Wednesday, April 14, 2010

The Conceptual Scientific__Non-Conceptual Imagination, Distinctions...

Iff more people make the higher conceptual choices, we will have more chance, in a chance and choice world, of achieving the higher conceptual goals..." me

Hi all friends and enemies alike, and I can certainly see why you’d/we’d all have trouble making heads or tails of the differences between reason and rationalism, as the established academic community has not fully separated out the conceptual differences, from the imaginal differences, yet. Even Peirce, who did the best job of these processes, did not fully accomplish the job, in any common language. He only accomplished it through his entire system of signs, symbols and icons, etc., but this is the rather complex depth of his semeioses. I’ll do my best to make these concepts, ideas and imagination differences clear to you, as I’ve also noticed Wiki, or no other sources, deal with this effectively, without creating further confusion and un-necessary conflations of the ideas involved, whether historically__as the meanings have changed over time, or presently, due to so many different opinions. I’ll use the simple mechanics differences between scientific objective conceptualism, and non-conceptual imagination’s direct perception__to deal as best as I can with it. That should make it the simplest…

I’ve already answered most everything below, within your text, but I think you should read this first…

It was just last night that I came across a new scientific method to make clear distinctions, between rational conceptual science, and irrational non-conceptual opinion/imagination/religion or meta-physics of any kind… Up to this point in time even the best science and scientists have had great difficulty, using words, where meaning has double meaning, or applying meaning to different subject area meanings, especially between rationalism and reason, conceptualism and non-conceptualism, reason and logic, physics and meta-physics, direct and indirect perception, etc., but, I last night realized it could all be made clearly distinct by just discussing conceptualism and imagination…

In science, philosophy, and scientific method, conceptualism is defined as objectivism. This is how we know what is objective from what is subjective, or non-conceptual feelings__though feelings be real, they also can be extremely exaggerated by imagination__The 'Boogie-Man' that doesn’t exist. And, at the same time, science can suffer from exaggerated imagination at the hypothesis and theory stages, as well as the exaggerated maths of theories, i.e., there’s no such real physical world, that we can conceptualize existing beyond these numbers h = 10-33cm and c = 186,000mps, and t = 10-43cm , which represents h Planck length, the smallest we can scientifically measure, and c being the speed of light, the fastest we can scientifically measure, and t, time being the shortest motion we can measure __This is the domain of science, and nothing outside it is anything but false imagination, as there’s no integral path to ground, or the physical scientific proofs of, and herein lies the great difference between objective conceptualism and imagination. Concepts must be measurable, and groundable in physical reality, with an actual path integral, to the provable facts…

Imagination or exaggerated ideas and theories, on the other hand, are not only non-conceptual in certain ideas, such as conceptualizing the feeling “Happy”, but even where these imaginations, ideas and theories can be conceptualized, they entirely lack the necessary integral path from themselves to the necessary provable ground, i.e., these numbers can be conceptualized, yet never path integral grounded, as they exist as mathematical abstracts, beyond all our knowable reality; d = 10-999cm, and c = 10∞, and t = 0. Where we are certain such distance, speed of light numbers, and zero time, to such infinitesimals of distance, infinities of velocity, and zero time, are impossible of real and sound scientific measure, therefore nothing but exaggerated imagination, and anyone just common sensibly knows time zero is foolishly impossible, as there’d be no universe at all. So, the fact exists, that all possible thought can be scientifically classified, and or, scientifically classified, as not classifiable__What-so-ever…! Or, just the plain ol’ 'Boogie-Man' of any and all minds who spout such non-sense__There exists no sense in the world, to path integral connect un-real imagination to any form of scientific ground__thus exposing the purely meta-physical exaggerations of imagination, to all parties interested_or un-interested…

Simply put, there’s no possible path from exaggerated imaginations of any kind__to any form of feasible ground…

I think this is how you can easily tell the differences between all real and imaginational statements__Just ask if the concept of what’s being discussed is scientifically/realistically groundable__That scientifically exposes the truths of all statements, because true concepts all have integral paths to reality, and all exaggerations do not__And I mean, real physical paths to ground…

Link

3 comments:

BennieS_0123Godina said...

你不能左右天氣,但你可以改變心情 ..................................................

羿惟 said...

感謝分享哦~會再來看看的~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

巧生 said...

thank for share, it is very important . ̄︿ ̄..................................................