Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:43 am
Okay, it's become clear that you don't want to engage in any proper discussion of the issues. Bye for now.
-
-
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
I suppose any definition involves a certain amount of deduction. For example, it needs to be deduced whether the definition is useful and makes any sense.Leyla Shen wrote:Kevin wrote:
[Nature is the totality of all there is.]
Actually, this is simply a definition. It is not arrived at through deduction, and nor can it be tested empirically.
I must now say, however, that I am having trouble with the idea that anything can be defined outside of the process of deductive reasoning. You don’t just pull these things out of thin air -- entirely. At the very least, the process would have involved stripping away illogical ideas -- such as in the example David mentioned above where he questioned the reason one would not define Nature as the solar system. In this sense, the conclusion is deductive: it is a necessary one based on its premises -- and true or false, accordingly.
Rubbish. It’s not like that at all. Maths is beyond a valid argument and incomparable to the definition of validity in logic (specialised usage).First, I wasn't talking only about how premises are arrived at. I was talking about rejecting the established definition of validity and choosing, instead, to believe something one wants to believe. This is like saying, "Well, you can believe 2+5=7 if you and all those academic mathematicians want, but I'd rather believe it is 48."
Second, I wonder if you or anyone else here knows the difference between deduction and induction.
Third, definitions such as "Bachelors are unmarried males," are not arbitray subjective constructs. Neither is the definition of validity in deductive arguments. It means "the form of the deductive arument such that if the premises are true the conclusion has to be true."
Proper according to you is not necessarily proper. You are the one not interested in truth or learning. It's protecting your ego and pretending not to be ignorant. But you can't hide from those of us who know just the bare minimum of real philosophy and logic. You are a phony.Okay, it's become clear that you don't want to engage in any proper discussion of the issues. Bye for now.
It doesn't matter what the substance of the argument is. If it is invalid, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It can be argued that logic is based on underlying facts of reality. Blind faith is something reserved for those who don't want to follow the rules of inference of reason.Since the premises and thereby the conclusions can be true or false, a valid argument is valid by law ("establishment"). But what kind of establishment? The issue isn't whether or not the definition stands as a plausible definition, it's about -- as Kevin put it in a previous post which you did not address -- the substance of the argument.
Sensible to you is not what sensible people find sensible.Likewise, if someone claims that a form of argument based on false assumptions is "valid", we can deduce whether it is a sensible definition or not.
Picture if you will an experience, an experience of a computer screen, keyboard and a pair of hands. This experience as we have named it is temporary, i.e. it had a beginning, and will not continue forever. I consider this uncontroversial; experiences of this nature are exactly what make up reality.NickOtani wrote:It doesn't matter what the substance of the argument is. If it is invalid, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It can be argued that logic is based on underlying facts of reality. Blind faith is something reserved for those who don't want to follow the rules of inference of reason.
Not quite. You first asked Quinn how he defined validity in a deductive argument. This implied you considered it a matter of opinion, otherwise you would have asked: "do you know the definition of validity in a deductive argument?". But when he tells you how he defines it you claim suddenly that it can never be a matter of opinion at all and it should be following 'establishment'. The intent of your question appears thus to be deceptive.NickOtani wrote:As I demonstrate above, David Quinn and ksolway do abandon core reasoning and logic.Diebert wrote:...The Genius forum is designed for thinkers on the more anarchist philosophical path of understanding reality. It's about stripping things away while not abandoning core reasoning and logic.
Can you recognize the premises for my conclusions, or do you also like to toss around terms for which you do not know the meaning?I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises.
Rubbish! Someone who knows the answer would not be deceived.The intent of your question appears thus to be deceptive.
Anyone with half a brain can see that people on this board toss around terms about which they do not know the meaning. It's a joke. Stop trying to defend people who are wrong. You lose credibility.Frankly, anyone with half a brain in their head knows what a valid argument looks like so I don't know we we needed to have this discussion in the first place. It's tangential and unnecessary.
This is the infinitive form of a verb. It implies a subject which does it. Who or what exists? Besides, substances behind appearances do not always exist. Appearances are deceiving.To exist means "to present an appearance".
Do you think that academics dictate what words mean, like gods, and everyone else has to adhere to their law?NickOtani wrote:people on this board toss around terms about which they do not know the meaning.
I don't think you dictate what words mean, like a god, and everyone else has to adhere to your law. Perhaps when you become famous and respected scholars start to use your terminology, then you can tell us what words mean. Until then, you should at least try to learn what real philosophers are saying, before dismissing them like a bigot.Do you think that academics dictate what words mean, like gods, and everyone else has to adhere to their law?
In reality, people define words however they see fit. I personally don't think it's useful to call arguments that are based on false premises "valid". It's all a matter of perspective.
In my view, the academics are doing the equivalent when they say that arguments with false premises are valid. That is, they are redefining "valid".NickOtani wrote:What's next? Are you going to redefine the communitive law of addition?
Nick, in my opinion, your efforts towards what you actually want to achieve is to make humanity really understand and adhere to the above, an obvious fact of life which most probably was realized by some much before the epic of Gilgamesh was written down on clay tablets about four thousand years ago, and yet, most of the humanity is far from it. The question is, why?All humans should have a right to promote and protect their flourishing survival, not just some at the expense of others. You really shouldn’t do to others what you wouldn’t want to have done to you.
It is kind of discouraging to see, after years and years of anti-discrimination messages, ethnic cleansing still going on in many parts of the world. What does it take to get through to people that if we value our lives, so do others? If we are interested in our own self-interest, it is more in our interest to live in a world where people respect the interests of each other than in a world where predators freely violate the rights of others.Nick, in my opinion, your efforts towards what you actually want to achieve is to make humanity really understand and adhere to the above, an obvious fact of life which most probably was realized by some much before the epic of Gilgamesh was written down on clay tablets about four thousand years ago, and yet, most of the humanity is far from it. The question is, why?
Credibility in whose eyes? Yours? I'm not interested in issues of "credibility". I don't happen to think they are wrong. They are expressing their distaste for certain formalised language within academic philosophy, and, more specifically, formal logic, and I happen to agree with their distaste. I really think you should have left your question about the definition of validity within an argument out of the discussion. It's taken us down a road we needn't have walked, in my view. Though, I guess it has revealed certain aspects of where posters are coming from. In your case it makes me shiver a tad, but then we probably have the same effect on your so we're all feeling a little icy at the moment.Dan: Frankly, anyone with half a brain in their head knows what a valid argument looks like so I don't know we we needed to have this discussion in the first place. It's tangential and unnecessary.
Nick: Anyone with half a brain can see that people on this board toss around terms about which they do not know the meaning. It's a joke. Stop trying to defend people who are wrong. You lose credibility.
I don't understand the question. The appearance (however it's labelled) is what exists ("exists" is not a verb). My definition also does away with the necessity for a subject/object dualism.Dan: To exist means "to present an appearance".
Nick: This is the infinitive form of a verb. It implies a subject which does it. Who or what exists?
For me they never exist. "Substances" are just another category of appearances. I'm not using the word "appearance" here in any contingent sense. I mean it in the sense of "has identity" or A=A.Besides, substances behind appearances do not always exist.
No, this is a view held by shallow people. Appearances are what they are. Inferences can be wrong, but they don't alter the brute fact of what an appearance is.Appearances are deceiving.
They are expressing their distaste for something about which they know very little. And they aren't interested in learning. They would rather stagnate in their own ignorance than open their eyes.They are expressing their distaste for certain formalised language within academic philosophy, and, more specifically, formal logic, and I happen to agree with their distaste.
Okay, the appearance is what exists. Does that mean that before we saw the dark side of the moon, it didn't exist? Also, how does infinity appear? Does it not exist? We cannot see sub-atomic particles, do they not exist?I don't understand the question. The appearance (however it's labelled) is what exists ("exists" is not a verb). My definition also does away with the necessity for a subject/object dualism.
You don't think the liar's paradox conflicts with A=A? Please solve it for us.For me they never exist. "Substances" are just another category of appearances. I'm not using the word "appearance" here in any contingent sense. I mean it in the sense of "has identity" or A=A.
Appearances are what they are, but this is a shallow analysis. People have been fooled by what appeared to be true but wasn't. If we are interested in truth, we must go further than appearances.No, this is a view held by shallow people. Appearances are what they are. Inferences can be wrong, but they don't alter the brute fact of what an appearance is.
That's a completely worthless and evasive response Nick.Rhett: I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises.
Nicko: Can you recognize the premises for my conclusions, or do you also like to toss around terms for which you do not know the meaning?
I see a world full of predators violating the rights of others, somewhat moderated by cultural values, political and legal systems. You're not seeing things as they are Nick.NickOtani wrote:What does it take to get through to people that if we value our lives, so do others? If we are interested in our own self-interest, it is more in our interest to live in a world where people respect the interests of each other than in a world where predators freely violate the rights of others.
I don't see people as free, i see them as governed by hellish impulses, scratching, in their confusion, for a fake freedom.However, I see that this is a by-product of freedom. If we are free and morality is to have some meaning, there has to be some disagreement as to what is right and wrong. If we all knew what was right and always did it, there would be no need for morality. We would never argue about what we ought to do. We would just do it. We would be more like trees, which automatically do what their natures require, than humans who are still working on their natures.
If there is no evil in the world, there would be very little purpose or meaning to our lives. Imagine how static and sterile things would be. There would be no need for courage or bravery. Why? If we don't need to overcome obstcles, we don't need to develop these secondary virtues. We wouldn't get as much out of life as we do now. Fire tempers us. According to folks like Nietzsche, hardship makes us stronger. According to folks like William Blake, there is a need to marry heaven with hell.
Correct. The dark side of the moon is an appearance. An appearance does not exist until it appears.NickOtani wrote:Okay, the appearance is what exists. Does that mean that before we saw the dark side of the moon, it didn't exist?
In the same manner as any other appearance.Also, how does infinity appear?
Wally. Of course scientists see sub-atomic particles, and in that moment they exist.We cannot see sub-atomic particles, do they not exist?
I invite you to provide a version of the stanza that is acceptable to you, and i will respond to it.You don't think the liar's paradox conflicts with A=A? Please solve it for us.
People are fooled by false projections, by notions that do not match the remainder of the appearance, but even these appearances nevertheless remains in conformity with A=A.Appearances are what they are, but this is a shallow analysis. People have been fooled by what appeared to be true but wasn't. If we are interested in truth, we must go further than appearances.
No, your response is evasive. You said that my conclusions did not follow from my premises, and I asked you if you could recognize the premises for my conclusions. Rather than answer, you evade by accusing me of being evasive. Interesting trick.That's a completely worthless and evasive response Nick.
Because you say so? How much of the real world, unfiltered through television, have you actually seen? Have you been to Vietnam or eastern and western Europe or Turkey or Japan? How do you know what I have seen and what I haven’t?You're not seeing things as they are Nick.
Courage and bravery are manifested when someone takes a risk where harm is possible. If there is no evil, no way of being harmed, there would be no need for courage and bravery. There would be no risk taking because there would be no possibility of harm.Courage and bravery are qualities expressed in all manner of endeavour, from probing the limits of scientific understanding, to exploring unique environments, etc. These can continue in the absence of evil, and would keep us strong.
If I say I am lying and it is true, then it is false, but if it is false, then it is true. This conflicts with the law of identity and non-contradiction. If something is true, it cannot be false, and if something is false, it cannot be true. Of course, this is just another one of those laws made up by academic philosophers, but it is also refuted by them. How do you deal with it?I invite you to provide a version of the stanza that is acceptable to you, and i will respond to it.
You appear to me to be a very shallow and deluded person. Does this mean it is true that that is what you are?As for going further than appearances, to what? How could we possibly venture into a zone bereft of appearances? It simply can't occur.
Your emotions are running riot Nick! I created the premise and suggested the deductions you would make of it. You agreed, but you're running away at the same time. Deal with my challenge please.Rhett: That's a completely worthless and evasive response Nick.
Nick: No, your response is evasive. You said that my conclusions did not follow from my premises, and I asked you if you could recognize the premises for my conclusions. Rather than answer, you evade by accusing me of being evasive. Interesting trick.
So you really think everything's cosy, or what?Rhett: You're not seeing things as they are Nick.
Nick: Because you say so? How much of the real world, unfiltered through television, have you actually seen? Have you been to Vietnam or eastern and western Europe or Turkey or Japan? How do you know what I have seen and what I haven’t?
We could separate courage, say into emotional fortitude (egotist) and risk taking (sage), but it's all part of courage as most people see it. The sage can still be harmed, just there would be no emotional involvement, no extraneous upset.Rhett: Courage and bravery are qualities expressed in all manner of endeavour, from probing the limits of scientific understanding, to exploring unique environments, etc. These can continue in the absence of evil, and would keep us strong.
Nick: Courage and bravery are manifested when someone takes a risk where harm is possible. If there is no evil, no way of being harmed, there would be no need for courage and bravery. There would be no risk taking because there would be no possibility of harm.
I don't care about it. I don't see how it's got anything to do with sensible discourse. It's just a perversity of linguistics. The statement is self-referencial and essentially empty of content. It's no wonder you like it so much. Repeat it over and over and you'll get a good head spin going like a whirling dervish. Spinning is a path to spirituality you know.Rhett: I invite you to provide a version of the stanza that is acceptable to you, and i will respond to it.
Nick: If I say I am lying and it is true, then it is false, but if it is false, then it is true. This conflicts with the law of identity and non-contradiction. If something is true, it cannot be false, and if something is false, it cannot be true. Of course, this is just another one of those laws made up by academic philosophers, but it is also refuted by them. How do you deal with it?
You are stating that the notion that i am "very shallow and deluded" appears to you. If that is the case then it is most definitely the case that this notion appears to you.Rhett: As for going further than appearances, to what? How could we possibly venture into a zone bereft of appearances? It simply can't occur.
Nick: You appear to me to be a very shallow and deluded person. Does this mean it is true that that is what you are?
You're giving it a good effort, Dave, for something you think is trivial. However, this isn't a solution that would be recognized by the "academics" you disdain. It is the mathematical version of this paradox that Goedel uses to prove his theorem that systems cannot be both closed and consistent. If they are closed, there would have to be at least one instance of A is not A. This throws all logical proofs into some degree of uncertainty. So, for a trivial trick, it does have some power.In short, there is no violation of A=A because the liar's paradox is purely imaginary and a product of conceptual abuse. It no more violates A=A than the concept of a square circle does.
My emotions aren't doing anything, Rhett. I'm just noting that you are evading my questions. You aren't pointing out the premises for my conclusions. Perhaps you don't know what premises are.Your emotions are running riot Nick! I created the premise and suggested the deductions you would make of it. You agreed, but you're running away at the same time. Deal with my challenge please.
You said I don't see things as they are, but I asked you how you knew what I have seen and what I haven't. Please address my points. Answer my questions.So you really think everything's cosy, or what?
Could you please address my points?
Harm of any kind can be seen as evil. You haven't shown how we could have courage without evil.We could separate courage, say into emotional fortitude (egotist) and risk taking (sage), but it's all part of courage as most people see it. The sage can still be harmed, just there would be no emotional involvement, no extraneous upset.
But you said you would respond to it if I provided a version of it. I provided a version of it, and you say you don't care about it. That's your promised response? That's real honest and courageous of you, Rhett. I see how you deal with challenges. We all do. You should go join a sect of Christian fundamentalists. You'd fit right in.I don't care about it. I don't see how it's got anything to do with sensible discourse. It's just a perversity of linguistics. The statement is self-referencial and essentially empty of content. It's no wonder you like it so much. Repeat it over and over and you'll get a good head spin going like a whirling dervish. Spinning is a path to spirituality you know.
There can be no such thing as a closed system, so speaking of a closed system is only gibberish. It is exactly the same as speaking of a square circle.NickOtani wrote:Goedel uses to prove his theorem that systems cannot be both closed and consistent.
We're talking again, are we? While I regard almost everything academic philosophers do as trivial and useless, I do take very seriously the claim that they are challenging core principles of life, such as A=A. I consider the task of battling this misperception to be important work.DQ: In short, there is no violation of A=A because the liar's paradox is purely imaginary and a product of conceptual abuse. It no more violates A=A than the concept of a square circle does.
N: You're giving it a good effort, Dave, for something you think is trivial.
I don't expect academics to recognize or agree with anything that a truthful person says.However, this isn't a solution that would be recognized by the "academics" you disdain.
More accurately, he was talking about formal systems of a certain variety and a certain level of complexity. These systems generate their own contrived paradoxes through their artificiality and the limitations of their component parts. It's a fault of these systems themselves and has no bearing on what is true about reality itself.It is the mathematical version of this paradox that Goedel uses to prove his theorem that systems cannot be both closed and consistent.
And yet Goedal himself used logic in order to formulate these theories and reach the conclusions that he did. So clearly, he didn't really believe that all logical reasoning was inherently uncertain. You're misinterpreting his work.If they are closed, there would have to be at least one instance of A is not A. This throws all logical proofs into some degree of uncertainty. So, for a trivial trick, it does have some power.