Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[HYPNOSIS]

From the "Beyond God and Evil" thread:

Empirical phenomena are part of the world of appearances, which may or may not be hallucinatory, in which no certainty can be found. Pinning one's hopes on the existence of a particular empirical phenomenon, such as an alien god, doesn't help one to understand the underlying principle behind all phenomena, which is the first step towards opening one's mind to the nature of Reality.

I suppose one might ask the question "Does there exist anything that isn't part of the world of appearances (which may or may not be hallucinatory)?"

Or you might take another route and boil it down to this question: "Can you ever be certain that your mind is working logically?" After all, plenty of insane people believe that they are being perfectly logical -- so how can you be sure that you aren't one of the crazy ones? And if you think you can be certain of that, why do you think so?




:-)

Insanity is bliss!

R.L.

[DHodges]

If you on the other hand by A=A mean that by definition A always is equal to A, your statement is an identity statement which is trivial or self-referring. Only trivial statements are logically absolute. But the logical correctness of trivial statements is in no way evidence for the fact that non-trivial statements can ever be called absolute.

trivial:
1: commonplace, ordinary
2 a: of little worth or importance <a trivial objection> <trivial problems> b: relating to or being the mathematically simplest case; specifically : characterized by having all variables equal to zero <a trivial solution to a linear equation>


A=A is trivial in sense 2b; it is an extremely simple statement, about the simplest you can make. It should also be trivial in sense 1, as being so ordinary and commonplace a truth that it isn't called into question; there is no need to prove it.

However, it is not trivial in sense 2a, of not being important.

[Fujaro]

If you on the other hand by A=A mean that by definition A always is equal to A, your statement is an identity statement which is trivial or self-referring. Only trivial statements are logically absolute. But the logical correctness of trivial statements is in no way evidence for the fact that non-trivial statements can ever be called absolute.

trivial:
1: commonplace, ordinary
2 a: of little worth or importance <a trivial objection> <trivial problems> b: relating to or being the mathematically simplest case; specifically : characterized by having all variables equal to zero <a trivial solution to a linear equation>


A=A is trivial in sense 2b; it is an extremely simple statement, about the simplest you can make. It should also be trivial in sense 1, as being so ordinary and commonplace a truth that it isn't called into question; there is no need to prove it.

However, it is not trivial in sense 2a, of not being important.

As a separate statement it IS unimportant. Importance for trivial (self-evident) statements can only come from context. For instance when it is the last step in a mathematical deduction. Then it is a necessary part of that deduction. Just stating A=A means nothing at all as Keats sublimely noted:
"every entity shall be identical to itself. Any entity caught being unidentical to itself was to be subject to a fine of up to one tenth of a cent."

@Dan: If you have any example where the importance of an identity statement is not dependent on the context I will be glad to here it from.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm not sure I get the point about "context", but here's a fairly concise statement of what I perceive as the overall philosophical importance of the law of identity - as expressed by "A=A":

A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer":

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things).

- - - - -

All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where "cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for something to exist":

Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being" is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it. Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the necessity of their relation.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of logic:

This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without the relation between "thing" and "not-thing" there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of mind necessarily containing differentiated content (i.e. "things"). A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

[Nick]

One ends up claiming certainty and uncertainty simultaneously, just like Fujaro has done. It is irrational, unreasonable, and entirely illogical, i.e. insane.

It would be stupid to do that, yes, but I don't see how avoidance of circular reasoning necessarily results in that.

That depends what you consider circular reasoning, which is why I put circular reasoning in quotations in my original statement. Something like A=A, just like Skip said, is not circular, and I am absolutely certain of its correctness. Meaning my reasoning is 100% accurate, and is in no way circular based on how I view circularity. Do you agree with the absolute certainty of A=A? If you do then that answers your original question. If for some reason you view it as circular, how does that deny it's absoluteness?

[Fujaro]

I'm not sure I get the point about "context", but here's a fairly concise statement of what I perceive as the overall philosophical importance of the law of identity - as expressed by "A=A":

A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer":

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things).

- - - - -

All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where "cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for something to exist":

Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being" is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it. Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the necessity of their relation.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of logic:

This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without the relation between "thing" and "not-thing" there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of mind necessarily containing differentiated content (i.e. "things"). A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

Well Dan, for one thing I appreciate you opening up your view on things for me, instead of using straw men like Nick does. I haven't been around here very long and don't know yet where you stand in these matters.

A=A in my humble opinion does not express a thing about existence, because all the statement says is that if A exists it is identical to A. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not address the causation of A. So the coming into existence of A as some kind of entity, be it mathematical, logical or whatever, isn't part of it. And also the non-existence of A is not accounted for in any way. That A exists is an embedded presupposition, a context for the identity statement one should be keenly aware off at all times. I don't know why you want to attribute more power to this identity relation, I think this is mystifying things a lot.

Also, A=A first of all is a logical statement. To take it from the logical realm into the real world isn't a logical step itself. For it to hold in the real world one needs to show that the logic is congruent with reality, that reality has adopted the logic. Can A be an object from reality? Can it be a placeholer for physical values? Can A be an operator on physical values? This is an inductive step and as I'm sure you know, inductive steps lack definitive proof as Hume already pointed out (Problem of Induction). This means A=A cannot be proven to be an absolute truth in reality.

Now, in general the context of the real world does matter when applying logical or mathematical statements to the real world. For one thing, when A stands for some time dependent physical measure, it is clear that A(t=0) does not necessarily equal to A(t=1). And what goes for time, goes for spatial dimensions also. Furthermore, how many dimensions does reality have? In M-brane theory, yet a hypothetical theory I agree, 10 dimensions are needed. Can we be sure that A=A still holds for these extra dimensions? That conclusion involves an inductive step. In other words: context matters. We can't bring logical truths in the real world without considering these context aspects, without checking the logical with the empirical. As a matter of fact M-brane theory is under heavy attack nowadays just because of this. The mathematics is beautiful but it hasn't produced any testable results needed to bridge the gap between theory and reality.

As Victor pointed out to you logical truths don't necessarily apply to the real world. Even 1+1=2 not always holds. For mixing one litre of water with one litre of alcohol does not exactly add up to 2 litre of fluid due to the effect both fluids have on the spatial arrangement of the involved molecules.

Also, A=A doesn't say a thing about consciousness. This is a category misstake if ever there was one. I hope you'll agree that consciousness is a thing of the real world, where A=A is a logical statement. A logical statement cannot be a necessary prescription for things in reality. The concept of consciousnes is far more complex than the logical identity A=A. A=A by far fails to relate (let alone decribe and make absolute statements about) the complex concept of consciousness in reality.

[Fujaro]

One ends up claiming certainty and uncertainty simultaneously, just like Fujaro has done. It is irrational, unreasonable, and entirely illogical, i.e. insane.

Before using ad hominems please clarify for me where I claim certainty and uncertainty simultaneously. I do nothing of the kind, rather I warn against applying logical absolutes out of context. If that seems unreasonable to you then please explain why.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[ Even 1+1=2 not always holds. For mixing one litre of water with one litre of alcohol does not exactly add up to 2 litre of fluid due to the effect both fluids have on the spatial arrangement of the involved molecules.

Is it true you don't even realize that 1 + 1 stands for 1 A + 1 A? You are making it into 1A + 1B.

Now you're free to question if there's any A in the world that's exactly the same as another A like the abstract mathematics imply. Logically there cannot be because for an A to be exactly the same to another A, they'll have to be identical and cannot be added as if they were separate.

We can see here a practical application of people assigning similarity to items. They decide to which degree they accept something be similar enough, for example an abstract category like 'animals' or 'molecular mass'. It's wholly arbitrary and could be said to be utilitarian in nature. By the way liters are meant as category of volume in the context of in your case a specific type of fluid. By adding them you are mixing the categories and therefore you cannot add the volumes without getting error.

[Fujaro]

[ Even 1+1=2 not always holds. For mixing one litre of water with one litre of alcohol does not exactly add up to 2 litre of fluid due to the effect both fluids have on the spatial arrangement of the involved molecules.

Is it true you don't even realize that 1 + 1 stands for 1 A + 1 A? You are making it into 1A + 1B.

Now you're free to question if there's any A in the world that's exactly the same as another A like the abstract mathematics imply. Logically there cannot be because for an A to be exactly the same to another A, they'll have to be identical and cannot be added as if they were separate.

We can see here a practical application of people assigning similarity to items. They decide to which degree they accept something be similar enough, for example an abstract category like 'animals' or 'molecular mass'. It's wholly arbitrary and could be said to be utilitarian in nature. By the way liters are meant as category of volume in the context of in your case a specific type of fluid. By adding them you are mixing the categories and therefore you cannot add the volumes without getting error.

You are quite right and in fact with that making my point. For a litre of water and a litre of alcohol are both litres of fluids, but you can't simply say 1+1 = 2 in the realm of nature. I could have stated my example in that way, though. With that you are stressing my point that context does matter. You can't simply say 1+1 goes for fluids, not even for the same fluid (for example whe the fluids are of different temparature). So by using 1+1=2 in the realm of reality you are making assumptions and violating logic in the sense of the problem of induction. The applicability of logical statements in the realm of reality isn't beyond doubt.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So by using 1+1=2 in the realm of reality you are making assumptions and violating logic in the sense of the problem of induction.

Nothing is violated. It's a matter of defining in every situation what one means with '1'. The more precise that is defined, the more precise a '2' can be described and correlated with '1'. Allowed error margins play an important role for example, which are also defined and part of the context.

The applicability of logical statements in the realm of reality isn't beyond doubt

Not as much doubt, you just shouldn't try to apply them the way you're doing it. What you call 'reality' is certainly not a logical realm, it seems (and I'm guessing) to you a realm of inexactness, opinion, raw senses and so on. It's a barely conscious world, still a body of knowledge ultimately, not something 'real'.

Reason could be described as a different type of knowledge, another 'world' if you like. Exact, idealistic, abstract, logical and not something you can touch or tweak at will.

Beyond that lies an even different type of knowledge but it really cannot be approached without understanding the above and submit to the understanding - the underlying reason.

[Fujaro]

So by using 1+1=2 in the realm of reality you are making assumptions and violating logic in the sense of the problem of induction.

Nothing is violated. It's a matter of defining in every situation what one means with '1'. The more precise that is defined, the more precise a '2' can be described and correlated with '1'. Allowed error margins play an important role for example, which are also defined and part of the context.

Don't you see you are just restating my point? In itself 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical/logical statement, not a statement of the real world. You need to know the applicability of it to the world in which we live. To really be absolutely sure about it you not only need definitions but far more knowledge of the real world to start with. Therefore when you take the step from the logical to the physical, you're not relying solely on logic itself but you're using context. Pure logic is violated in the step. The step is nothing more than an educted guess, no matter how much effort you put in defining things. It indeed is a correlation and not a causation or a logical sequitur. Likewise A=A means nothing per se in the real world and therefore alone cannot contain absolute knowledge about the world.

The applicability of logical statements in the realm of reality isn't beyond doubt

Not as much doubt, you just shouldn't try to apply them the way you're doing it. What you call 'reality' is certainly not a logical realm, it seems (and I'm guessing) to you a realm of inexactness, opinion, raw senses and so on. It's a barely conscious world, still a body of knowledge ultimately, not something 'real'.

You're indeed guessing. With the 'real world' I mean the purest reality you can get. I mean that which is the source and all that stems from it (such as conciousness) of our experiences by our senses, thought, language. I mean raw reality. There is no inexactness in the real world other than our models and conjectures of it (except maybe quantummchanical inexactness when it is indeed intrinsic to the real world and not a derivative of an underlying exactness as Einstein expected). Don't mystify what I mean by real world with inapt conjectures about consciousness.

Reason could be described as a different type of knowledge, another 'world' if you like. Exact, idealistic, abstract, logical and not something you can touch or tweak at will.

Reason is more a process than knowledge itself. But when you replace 'reason' with 'logic' in this sentence I agree. And in exactly that way I make a distinction between logic and the real world, although logic is in a strict sense just part of the real world when it is formulated in the real world by thinkers.

Beyond that lies an even different type of knowledge but it really cannot be approached without understanding the above and submit to the understanding - the underlying reason.

This isn't a logical step and you don't substantiate this conclusion. So to me it is just another conjecture.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Don't you see you are just restating my point?

No, I've been refuting each and every point but you seem to glance over it again and again. Lets try again.

In itself 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical/logical statement, not a statement of the real world.

"The real world". This is something you are asserting here, not me and has to be examined first.

To really be absolutely sure about it you not only need definitions but far more knowledge of the real world to start with.

There's no doubt we're experiencing. But building knowledge, any knowledge, out of those experiences is done by applying some form of logic, creating definitions and manipulating them within reasonable bounds.

Likewise A=A means nothing per se in the real world and therefore alone cannot contain absolute knowledge about the world.

There's nothing absolute about whatever you think you're experiencing, and what you call the 'real' world. What is making it real for you? Any absolute truth doesn't depend on what you're experiencing, not its content anyway.

A=A means nothing per se, okay, but understood well it means everything and in absolute sense. Why would such understanding not be useful, at the very least mean just accepting it and move on? It's not as much what you can do with it, it's about realizing that everything is already done with it. So therefore it can be called realization.

You're indeed guessing. With the 'real world' I mean the purest reality you can get. I mean that which is the source and all that stems from it (such as conciousness) of our experiences by our senses, thought, language. I mean raw reality.

I sounds you are the one guessing. How do you get to this raw reality. Do you think your brain is really allowing you a taste of it? It shows you only what it thinks is beneficial for you and invokes powerful feelings with it when needed. And even the brain is a concept here but one that suffices.

There is no inexactness in the real world other than our models and conjectures of it (except maybe quantummchanical inexactness when it is indeed intrinsic to the real world and not a derivative of an underlying exactness as Einstein expected).

The models are exact although they still might be flawed. The un-modeled, unknown part of reality can therefore be called inexact. Beyond that could be said to be existence that is not exact and not inexact but how would you know?

Reason is more a process than knowledge itself. But when you replace 'reason' with 'logic' in this sentence I agree. And in exactly that way I make a distinction between logic and the real world, although logic is in a strict sense just part of the real world when it is formulated in the real world by thinkers.

There's nothing you can say about any 'real' world that is not a product of applying logic to make the proper distinction. Therefore you cannot escape basic logic it appears. It might be called more real for that reason alone as far as our consciousness goes.

[Jason]

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

The "concept of an inherently existent self" would mean conceiving of the self as being the only thing that exists, would it not? That is the only way that the self could be seen to exist completely independently of any other things, in the A=A sense that you are describing.

But most people believe that they have a self that is surrounded by, and contrasts against, a non-self(ie the world, other people, space etc). They believe that their self is but a part that exists in relation to a larger reality. So it seems to me that most people don't actually believe in an inherently existing self.

[Fujaro]

Don't you see you are just restating my point?

No, I've been refuting each and every point but you seem to glance over it again and again. Lets try again.

We'll see just how much you are refuting.

In itself 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical/logical statement, not a statement of the real world.

"The real world". This is something you are asserting here, not me and has to be examined first.

I gave a clarification of what I meant in the previous posting remember, or maybe you just didn't read it. It is tricky to give a name to the world you and I are experiencing. Before you know it someone reads it as a definition of a new world. Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean. And do you also notice that there aint any free floating absolute logical statements in that world?

To really be absolutely sure about it you not only need definitions but far more knowledge of the real world to start with.

There's no doubt we're experiencing. But building knowledge, any knowledge, out of those experiences is done by applying some form of logic, creating definitions and manipulating them within reasonable bounds.

See...we agree here. Or did you refute this before?

Likewise A=A means nothing per se in the real world and therefore alone cannot contain absolute knowledge about the world.

There's nothing absolute about whatever you think you're experiencing, and what you call the 'real' world. What is making it real for you? Any absolute truth doesn't depend on what you're experiencing, not its content anyway.

Misreading again. I am stating nowhere, and I repeat NOWHERE that there is any absolute truth in experiencing. Still in the refuting mode? Get over it before you refute the existence of yourself you are experiencing.

A=A means nothing per se, okay

OK, agreement. No refuting here.

, but understood well it means everything and in absolute sense.

Oowch!, some leap of faith here. Jumping from no meaning to absolute meaning in an instant of irrational bliss. A real pitty when you are in the truth seeking business. How do you know you have understood things well? Do you have some device to check reality with your knowledge? If you only would elaborate on that.

Why would such understanding not be useful, at the very least mean just accepting it and move on? It's not as much what you can do with it, it's about realizing that everything is already done with it. So therefore it can be called realization.

Hey man, are you using that 'usefull' shit on me here now? I am all for usefull. The attempt of mankind to understand the world is very usefull, and indeed I think that the only criterium by which we can test knowledge at all is its usefullnes. That is what science is about. Competing models are tested on their usefullness. The one that better predicts the phenomena stays on, the alterntive model is discredited. But what is usefull aint necesarily absolute truth. Newtonian mechanics is still usefull to get a space probe to Mars, but we know it to be not the whole of truth, for we already have a better model, called General Relativity. GR is more usefull, but it probably aint absolute truth.

You're indeed guessing. With the 'real world' I mean the purest reality you can get. I mean that which is the source and all that stems from it (such as conciousness) of our experiences by our senses, thought, language. I mean raw reality.

I sounds you are the one guessing. How do you get to this raw reality. Do you think your brain is really allowing you a taste of it? It shows you only what it thinks is beneficial for you and invokes powerful feelings with it when needed. And even the brain is a concept here but one that suffices.

OK, let's make a distinction here: The Absolute and the real world. In the above statement I am not talking about The Absolute. The Absolute may not even exist if you ask me. So I am not claiming to have direct access to The Absolute. A few sentences back however you did claim that ("A=A means nothing per se, okay but understood well it means everything and in absolute sense."). So please acknowledge that the need for explanation about having access to absolutes is on your part. The real world I'm talking about is the weighed sum of cross-tested experiences about what you and I normally perceive as an external existing environment. And btw, how do you know a brain is only showing beneficial things? By saying that you acknowledge that there is something like a brain with features and characeristics you can speak about. In other words you're making statements about the very real world I was talking about. But then, you must know what I am talking about. Hey man, that's cool, we're in the same real world after all!

There is no inexactness in the real world other than our models and conjectures of it (except maybe quantummchanical inexactness when it is indeed intrinsic to the real world and not a derivative of an underlying exactness as Einstein expected).

The models are exact although they still might be flawed. The un-modeled, unknown part of reality can therefore be called inexact. Beyond that could be said to be existence that is not exact and not inexact but how would you know?

Exact and flawed? Yeah, right. With saying that our models of the world are inexact I was talking about the exactness of the models as a description of the world, not of mathematical exactnes of the models themself. Please reread the statement (I talk about the inexactness of models of it [meaning the real world]). The unmodeled part of reality (btw please define this for me since you're demanding the same from me) cannot be called inexact. What would that mean? That the unmodelled part is fuzzy? You can make no such statement about it. Perhaps, this part is exact but just not within reach of our modeling capabilities (at the moment/ever).

Reason is more a process than knowledge itself. But when you replace 'reason' with 'logic' in this sentence I agree. And in exactly that way I make a distinction between logic and the real world, although logic is in a strict sense just part of the real world when it is formulated in the real world by thinkers.

There's nothing you can say about any 'real' world that is not a product of applying logic to make the proper distinction. Therefore you cannot escape basic logic it appears. It might be called more real for that reason alone as far as our consciousness goes.

Logic and reason indeed constitute a possible window on reality. But there are other possible windows, religion for example is in essence irrational and tries to escape reason. There is however no absolute test to know 100% for sure if our reality is subject to the laws we perceive through the reason window. By now it must be clear to you however that I opt for the reason window and that your refuting business is somewhat out of place.

[Fujaro]

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

The "concept of an inherently existent self" would mean conceiving of the self as being the only thing that exists, would it not? That is the only way that the self could be seen to exist completely independently of any other things, in the A=A sense that you are describing.

But most people believe that they have a self that is surrounded by, and contrasts against, a non-self(ie the world, other people, space etc). They believe that their self is but a part that exists in relation to a larger reality. So it seems to me that most people don't actually believe in an inherently existing self.

It looks you speak of the philosophical stance called solipsism when you are addressing "the concept of an inherently existent self". Hard solipsism (the kind that seeks to persevere the idea that only the self exists) cannot be rigourously refuted, but in order to persevere one is forced to throw overboard any inherent logic of the real world. Concept like usefulleness, love or meaning have no place in it. I think that is a pretty grim look on reality, alone with your paranoia on an otherwise empty kind of holodek.

[brokenhead]

We can see here a practical application of people assigning similarity to items. They decide to which degree they accept something be similar enough, for example an abstract category like 'animals' or 'molecular mass'. It's wholly arbitrary and could be said to be utilitarian in nature. By the way liters are meant as category of volume in the context of in your case a specific type of fluid. By adding them you are mixing the categories and therefore you cannot add the volumes without getting error.

(My emphasis.)
I wanted to stress how important this fundamental obsevation is.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean.

So you are waving your hand around vaguely and say: "this is what I mean". The problem with that is that it requires barely consciousness to arrive at. If that's your world you might as well sit tightened up and blindfolded in a dungeon. Would it differ?

And do you also notice that there aint any free floating absolute logical statements in that world?

You don't see them but that doesn't mean you arrive at your perception without logical processes like identification or filtering. What does count is if you know any of the content of your mind before you construct the perception.

To really be absolutely sure about it you not only need definitions but far more knowledge of the real world to start with.

There's no doubt we're experiencing. But building knowledge, any knowledge, out of those experiences is done by applying some form of logic, creating definitions and manipulating them within reasonable bounds.

See...we agree here. Or did you refute this before?

With "any knowledge" I mean literally everything you know about the world. Look around you, see that wall. Hit it hard and your brain will let you know even more.

Likewise A=A means nothing per se in the real world and therefore alone cannot contain absolute knowledge about the world.

There's nothing absolute about whatever you think you're experiencing, and what you call the 'real' world. What is making it real for you? Any absolute truth doesn't depend on what you're experiencing, not its content anyway.

Misreading again. I am stating nowhere, and I repeat NOWHERE that there is any absolute truth in experiencing.

Yeah, sure. But the fact of experiencing itself is beyond doubt (as you agreed): so absolute. Okay? Leaves the question why you'd call something the 'real world' when its realness contains nothing absolute, therefore it can be doubted. To me your firm hand waving appears like an appeal to an absolute belief in your senses and how you interpret them.

, but understood well it means everything and in absolute sense.

Oowch!, some leap of faith here. Jumping from no meaning to absolute meaning in an instant of irrational bliss.

I cannot promise it will feel good but it's still about understanding here, no faith required.

I think that the only criterium by which we can test knowledge at all is its usefullnes.

But our knowledge is limited and we often are not able to know if something is useful or not but still have to decide. History actually shows we've been wrong about a lot of things with terrible consequences for health, for example.

It's therefore better to, apart from only focusing on use, to build some sound general principles and promote reason and stress understanding of the fundamentals of who we are and how our mind goes about its business. And without ending like a mainstream religion. But perhaps I'm asking too much.

Competing models are tested on their usefullness.

Science is about a bit more than that, I think, but one cannot solve philosophical issues with just science. It just cannot. But that doesn't mean reason is suspended. There's a difference between reason and scientific method.

The real world I'm talking about is the weighed sum of cross-tested experiences about what you and I normally perceive as an external existing environment.

Is your environment a weighed sum of cross-tested experiences? Do you live in a lab of some kind? :)

And btw, how do you know a brain is only showing beneficial things? By saying that you acknowledge that there is something like a brain with features and characteristics you can speak about.

Didn't I just call it a useful concept or not? It helps us to talk about the mind just like it helps scientists to research the phenomenon.

The unmodeled part of reality (btw please define this for me since you're demanding the same from me) cannot be called inexact. What would that mean? That the unmodelled part is fuzzy? You can make no such statement about it. Perhaps, this part is exact but just not within reach of our modeling capabilities (at the moment/ever).

Since it's still a part of reality it has some degree of definition ("part of"). Perhaps my use of the word unmodelled was confusing the matter and might have been a bad choice. Existence itself cannot be even called 'part of reality' and as thus escapes even that description.

Logic and reason indeed constitute a possible window on reality. But there are other possible windows, religion for example is in essence irrational and tries to escape reason.

The moment you'll describe 'window' in this context you'll arrive at very basic conceptualizing, prioritizing and identifying. So there might be many windows but they're all built on the same principle although many windows have been dressed with curtains or blinds for all kinds of purposes.

There is however no absolute test to know 100% for sure if our reality is subject to the laws we perceive through the reason window.

What you perceive, no, it might be a whole different story and nobody told us. But how and that we are perceiving - that's a story we can know, for 100%, from inside out. In other words: depth and degree of awareness.

[Fujaro]

Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean.

So you are waving your hand around vaguely and say: "this is what I mean".

No, do you?

The problem with that

Your problem in that case.

...is that it requires barely consciousness to arrive at.

First define consciousness. And not by waving around your hand please!

If that's your world you might as well sit tightened up and blindfolded in a dungeon. Would it differ?

You speak about reality don't you? Is your word 'reality' better than mine. Come off it.

And do you also notice that there aint any free floating absolute logical statements in that world?

You don't see them but that doesn't mean you arrive at your perception without logical processes like identification or filtering. What does count is if you know any of the content of your mind before you construct the perception.

Logical procesess? Ever done any test involving optical illusions? What you are saying is that a logical process is at the core of our perception. That remains to be seen. It's a wild guess like waving your arm and swooping some conjecture right out of the sky.

There's no doubt we're experiencing. But building knowledge, any knowledge, out of those experiences is done by applying some form of logic, creating definitions and manipulating them within reasonable bounds.

See...we agree here. Or did you refute this before?

With "any knowledge" I mean literally everything you know about the world. Look around you, see that wall. Hit it hard and your brain will let you know even more.

Why don't you splatter your brain with your own solid arrogance? DO YOU REFUTE THAT KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY IS NEEDED TO EXAMINE IF LOGICAL TRUTHS CAN BE APPLIED TO REALITY?

There's nothing absolute about whatever you think you're experiencing, and what you call the 'real' world. What is making it real for you? Any absolute truth doesn't depend on what you're experiencing, not its content anyway.

Misreading again. I am stating nowhere, and I repeat NOWHERE that there is any absolute truth in experiencing.

Yeah, sure. But the fact of experiencing itself is beyond doubt (as you agreed): so absolute. Okay? Leaves the question why you'd call something the 'real world' when its realness contains nothing absolute, therefore it can be doubted. To me your firm hand waving appears like an appeal to an absolute belief in your senses and how you interpret them.

Even the self can be doubted for the concept of 'itself' contains an a priori concept of seperateness between self and world. But fair enough, that's not what I propose how we should deal with reality. I propose that making use of the window of reason is the best we can do. I propose it without the nonsense about consciousness being a prerequisite for existence you seem to conjecture in. And I call it the real world because it just looks like a real world and it's the only one we know. How do you call your reality? The unreal world?

, but understood well it means everything and in absolute sense.

Oowch!, some leap of faith here. Jumping from no meaning to absolute meaning in an instant of irrational bliss.

I cannot promise it will feel good but it's still about understanding here, no faith required.

That's elaborating?! That's waving your arm in contempt for reality. Sod that reality, we just understand it by sheer will ;-)

I think that the only criterium by which we can test knowledge at all is its usefullnes.

But our knowledge is limited and we often are not able to know if something is useful or not but still have to decide. History actually shows we've been wrong about a lot of things with terrible consequences for health, for example.

So sod all the usefull uses of reason?! That is a dirty windowpane on reality you have.

It's therefore better to, apart from only focusing on use, to build some sound general principles and promote reason and stress understanding of the fundamentals of who we are and how our mind goes about its business. And without ending like a mainstream religion. But perhaps I'm asking too much.

Hey, isn't that nice. We just happen to agree here, Diebertje.

Competing models are tested on their usefullness.

Science is about a bit more than that, I think, but one cannot solve philosophical issues with just science. It just cannot. But that doesn't mean reason is suspended. There's a difference between reason and scientific method.

So what's more to science Diebertje? In essence I mean. You are aware of the fact that I haven't given you a full expose on the philosophy of science, but since you are claiming I am missing some crucial points here, please bring 'm on. It's always nice to learn more from a great mind.

The real world I'm talking about is the weighed sum of cross-tested experiences about what you and I normally perceive as an external existing environment.

Is your environment a weighed sum of cross-tested experiences? Do you live in a lab of some kind? :)

Is your definition of the form A=A like in: reality = reality. Laat me niet lachen kerel.

And btw, how do you know a brain is only showing beneficial things? By saying that you acknowledge that there is something like a brain with features and characteristics you can speak about.

Didn't I just call it a useful concept or not? It helps us to talk about the mind just like it helps scientists to research the phenomenon.

Goed zo.

The unmodeled part of reality (btw please define this for me since you're demanding the same from me) cannot be called inexact. What would that mean? That the unmodelled part is fuzzy? You can make no such statement about it. Perhaps, this part is exact but just not within reach of our modeling capabilities (at the moment/ever).

Since it's still a part of reality it has some degree of definition ("part of").

Some degree like in 'waving your hand'? :)

Perhaps my use of the word unmodelled was confusing the matter and might have been a bad choice. Existence itself cannot be even called 'part of reality' and as thus escapes even that description.

So let me get this straight: your existence is not a part of reality? Then who am I talking to here? Some new google eperiment on the internet? (hoe makkelijk is het om woorden express verkeerd te interpreteren)

There is however no absolute test to know 100% for sure if our reality is subject to the laws we perceive through the reason window.

What you perceive, no, it might be a whole different story and nobody told us. But how and that we are perceiving - that's a story we can know, for 100%, from inside out. In other words: depth and degree of awareness.

That we are perceiving I agree on, not on the how part. For the simple reason that we don't have direct access to our own thought processes. If that were true you could give me an account how from neurons firing in your brain you have reached this very conclusion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What you are saying is that a logical process is at the core of our perception. That remains to be seen.

It's not just a guess, it's unavoidable when thinking in terms of identification and non-contradiction as they are basic logic and they make perception possible. It's just a logical truth as perception is defined: as viewing, recognition and interpretation.

DO YOU REFUTE THAT KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY IS NEEDED TO EXAMINE IF LOGICAL TRUTHS CAN BE APPLIED TO REALITY?

It doesn't take much thought to see how you cannot examine anything without applying basic logical truths. They are axioms for that matter. Knowledge or reality cannot be constructed without logic, I'm sorry. This is because knowledge already implies that. There's for example no knowledge that is self-contradicting as it would stop being knowledge and becomes complete uncertainty; a lack of knowledge.

I propose that making use of the window of reason is the best we can do. I propose it without the nonsense about consciousness being a prerequisite for existence you seem to conjecture in.

How would you propose to discover some existence outside our 'window of reason', which I'd equal, as framework, with our consciousness for the sake of discussion. The only way to do that is indeed with conjecture.

That we are perceiving I agree on, not on the how part. For the simple reason that we don't have direct access to our own thought processes.

So far I think you're not even in the discussion. Lets first see if we can start talking about the same things and I might tell you something about thought processes you haven't considered yet.

[Fujaro]

DO YOU REFUTE THAT KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY IS NEEDED TO EXAMINE IF LOGICAL TRUTHS CAN BE APPLIED TO REALITY?

It doesn't take much thought to see how you cannot examine anything without applying basic logical truths. They are axioms for that matter. Knowledge or reality cannot be constructed without logic, I'm sorry. This is because knowledge already implies that. There's for example no knowledge that is self-contradicting as it would stop being knowledge and becomes complete uncertainty; a lack of knowledge.

Just answer the question.

That we are perceiving I agree on, not on the how part. For the simple reason that we don't have direct access to our own thought processes.

So far I think you're not even in the discussion. Lets first see if we can start talking about the same things and I might tell you something about thought processes you haven't considered yet.

Discussing entails argument. When you answer the questions I have stated (such as the one about neurons) we have diuscussion. Before that there is only arrogance.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Fujaro,

When you stated that adding two different fluids together somehow means 1+1 "not always holds", it should have been clear to me right away you just miss the basics. Nobody claimed a '1' is literaly existing, or even a "liter' or "water". Reality just doesn't work that way but that's not only with logic, it's with everything we imagine to be.

Further first you say "Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean" and then you say you are not waving your hand and say: "this is what I mean".

The above tells me you're just not capable of any honest or informed discourse. It won't lead anywhere and when it doesn't it probably would for you be just 'evidence' you were right all along. To me you're another troll, dozens come and go here every month. Good luck!

[Tomas]

Fujaro,

When you stated that adding two different fluids together somehow means 1+1 "not always holds", it should have been clear to me right away you just miss the basics. Nobody claimed a '1' is literaly existing, or even a "liter' or "water". Reality just doesn't work that way but that's not only with logic, it's with everything we imagine to be.

Further first you say "Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean" and then you say you are not waving your hand and say: "this is what I mean".

The above tells me you're just not capable of any honest or informed discourse. It won't lead anywhere and when it doesn't it probably would for you be just 'evidence' you were right all along. To me you're another troll, dozens come and go here every month. Good luck!

Wise decision, Diebert.

This guy/girl was an idiot-child from the word, "Go".

With a wave of the hand, 'happy trails to you', Sir.

PS - The misspelling of "criterion" (criteria) was telling.

PPS - 'Tis no wonder that Ryan sucks up to you :-)

PPS - All this gushing from Tomas, who types at 15 wpm (on a good day).


.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro,

When you stated that adding two different fluids together somehow means 1+1 "not always holds", it should have been clear to me right away you just miss the basics. Nobody claimed a '1' is literaly existing, or even a "liter' or "water". Reality just doesn't work that way but that's not only with logic, it's with everything we imagine to be.

Further first you say "Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean" and then you say you are not waving your hand and say: "this is what I mean".

The above tells me you're just not capable of any honest or informed discourse. It won't lead anywhere and when it doesn't it probably would for you be just 'evidence' you were right all along. To me you're another troll, dozens come and go here every month. Good luck!

It is the congruence of logic and reality that I talked about from the start. I know nobody claims '1' is literally existing. But when the question is asked whether 1+1=2 is absolutely true in all possible worlds it IS about this same question. I'm not the one who is missing the point here. For you need to know the context of reality to answer that question. For instance the rule cannot be applied to addition of different fluids or addition of the same fluids with different temperature. And that Diebert is the context I was talking about. In order to answer the question in what circumstances logic can be applied in the real world you need knowledge of that same world. This means that knowledge cannot be build from absolutes and that it is only tentative knowledge that we can speak of. This is fully in accordance with modern science. Please notice that your stance is not. Still you refuse to give any arguments against this point but instead claim that you have access to absolute knowledge of that and how we can perceive (Diebert: "But how and that we are perceiving - that's a story we can know, for 100%, from inside out."). I now even wonder if you indeed have managed to identify this difference between our stances.

Notwithstanding your lack of understanding my stance, your talk is full of contempt. You take on a role as a judge of me and suggest I'm trolling. Well, that's not a sign to me that you are prone for open debate with arguments and all that jazz. You are in for refuting only as you have demonstrated clearly by refuting even the points on which we agree. And frankly Diebert, that's not my problem, it is discussion that I seek, nothing else. I have debated for years now on many sites with people with all kinds of opinions and in all this debate your arrogance stands out high. Everybody willing to counter arguments with arguments I am willing to debate with. It is fully your choice to back out from this, based on some final judgement and self attributed absolute insight.

You refute my points not with argumentation but with arrogance pointing out that your opponent 'misses basics'. Well if it is about basics the argumentation should be simple, should it not? Yet you give no argumentation. Three examples out of a bigger list should suffice:

1) You didn't answer my question stated in capitals:
DO YOU REFUTE THAT KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY IS NEEDED TO EXAMINE IF LOGICAL TRUTHS CAN BE APPLIED TO REALITY?

Your answer:
"It doesn't take much thought to see how you cannot examine anything without applying basic logical truths. They are axioms for that matter. Knowledge or reality cannot be constructed without logic, I'm sorry. "

Notice that I am not positing here that we could do without logic. On the contrary, I have argued in this thread and elsewhere on Genius Forums that we should apply logic to get at least more accurate tentative knowledge. The question whether (tentative) knowledge of reality is needed, you don't answer. The contempt with "It doesn't take much thought to see" shine through brightly though.

2) You give no arguments on my question about you having absolute knowledge on how we are perceiving.
In my opinion this means you could give detailed information about how neuron firing in your brain leads to a conclusion of any kind. This isn't some minor detail we are talking about. It is part of the mind-body problem highly debated in scientific and philosophical circles. Yet, you simply don't answer te question but keep persevering your claim.

3) You refuse to define reality yourself while refuting my attempts with scorn.

[Fujaro]

Wise decision, Diebert.

This guy/girl was an idiot-child from the word, "Go".

With a wave of the hand, 'happy trails to you', Sir.

PS - The misspelling of "criterion" (criteria) was telling.

PPS - 'Tis no wonder that Ryan sucks up to you :-)

PPS - All this gushing from Tomas, who types at 15 wpm (on a good day).


.

Just reaffirming the hierarchy with some smooth talking here Tomas? Keep to it, sonny and you'll get real far.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Fujaro,

DO YOU REFUTE THAT KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY IS NEEDED TO EXAMINE IF LOGICAL TRUTHS CAN BE APPLIED TO REALITY?

Fujaro makes a valid point. I have always felt that A=A, and 1 + 1 = 2 are not all that useful in and of themselves as teaching tools. You need context
and definitions, which implies analyzing reality in some focused capacity, and acquiring knowledge that can be reflected back upon reality. The generalized logical abstractions come after the acquired knowledge has been understood, and not before. That is why I don't see the 'absolute' as some sort of generalized system of abstractions, but rather it is an active consciousness that abides in emptiness, and is capable of a vast degree of understanding through applying the art of reason to reality.

This is why an in depth analysis of human behavior is much more effective as a teaching tool to reason, then trying to get someone to understand A=A because it is just a generalized abstraction that doesn’t point to anything in particular.

I suspect the entire purpose of A=A is that certain writers are trying to convey the consistency and predictability of the causal world, which is in affect - the law of identify. A=A is trying to infer that a thing is what it is, and it will behave as it usually does in a similar predicable manner. However, without particular examples of how the causal world is predicable in this way, then there isn’t much meat behind the entire abstraction A=A….

I think that is the main point Fujaro is trying to make here.