End of Knowledge Steve Fuller

[wasiswillbe]

One of the most interesting subjects and appreciated upload _as well as the interesting and appreciated discourse expressed by Steve Fuller._

Like the inherently developmental capacity of the embryonic form and function to change autonomously, gradually,
[ _by slight, often imperceptible degrees of augmentation_ ]
into a a more or less highly advanced form and function,
_the end of know ledge_ is not captured by, does not appeal to, is not drawn from, is not apprehended through,
the faculties of sight, hearing, taste, touch nor smell,
but re _cognition_ of the absolute limits thereof, [ _in light of the unobserved limits relatively removed far above & beyond the_ (comparably embryonic-like) _perceptual range of homo sapiens' five senses_ ]
might motivate one to mentally reach the potentiality
[ _concealed beyond the vanishing point_ ] deep inside that _otherwise impossible_ direction which naturally develops obtainment of the end.
_Know thy-immortal-self_ in a process of maturing, to develop more or less if not most highly advanced form and function existent
[ _immediately or at levels farther_ ] above
if not
[ _most far_ ] beyond, the perceptual range of homo sapiens' five senses.

Cheers

[ridealone]

How would we know where the end is? It’s like the Greek idea of reaching the end of the universe. Knowledge keeps growing just like the universe keeps expanding. You will always discover more knowledge just like you will always keep moving through space to try to reach the end of the universe.

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

We need an understanding of the beginning, of how 'time' unfolds this knowledge can be based on physics and supported by maths!

[matthewkelly]

Read Steve's Social Epistemology book (!)

[thstroyur]

Physical-based transhumanism won't give us a fuller grasp of epistemology - the systematic study of nonsense will: the domain of discourse of humans (as well as that of theoretical AGI, etc.) is constrained by logic, which is a mode of thinking that requires, i.a., approaches such as truth-by-proof (which also happens to be closely related to ontology) by construction; lifting the constraint would lead to a plethora of constructs that, AFAIK, remains utterly unexplored

[VASL]

What a load of bafflegab, I can’t believe someone can make a living inventing this virtually unintelligible explanation of something that won’t happen

[nomdeplume]

Very interesting notion that humans must change, in a physical and by implication neurological manner, in order to achieve the goals of philosophy. Rather scary thought to me. The presenter was quite capable, but I was disrupted by his empty statements, such as, “you know“ and “kind of“ which shows a weakness in his linguistic and, therefore theorizing ability.