- #71
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Now how did I know this was going to happen? ... Different strokes for different folks!Originally posted by PorchMonkey
I have much more than my opinion. I have porn.
Now how did I know this was going to happen? ... Different strokes for different folks!Originally posted by PorchMonkey
I have much more than my opinion. I have porn.
Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .
I understand it's very important to get in the last word here, therefore this is last word I'm going to say about it (to you).Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, it is sad that all you have is your opinion. I, OTOH, am not making an opinion about what you said, I am making an observation.
Originally posted by SanitationCommitee
I believe logic=lies. All lies. The world is full of them. Take Jamie Lee Curtis. Were you aware she was a hermaphrodite as a child? How about our own former President, Bill Clinton. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lie. Fulllll of crap.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?
Then why do people write books about it? (the experience). And why do other people read them? If you're going to speak about anything, whether it be your own experience or whatever, then it "has" to entail logic.Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong about me . . . I think humans have a nature which is inherently consciousness, even divine if you want to use that expression, and destined for something VERY conscious.
What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that. Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence. But if you are smart enough, and sufficiently informed, you might be able to find holes in materialist philosophy providing you are convinced that their arguments can never "add up" to the whole truth.
It appears that you overlooked the gist of my posts. For arguments "inside the box", evidence has to be 'sensed'. Whereas for arguments "outside of the box", evidence has to be reasoned - purely.Originally posted by LW Sleeth
What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that.
Incorrect. You cannot prove it by observation. The artist is not to be found within his paint, but by how he paints.Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence.
Originally posted by Mentat
You are missing the point. All I was saying was that reasoning systems are falsifiable, and all reasoning systems are within the framwork of "logic".
Originally posted by Mentat . . . there are no reasoning systems that are outside the realm of logic, but many reasoning systems contradict each other, and thus many of them are probably not consistent with nature.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
. . . you don't know me well enough to say I don't have the means by which to provide this information to other people.
It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...Originally posted by LW Sleeth
We are not talking about you, we are talking about the rules of reason, logic, and evidence.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...
Are we speaking in riddles again? Well, perhaps ...
I hear what you're saying, really I do, but I'm not abouts to change (give up my beliefs) just because it doesn't jive with other people's "standards." If there's one thing I have learned in this life, it's you have to be yourself. It won't work any other way. I am not a scientist, nor am I well versed on philosophy, yet it's obvious I have an inclination towards both, and this is what I've been given to work with. If people don't like what I say, or how I say it, then maybe that's good, because maybe they might learn something!Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not trying to confuse you, or "win" a debate. I'm too old to care about that crap. I am trying to explain to you that I think there are different sorts of discussions, and what you are going to run into here, at a science-oriented site, are talks that are very logic and evidence oriented. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong your intuitive, poetic style; but it is out of place because no one is going to join with you in that kind of communication exchange.
If you were to acquiese to the standards here, you might find it will strengthen your ability to bridge the gap between what you intuit and what you can explain.
'Knowledge' (physical laws) is objective. This can be confirmed by:Originally posted by Perspectives
To conclude, reality is a subjective explanation of our existence demonstrated through experimentation and or logic.
That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system? Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense. Concepts are born from our sensations - but not by them. There is no 'infinity' in our sensation. There is no 'nothing'. There is no 'equals'. Such things are reasoned beyond sensation. Logic - with its beyond-sensation concepts - allows you (science) to predict the future of universal events. Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.Logic alone without empirical and verifiable proof is maintained through the belief system i.e. “If you can’t disprove it then it is still possible.”
As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.1. This knowledge relates to direct experience. It doesn't relate to experiences we do not have (apart from QM, perhaps, and that's a different matter).
Or we're just lucky. Or trying to predict the wrong things.2. The knowledge we have can be used to predict physical- events with ever-increasing accuracy. This proves that our knowledge is objective.
Doesn't make them objective.Though the sensations are mere representations of 'a reality', they are the objective foundation of 'existence'. The sensations are the only thing we have which allow us to know of existence - apart from our own traits of reasoning and emotion, etc..
Yes it is. By both the "axiom" and "definition" principles.That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system?
But there is no garantee these logical arguments are true, is there?Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense.
No. They are reasoned FROM sensation.Such things are reasoned beyond sensation.
They are still reasoned from sensation. And there is no reason (excuse the pun) that such concepts are true, without sensational backing. And even then they may not be true.Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.
That's just not true.
There is scope for reason to accurately predict what is "outside of the box". And there is scope for such argument to be taken seriously. Rational scope.
They are only viewed as 'subjective' because they are representative of 'a reality'. But in truth, sensation is the only objective-fact for supporting the notion of ~existence~ (the awareness of those sensations). Reason & emotion are fixated upon experience. And 'that', is what ~existence~ ammounts to. Nothing else.Originally posted by FZ+
As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
ARRRRgggggggggggg!
Of course reasoning systems are falsifiable, but it has nothing to do with whether or not perfect reason works perfectly.
It's like if I give you a a finely calibrated torque wrench to use, and you use it for a hammer. Then you complain to me that torque wrenches are imperfect because they don't hammer so great. Well, use it as a torque wrench is supposed to be use and it will work just fine.
All reasoning systems are NOT in the framework of correct reason. They are lacking in some respect, such as sound logic or adequate evidence. You have to see the difference between the ideal of reason and the application.
Give me one bit of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion, and I will show you a flaw in either the logic or the premises. You just are not accepting the formality of logic. It is not open to much interpretation. Just because someone goes "if . . . then," it doesn't make it logical. You can imitate the forms of logic without ever practicing it correctly.
What if several people do addition each with their own rules, so every sum of 2 plus 2 gives a different answer? Does that mean addition leads to contradictions? Or does it mean that those people using it don't addition? Who do you fault, the people or the addition?
Originally posted by Mentat
All is calm, all is happy, we're all friends here .
Originally posted by Mentat
What I'm saying is that logic itself does not always lead to good results. To use your illustration: Logic = the use of tools altogether. Thus, using a torque wrench to pound in a nail is "logical", but not applicable. . . . misapplied reasoning also falls in the category of "Logic". . . . Your problem here is that you are likening reasoning altogether to mathematics. Mathematics is a reasoning system.
Originally posted by Royce
LW Sleeth,
You are in my mind a true logistician.. . . I, at least, award you the Spock Legion of Merit award.
Originally posted by Perspectives
Please forgive my late answers, I am job hunting as well.
We have created tools much like a mechanic creates tools Once that is done the mechanism can flourish and when needs be we diagnose and dissemble it for maintenance or repairs. It’s so succinct and predictable. Most of the tools exist to service the new machine before it is created because we choose to create it based on some previously designed mechanism. How much more objective can we be than choosing, defining, operating within a closed system of thought?
This closed system of reasoning is limiting and subjective.
A very good post and I agree with all that you say except that it is a closed system. I think that in the above paragraph you contradict youself when you say on one hand that we create new tools as needed yet operate in a closed system. That we can create new tools to explore new ideas and experiments to me is an open system.
Now, if you would care to look at the dictionary definitions of subjective and objective, you have just completely denied your mind hypothesis.Originally posted by Lifegazer
They are only viewed as 'subjective' because they are representative of 'a reality'. But in truth, sensation is the only objective-fact for supporting the notion of ~existence~ (the awareness of those sensations). Reason & emotion are fixated upon experience. And 'that', is what ~existence~ ammounts to. Nothing else.
Humanity interacts with its own sensations, via reason & emotion. That's existence for ya, in a nutshell.
Any and all philosophy of existence is founded upon this "shell".
Therefore, either there is no possibility that anything we know is correct (objective) - which enables me to state that the laws-of-physics are a belief - or, I can argue that certain facts are "absolute". For example, I could state that all observers perceive of existence in an orderly/lawful manner.
Clearly, the laws-of-physics are a proof that ~perception~ is not subjective in itself. But rather, our reasoning of those sensations certainly is.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Of course! My frustration doesn't diminsh that.
Here is exactly where we are disagreeing. I think we need to distinguish between the components of reason to continue this discussion, which I fear would diverge from the theme of this thread. So I will see if I can find some time to start a new thread where it can be discussed.
But a quick answer about your logic statement. I say logic always, without fail, leads to good results when it is used properly.
If you isolate it from the overall process of reason and evidence, then of course you can plug false information into the formula and get an incorrect answer.
And mathematics can be a reasoning system once you get into higher disciplines, calculus for example. I was referring to math basics -- the fundamental principles of why 1+ 1 = 2. In that respect, logic is to reason what the laws of mathematics are to calculus (by the way, the laws of mathematics are, in fact, established by logic).
Originally posted by Mentat
Ah, but you've used the word, "properly". Who/what determines the "proper" use of logic?
Originally posted by Mentat
You can't isolate it from "reason" . . .
Originally posted by Mentat
. . . but you can isolate it from "evidence". But there are those that would argue that it shouldn't matter that there is or isn't empirical evidence to support a certain bit of reasoning. They would say that the idea of always needing "evidence" is a Scientific premise, and that Science is just one reasoning system, and that there are many others that are equally creditable. And, since we're disagreein' here , I think I'll take that stance (for now).
Originally posted by Mentat
. . . many philosophies that contradict the (seemingly basic) principle of Causality.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.
There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.
For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.
There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.
For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.
That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience).
Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal.