This Sentence is False
Combining the notions from the last two posts — we understand only through models, and our models are mainly metaphorical — we can shed light on some of the most profound and durable philosophical and scientific debates. One such debate, that of free will versus determinism, brings with it a host of other paradoxes, including personal identity, intentionality, and the existence of a God/god/gods. Without going into the details of these conundrums, it is safe to say that our models/metaphors of such sticky concepts as “free will” are fundamentally flawed. They are shortcuts that serve useful purposes when speaking plainly about everyday occurrences, but which belie a much subtler and more complex reality when pressed upon. The idea that there even exists something real called a “will” not only begs the question of whose will it is (personal identity), but also should make us question whether it is a useful and accurate concept to describe anything in the world. I would claim that long-standing paradoxes exist because we reify a concept by creating a phrase to describe something we care about (i.e. we create a new metaphor/model) and then we either never question the existence of the thing being described or we forget that our phrase is indeed a model/metaphor which should not be confused with the thing itself.
Related posts:
- There is No Truth, Only Predictive Power
- Thought as Metaphor
- (Price) Inflation Is All In Your Mind
- Newcomb's Meta-Paradox
- Seeing Sigmoids
3 Responses to “This Sentence is False”
Leave a Reply
Rafe Furst
I believe the scientific method as currently practiced is incomplete. ”Science 2.0″ is emerging, and the lessons from complex systems theory are a big part of what’s missing. This has more than theoretical implications; the biggest challenges we face are due to a general ignorance of — and a willful dismissal of — the realities of an increasingly complex, interdependent world. To learn what else I’m interested in visit RafeFurst.com.
This article titled “What’s in a Name”
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061223/bob22.asp
(scroll down to see it)
strikes me as a comical case in point about reifying concepts. Zoologists are notorious for getting hung up on definitions and classification, much to the detriment (IMHO) of any real scientific illumination
[...] should not get hung up on any of these terms, they are models (approximations of reality). Concepts like “cooperation” and “level” are [...]
[...] This Sentence is False [...]