GENIUS FORUMS

The word you are looking for, when it comes to me, brokenhead, is "arrogant."

Frankly, there is much evidence that you are the one who is not interested in discourse, being side-tracked as you are from thinking by your egoistic feelings. It’s way too easy to accuse me of your own shortcomings. But what does the evidence show? Who fails to address whose questions, in the lofty interests of logic, thinking, philosophy---discourse?

Some thinking and questions from one post in this thread, which you ignored:

1) Why not? They refer to it in precisely the same manner as you have here; purely logically as the “Totality.” Are you saying they have claimed some other sort of “omniscience”?

2) Since it is apparently not your position that logic is the basis of truth, Is it your position that faith is? Some arbitrary balance between the two? How does one discern the truth in faith?

I, for example, see absolutely no reason to put my faith in non-existing things. Only things which exist require my faith in them, since they are changing and impermanent.

Your justification for ignoring these questions is as follows:

You ask a question and then cannot listen to the answer, you feel impelled rather to argue with it. You are not putting yourself in a position to learn anything, because you feel yourself to be in possession of the answers and therefore superior to anyone who attempts to respond to your questions.

So, disagreeing with your answer or further questioning it means I am not listening? Let’s look at an example from beginning to end:

b, to Jason: How do we get them to see that the rational man does not limit himself to pure logic because pure logic itself is limited?

L to b; Just exactly what do you think a rational man is limited to if not (pure) logic?

Logic is limited to (or, as) itself. That is, it cannot be illogic and logic---or a banana and logic---at the same time.

b, partially quoting L and responding:

Partial quote: Just exactly what do you think a rational man is limited to if not (pure) logic?

Response: The extent of his capacity to recognize and understand the truth.

L: Since it is apparently not your position that logic is the basis of truth, Is it your position that faith is? Some arbitrary balance between the two? How does one discern the truth in faith?

I, for example, see absolutely no reason to put my faith in non-existing things. Only things which exist require my faith in them, since they are changing and impermanent.

b: [agreement, without addressing preceding questions.]

Does this really demonstrate your truth that I am not listening and feel impelled to argue, for the sake of argument?

~

If you were to have it Kevin's way, thinking without logic is impossible.

Kevin’s way? [laughs] You mean to imply I think him infallible and myself incapable of logic and thought? Right. My questions, then, are necessarily totally irrelevant questions not worthy of a reply.

I don’t think you know just how similar you are to Kevin, in some respects.

.


Leyla Shen

Brokenhead

BLReOyKlEaNSHhEeAnD

bLrEoYkLeAnShHeEaNd

BLREOYKLEANSHHEEAND

blreoykleanshheeand

Brokenhead

LeylaShen


.

Kevin Solway wrote:No finite thing is the "ultimate cause" because no finite thing is always "the rest of the universe", whereas God always is. The human will, for example, is only "the rest of the Universe" with respect to that which is not itself. But it is not "the rest of the Universe" with respect to, say, a tree — whereas God is.

However, the human will also caused the soil, water, sunlight, nutrients, planet etc that caused the tree.

brokenhead to Leyla wrote:If you were to have it Kevin's way, thinking without logic is impossible. If so, then I must be using logic in this discourse.

I think this is quite a significant point and it describes one of the main problems I see in QSR philosophy. According to QSR, literally everything that exists conforms to A=A logic. Therefore anything that anyone thinks, says or does must conform to A=A logic, simply by default. So nobody can ever escape this sort of "logic" and thus no one could ever be illogical. It also means that intuition, faith, instinct and dreams all follow A=A logic too.

Their A=A logic doesn't give them or anyone anywhere to go, because everything and everyone is already 100% following A=A logic.

illogical

Main Entry: il·log·i·cal
Function: adjective

1 : not observing the principles of logic <an illogical argument>
2 : devoid of logic : senseless <illogical policies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

alogical

Main Entry: alog·i·cal
Function: adjective

: being outside the bounds of that to which logic can apply

Leyla Shen wrote:I don’t think you know just how similar you are to Kevin, in some respects.

I resemble that remark!

L: Since it is apparently not your position that logic is the basis of truth, Is it your position that faith is? Some arbitrary balance between the two? How does one discern the truth in faith?

I, for example, see absolutely no reason to put my faith in non-existing things. Only things which exist require my faith in them, since they are changing and impermanent.

Of course logic is not the basis for truth. Your thinking is muddied. I don't think you know just how similar you are to Sue Hindmarsh, in some respects. [Sue getting hit by some shrapnel...] Logic is a means of arriving at the truth, like a path is to a destination. That is, for me, I-95 is not the basis of Baltimore or New York.

You can deduce the truth via logic. You can intuit the truth. You can be taught the truth, in which case neither intuition not deduction would be necessary. However the truth gets into your head, it would not be the truth unless it could be verified. This you do through rational thought, of which logic - in so far as it is a skill you have mastered - is a key component. A computer uses logic ruthlessly, remorselessly, and exclusively. It is in fact a device whose very architecture is a physical manifestation of logical transactions, yes-or-no gates. Yet I for one do not consider a computer as a thinking entity.

Again, have you read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose? You seem to have passed over this question, and yet it might help me answer some of yours. My responses are purposeful.

As to your quote above, no one is propounding placing your faith in non-existing things. For instance, I believe that, say, that Saturn exists. Yet I have never been there. In my mind, it's existence is as real as the sun's or the earth's. Why should this be so?

L to b; Just exactly what do you think a rational man is limited to if not (pure) logic?

Logic is limited to (or, as) itself. That is, it cannot be illogic and logic---or a banana and logic---at the same time.

Yes and a rock is limited to itself. It cannot be a banana and a rock at the same time, either. What is your point? That anything that is not also a banana should be the basis of thinking?

If I seem like I am all over the place, it is precisely because I am trying to field your points which seem not to be connected.

Let me try to sum up what you are saying. Logic is not a banana. Therefore, it is the basis for thinking. Man should limit his thinking to logic or anything else that is not a banana. In addition, you are saying that I believe in things that do not exist, such as God. How again was it that you know God does not exist?

The word you are looking for, when it comes to me, brokenhead, is "arrogant."

Actually, it has more letters than I had in mind, but I guess it'll have to do.

Leyla, what we have here is a Mexican standoff. Since you started it, I think what I am saying is: "Badges? We don't have to show you no stinking badges!"

brokenhead:

To crystalise:

1. Logic is a means of arriving at the truth
2. You can deduce the truth via logic
3. You can intuit the truth (in which case deduction would not be necessary)
4. You can be taught the truth (in which case neither intuition [nor] deduction would be necessary)
5. [Truth] would not be the truth unless it could be verified
6. [Truth is verified] through rational thought
7. Logic is a key component of rational thought insofar as it is a skill you have mastered
8. A computer uses logic ruthlessly, remorselessly, and exclusively
9. Yet [therefore?] I for one do not consider a computer as a thinking entity

I just have one question. If 5 and 6 are true, do you consider yourself a rational, thinking man---a man of truth---in light of your belief in god?

Leyla, what we have here is a Mexican standoff. Since you started it, I think what I am saying is: "Badges? We don't have to show you no stinking badges!"

[smile] Of course, I cannot resist the perfect opportunity to share a timeless, artistic masterpiece when duly inspired:

We told him to go away, and away he goes, Precious!

Leyla Shen wrote:I just have one question. If 5 and 6 are true, do you consider yourself a rational, thinking man---a man of truth---in light of your belief in god?

Of course.

BH: And what is it with the banana references?

Leyla: Potassium deficiency?

Upshot: Get thee to a bannanery...

See , i didnt have the time to read the whole thread so i hope that i am not reapeating what someone else said.
I probably wont be around later on to reply either so i will try to make it as comprehensive as i can.
I live in Zimbabwe so internet usage is a luxury for most of us and i just spent 50 mill to make this post .
Alright ,
Here goes.

When you say we are caused to think the things we think , are you implying that there is a phyisical causality in that one molecule hits another leading to a different thought.
If that was so i would think that that would mean that thoughts ,since they are presumably abstractions from the physical representations, should not follow any fixed pattern because that would be a huge coincidence that a sequence of thoughts (which can be shown to be "determined" in that one thought naturally leads to the next), would also follow a second level of determinisms , that of the physical representations of the thought.

I am saying that either the train of thoughts are determined or the physical representations of the thoughts are , and that if both are true that would be highly unlikely since if you think one thought (A) then immediately after that you think a thought (B).you can imagine thinking the thought (A) perhaps at a later stage and then thinking thought (C) after that meaning that physical determinism was not happening.

This would be proof that things are not determined , at least physically.
I hope i am making this clear. :^)

5. [Truth] would not be the truth unless it could be verified
6. [Truth is verified] through rational thought

L: I just have one question. If 5 and 6 are true, do you consider yourself a rational, thinking man---a man of truth---in light of your belief in god?

b: Of course.

Naturally.

So, even though something is only true if it can be verified through rational thought and that belief is belief and not truth due to an absence of verification: given your claim that you are a rational, thinking man of truth nonetheless, belief and truth are precisely the same thing.

~

Skinny: Faith’s on first.
Fatty: OK, [so] that’s true.
Skinny: No, no, no. He’s fourth. Faith’s first.
Fatty: Faith’s first?
Skinny: That’s true.
Fatty: That’s what I said! So, I throw the ball to first, is that true or faith?
Skinny: Faith.
Fatty: True.
Skinny: That’s right…

[Edited names from "Abbot" and "Costello" to "Fatty" and "Skinny" for clarity]

In response to the first and only the first post of this thread:

If one thing is caused to cause another, then isn't the caused thing caused to cause by the cause which caused it?

You can make freewill fit into a deterministic world view.

Valuing something over another is determined to be so, but at the same time we can choose to value one thing over another, although, it doesn't seem so - for instance: love at first sight.

TowardsProgress wrote:You can make freewill fit into a deterministic world view.

You can, except in most people's minds "free will" is not determined/caused.

Kevin ,Dan and David , could one of you make a comment on my first post because i realy think it proves your stance wrong.

chikoka wrote: When you say we are caused to think the things we think , are you implying that there is a phyisical causality in that one molecule hits another leading to a different thought.

There is causality, i.e. one state of the universe leads to the other, what do you mean by physical, do you distinguish between the mental and physical?

maestro wrote: There is causality, i.e. one state of the universe leads to the other, what do you mean by physical, do you distinguish between the mental and physical?

chikoka wrote: When you say we are caused to think the things we think , are you implying that there is a phyisical causality in that one molecule hits another leading to a different thought.

There is causality, i.e. one state of the universe leads to the other, what do you mean by physical, do you distinguish between the mental and physical?

The physical means the molecules that move around in your head while the mental is the abstraction of those molecules just as a wave is just the abstraction of the water or whatever.

Physical determininsm means that molecules moving at different speads and directions bumping each other in your head does not conform to the idea that thoughts themselves are involved in a simmilar determinism.IN that one thought (abstraction of the physiclal interactions of the molecules in your head) leads to another in a way that would mean that the abstraction of the next thought would not follow a deterministic process since the two abstractions or thoughts would (presumably) not lead to each other in a physical interaction time dependant sort of way.

maestro wrote:.e. one state of the universe leads to the other,

Either one thought state leads to another or one set of molecules in your head interact deterministically leading to a different state.
Not both.

Leyla Shen wrote:Costello: Faith’s on first.
Abbot: OK, that’s true.
Costello: No, no, no. He’s fourth. Faith’s first.
Abbot: Faith’s first?
Costello: That’s true.
Abbot: That’s what I said! So, I throw the ball to first, is that true or faith?
Costello: Faith.
Abbot: True.
Costello: That’s right…

I don't know what I'm supposed to imply from your inferences here, but all I can say is, I'm not the fat one...

Leyla Shen wrote:So, even though something is only true if it can be verified through rational thought and that belief is belief and not truth due to an absence of verification: given your claim that you are a rational, thinking man of truth nonetheless, belief and truth are precisely the same thing.

You keep making the same tautological error. You say belief is not truth due to absence of verification. I am asking you why you think it is true that Pluto, for example, exists. Or that such a thing as a virus exists. If I am not a rational person, why have I rejected many parts of the Bible but not the entire thing? Or for that matter, if you have rejected the entire Bible as a mere ensemble of concoctions, why have you done so? Why do educated, supposedly rational, historians disagree about historical events?

chikoka wrote: i just spent 50 mill to make this post

50 million Zimbabwe dollars. Inflation gone mad.

As a matter of interest, if you put your money in an interest-earning account at they bank, will you earn, say 10,000% interest on your deposit?

When you say we are caused to think the things we think , are you implying that there is a physical causality in that one molecule hits another leading to a different thought.

No. In the broadest sense, causation means that all things depend on other things which are necessary for their existence. Individual physical things are dependent on other physical things. Since physical things exist in time, they depend on things that happened in earlier times.

If that was so i would think that that would mean that thoughts, since they are presumably abstractions from the physical representations

Thoughts are physical functions of the brain, which is to say, they are chemicals, and have a physical cause. However, a thought can be of a non-physical thing. For example, I can think of the number one. But the thought of the number one is physically caused.

Is the number one itself caused?

Since there are things upon which it depends for its existence, it is caused, but not physically caused.

Having said that, the category "abstract things" is dependent on the category "non-abstract things", and the latter would be the physical world, so in this sense all abstract things are dependent on the physical world.

. . . , should not follow any fixed pattern because that would be a huge coincidence that a sequence of thoughts (which can be shown to be "determined" in that one thought naturally leads to the next), would also follow a second level of determinisms , that of the physical representations of the thought.

You mention "abstractions from the physical representations", but "representations" are themselves abstractions. Where do the representations come from? We don't know. But they are caused — otherwise they would not follow any pattern. Does the representation of a tree have any connection whatsoever with a physical tree? All we really know is that it has a connection with something, and it is that "something" we call a physical tree, even though we don't know what it is.

I am saying that either the train of thoughts are determined or the physical representations of the thoughts are , and that if both are true that would be highly unlikely since if you think one thought (A) then immediately after that you think a thought (B).you can imagine thinking the thought (A) perhaps at a later stage and then thinking thought (C) after that meaning that physical determinism was not happening.

I don't follow you here, but perhaps my definition of causation at the top of this message makes this unnecessary.

Kevin Solway wrote:50 million Zimbabwe dollars. Inflation gone mad.

that was yesterday .
Today it's 80 mill.
:^)

Kevin Solway wrote: Thoughts are physical functions of the brain, which is to say, they are chemicals, and have a physical cause. However, a thought can be of a non-physical thing. For example, I can think of the number one. But the thought of the number one is physically caused.

That is not what i was saying.
The content of a thought is irrelevant.
What is important to know is that either thoughts follow a patern or the molecular arrangement that the thoughts are a function of do .

It would be highly unlikely that both would.

chikoka,

Wow, where have you been? I still remember the conversation we had on TPG. Seems you only come by every three years!

Tell us more about Zimbabwe. How do you manage to live when your money becomes worthless overnight? Do you ever think of leaving?

Hi sam
Good to here from you as well.

I,ve been working in the rural areas out here in Zim so I had no access to electricity.

samadhi wrote:Tell us more about Zimbabwe. How do you manage to live when your money becomes worthless overnight? Do you ever think of leaving

The zimbabwean economy is breaking all the rules .Our inflation hit the 800% mark in january but right now no one can calculate what it is because there are no goods in the shops.:)
There should be no country left.
We were supposed to have ceased working a long time ago.
How we survive i think is that Since lnflation is caused by too much money chasing too little goods . Increases in prices are okay since there was too much money in the first place.


Right now i'm trying to get south african citizenship since my grandfather was born there but it's giving me many hassels .

I wouldnt want to have a disscusion on our politics just in case "someone" is reading this and me and my family dissapear.:)

brokenhead:

I don't know what I'm supposed to imply from your inferences here, but all I can say is, I'm not the fat one...

That would be “infer” not “imply.”

I think I got their names mixed up, which I‘m sure doesn‘t help! It's worthy to note that even though the fat one appears to be the sidekick on the surface, he really isn’t.

~

L: So, even though something is only true if it can be verified through rational thought and that belief is belief and not truth due to an absence of verification: given your claim that you are a rational, thinking man of truth nonetheless, belief and truth are precisely the same thing.

b: You keep making the same tautological error. You say belief is not truth due to absence of verification.

It follows from your own premises necessarily (as well as there being no meaningful point in having two completely different words that mean exactly the same thing).

If truth is only truth when it can be verified “by rational thought,” that which cannot be verified by rational thought is necessarily something else. I concluded that this other thing that cannot be verified by rational thought constitutes belief, since irrational thought would be that which is contrary to that which is verifiable by rational thought ("truth").

Later, I’ll address your Pluto example accordingly.

brokenhead wrote:However the truth gets into your head, it would not be the truth unless it could be verified. This you do through rational thought, of which logic - in so far as it is a skill you have mastered - is a key component.

I think you mean truth couldn't be accepted or recognized unless verified. But I'm not so sure of this. I dont' think truth needs verification if one were to see it or know it. It would verify itself.

Leyla Shen wrote:divine focus:

May I remind you of the context:

b: This does not imply you have to contravene logic, but merely recognize rationally that it cannot answer your deepest questions.

L: Honestly, you leave me stupefied.

You could try, rather than rationally recognising that logic cannot answer your deepest questions, recognising the irrationality in your questions?

df: So, no thinking? Do you ignore what you don't know? If you knew everything, thinking would serve no purpose. Those "irrational" questions give thought life.

It follows, then, that irrational (or, if you prefer, "irrational") questions are the unidentified sound in the dark, which might inspire, but do not comprise, thinking itself.

In that light, do you see your addressing me on the subject as a thoughtful activity, or a moment of such inspiration?

It was both, as always ;). It sounds like you were saying we should ignore the questions since they are "irrational," as if thinking was based on rationality. It isn't, actually. Thinking is rationality, but its basis is the "irrational"--though if you call it that, rationality would then be irrational.