NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism

[NickOtani]

It is true that Goedel uses logic to point out a weakness of logic, yet it does hold up. To ignore it is to ignore a logical proof, something people who rely on faith do, not something people interested in truth do.

Russell and Whitehead couldn't get around him, and neither can you.

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.

Closed systems cannot be any more consistent than a square circle can be.

Yes, that's right. That's why logical proofs are ultimately logically uncertain.

bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

Closed systems cannot be any more consistent than a square circle can be.

Yes, that's right. That's why logical proofs are ultimately logically uncertain.

No, only logic in closed systems - which don't exist. You are missing the main point of the whole exercise.

[David Quinn]

Nick,

It is true that Goedel uses logic to point out a weakness of logic, yet it does hold up.

In what way? If you want to believe that Goedel's views accurately represent the truth, then you are implicitly stating that the logic he used to arrive at these conclusions is 100% certain and valid. This flies in the face of the idea that logic is inherently uncertain.

To ignore it is to ignore a logical proof, something people who rely on faith do, not something people interested in truth do.

Russell and Whitehead couldn't get around him, and neither can you.

I have gotten around him with ease. I assure you, it isn't difficult for anyone who is serious about truth.

You continue to sound like a religious devotee who is rigorously defending an irrational religious teaching. Don't you understand yet that name-droppping carries no weight here? If you want to get anywhere on this forum, try to focus on producing well-crafted rational arguments and forget all the hype about the academic celebrities.

Britney Spears is just as close to Truth as the average academic is.

-

[DHodges]

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.

As I understand it, Goedel showed that there are statements that can be formulated in a given (sufficiently powerful) logical system that are true, but can not be proven to be true within that system.

This does not throw logical proofs into any uncertainty, it merely destroys the idea that all true statements are provable (or that all false statements can be proved to be false).

The Liar's paradox is closely related. It can be stated in more complex ways, but generally comes down to a statement like "This statement is false," and demanding that we determine whether the statement is true or false. Assigning a value of either "true" or "false" results in a paradox.

There are also statements of the form "This statement is true," which can be considered to be true, or false, as you like, without contradiction.

However, there are still plenty of statements that are completely provable. The existence of these sorts of sentances does not change that at all.

[DHodges]

Consider:
If I have two apples, and then I acquire two more apples, then I will have four apples.

This argument is valid. The validity of the argument does not depend at all on the number of actual apples I happen to have.

Validity of an argument is an entirely separate issue from the truth of the premises. That's the entire point of logic (meaning formal, or symbolic, logic). You can evalute the structure of an argument to see if it is valid, without considering the particular premises that may be plugged into it. Logic is a "content-free syntax". This is important because people often have strong emotional ties to certain conclusions or premises, and it's good to be able to remove them from the picture to examine the argument structurally without those distractions.

If that sounds "academic", well, yeah, it's a formal academic field that is well-established. Arguing with it makes about as much sense as arguing with set theory.

[NickOtani]

In what way? If you want to believe that Goedel's views accurately represent the truth, then you are implicitly stating that the logic he used to arrive at these conclusions is 100% certain and valid. This flies in the face of the idea that logic is inherently uncertain.

It doesn't matter what one wants to believe when we talk about logical conclusions and truth. Goedel's theorems are not 100% either, but they are more certain than the claims that logic can be 100% certain.

You continue to sound like a religious devotee who is rigorously defending an irrational religious teaching. Don't you understand yet that name-droppping carries no weight here? If you want to get anywhere on this forum, try to focus on producing well-crafted rational arguments and forget all the hype about the academic celebrities.

What I sound like to you, someone who doesn't even know what validity means, matters very little to me. The reason why name-dropping doesn't carry any weight here is because most people here are ignorant of what those names represent. Russell and Whitehead attempted to come up with a closed and consistent system in Principia Mathematica, but Goedel threw a wrench into the works with his theorems. If you don't know this, then you are living in the dark. Keep your head buried in the sand, and you can adopt any irrational view you want, like some religious devote.

Britney Spears is just as close to Truth as the average academic is.

And you know this how? You are aware of everything every recognized philosopher knows and can credibly speak about what they know? I don't think so. You are just an ignorant bigot who lumps people into a category and condemns them, even though you don't know much about them.

bis bald,

Nick

[NickOtani]

As I understand it, Goedel showed that there are statements that can be formulated in a given (sufficiently powerful) logical system that are true, but can not be proven to be true within that system.

This does not throw logical proofs into any uncertainty, it merely destroys the idea that all true statements are provable (or that all false statements can be proved to be false).

Your understanding is a bit more advanced than that of some of your colleagues, but I still have some small disagreements with it. If statements cannot be proven, they cannot be said to be certain. And, yes, they can be verified outside the system, with another system, but then that system must also be verified by another system and so on into infinity. So, 100% verification is not possible. There has to be some acceptance on faith.

Validity of an argument is an entirely separate issue from the truth of the premises. That's the entire point of logic (meaning formal, or symbolic, logic). You can evalute the structure of an argument to see if it is valid, without considering the particular premises that may be plugged into it. Logic is a "content-free syntax". This is important because people often have strong emotional ties to certain conclusions or premises, and it's good to be able to remove them from the picture to examine the argument structurally without those distractions.

Yes! This is correct. You are the first person on this board, other than me, to get it right. Did you have to look it up?

bis bald,

Nick

[DHodges]

Your understanding is a bit more advanced than that of some of your colleagues, but I still have some small disagreements with it. If statements cannot be proven, they cannot be said to be certain. And, yes, they can be verified outside the system, with another system, but then that system must also be verified by another system and so on into infinity. So, 100% verification is not possible. There has to be some acceptance on faith.

The point was that, while there are certain statements that have that property, the existence of those statements does not impact most statements. There are still a great many statements that are provable within a formal system.

You can not prove the formal system itself from within that system - but I don't really see that as a problem.

Yes! This is correct. You are the first person on this board, other than me, to get it right. Did you have to look it up?

No, I studied it in college.

[David Quinn]

Brother Nick wrote:

If statements cannot be proven, they cannot be said to be certain. And, yes, they can be verified outside the system, with another system, but then that system must also be verified by another system and so on into infinity. So, 100% verification is not possible. There has to be some acceptance on faith.

What about the statement, "100% verification is not possible"? Has this been verified? Or have you simply accepted it on faith?

This is always the problem with this kind of postmodernist theorizing. It cannot reach any conclusions at all, about anything, not even about the limitations of verification, without automatically contradicting itself.

DQ: If you want to believe that Goedel's views accurately represent the truth, then you are implicitly stating that the logic he used to arrive at these conclusions is 100% certain and valid. This flies in the face of the idea that logic is inherently uncertain.

N: It doesn't matter what one wants to believe when we talk about logical conclusions and truth. Goedel's theorems are not 100% either, but they are more certain than the claims that logic can be 100% certain.

Are they? And how have you verified that?

David Hodges: Validity of an argument is an entirely separate issue from the truth of the premises. That's the entire point of logic (meaning formal, or symbolic, logic). You can evalute the structure of an argument to see if it is valid, without considering the particular premises that may be plugged into it. Logic is a "content-free syntax". This is important because people often have strong emotional ties to certain conclusions or premises, and it's good to be able to remove them from the picture to examine the argument structurally without those distractions.

N: Yes! This is correct. You are the first person on this board, other than me, to get it right. Did you have to look it up?

Your enthusiastic praise of another's dutiful regurgitation of scripture is noted.

What I sound like to you, someone who doesn't even know what validity means, matters very little to me.

You continue to misunderstand. I know what "validity" means in the eyes of academics. So that's not the issue. The issue is whether academics are right in using the word in that particular way. From the perspective of promoting wisdom in the world, I don't think they are.

It's a bit like how Christian fundamentalists have appropriated the word "God" and debauched it so that it has come to mean a giant supernatural person in the sky. Such a definition is clearly useless for philosophic purposes, and therefore I have no choice but to reject it in favour of a more suitable one. The same is true for other key words, such "validity", "cause", "existence", "Nature", "knowledge", etc, that have been appropriated and debauched by academics.

This is one of the core problems of academia. Mentally, academics tend to dwell in closed conceptual systems and have real no awareness of the bigger picture. So it would never occur to them, for example, to assess what they do from the perspective of higher wisdom. Thus, when you question, say, their use of the word "validity", they just stare at you and blink. They have no idea what you are talking about.


-

[Dan Rowden]

Nick,

In case you're wondering, Godel is old hat around here. We've ridden that merry-go-round many times over the years. Asking a board member who articulates an understanding of his Incompleteness Theorems (and their implications for philosophical thought) that mirrors academic jargon if they had to "look it up" is simply pretentious. I know you have an academic face to present and protect, given your stated goals for 2006 are: "My resolutions, this year, will be to get published in paper, to push more to get real employment, not just as a subnstitute teacher, and to keep educating myself in my favorite subject, philosophy. Perhaps I'll look into more scholarship opportunities to get a master's in philosophy...." but really one does not have to indulge in the language of the Academe to express an understanding of matters relating to Godel and formal logic (and its power and implications). Get over it - and yourself.

This is a good little site for fairly accessible info on Godel: Godel on the Net which includes the following:

Are there any complete and consistent theories?
Yes, there are many interesting complete and consistent theories. Gödel's theorem applies only to theories that satisfy "certain conditions" - essentially, that a certain amount of arithmetic can be done in the theory. A theory for which these conditions do not hold may be both complete and consistent, and doesn't have to be at all trivial.

A good example is the elementary theory of the real field (also known as the theory of real-closed fields). This theory has symbols 0 and 1, symbols for adding, multiplying, subtracting, dividing real numbers, and statements built up from equalities and inequalities, using propositional connectives and quantifiers over the real numbers.

Without going into details, the following examples of statements of the theory should give a good idea of what can be said in the theory:

* Every non-negative number has a square root.
* The equation x4+5x2-8=0 has exactly two real solutions.
* For every two real numbers x and y such that 0<x<y, there is a real number z such that x<z2<y.

There is at least one potentially baffling aspect to the above example. Since the natural numbers are a part of the real numbers, why doesn't Gödel's theorem apply to the theory of the real field? The answer is that even though the natural numbers are a part of the real numbers, we can't define "natural number" using only the language of the theory of the real field. Thus, for example, the statement "there are natural numbers x,y,z greater than 0 such that x5+y5=z5" can't be formulated in that language. The (true) statement "there are real numbers x,y,z greater than 0 such that x5+y5=z5" can.

That's all I have to say on the Godel issue.

Dan Rowden

[David Quinn]

Dave Hodges wrote:

Consider:
If I have two apples, and then I acquire two more apples, then I will have four apples.

This argument is valid. The validity of the argument does not depend at all on the number of actual apples I happen to have.

Validity of an argument is an entirely separate issue from the truth of the premises. That's the entire point of logic (meaning formal, or symbolic, logic). You can evalute the structure of an argument to see if it is valid, without considering the particular premises that may be plugged into it. Logic is a "content-free syntax". This is important because people often have strong emotional ties to certain conclusions or premises, and it's good to be able to remove them from the picture to examine the argument structurally without those distractions.

And you can't do this already, without their help? Surely, we are talking about a very basic skill that anyone with a smidgeon of philosophical nous is able to master with ease. Knowing how to examine premises and the logical steps which people like to build upon them is the basic skill of thinking. It's an important skill, for sure, but it's not the lofty and exotic one that academics try to make out.

If you want to dig a hole, you pick up a spade and you start digging with it. You don't spend hours contemplating the colour of its handle, or measuring the temperature of the metal parts. For the purposes of digging the hole, that kind of knowledge is "academic".

In my experience, academics are deeply motivated to keep the whole academic enterprise alive so that it can continue to generate an endless stream of trivial problems to solve. This is fundamentally why they have no interest in truth. If they actually decided to start solving issues and become conscious of the nature of Reality, then 99% of the academic world would instantaneously cease to be.

Deep down, they know this, and so they do all sorts of cunning things to shore up their defences against such a possibility. For example, they latch onto a word like "validity" and twist its meaning so that it can be linked by association to false arguments. This allows them to treat the millions of false and trivial arguments out there with grave seriousness and they can spend the rest of their days meticulously examining them, happy in the knowledge that it will never end.

It's a form of madness.

If that sounds "academic", well, yeah, it's a formal academic field that is well-established. Arguing with it makes about as much sense as arguing with set theory.

Or with the Ku Klux Klan's well-established theory on races too, I suppose?

-

[Kevin Solway]

And, yes, they can be verified outside the system, with another system, but then that system must also be verified by another system and so on into infinity. So, 100% verification is not possible. There has to be some acceptance on faith.

I understand that you are accepting this on faith, but you are wrong to do so.

As has been pointed out, there are many things that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

Also, Godel's theory doesn't apply to simple logic, such as A=A, which is essentially what all philosophy revolves about.

they can be verified outside the system, with another system, but then that system must also be verified by another system and so on into infinity.

All of these so-called systems are creations of your imagination. In reality they don't exist. If you go back, and back, you don't go to infinity, but you reach the simple logic of A=A, to which Godel's theory does not apply.

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: 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.

Nick: 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.

I gave all the information required. You can't subversively add information to my example. It is my example. If you think there is a fault in the example, or that it needs extra information, or you don't agree with my assertion of what you would project upon my example, then just say so and express your thoughts.

Rhett: So you really think everything's cosy, or what? Could you please address my points?

Nick: 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.

I didn't answer your question because you didn't answer mine, and mine came first. I've come across far too many people too weak for the truth to not notice someone attempting to sidetrack. I have otherwise extended you the courtesy of responding directly to your points, and i demand similar respect for me to continue the dialogue. Since you're expressing a high opinion of yourself, i place some expectations on your conduct. They're still very low mind you, and you're not currently meeting them.

The point i made about you not seeing things as they are was in reference to a particular example, an example you seem keen to move on from. Here it is again;

Nick: "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."

Rhett: "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."

It's up to you to be honest about what you have seen. All too many people muddy reality with pleasing illusions.

Rhett: 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.

Nick: Harm of any kind can be seen as evil. You haven't shown how we could have courage without evil.

If i am walking alone in remote and precipitous mountain country at dusk and stub my toe on a rock, the toe may become harmed, perhaps sore for a little while. But i do not consider the rock or the low level of light to be evil.

Rhett: 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.

Nick: 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 responded to the problem; "It's [just] a perversity of linguistics. The statement is self-referencial and essentially empty of content".

.

[David Quinn]

Kevin wrote:

NickOtani: And, yes, they can be verified outside the system, with another system, but then that system must also be verified by another system and so on into infinity. So, 100% verification is not possible. There has to be some acceptance on faith.

Kevin: I understand that you are accepting this on faith, but you are wrong to do so.

What does it mean to accept on faith that there always has to be some acceptance on faith?

Nothing at all. It's meaningless. You might as well just make up your beliefs on the spot.

It's like a Christian claiming that you need faith in order to believe in the Bible and accept its basic dictum that the way to truth is, not through reason, but through faith!

Nothingness piled upon nothingness.


-

[NickOtani]

There are still a great many statements that are provable within a formal system.

Name one. If a system can’t be closed and consistent, then one loses the truth tests of coherence and consistency.

What about the statement, "100% verification is not possible"? Has this been verified? Or have you simply accepted it on faith?

No, I accept it because it has a high degree of certainty.

This is always the problem with this kind of postmodernist theorizing. It cannot reach any conclusions at all, about anything, not even about the limitations of verification, without automatically contradicting itself.

I am not a post-modernist. I agree that ultimate skepticism is ultimately paradoxical. I do not reject all conclusions. I settle for a high degree of certainty, and I keep looking for higher degrees of certainty. I use all my truth tests and keep in mind that I may still be wrong, and, in that, I may be right.

You continue to misunderstand. I know what "validity" means in the eyes of academics. So that's not the issue. The issue is whether academics are right in using the word in that particular way. From the perspective of promoting wisdom in the world, I don't think they are.

No, you just didn’t know what validity meant. You are trying to save face now, but it doesn’t work.

…Asking a board member who articulates an understanding of his Incompleteness Theorems (and their implications for philosophical thought) that mirrors academic jargon if they had to "look it up" is simply pretentious.

If you go back and read carefully, you’ll see that I didn’t do what you accuse me of. I didn’t ask DHodges if he looked up Goedel. I asked if he looked up the definition of “validity.” He did get it right, and I was surprised. Most other “big dogs” on this board got it wrong and keep trying to defend themselves and each other instead of facing up to their mistake. I’m happy to see someone who breaks ranks in the name of truth and honesty. I’m disappointed that you didn’t do so.

Or with the Ku Klux Klan's well-established theory on races too, I suppose?

It is an obvious fallacy to link people one disagrees with to Christian fundamentalists, religious devotees, and members of the Ku Klux Klan, but it is also unethical. It’s reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy’s tactics in the 50s to accuse everybody of being communists.

As has been pointed out, there are many things that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

Point out one thing that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

Also, Godel's theory doesn't apply to simple logic, such as A=A, which is essentially what all philosophy revolves about.

Yes, it does. You haven’t been following. Get a clue.

I gave all the information required. You can't subversively add information to my example. It is my example. If you think there is a fault in the example, or that it needs extra information, or you don't agree with my assertion of what you would project upon my example, then just say so and express your thoughts.

The nice thing about message board debates is that there is a record of what was and was not said. We can, if we want, go back and reread what was said. You said: “I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises." And I said: “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?” Since then, you have evaded that question by accusing me of evading you somehow or adding information to your example. Are you not able to point out premises and conclusions?

It's up to you to be honest about what you have seen. All too many people muddy reality with pleasing illusions.

You made an unsupported accusation that I don’t see things as they are, just because I don’t see things as you see them. I asked you how you knew what I saw, and you don’t respond.

If I am walking alone in remote and precipitous mountain country at dusk and stub my toe on a rock, the toe may become harmed, perhaps sore for a little while. But i do not consider the rock or the low level of light to be evil.

In my model, based on survival, that which promotes and protects life is good, and that which threatens and destroys it is evil. Pain is an indication that something is wrong, evil. It is to be avoided. In an environment without evil, one might stub one’s toe and receive a reward rather than pain. In such an environment, where nothing painful or bad can possibly happen, there can be no risk, bravery, courage, sympathy, or compassion.

I responded to the problem; "It's [just] a perversity of linguistics. The statement is self-referencial and essentially empty of content".

No, that’s an evasion. If someone asks you to solve for [(A -> B ^A)-> B] if A is false and B is false, would you dismiss it as empty of content?

It's like a Christian claiming that you need faith in order to believe in the Bible and accept its basic dictum that the way to truth is, not through reason, but through faith!

It’s like the faith you use to accept reason, something about which you know little.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Jamesh]

If a system can’t be closed and consistent, then one loses the truth tests of coherence and consistency.


Mathematically perhaps. Philosophically nah, although I don’t really disagree that nothing is 100% provably certain. In practical terms however, seeing as we are finite creatures rather than the impossible omniscient “absolute truths” such as A=A, Everything is caused, Everything is interconnected and so on are 100% provably certain.

I am not a post-modernist.

Ohh yes you are. At least you respond and say exactly the same things as they do.

Point out one thing that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

There are many things. This is what the what I hope anyone who responds will concentrate on, and ignore the rest.

Also, Godel's theory doesn't apply to simple logic, such as A=A, which is essentially what all philosophy revolves about.

Yes, it does. You haven’t been following. Get a clue.

There is no f’ng way that Goedels theories apply to simple logic from what I can gather, absolutely zero. Admittedly I do not understand mathematical logic, but maths at that level is mostly just fantasy games created by bored egotistical minds, with imaginary problems created as they become more "precise" or finite with details of delusionary closed definational systems.

Pain is an indication that something is wrong, evil. It is to be avoided. In an environment without evil, one might stub one’s toe and receive a reward rather than pain. In such an environment, where nothing painful or bad can possibly happen, there can be no risk, bravery, courage, sympathy, or compassion.

Nobody with any philosophical understanding of reality or even psychology could say that. Pain is an essential part of being a being. For a start it is essential for evolutionary advances in animals like us with minds. Without pain nothing is achieved, even soft cock political correctness includes elements of pain via compromise.

No, that’s an evasion. If someone asks you to solve for [(A -> B ^A)-> B] if A is false and B is false, would you dismiss it as empty of content?

Of course. It is absolutely empty of content unless applied to reality.

Personally I think the folks here should stop responding to you. You are so womanly in attitude. Self confidence completely provided by the values and ideas of others, together with a competitive, twisting, lying, deceitful and obnoxious arrogance related to your association with capital A Academia -, just as a woman finds her values in societies glowing but delusionary concept of Woman.

[Pye]

I can say some things about academic philosophy because I am around the people who do it all the time. I can tell you that not one of them worth their salt takes their own self-referential business of academic writing seriously, at least not in the dogged way Nick Otani does. And not seriously in the sense that these Truth seekers of the forum do, and certainly not seriously as models for life. I can pretty safely say that the two projects are not aimed in the same way, and not even aimed at the same thing. But most of the Genius forum and Nick Otani are akin for the pursuit, the fight-worthy pursuit, of . . . (?)

I can go on to say that "Truth" in academy practice is generally posited either as an artifact, an operative, or an article of faith. If singular "Truth" is sworn to with fervor, it is assumed faith-based, no matter the content of it. Look don't get mad at me; I am really trying to just report these things right now from a position in life that I have and I am sure I will err in generalization. In academic philosophy, Truth can be the item itself looked at "historically"; and it can be looked at as a function (i.e. logic) and used as one. But I don't know anyone in academic philosophy who speaks about it in the way of this forum, or expects from their endeavors a thing like "enlightenment" to result. Truth - too strong an article of faith; now "validity" is the best one can shoot for. As long as you connect your dots, you can speak. If you claim absolutely, then you have become fundamentalist, no matter the claim made.

It's otherwise a bead game. Deftness of play is what matters.

I will say that I am in near-solid agreement with the idea that academic philosophy chews on itself and produces very little of what I would call "thinking." It's more like "shuffling," or "trumping" or busting something else academic for the nothingness that it is. For the reasons mentioned above, the real criticism for an academic philosopher is not life-practicality or use-value, and certainly not something-for-its-own-sake, like Truth. The academic philosopher must worry about the dot-connecting, and of course it's true, that egos can run high. At the same time, I have seen some very expansive and good-natured academic philosophers be very thoughtful, and I have myself been involved in some spirited discussion with other philosophy professors - discussion that has no trouble wandering off (even destroying) its own turf. But I agree. I have had to sit in on too many presentations of papers and never once has the thought not occurred to me that, even if the dot-connecting is interesting or revealing, it is bogus at heart - at least if your heart is beating at all when it comes to living philosophy. I would like to say too that I have had no trouble at all mimicking the discourse and have had to do so ad nauseum to get here myself, but it is by no means where my best thinking and writing follows; I have no taste for it. I'm not an academic.

I'm also the person from talkphilosophy who gave NickOtani this address. I think he needs his wagon fixed and thought some of you here could help. I also think his seriousness merits that he should have a wagon and that it might be worth fixing. I don't know what you're going to do about this disparateness of approach and/or goal, let alone means. That's the thing -- what it is each of you intends for philosophy to do. We over there at talkphilosophy are not as stupid as Nick made out; and a bunch of you have pointed out a bunch of the same things a few of us did in extended debate with him regarding neo-objectivism and the case for natural rights. And I was the loudest plaintiff regarding the limits Nick restricts himself to by falling in league with the academy. We just couldn't move anything along over there and most of my/our rebuttals were ignored. I still think you are valuable for this here; that there is some thinking happening in your debate with him. That is, if you think you are all talking about the same thing; or at least, what it is with philosophy needs done.

Am I right in saying that the goal seen here for philosophy is enlightenment; and enlightenment is a result of pursuing and attaining Ultimate Truth?

Is that the same for you, Nick? What is it for you?

[David Quinn]

Hey Nick,

We all have names. Feel free to use them. You give the impression that you believe you are on a one-man crusade against a faceless, evil world. It also suggests that you are not really giving anything we say much thought.

DQ: What about the statement, "100% verification is not possible"? Has this been verified? Or have you simply accepted it on faith?

N: No, I accept it because it has a high degree of certainty.

And how do you know that it has a high degree of certainty? How have you verified this? If you are uncertain of it, how uncertain are you? Are you 25% uncertain? 50% uncertain? 99% uncertain?

In the end, you cannot make statements about the degree of certainty of a theory without also affirming that you understand reality with 100% certainty. Otherwise, you have nothing to compare the theory to, and thus no way to calculate its level of certainty.

DQ: This is always the problem with this kind of postmodernist theorizing. It cannot reach any conclusions at all, about anything, not even about the limitations of verification, without automatically contradicting itself.

N: I am not a post-modernist. I agree that ultimate skepticism is ultimately paradoxical. I do not reject all conclusions. I settle for a high degree of certainty, and I keep looking for higher degrees of certainty. I use all my truth tests and keep in mind that I may still be wrong, and, in that, I may be right.

I'm afraid that's postmodernism in a nutshell. The belief that everything is uncertain is a core postmodernist belief.

In any case, you're contradicting yourself when you claim that you're not an ultimate skeptic while also saying that nothing can be known with 100% certainty. I mean, that is precisely what an ultimate skeptic is - someone who thinks that nothing can be known for sure.

And you're right. It is a meaningless and contradictory position to hold.

You continue to misunderstand. I know what "validity" means in the eyes of academics. So that's not the issue. The issue is whether academics are right in using the word in that particular way. From the perspective of promoting wisdom in the world, I don't think they are.

No, you just didn’t know what validity meant. You are trying to save face now, but it doesn’t work.

Mate, I've been having these kinds of conversations for over twenty years. There is nothing you have raised on this forum that I've not seen countless times before.

You've somehow got into your head that if anyone questions academia, then they must be ignorant by default. Deny it all you want, but that is religious fundamentalism.

Or with the Ku Klux Klan's well-established theory on races too, I suppose?

It is an obvious fallacy to link people one disagrees with to Christian fundamentalists, religious devotees, and members of the Ku Klux Klan, but it is also unethical. It’s reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy’s tactics in the 50s to accuse everybody of being communists.

I was simply making the point that just because something is "well-established" by a particular community, it doesn't mean we should stop questioning it. We wouldn't have emerged from the Dark Ages if we had followed that route.

KS: As has been pointed out, there are many things that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

N: Point out one thing that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

The fact that Nature (the totality of all there is) is not nothing whatsoever, that experiences are occuring, is 100% certain and true.

KS: Also, Godel's theory doesn't apply to simple logic, such as A=A, which is essentially what all philosophy revolves about.

N: Yes, it does. You haven’t been following. Get a clue.

Can you demonstrate this? In what way exactly does Goedel's theorems apply to A=A? I've asked this question to your kind before, but for some reason, no one has ever been able to furnish me with an answer.

DQ: It's like a Christian claiming that you need faith in order to believe in the Bible and accept its basic dictum that the way to truth is, not through reason, but through faith!

N: It’s like the faith you use to accept reason, something about which you know little.

The only "faith" that is required to affirm the validity of reason (to yield certainty and truth) is the acceptance of A=A. Nothing else is required.

Of course, since the truth of A=A is beyond question, we can't really call it "faith". It's more a matter of opening one's eyes and discerning what is a brute fact.

-

[Kevin Solway]

What about the statement, "100% verification is not possible"? Has this been verified? Or have you simply accepted it on faith?

No, I accept it because it has a high degree of certainty.

Are you sure you accept it, or do you think there is only a high degree of certainty that you accept it?

If the latter, are you sure there is a high degree of certainty that you accept it, or do you have only a high degree of certainty that there is a high degree of certainty?

Also, what, precisely, do you mean by "high degree of certainty"? Do you mean 99% certain, or 99.5% certain? Where exactly is the cut-off point between "high degree of certainty" and "medium degree of certainty". Is it about 96%, or lower?

I am not a post-modernist.

All postmodernists say that. It's really up to other people to decide. If you are uncertain about everything, which you claim to be, that places you fairly firmly in the postmodernist camp.

I agree that ultimate skepticism is ultimately paradoxical.

Yet you are not 100% sure that ultimate skepticism is ultimately paradoxical. You take this belief on faith to some degree.

I use all my truth tests and keep in mind that I may still be wrong, and, in that, I may be right.

You are wrong.

As has been pointed out, there are many things that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

Point out one thing that can be correctly said with 100% truth and certainty.

A=A.

That is, a thing is identical to itself.

Also, Godel's theory doesn't apply to simple logic, such as A=A, which is essentially what all philosophy revolves about.

Yes, it does.

I get the impression you haven't studied Godel's ideas at all, but have simply consumed some of the popular, uneducated, interpretations of it.

Have a look at the following URL, for the "Meaning of Gödel's theorems"

Wikipedia: Incompleteness Theroems

The first sentence of which states: "Gödel's theorems are theorems in first-order logic, and must ultimately be understood in that context."

[David Quinn]

Hello Pye, and welcome.

What do you do exactly, may I ask? You work in a university, I presume?

I can say some things about academic philosophy because I am around the people who do it all the time. I can tell you that not one of them worth their salt takes their own self-referential business of academic writing seriously, at least not in the dogged way Nick Otani does. And not seriously in the sense that these Truth seekers of the forum do, and certainly not seriously as models for life. I can pretty safely say that the two projects are not aimed in the same way, and not even aimed at the same thing. But most of the Genius forum and Nick Otani are akin for the pursuit, the fight-worthy pursuit, of . . . (?)

There's passion on both sides, for sure.

Are you saying that academics don't take their own writings seriously? Or just the whole peer review thing? Is it just a job for them?

I can go on to say that "Truth" in academy practice is generally posited either as an artifact, an operative, or an article of faith. If singular "Truth" is sworn to with fervor, it is assumed faith-based, no matter the content of it. Look don't get mad at me; I am really trying to just report these things right now from a position in life that I have and I am sure I will err in generalization.

Yes, that is certainly a standard article of faith on the part of modern academia.

In academic philosophy, Truth can be the item itself looked at "historically"; and it can be looked at as a function (i.e. logic) and used as one. But I don't know anyone in academic philosophy who speaks about it in the way of this forum, or expects from their endeavors a thing like "enlightenment" to result.

I'm not surprised. He would only become a laughing stock if he started taking the concept of Truth seriously and began pursuing enlightenment. He would no longer be regarded as "sound".

Truth - too strong an article of faith; now "validity" is the best one can shoot for. As long as you connect your dots, you can speak. If you claim absolutely, then you have become fundamentalist, no matter the claim made.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

I would like to say too that I have had no trouble at all mimicking the discourse and have had to do so ad nauseum to get here myself, but it is by no means where my best thinking and writing follows; I have no taste for it. I'm not an academic.

Do you have any of your material on the web which we can read?

Am I right in saying that the goal seen here for philosophy is enlightenment; and enlightenment is a result of pursuing and attaining Ultimate Truth?

Yes, the basic goal is to remove all delusions from the mind and dwell in what's left. This involves eliminating all unfounded assumptions and contradictory thought-processes, dismantling all mental blocks and compartments, and opening up one's mind to the nature of Reality, which is everywhere around us.

-

[NickOtani]

I can say some things about academic philosophy because I am around the people who do it all the time.

Tell me, Pye, what is “academic philosophy”? This is a general term most of these people toss around to mean anything that I refer to but not what they are going on about. Philosophers are diverse. There are idealists, realists, pragmatists, and existentialists. There are analytical philosophers. There are philosophers of ordinary language. There are the philosophers of artificial intelligence, like Dennett, and philosophers of the mind. There are political philosophers. There are objectivists and subjectivists. There are the eastern philosophers, and there is a big difference between the Confucians and Taoists. There are the cynics, like Diogenes of Sinope. There are speculative philosophers and activists. And, there are modernists and post-modernists. Are they all “academic” philosophers? Are all the philosophers on my website academic philosophers? If they are, then “academic” has no meaning. It is just something these people use to hide the fact they don’t really know much about philosophy and are too lazy to learn, and you are buying into it also. You would rather just babble around, rant, and not worry about what other people said. Those other people are just all “academic” philosophers, and they are all bad.

I can tell you that not one of them worth their salt takes their own self-referential business of academic writing seriously, at least not in the dogged way Nick Otani does. And not seriously in the sense that these Truth seekers of the forum do, and certainly not seriously as models for life. I can pretty safely say that the two projects are not aimed in the same way, and not even aimed at the same thing. But most of the Genius forum and Nick Otani are akin for the pursuit, the fight-worthy pursuit, of . . . (?)

First, you compliment me by saying that I am doggedly serious about Truth seeking, but you take it away by comparing me to the “Truth seekers” on this forum. I’ve found only two of these guys who are in any way authentic. One is Sapius, and the other is DHodges. Everyone else on this board is basically trying to protect his or her ego from my attacks and build it up by attacking me. They have been refuted, but they pretend that they are still viable and that I am the one talking crazy. It’s pathetic! They are no better than dust or EI, and those guys are terrible!

I can go on to say that "Truth" in academy practice is generally posited either as an artifact, an operative, or an article of faith. If singular "Truth" is sworn to with fervor, it is assumed faith-based, no matter the content of it. Look don't get mad at me; I am really trying to just report these things right now from a position in life that I have and I am sure I will err in generalization. In academic philosophy, Truth can be the item itself looked at "historically"; and it can be looked at as a function (i.e. logic) and used as one. But I don't know anyone in academic philosophy who speaks about it in the way of this forum, or expects from their endeavors a thing like "enlightenment" to result. Truth - too strong an article of faith; now "validity" is the best one can shoot for. As long as you connect your dots, you can speak. If you claim absolutely, then you have become fundamentalist, no matter the claim made.

Who said “validity” is the best one can shoot for? I don’t think you are following, Pye. You and dust and several people on this board would make great revisionists. Yes, I think some of the absolutists on this board are fundamentalists, and it is ironic how they accuse me of being a fundamentalist. I think validity is important, and knowing the difference between validity and truth is important when trying to get to truth. I go back to my thesis that philosophy requires some prior learning. It’s not just an excuse to spout of opinions and accuse those who disagree of being religious fundamentalists. I think serious students and scholars should do more than flame, ignore, misrepresent, and falsely accuse others of flaming, ignoring, misrepresenting, and falsely accusing. Anyway, I’ve said over and over that we can have a high degree of certainty, and that is enough to build computers and put people into space. Most of us would be dead now if not for the technology developed with high degrees of certainty. This is useful philosophy, not BS.

It's otherwise a bead game. Deftness of play is what matters.

Yes, some deftness of play is important. I don’t think people who ramble on about nothing, like EI does, are engaging in philosophy.

I will say that I am in near-solid agreement with the idea that academic philosophy chews on itself and produces very little of what I would call "thinking." It's more like "shuffling," or "trumping" or busting something else academic for the nothingness that it is. For the reasons mentioned above, the real criticism for an academic philosopher is not life-practicality or use-value, and certainly not something-for-its-own-sake, like Truth. The academic philosopher must worry about the dot-connecting, and of course it's true, that egos can run high.

You are trying to rationalize not having to connect the dots. You would like it if people can just commit fallacies and be respected as much as those who try to make sense. Hey, sometimes there are paradoxes, but they can be explained and understood. They are not license to just say anything, like that God exists or that it’s okay to kill Jews and other minorities. No, Pye, there has to be some accountability, some way to prove Hitler was wrong. I am not and never will be a post-modernist.

At the same time, I have seen some very expansive and good-natured academic philosophers be very thoughtful, and I have myself been involved in some spirited discussion with other philosophy professors - discussion that has no trouble wandering off (even destroying) its own turf. But I agree. I have had to sit in on too many presentations of papers and never once has the thought not occurred to me that, even if the dot-connecting is interesting or revealing, it is bogus at heart - at least if your heart is beating at all when it comes to living philosophy. I would like to say too that I have had no trouble at all mimicking the discourse and have had to do so ad nauseum to get here myself, but it is by no means where my best thinking and writing follows; I have no taste for it. I'm not an academic.

I’ve been to college too. I’ve had to sit through classes where I know I knew more than the professor but couldn’t get my points across in the context of classroom discussion. I’ve had to play the games where popular, good-looking students get better grades than I, even when I sat next to them and saw that I knew the material better than they did. There is politics and personality conflict. I’ve had to work in groups where I was pulled down by other students and not judged individually, for what I really knew. Still, I was consistently on the dean’s list and never got a grade lower than a 3.0.

I'm also the person from talkphilosophy who gave NickOtani this address. I think he needs his wagon fixed and thought some of you here could help.

You were wrong.

I also think his seriousness merits that he should have a wagon and that it might be worth fixing. I don't know what you're going to do about this disparateness of approach and/or goal, let alone means. That's the thing -- what it is each of you intends for philosophy to do. We over there at talkphilosophy are not as stupid as Nick made out;

I was being generous. People like dust, on the Talk Philosophy board, remind me of David Quinn and several others here. Do you respect these creeps? They are not big dogs. They are want-to-be intellectuals who like to spout out views and put down people who disagree with them.

and a bunch of you have pointed out a bunch of the same things a few of us did in extended debate with him regarding neo-objectivism and the case for natural rights. And I was the loudest plaintiff regarding the limits Nick restricts himself to by falling in league with the academy. We just couldn't move anything along over there and most of my/our rebuttals were ignored.

Now you just lied, Pye. The only thing I ignored over there were the posts which appeared after I left. Don’t be dishonest, like dust. Post your last rebuttal on my board, and I’ll respond to it, just as I’m responding to this post.

I still think you are valuable for this here; that there is some thinking happening in your debate with him. That is, if you think you are all talking about the same thing; or at least, what it is with philosophy needs done.

I think most of the thinking is coming from me. These guys haven’t really challenged me, and I’m getting a little bored with this.

Am I right in saying that the goal seen here for philosophy is enlightenment; and enlightenment is a result of pursuing and attaining Ultimate Truth?

Is that the same for you, Nick? What is it for you?

I’m concerned with what is, what is true, how we know, and what is good.

bis bald,

Nick

[Leyla Shen]

NickO wrote:

I think serious students and scholars should do more than flame, ignore, misrepresent, and falsely accuse others of flaming, ignoring, misrepresenting, and falsely accusing. Anyway, I’ve said over and over that we can have a high degree of certainty, and that is enough to build computers and put people into space. Most of us would be dead now if not for the technology developed with high degrees of certainty. This is useful philosophy, not BS.

We still have war. We still have famine. What have those great men behind all our sciences (which you call useful philosophy) done to rid this planet of those ailments; the ailments you yourself claim to be passionately interested in curing?

What you don't seem to get, Nick, is that philosophy is personal not academic.

One does not require a degree to be involved in life. One is involved in it by default -- how and whether you like it or not. And, obviously, you don't like it for the most part.

The technology used to build computers and put people into space is not useful philosophy. I call that science -- and science is bullshit when its called philosophy.

[DHodges]

And you can't do this already, without their help? Surely, we are talking about a very basic skill that anyone with a smidgeon of philosophical nous is able to master with ease. Knowing how to examine premises and the logical steps which people like to build upon them is the basic skill of thinking. It's an important skill, for sure, but it's not the lofty and exotic one that academics try to make out.

I agree that we are talking about pretty basic stuff. I don't think it is at all lofty or exotic. But you also know the importance of getting the very basic stuff right. If you don't get that right, nothing you build on it will be any good. "Basic" does not mean "unimportant".

I think that not using the standard definition of the word "valid" is disingenuous. If you mean the conclusion is true, you can say "the conclusion is true". That means something different from "the argument is valid", and there are clear reasons for making the distinction. It is a useful distinction.

I have the same objection to the way you use the word "God". You know that you use that word in a radically different way from the way it is normally used, and that is bound to lead to misperception of your ideas. But you insist everyone else is wrong. It's just not a good approach to language - especially if your intention is to promote truthful, clear thinking. You should avoid language you know to be misleading.

I could redefine the word "horse" to include cows, and then argue that any idiot can tell at a glance whether it is a horse or a cow, so the distinction is pointless. But I don't see any legitimate reason to do that. And if someone did redefine things that way, I would suspect that they were trying to do something not quite completely honest... wouldn't you?

If that sounds "academic", well, yeah, it's a formal academic field that is well-established. Arguing with it makes about as much sense as arguing with set theory.

Or with the Ku Klux Klan's well-established theory on races too, I suppose?

Well, let's have some perspective here. The study of logic goes back to the ancient Greeks. It's been around a long time. We are talking about basic stuff that has gone over by thousands of people.

I don't think this is an appeal to authority, because the issue is not whether standard logic works. The issue is just what the word "valid" means. You are not actually disagreeing with the content of what academics say works logically, you are just disagreeing with the terminology. I don't see any justification for re-defining well-known terms that have standard definitions. If you want to say something that the standard term doesn't say, use a different term.

Conversely, the KKK could hardly be said to have a "theory", and I would certainly not use their terminology - for instance, I would not refer to "Aryans" or a "Master Race". Just using those terms is not at all neutral.

[DHodges]

There are still a great many statements that are provable within a formal system.

Name one. If a system can’t be closed and consistent, then one loses the truth tests of coherence and consistency.

We are talking about formal, axiomatic systems, so any statement that is provable from the axioms is still provable.

In arithmetic, having defined natural numbers and the process of addition, I can conclude that 2+2=4. The validity of that conclusion is in no way reduced by the existence of Goedel-type statements.

Any formal system contains axioms. If you talking about statements within that system, then truth is defined in terms consistency of the axioms. For instance, a statement that might be true in Euclidean geometry might not be true relative to a non-Euclidean geometry. 2+2=4 is true relative to the usual definitions, but might not be true relative to other definitions (as one might find in group theory, in a small modulus group for instance).

I have a feeling that you may mean something else - true in some more absolute sense, perhaps? Not relative to a given system's axioms? I'm not sure.

[Kevin Solway]

I think that not using the standard definition of the word "valid" is disingenuous. If you mean the conclusion is true, you can say "the conclusion is true". That means something different from "the argument is valid", and there are clear reasons for making the distinction. It is a useful distinction.

I agree the distinction is useful. I'd just prefer a different word, or series of words, was used for it. I have trouble rapping my mind around the idea that an argument with false premises is "valid".

It's not a big issue really. I can live with it.

You should avoid language you know to be misleading.

I fear that if we did that we'd have to completely reinvent the entire language on a continuing basis. That might lead to even more confusion.