

! (at Vienna, Austria)

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

“Future Sweeper” by Dominic F. Thomas, 2018

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

“Atomic Sweeping” by Dominic F. Thomas, 2018

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

“Bright Sweeper” by Dominic F. Thomas, 2018 (at Vienna, Austria)

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

Do Absences Exist?

What is present about an absence? The question of what a nothingness may be is possibly one with no answer, for to ask ‘what is what is not?’ is to ask for nothing, as ‘not a thing’ is the subject matter and ‘not a range” is the domain. If we consider logical partition theory, we come to a better understanding of nothingness, or more precisely the nothingness, absence or negative of an entity.

Let us say that I have no money - what am I exactly expressing as my proposition? Am I saying ‘I have a thing which is “not money”’, or ‘I do not have a thing: which is money’? I believe that it expresses precisely that ‘I have no thing which is “money”’, which consists of the opposite logical elements as ‘I have things: which are not money’. Now consider the logical negative ‘I do not have a thing which is “not money” and how it’s equivalent elements are covered by ‘I do not have things: which are not money’. These negations seem completely aligned to cover the entirely of logical space. Absences are, by definition and logical value, the ‘not’ of a defined concept, or to put it in a clearer way: absences are the presence of things which are not covered by the logical domain, or definition, of the concept in question. They are not a presence by themselves but they  draw a line in the logical space that discerns one side and the other, and by token its elements too, by the definition of the concept in question. To use a metaphor: absences are the logical shadows cast by the presence of a defined concept and as such may only ‘exist’ as the negative of a positive, existential, and bright idea.

Consider one further note: if we take all variables, operators, concepts and logical elements then if we single out one positively defined concept, the elements that are not covered by the positive definition (which are existential, as they are positively denoted individually and distinctly) take the logical position of the ‘not entity’: that is, all things which are not the thing in question. Absences cannot exist, however, the presence of any entity may count as a token by being within in the logical space not covered by another defined concept as a mark of the concepts absence.

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

“Lo-Fi Tenement” by Dominic F. Thomas, Winter, 2018 (at Josefstädter Straße)

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

“Night shots” by Dominic F. Thomas

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

Modern interpretation of The Beatles. Fear Less, Love More is a modern day propaganda unit to the state, whose main currency is fear. Listen to the walls, not the papers. #news #positivevibes #graffitiart #digitalart #psychology #beatles #wallpaper #love #connections #simple

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

A simple message on the wall. #art #artistsoninstagram #love #peace #together #togetherwecan #philosophy #life #beatles #sufficient #happiness

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

This is just a live base form of a song. Don’t take it too seriously and you might be surprised. - Dominic.

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

“Keys” by Dominic F. Thomas, Winter, 2018.

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

Abductive Justification (How to Defeat Defeasibility Arguments) by Dominic F Thomas, 2018.

Abduction is a lowly held tool of the philosophers kit, but it holds the place of honour where knowledge is concerned because the justification given for a belief to properly be known should be viable to revision, which is the best suited logical evaluation to abduction. In my terms, “abduction” is the process of retroactively evaluating a conclusion to become a set of premises. We take what is there and reason as to how it became so. Unfortunately, abduction needs a clear reflection to work properly because this logic is a defence against defensibility.

The reason it works is because the reasons are true to the action as the reasons are within the grasp of the subject, a justification has to work for both parties in the knowledge situation in order to be taken as justified. The level of description rules apply to abduction, and an agreement between fact, truth, belief and justification has to be met as similar to the expectations of the knowledge-provoker. Abduction merely relies on a true account, of which you should have plenty (creatively speaking, that is),to be held that are robust enough to withstand defensibility arguments. For example, I could say that someone is in my living room and believe it to be he case, and only when I am questioned by someone for knowledge does it not appear to me, but if I stay calm and abduce, a reason comes forth such as “the lights were turned on whilst I was in the kitchen”. If this is defeated by some means then I could abductively change my reason to include the change. This is the beauty of the system, it’s flexibility with erotetic logic.

The best place I’ve seen this is when Popper sat in the lectures given by Freud was that the manner of his reasoning was passed: in other words, his reasons were given to explain why things were as opposed to what things might be or what things could be- like Einstein was doing for science. Freud has found a formula for defending himself against all views, and it is one held by Dennett and many contemporary philosophers: the formula is “to abduce true reasons for the argument and openly lead the conversation’s logic.”.

Conversation is a powerful tool because it leads a joint logic pattern for the participants and controlling the conversation is equivalent to controlling people’s logic, I.e. their mind. If you realise that conversation requires balance and that the rules specified by linguists (such as Grice, amoung others) then you will see that logic underpins conversation in a contextual sense, but which context and logic is up to the participant with the greatest context. Philosophy is a part of each subject because without the context gained from it, the subject would collapse into micro, folk theories of centuries past but don’t worry about that because it’s practically impossible in contemporary times.

For starters, let’s refresh on what philosophy is: philosophy is the meeting place for debates between subjects and their participants, it resides as the ultimate all-disciplines-welcome intellectual arena, where each person’s citadel sends out their prime arguments and stances. If an argument is won in the philosophical sense, you can change the world of people through disciplines. Philosophy is merely a tool f the human mind, but to master philosophy is to master an art that has take many people an entire lifetime of training and reading to accomplish, and I believe in teaching others the methods of thinking that have allowed many people to simply accomplish the goals in their life, as set by reasonable means and expectations that are challenging, but comfortable. If you can hold that view, you will lead something better than a good life, you will lead a great life. You will know what you are doing because you take a place of the enacter of your own life, so knowledge is easy; you just call up a reason of similar manner and level of description that the provider would anticipate should they be asked the same. Assume that the other participant knows what you mean to convey (don’t forget to convey through all channels what your message is), and the illusion of conversation will take place, with the reality of mind sharing being the key metaphisical basis: Wittgenstein was correct in the conversational approach, but he never thought it was a real thing, whereas I, and now I hope you, do now. In any case here is my argument:

1. Abduction is instant reflective reasoning.

2. Justification has to withstand defeasibility.

3. Justification can be defended best by abduction: see (1). (Ja).

Therefore

A. K is held by S. (Sk)

B. KKS is held by S. (Sk(Sk))

C. No K, no S. (0K=0S), we are what we know as a maximum limit. We cannot be something we do not know of. Therefore knowledge theories should look at the positive side of the argument, not the negative as knowledge is a purely positive state in my view.

Conclusion: Abduction is a reasonable tool for the reflection of the self, and the generation of justification against defeasibility arguments.

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

“Puzzles” by Dominic F. Thomas, Winter, 2018. #cube #colourpop #puzzles #art #artistsoninstagram #information #popart #popartist #unsolvablepuzzle #reality #possible #mathematics #reasoning #philosophy #millennial #millennialart (at Vienna, Austria)

[thecommoncitadel-blog]

Analytic Philosophy 1 (4.2.18): Can Emotions be Evaluated as if Propositions?

Emotions are a difficult thing to judge, identify and analyse in a philosophical sense. It seems that the current tools available to the analyst are used in a simplistic manner, if ever used at all - instead, approaches have been taken towards emotions which convert them into a judgement or deem them unanalysable owing to the difficulties of analysing them as non-judgemental objects. This essay is a short discussion of the judgement theory approach to emotions, an approach which I argue against, with suggestions to an approach which avoids the scruples that people such as myself have with the judgement theory analysis of emotions.

Firstly we have to define what constitutes an emotion, what exactly is it that exists which we deem to be an emotion? Let us dispose of the platitudes first: we know that emotions are experiential (that is, they exist only in experience - I.e. Our consciousness), we also know that they are qualitative (I.e an emotion is accounted for in terms of type, not token), and that emotions are contrasted against our ‘rational’ thoughts. To exemplify the sense in this duality of mind (between emotion and rationale) we can evaluate these situations:

1. I walk blindly into a room and a rush of pain shoots through my foot. From the experience of pain presented to my consciousness, I judge that I have walked into something and I become annoyed with myself owing to this reflection on the self state.

2. I come home to find my possessions have been stolen; I feel a rush of anger and upset towards the situation.

3. I drink too much coffee and feel my heartbeat increase significantly; I feel lightheaded and despair at myself.

4. I see a good, unfortunate friend receive praise for my work, I feel both upset from the injustice of the situation but also pleased that some fortune is in his life; I am conflicted.

5. I hear that a person I don't know has done something that I have never heard of before. I feel no particular emotion.

6. I am told the fact that the sun is a star. I make no further judgement to what this makes me feel.

I think all would agree that the first case is one of what is called ‘bodily sensations’, rather that emotions per se (see James!)- however the response of an emotion from a bodily sensation is so immediate that it is possible to conflate the two.

The second case is one which involves no bodily sensation in particular for it is clearly the judgement that my possessions were stolen, therefore I have been unjustly given a situation’ which causes the emotional response that I am upset.

The third case is one which involves both bodily sensations and judgements, as the cause of my emotion can be seen as the self-awareness of my own actions causing my bodily sensations, which are emotionally negative and cause the greater emotion of despair to be applied to and by myself.

The fourth case involves two judgements, both of which are at odds as to how to judge the situation: one positive emotion is presented owing to a self-centered analysis and one which is a non-self-centered analysis. When combined, the two are such a value that they no one betters the other and an emotional stalemate is produced. The fifth case gives a fact that I have no opinion of, I don't even know if it is a true statement or not, and have no emotional reaction to hearing of it.

Finally, the last cases give a fact that I evaluate as true but has no personal significance therefore seems to be causally neutral towards emotional response in cases of known referents (such as 6) or unknown referents(such as 5).

Of course this is a short essay but it will be built upon later. For now, here are the remaining questions at present moment to the philosophical community (I.e. Thinkers):

What causes, or what set of conditions suffice to be causally responsible for, emotions?

What type of event is it that causes an emotional state?

What is an emotional state at all?

What causes an emotion of a type which we deem positive or negative?

By what merit can we evaluate emotions as positive or negative?

What causes the strength of emotions and their degree?

What causes a general emotion, as opposed to a clear, distinct emotive state?

Are emotions evaluative?

Do they exist solely as a reaction to an evaluation (or, judgement) of the world or ourselves, or are they responsive phenomenologically - as reactions to bodily sensations?

What are emotions for?

What purpose do they serve for us in a world that has access to facts and logic to explain our actions, rather than mere ‘feels’ such as emotions?

Can emotions be caused by events which are non-personal?

Is there a clear boundary between our rational mind and our emotional one?

What essential feature makes each cognitive practice distinct from the other?

What makes any emotion distinct from another? By what criteria can we discern this and by what method can we verify it?

How can emotional intelligence give information from a different source to judgemental, propositional information?

Are emotions better suited for intelligence in daily activity if their source is natural and true?

Many more will follow...