Ontological :: what is the end of knowledge

 Quit it. Get lost. I know what I am talking about. What a joke. I have had it with experts like you. I know it what it is looking at me in the face because I know it from experience. I don't need to bank on your assessment of how I do philosophy.

I don't believe in this at all. Ontological reasoning is independent of truth. Therefore, the cause of what is an ontological belief. Beliefs do function on the basis of reasoning through our senses only, where objectivity meets its end. My point is that ideas and actions relate to what ontological reasoning is.

===================

Interlocutor:

there is nothing to be believed here. Why do you think, or in this case believe, that "ontological reasoning" is "independent of truth"?

Notice how for you that is an axiom, thus easy for you to build upon it.

==================

You have falsified everything I said to be true. I can also say: I forget how to swallow. You can't say if that last sentence is true or false. For an Alzheimer's diagnosis, someone that has this disease is very susceptible to forgetting how to swallow. My point is I could have the disease or I may not. It doesn't make what you infer as true or false. This is ontological in my view, which works the same way. My second point to the Alzheimer's analogy, is that there is life and death implication based on the disease which is attributed to neurological decline. How do you know I don't have Alzheimer's yet have made these statement's to be false of not having the disease. (e.g. Do I vs do I not have the disease = how do you know?)

Furthermore, to contain my phrases "ontological reasoning' vs "independent of truth" and displace them as mere axioms is a rather convenient line of argument. I have my own definitions that I believe, yes - believe, is factually ontological on the basis of your accusations. Ontological reasoning as something that accumulates (i.e. learning through experience) axiom takes skill. Something Alzheimer's robs us of. I hardly see your point.

=================

• 
  

 you haven't understood the point, and ironically the Alzheimer's analogy actually works against you, not for me. You say ontological reasoning is "independent of truth," then define it as "learning through experience" - accumulating axioms through skill. That is a description of model-building. You are describing exactly what MDO describes: cognitive entities navigating constraint spaces, accumulating operational knowledge. You just call it "ontological reasoning" and assume it touches something called "truth" that "exists independently" of the process. That assumption is the axiom that you are taking for granted, no questions asked, because you cant see that is merely an assumption. Nothing more.

The Alzheimer's case is perfect, but not the way you think. If neurological decline can strip away everything you call "ontological reasoning," then what you're describing isn't access to mind-independent truth - it's apparatus-dependent processing. The disease doesn't "rob us of truth" (whatever that could possible mean in your view). It degrades the apparatus that builds models. That's the whole point. Your reasoning, your experience, your accumulated axioms - all of it is model-building activity performed by a cognitive system. No apparatus, no "ontological reasoning." That's not a problem for MDO. That IS MDO.

So I am not surprised when you say you "hardly see my point." I know. That's because you're standing inside the assumption that your definitions are descriptions of how things really are, rather than tools you use to navigate. The concept of truth isn't something you "discovered out there in the world." It's a piece of your model. MDO doesn't falsify your claims. It points out that "true" and "false" are operations within models, not verdicts issued from outside them.

Let me show you what you keep missing: when you say ontological reasoning is "independent of truth," you are using the concept of truth to make that claim. Read that again. You need "true" and "false" to even state your position. That's not a clever paradox but the structural problem. You cannot step outside your model to verify that your model "touches truth," because every tool you'd use to verify it, reason, experience, your accumulated axioms, is inside the model. No matter how hard you need to believe it, I am afraid that you're NOT "describing reality." You're describing confidence. And confidence, no matter how skilled, no matter how practiced, no matter how secure it makes you feel, is not the same thing as "independent of truth." The tautology you're claiming is staring you in the face.

==============

Jesus. You misconstrued my entire analogy to make an example of me. I guess I can play a victim to your theory. But I hardly believe it. (In favor of my Alzheimer's argument). Tell me, according to MDO, where does knowledge end, the ending of knowledge. What is learning if it is not mechanical according to models that suggest Ontology becomes irrelevant. It may be a theory. But it is not complete. My point is that ontology is universal IN ITS APPARATUS. When I said I hardly see your point, it was not intentional. It is asking you to be honest with yourself. - Marco