Perfection

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Logic is a language

Actually is it not, it is a preset physical program in the mind.

Communicating logic requires language, but the mind actually does not use mathematical type logic (not that all logic is not ultimately binary).

The mind calculates in a binary fashion, and binary processing is not mathematical, it is universal duality, it is yin/yang. It uses a sequence of preset physical off/on switches to determine what is logical or not. The same mental switches are used to calculate where one places their hand to catch a ball, as one does when deciding of whether the war in Iraq is a good thing or not. It is all frontal lobe CPU processing.

The only difference between what one person decides as compared to another is memory - or the accessability of input data for the CPUI to process. The manner in which this info is "logically" processed in the frontal lobes is the same for all of us. This is where "objectivity" comes from, without it the meaning of objectivity would never have been invented.

Damage to the frontal lobes will of course produce irrational actions/logic due to a fucked up binary processing unit, as does memories fucked up by emotional memories or drugs.

(btw - I'm jimhaz, if anyone is suspicious of me - I had some problem changing my password when the forum moved here and never bothered fixing it)
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Post by analog57 »

Jamesh wrote:Logic is a language

Actually is it not
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/con ... logic.html
Logic is a language for reasoning. It is a collection of rules we use when doing logical reasoning.
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~mmueller/Cou ... tr-LP.html
A logic is a language. It thus has syntax and semantics. More than a language, it has inference rules.

Syntax: the rules about what are well-formed formulas; this is usually the easy part of a logic.

Semantics: about the meaning carried by the formulas; there are different ways to describe these meanings, the most traditional one is called "model-theoretic", this is usually a difficult concept for newcomers.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/clas ... SCII/logic
Symbolic logic is a language that is well-suited for representing factual
knowledge about the world and making deductive inferences based on this
knowledge.
http://www.cs.usna.edu/~wcbrown/courses ... Class.html
Propositional logic is a language of sentences composed of atomic formulas and the boolean connectives: and, or, not, implication, equivalence. For example, A and B. Here A is an atomic formula and B is an atomic formula. An interpretation of a sentence is an assignment of true/false values to each atomic formula in the sentence. This together with the definitions of the boolean connectives results in a true/false value for the whole sentence.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

So, logically, what you are saying then is that "A or not A" is a linguistic tautology in propositional logic.

God damn it, Analog. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Semantics, in-fucking-deed.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Post by Beingof1 »

Dave Toast
There is no problem. Concieving of it caused it. In truth, that's the only way it exists.
What a liberating thought - the only 'problem' that exists is the one that is created. Error has no root; it is pure illusion. That does not mean the experience of it is not real.


analog57
If intelligence is a property of total existence[i.e. the universe, where the universe itself is an intelligent mind], then self awareness and "self will" on the individual level is simply a type of self similarity replicated throughout the "totality". Reality "chooses" to exist. Individual minds are making choices with free will, just as the universe is a mind with its own free will.
If intelligence is a property of total existence then it cannot be truly separate from the self will and self awareness of the universe. It is not supplemental; it is in fact integrated.
They cannot coexist.
My freewill is the freewill of the totality.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

RING-A-DING-DING

Post by Leyla Shen »

Treebeard: You must understand, young hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say.
analog57
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:20 am

Post by analog57 »

Leyla Shen wrote:So, logically, what you are saying then is that "A or not A" is a linguistic tautology in propositional logic.

God damn it, Analog. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Semantics, in-fucking-deed.
Without those tautologies, language wouldn't make any sense.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Whoa. Isn't this quite the love affair? We've been through so much together, and I still don't know the point.

[INSERT HEAD SCRATCHING AND A SMALL FROWN]
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

analog57 wrote:
Jamesh wrote:Logic is a language

Actually is it not
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/con ... logic.html

Logic is a language for reasoning. It is a collection of rules we use when doing logical reasoning.
Yeah, OK, I admit the above statement was somewhat nonsensical - I make lots of these :).

The science of logic is definitely a form of language, but in my drunken stupor, I was trying to get underneath that and work out how logic is actually produced in one's mind. How we “know” what is “logical” or not. I just think logic is a level below that of language, something performed in a different area of the brain to language.

I don't think we necessarily use formal logic as a language when we have experiences, when we think about everyday matters, what we use is the feelings of good or bad, right or wrong, as switches to determine if the logic is right. You only use logic's language when convincing others of something you've already decided is right, is logical.

I keep indicating the logical processing area of the brain is just a CPU, so perhaps the brain does use hard wired formal logic Like Booleans or whatever to process thoughts. Most computer programs won’t work without the use of various types of logic switches, but I think each transaction within a logical sequence must still be binary.

It is not clear in my head what I’m on about, so I doubt this response will make it any clearer to you :)
mr.cunduh
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:12 pm

Post by mr.cunduh »

While the first post is a completely valid statement, perfection cannot be limited to a tangible definition. Perfection should be based solely on perspective and persepective alone. For instance, my perfect woman might have a arm missing: while her parts are not said to be perfect, to me, her whole self equal a content far greater than the sum of her parts
sevens
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Atlanta

Definitions

Post by sevens »

I hear ya, man.

But there must be a distinction between objective and subjective truths, and definitions. The perfection that is being discussed is defined as an objective truth: based on the laws of causality, perfection is the process of uniting with the Infinite (known by many names). There is a subjective element involved, thankfully, and that is what makes each individual a truly unique product of Nature.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Definitions

Post by Jamesh »

sevens wrote:I hear ya, man.

But there must be a distinction between objective and subjective truths, and definitions. The perfection that is being discussed is defined as an objective truth: based on the laws of causality, perfection is the process of uniting with the Infinite (known by many names). There is a subjective element involved, thankfully, and that is what makes each individual a truly unique product of Nature.
Don't be fooled. i completely ignored your original post becuase you used this word.

A desire for perfection is like being religious, completely pointless. There cannot be perfection. It is as simple as that.

The reason perfection is an errant ideal is because nothing is intrinsic, and without intrinsicness how could anything possibly be perfect.
sevens
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Atlanta

Perfection

Post by sevens »

More, and more light : removes more, and more darkness.
BrianT
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:29 am

Post by BrianT »

What makes a circle perfect (if it is perfect)? Is it that it is a set of points (perfectly) equidistant from the center; so the total obeyance of some rule? That can't be because then the set of children of a parent would be perfect by their obeyance of the rule "The set of beings who are children of the parent." But then in another sense, the set of children wouldn't be perfect for they don't obey the rule "The set of beings who are children of a parent and who are cyclopses from Mars." And since a being can't be perfect and imperfect, the original assumption of belonging to a set via the obeyance of a rule is not the definition of perfect.

What makes a circle perfect?
--Brian
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

RELIGIOUS ECONOMIC RATIONALISM

Post by Leyla Shen »

Analog:The "absolutes" are understood to be self evident truths, forming the basis of all logical reasoning.

David Quinn: There is no such thing as a "self-evident" truth. We can only know something is true by logically determining that it is true. Until this happens, it remains an article of blind faith…

Let's leave the "self-evident truths" to the religious fundamentalists and the scientific materialists who don't want to challenge anything too deeply.


http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1376

(Hey, Matt/anyone, how do I do that link thing?)

Achieving a redistribution of income and wealth by taxing incomes is inferior to taxing expenditures while taxing capital income is the least efficient of all. Progressive taxes are also highly inefficient. These are not statements of opinion. They are fact. (Parkin, 1999; p. 5)

I assume that what Parkin means is that these propositions may be derived as logical deductions from an economic model based on the assumption that individuals, with no inherited wealth and facing perfect labour and capital markets, rationally optimise their lifetime work and consumption patterns. (Even with these assumptions, I do not think Parkin's claim that the optimal tax schedule is linear rather than progressive is justified.)

It is a matter of fact that the assumptions underlying the life-cycle model are not exactly satisfied in reality. Contrary to Parkin's assertion, it is a matter of opinion whether the differences between reality and the model are sufficient to invalidate the policy conclusions derived from the model. But the use of dogmatic assertion, and the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist, are standard features of economic rationalist rhetoric.


This is exactly why my boss can, without any genuine interest in causal processes, constantly ask of all his staff why they are not reaching their targets -- why can they not do 15-hours' work in 8. In fact, why can they not just do 15 hours' work and get paid for 8. Yet, when I remind him publicly that some things might have been easier if he’d not taken the microwave away (not that I used it myself) I am later told behind closed doors that if I am not happy with the facilities “we“ provide, I can leave. We? We who?

Amazing. He doesn’t even have the integrity to fire me.

And all this despite the fact that the comment resulted from someone asking me to make a pineapple upside-down cake on the next birthday occasion. I guess we decided there was no good reason for us to make such a gesture. Yes! Yes! Precious, we shall kill those tricksy fat Hobbitses!

The woman (my direct report) who unwittingly prompted the comment, excused herself and left the boardroom. She should know me better by now.

God damned fundies.

I vehemently object to the huge increase in petrol prices, amongst other things -- like a non-progressive traffic infringement schedule.

And the price of pineapples.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: RELIGIOUS ECONOMIC RATIONALISM

Post by Matt Gregory »

Leyla Shen wrote: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1376

(Hey, Matt/anyone, how do I do that link thing?)
This:

{url=http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1376}a link like this{/url}

should create a link like this if you replace the curly brackets with square brackets.

P.S. make sure that "Disable BBCode" thing is not checked.
GrimNexus
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:38 pm

Post by GrimNexus »

Perfection is not a "better-than" state.
Locked