GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius wrote:In your opinion, is there anything at all "objective"?

If you're thinking in terms like 'actual' or 'real' then the answer must be truth. Truth however transcends by its very nature and definition the observer/observed relation.

A similar problem is known to haunt the classical musician. Having received a thorough training at an established music school they are not yet a real musician, whatever skills on the instrument or reading or composing score they now possess. Every 'authentic' musician worth his salt will tell you they had to forget basically everything they learned to find back the music. Never will they outgrow mediocrity without this.

The one truly understanding music, the bare bones musician, will still perform even if you take away all score and all the instruments he's trained in. Only now he can prove he has music in him.

Yes, there are great musicians who can't read music but can mimic the music they like and create their own arrangements. They have the talent. Some can keep this talent even after the technical training, and some will never have it, even with all the training in the world.

Strange things also happen with popular musicians. Elvis never had voice lessons. Many singers who had better voices and even more talent never made the connection with the public. It's strange.

I can understand how some people are just into music because it is fun. They don't work at it and don't want to work at it. It is enough to feel, that’s all. This was one of the lessons in Hesse's Steppenwolf. The stiff, older guy couldn't talk about Mozart and music theory with the carnival musician who just played to make people happy.

My problem with would be philosophers is that too many people think philosophy requires no prior knowledge at all. They think all they need to do is spout unsupported opinions. They don't recognize established theories or terminology used by educated people. They wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit them on the ass, and they don't know when they've been refuted or when they commit fallacies. They just say things and agree or disagree with things they like or dislike.

I got tired of posting on the "Talk Philosophy" board because of people like this. People who just babble and ramble along and don't even know they are not really saying anything. They wouldn't know how to define "validity" in a deductive argument, and they think something is wrong with me for being concerned with such things.

I suspect there are people like that on this board, those who think Sartre is an obscure reference.

I don't think philosophy should just be a popularity contest. David Letterman and Jay Leno are great comedians, but they are not philosophers.

I'm not sure Andy Rooney is a philosopher. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X did make it to that status in the area of political theory and ethics.

How can you be so sure your brains aren't in a vat? Apart from the literal question you can also wonder in how far communities by default fake reality on some levels for all its members as to ensure its own twisted survival.

You seem to be dodging my question by asking your own. Let's take an event, a marathon race. Would it bring more pleasure for you to actually train for it and run it honestly, doing well, or would you rather cheat and have people think you won when you really didn't? Would you rather not even run the race in reality but just take a pill that makes you dream that you won? I would rather run the race honestly, and the rational egoist would also.

bis bald,

Nick

David wrote:

Since there is no logical conflict between conceiving of all phenomena as "subjective" and our direct experience of the world, there is no compelling reason to believe that phenomena have to be "objective".

I agree, but why then call it “subjective” itself? What would that then really mean?

S: I think that if I have any doubt about the objectivity of things “out there”, then the only way I could remove that doubt is by shooting a bullet through my brains. Would that logically help............ me?

D: Well, you could try that if you want to, but it won't help you resolve the issue. A subjective Sapius is just as capable of blowing his brains out as an objective one.

Sure, but what I was talking about was how objectively real a gun would be from my subjective perspective. I mean that "appearances" can kill.

So, in other words, all that is perceived is Real, as it is, and there is no logical need to differentiate as subjective or objective to make it more or less Real.

Diebert wrote:

If you're thinking in terms like 'actual' or 'real' then the answer must be truth. Truth however transcends by its very nature and definition the observer/observed relation.

What is ‘actual’ or ‘real’ according to you?

NickOtani wrote:

My problem with would be philosophers is that too many people think philosophy requires no prior knowledge at all. They think all they need to do is spout unsupported opinions. They don't recognize established theories or terminology used by educated people. They wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit them on the ass, and they don't know when they've been refuted or when they commit fallacies. They just say things and agree or disagree with things they like or dislike.

You are merely justifying your desire to keep holding hands with these academic philosophers. You don't have the courage to break free of them and understand reality directly with your own mind. You are hiding in their midst.

I got tired of posting on the "Talk Philosophy" board because of people like this. People who just babble and ramble along and don't even know they are not really saying anything. They wouldn't know how to define "validity" in a deductive argument, and they think something is wrong with me for being concerned with such things.

The arguments that have been presented to you on this thread by nearly all concerned have been well-supported with logical reasoning. Yet you hardly ever deal with these arguments. Instead, you prevaricate and name-drop, and then you get all upset when we laugh at you for doing this.

I suspect there are people like that on this board, those who think Sartre is an obscure reference

He is certainly an irrelevent reference if understanding the nature of Reality is one's goal.

What is the wisest thing he ever said, in your view?

Probably, "Simone's a sexpot".

-

Sapius wrote:

DQ: Since there is no logical conflict between conceiving of all phenomena as "subjective" and our direct experience of the world, there is no compelling reason to believe that phenomena have to be "objective".

S: I agree, but why then call it “subjective” itself?

Because things are subject to causal conditions, including that of the observer. Because nothing can exist independently of all other things.

S: I think that if I have any doubt about the objectivity of things “out there”, then the only way I could remove that doubt is by shooting a bullet through my brains. Would that logically help............ me?

DQ: Well, you could try that if you want to, but it won't help you resolve the issue. A subjective Sapius is just as capable of blowing his brains out as an objective one.

S: Sure, but what I was talking about was how objectively real a gun would be from my subjective perspective. I mean that "appearances" can kill.

The gun may have the capacity to be a powerful influence on your life, but it is still not "objectively real".

So, in other words, all that is perceived is Real, as it is, and there is no logical need to differentiate as subjective or objective to make it more or less Real.

That's a bit too advanced for someone like NickOtani. Let's just ease him off the delusion of objective existence first.

-

NickOtani wrote:

I think many aspects of the tree are in the eyes of the beholders, but there is still a tree “out there” that is being observed. In that sense, the tree is objective, independent of perceptions or mental wishes or whims.

If many aspects of the tree are in the eyes of the beholders what exactly is a tree, then? Something that has a trunk, leaves and roots? How is it that even these -- the most fundamental aspect of “trees” in practical human terms -- exist at all without being perceived and deduced by an observer/s dependant upon human perceptions and mental wishes and whims?

Would a molecule be afraid of crashing its car into a hundred-year-old Oak? Or, in fact, mistaking it for an elephant on heat?

The arguments that have been presented to you on this thread by nearly all concerned have been well-supported with logical reasoning. Yet you hardly ever deal with these arguments. Instead, you prevaricate and name-drop, and then you get all upset when we laugh at you for doing this.

Why do you lie and misrepresent me? Don’t you have the knowledge or courage to deal honestly with me? Do you have to make up a straw man version of me and knock it over?

Where do you see me getting upset? This must be one of your blind faith subjective facts, no better than the conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist. I may be a little disappointed that the quality of debate here is not much higher than it was on the Talk Philosophy board, but your laughing at me doesn’t upset me. Idiots laugh at lots of things. I blow it off like I do your childish attempts to deal with my arguments.

BTW, how do you define validity in a deductive argument?

bis bald,

Nick

Would a molecule be afraid of crashing its car into a hundred-year-old Oak? Or, in fact, mistaking it for an elephant on heat?

I don't think molecules have conceptual consciousness. There's no evidence of this.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick Otani wrote:My problem with would be philosophers is that too many people think philosophy requires no prior knowledge at all. They think all they need to do is spout unsupported opinions. They don't recognize established theories or terminology used by educated people. They wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit them on the ass, and they don't know when they've been refuted or when they commit fallacies. They just say things and agree or disagree with things they like or dislike.

I can understand what you're looking for but I'd suggest you look elsewhere for it, perhaps the Ponderer's Guild at Ezboard. The Genius forum is designed for thinkers on the more anarchist philosophical path of understanding reality. It's about stripping things away while not abandoning core reasoning and logic. If you really want to try to categorize it: penetrating thought in the manner of maverick existentialists like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche and some Eastern schools like the Hindu Vedanta or Jnana Yoga, stripped to the core. It's all together quite anti-establishment and unorthodox, it has to be since all the social and intellectual structures are inevitable 'killing the music', keeping the peace and the ignorance about oneself going.

Nick Otani wrote:

Diebert wrote: How can you be so sure your brains aren't in a vat? Apart from the literal question you can also wonder in how far communities by default fake reality on some levels for all its members as to ensure its own twisted survival.

Would you rather not even run the race in reality but just take a pill that makes you dream that you won? I would rather run the race honestly, and the rational egoist would also.

You are dodging a whole subject here! It's more important to know you're not dreaming something up, examining it rigorously, than just the feeling of being honest or not. Philosophy can never be based on fleeting impressions of honor.

NickOtani wrote:

Why do you lie and misrepresent me?

I simply call it as I see it. You don't really explore issues with people. Your propensity to hide behind other academics at the drop of a hat keeps you from engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion - at least as far as discussing reality is concerned.

Don’t you have the knowledge or courage to deal honestly with me?

I can't be any more open and plain-speaking than I am now. What would you have me do?

Where do you see me getting upset?

You've been getting upset over our refusal to take your name-dropping and pandering to academics seriously. Hence your snide indirect comments about various members of this board.

You might have been an intelligent person once, Nick. But you've sold your soul for the sake of academic recognition and it's undermined your ability to think deeply about things.

BTW, how do you define validity in a deductive argument?

If we discuss this, do you promise to deal with the issue directly and stop all the name-dropping?

In my view, a deductive argument is "valid" if the premises it uses are 100% accurate and certain, and the deductive process itself is 100% error-free. Only in this way can we reach a "valid" conclusion, philosophically speaking.

The deductive process is 100% error-free when it conforms perfectly to the principle of A=A. For example, if we were to define Nature to be "the totality of all there is", then a perfectly-executed deductive step would be to conclude that nothing can exist beyond, or outside of, Nature.

-

Sapius wrote:In your opinion, is there anything at all "objective"?

Diebert wrote:If you're thinking in terms like 'actual' or 'real' then the answer must be truth. Truth however transcends by its very nature and definition the observer/observed relation.

Sapius wrote:What is ‘actual’ or ‘real’ according to you?

You seem to create a problem here in your method of questioning. You are not really clear so far in what you mean with something that is "objective" so where is your initial question supposed to lead to?

The reason I used 'actual' and 'real' is only because these words are used in the general definition which I assumed you used. What they mean to me: actual is 'real existing' and reality is what appears when all delusion is stripped. Now what are the main delusions in your view?

I simply call it as I see it. You don't really explore issues with people. Your propensity to hide behind other academics at the drop of a hat keeps you from engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion - at least as far as discussing reality is concerned.

I object to your characterization that I “hide” behind other academics. I explained why I refer to known philosophers and scholars. It is short-hand which should be understood by those who know about philosophy, and it is attribution to those who are associated with the ideas. It is a way of making my position clear by comparing and contrasting it with other known positions. That you don’t accept this explanation indicates to me your unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion with me. You want to make accusations and ignore explanations.

I can't be any more open and plain-speaking than I am now. What would you have me do?

You might admit that you don’t understand some of my specific references and ask for clarification. To me, it seems you are hiding your ignorance by accusing me of hiding behind my references.

You've been getting upset over our refusal to take your name-dropping and pandering to academics seriously. Hence your snide indirect comments about various members of this board.

My initial post in this thread was honest and trusting. I did not try to hurt anyone. Immediately, I was attacked and called names. I’ve been called a monkey just a few posts back. I did not start hitting back until others drew first blood.

You might have been an intelligent person once, Nick. But you've sold your soul for the sake of academic recognition and it's undermined your ability to think deeply about things.

I don’t think so. I have not been impatient to get published. I do not have a PhD. I study what I love and write what is important to me. I am authentic.

If we discuss this, do you promise to deal with the issue directly and stop all the name-dropping?

No, I make no promises because I am what I am and communicate the way I communicate. I am not dropping names to show-off.

In my view, a deductive argument is "valid" if the premises it uses are 100% accurate and certain, and the deductive process itself is 100% error-free. Only in this way can we reach a "valid" conclusion, philosophically speaking.

The deductive process is 100% error-free when it conforms perfectly to the principle of A=A. For example, if we were to define Nature to be "the totality of all there is", then a perfectly-executed deductive step would be to conclude that nothing can exist beyond, or outside of, Nature.

First, the definition of validity in a deductive argument is not a matter of opinion. It is not one thing for you and another thing for me or someone else. One doesn’t say, “In my view, 2+2=4.”

Second, validity in a deductive argument has to do with form. It means that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. It doesn’t mean that the conclusion is true. The conclusion could be false but still follow from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true in a valid argument. However, the argument can still be valid even if one or more of the premises are false.

Third, yes, you can say Nature is the totality of all there is and, if something is, it must be within Nature. However, the major premise, that nature is the totality of all there is, must also be deduced and so on ad infinitum, or accepted on faith, like the conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist.

Bis bald,

Nick

Nick,

DQ: I simply call it as I see it. You don't really explore issues with people. Your propensity to hide behind other academics at the drop of a hat keeps you from engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion - at least as far as discussing reality is concerned.

N: I object to your characterization that I “hide” behind other academics. I explained why I refer to known philosophers and scholars. It is short-hand which should be understood by those who know about philosophy, and it is attribution to those who are associated with the ideas. It is a way of making my position clear by comparing and contrasting it with other known positions. That you don’t accept this explanation indicates to me your unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussion with me. You want to make accusations and ignore explanations.

As I say, the academic conceptual lattice is too rigid and shallow to allow for the deepening of understanding. It acts as a drag upon philosophic thought.

It's like a would-be sailor tying his boat to a pier and steadfastly refusing to budge. It doesn't matter what he does in that boat, he is never going to be able to sail off and explore what's over the horizon unless he unties that knot.

DQ: In my view, a deductive argument is "valid" if the premises it uses are 100% accurate and certain, and the deductive process itself is 100% error-free. Only in this way can we reach a "valid" conclusion, philosophically speaking.

The deductive process is 100% error-free when it conforms perfectly to the principle of A=A. For example, if we were to define Nature to be "the totality of all there is", then a perfectly-executed deductive step would be to conclude that nothing can exist beyond, or outside of, Nature.

N: First, the definition of validity in a deductive argument is not a matter of opinion.

On the contrary, it is purely a matter of opinion. How we choose to define anything is wholly subjective.

It is not one thing for you and another thing for me or someone else. One doesn’t say, “In my view, 2+2=4.”

A definition of "validity" is not a truth, no matter whose it is, just as the standard definition of "1" is not a truth. They are merely arbitrarily-created conceptions, nothing more.

Second, validity in a deductive argument has to do with form.

According to academic opinion, yes.

It means that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. It doesn’t mean that the conclusion is true. The conclusion could be false but still follow from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true in a valid argument. However, the argument can still be valid even if one or more of the premises are false.

Well, I disagree with that usage. I don't see it as being particularly useful to call an argument "valid" if it is using false premises and therefore yielding false conclusions. The wise selection of premises is just as important to an argument as the deductive step.

I know that academics like to split things apart and give them names, but in this instance I think they are doing a disservice to philosophy.

Third, yes, you can say Nature is the totality of all there is and, if something is, it must be within Nature. However, the major premise, that nature is the totality of all there is, must also be deduced and so on ad infinitum, or accepted on faith, like the conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist.

Again, definitions are not intended to be truth-claims. They are merely arbitrarily-created conceptions, without any underlying foundation. So your accusation of infinite regession here is misplaced.

Why would one choose to define Nature to be "the totality of all there is", as opposed to, say, the solar system, or the local football field? Because it is the most sensible definition that can be used in the context of philosophcially investigating the fundamental nature of all Reality.

-

Nick wrote:

Second, validity in a deductive argument has to do with form. It means that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. It doesn’t mean that the conclusion is true.

The definiton of "valid", in the academic sense, is:

"An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true."

So, in fact, it does mean that the conclusion is true.

The definiton of "valid", in the academic sense, is:

"An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true."

So, in fact, it does mean that the conclusion is true.

No, ksolway. Read that sentence very carefully and compare it to my explanation. I did say that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true in a valid argument. This does not mean the conclusion has to be true if one of the premises is false. If one or more of the premises is false, the argument form can still be valid, but the conclusion need not be true. It could be by accident, and it does still follow from the premises, but the only time the conclusion "must" be true is if the premises are true and the argument is valid.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is a valid argument with true premises and a true conclusion.

All men are women.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a woman.

This is also a valid argument but with a major premise that is false. The conclusion does follow from the premises, but it is not certain to be true.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is a man.

This is an invalid argument. The middle term has not been properly distributed. Men are mortal, but dogs and cats are also mortal. Socrates could be a dog or cat. Yes, the conclusion happens to be true, but it doesn't follow from the premises.

People who talk about truth and reason should know the difference between reason and belief. What I am talking about above is lesson in logical reasoning. What David is talking about is faith. Do you see a difference?

bis bald,

Nick

NickOtani wrote:

The definiton of "valid", in the academic sense, is:

"An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true."

All men are women.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a woman.

This is also a valid argument

Ok, by the strict academic definition we might say it is "valid", since there are no models in which the premises are true.

So by this academic definition all arguments in which the premises are necessarily false, can be perfectly valid.

So, it might be the case that academics want to call arguments "valid" even when those arguments are obviously false. Then good luck to them, so long as they keep their silly definitions to themselves, and don't try to foist them onto sensible people.

Ok, by the strict academic definition we might say it is "valid", since there are no models in which the premises are true.

So by this academic definition all arguments in which the premises are necessarily false, can be perfectly valid.

So, it might be the case that academics want to call arguments "valid" even when those arguments are obviously false. Then good luck to them, so long as they keep their silly definitions to themselves, and don't try to foist them onto sensible people.

No, ksolway. You and David are the ones not being sensible. "Valid" is not a synonym for "True." It refers to the form of deductive arguments, that when the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It doesn't say the conclusion must be true if one or more of the premises is false. An argument can have a valid form but false premises and conclusions.

You may not understand this, but it doesn't mean it is not capable of being understood.

If you just don't want to understand, if you are just more comfortable with your own biases, then you don't seem to be interested in truth, just whatever you want to believe. Sometimes, we call people like that bigots.

bis bald,

Nick

...The Genius forum is designed for thinkers on the more anarchist philosophical path of understanding reality. It's about stripping things away while not abandoning core reasoning and logic.

As I demonstrate above, David Quinn and ksolway do abandon core reasoning and logic.

bis bald,

Nick

NickOtani wrote:An argument can have a valid form but false premises and conclusions.

Yes, so you keep claiming.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether the mere FORM of an argument is valid. What is important to me, and all sensible thinkers, is that the SUBSTANCE is valid.

Who cares whether the form of a fundamentalist Christian's arguments are valid? It is of no interest to anyone.

An argument that is based on false premises is not valid - by definition - regardless of its form.

This is precisely the problem with academics - they are concerned purely with form, at the expense of substance.

If you want to communicate more clearly, you should specify that you think the mere form of an argument is valid, or not valid, rather than the argument itself. That way we can safely ignore what you are saying, since it is uninteresting.

I'm not sure why Nick would call it "bigotry" to question a questionable academic practice. I've never heard the term used in that context. Is he seriously saying that everything academics do is necessarily correct, by default?

At the very least, they should call those arguments "half-valid", in order to emphasize the fact that while the form of a false argument might be valid, it is nevertheless invalid to treat it as an argument for truth.

-

Nick,

People who talk about truth and reason should know the difference between reason and belief. What I am talking about above is lesson in logical reasoning. What David is talking about is faith. Do you see a difference?

I have no idea where this has come from in the context of the discussion. Are you seriously saying that anyone who questions academic practices is automatically operating by faith?

Man, oh man, you really have been smitten.

How about responding to some of the points I made in my last post to you. There is some good material there to get our teeth into.

-

NickO: Third, yes, you can say Nature is the totality of all there is and, if something is, it must be within Nature. However, the major premise, that nature is the totality of all there is, must also be deduced and so on ad infinitum, or accepted on faith, like the conclusions of a Christian fundamentalist.

Argument 1, Major Premise:
Nature is the totality of all there is.

Argument 2, Major Premise:
All men are mortal.

NickO: What David is talking about is faith. Do you see a difference?

Nope. I don’t see how the major premise in Argument 2 is arrived at any differently to that in Argument 1 ie, through the process of deduction.

Nature is the totality of all there is.

Actually, this is simply a definition. It is not arrived at through deduction, and nor can it be tested empirically.

All men are mortal.

This one can be deduced, but it is not so clear. It doesn't follow logically that all people must die.

However, it does follow logically that all people must change.

Change is a kind of death, so in that sense we could say that all physical things are mortal.

Kevin wrote:

[Nature is the totality of all there is.]

Actually, this is simply a definition. It is not arrived at through deduction, and nor can it be tested empirically.

Personally, I was -- and still am -- more inclined to call it a conclusion in this context. I see “all men are mortal” in the same way with respect to the point I think Nick is trying to make.

I must now say, however, that I am having trouble with the idea that anything can be defined outside of the process of deductive reasoning. You don’t just pull these things out of thin air -- entirely. At the very least, the process would have involved stripping away illogical ideas -- such as in the example David mentioned above where he questioned the reason one would not define Nature as the solar system. In this sense, the conclusion is deductive: it is a necessary one based on its premises -- and true or false, accordingly.

Nope. I don’t see how the major premise in Argument 2 is arrived at any differently to that in Argument 1 ie, through the process of deduction.

First, I wasn't talking only about how premises are arrived at. I was talking about rejecting the established definition of validity and choosing, instead, to believe something one wants to believe. This is like saying, "Well, you can believe 2+5=7 if you and all those academic mathematicians want, but I'd rather believe it is 48."

Second, I wonder if you or anyone else here knows the difference between deduction and induction.

Third, definitions such as "Bachelors are unmarried males," are not arbitray subjective constructs. Neither is the definition of validity in deductive arguments. It means "the form of the deductive arument such that if the premises are true the conclusion has to be true."

An argument that is based on false premises is not valid - by definition - regardless of its form.

Insisting that something is true does not make it so. It's something that Christian fundamentalists might do.

I'm not sure why Nick would call it "bigotry" to question a questionable academic practice. I've never heard the term used in that context. Is he seriously saying that everything academics do is necessarily correct, by default?

The practice is not questionable just because you question it. If you think something is incorrect, perhaps you should prove it. Everything you say is not necessarily correct by default. Hanging onto unfounded beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is what bigotry is.

bis bald,

Nick