Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

[Age]

i could be way off base but what i think age and atto are saying is that by calling yourself 'logik' you are insinuating you are smart and wanting others to think so.

By calling myself "Logik" I want you to think that I am logical and that I understand how logic works.
I know and do understand how logic works.

All human beings are born using logic. "If I cry this way, then I get what I want". Although new born babies do not consciously think this they are continually doing this to learn, discover, know, and understand what works for them. I think MOST human beings know and understand how logic works.

But most human beings do not portray, in their writings, an arrogance that they KNOW and UNDERSTAND how logic works better than just about EVERY other person does.

Does being logical make me "smart"?

I would NOT say so. But WHY the constant referral back to YOUR own ASSUMPTION?

It's just a skill - anybody can learn it.

Some might say EVERY body just does it anyway.

- you earlier defined intelligence as pattern recognition

I did.

and logic is basically pattern recognition when combined with abstraction.

No, it isn't.

basically, that you think and want others to think you are smart on here but are making a modest show of it when confronted.

I want you to think that I understand logic. "Smart" is your word - I don't understand what it means.

So, when you say that you are not "smart" but you also say that do NOT even understand what the word "smart" means, then what kind of logic are you using?

What do you logically mean when you say that you are not "smart"?

btw, are you Scandinavian?

No.

[Logik]

logik you're kind of autistic. age is basically calling you arrogant, using 'you think you're smart' as a proxy, but you're too autistic to pick up on this implication and so you're getting all literal on his ass 'when did i say i'm smart; show me a word search'...etc

Can you read my mind? If you can't how do you know whether I have picked up on his implication or not ?

I know what I know. Am I supposed to pretend I don't?

Duplicity is exhausting.

[Logik]

But most human beings do not portray, in their writings, an arrogance that they KNOW and UNDERSTAND how logic works better than just about EVERY other person does.

RIchard Feynman said: What I cannot create I do not understand.
I can create logic. So I understand it.

Where is the arrogance in that?

I would NOT say so. But WHY the constant referral back to YOUR own ASSUMPTION?

There is no assumption. I said I am logical. Demonstrably so. The assumption of "smartness" is yours.

Some might say EVERY body just does it anyway.

Competence without comprehension. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/dennett_on_comp/

I have competence WITH comprehension.

- you earlier defined intelligence as pattern recognition

I did.

and logic is basically pattern recognition when combined with abstraction.

No, it isn't.

So, when you say that you are not "smart" but you also say that do NOT even understand what the word "smart" means, then what kind of logic are you using?

Temporal. I cannot conceptualize what "smart" behaves like and I cannot juxtapose it against what "not-smart" behaves like.

I am not using logic. I am pointing out that you have no falsifiable definition for the concept.

[11011]

Age wrote:
For example you like it be known:

That you are doing a "masters thesis".
That you like to undermine "logicians" and "mathematicians".
That you are producing work that your supervisor says could easily translate into a PhD thesis.
That you work full-time while you are also studying but you still have time for "amusement" here, in this forum.
That your full-time work is ahead of academia by a few decades.
That you believe academia offers absolute no new insight.
That you are teaching institutions more than they can teach you.
That institutions should be paying YOU (capital letters) for your insights.
That you have made a mistake in becoming a student, which some might infer that you believe that you are already beyond 'that' what is being taught.
That you are a self-taught person.

Plus other things.

And this portraying by you, is what you have SHOWN to me, was just in two of your posts only.

And? I have experience and knowledge and I speak truthfully. Why does that make me "smart" ?

if you are admitting to saying these things then that is arrogance, you can't possibly know at least a few of those things, even allowing for a lax interpretation of things like 'academia offers no new insight'. academia can be slow to offer new insights but to say it doesn't is just patently wrong. to the extent that original research goes on in academia which it does, then it offers new insights.

or are we misinterpreting this statement of yours?

[Logik]

logic is a kind of prediction based on cause-effect or associative occurrences which are themselves based on pattern recognition in our world.

We have deep conceptual misunderstandings of what logic is. Metaphorically speaking - logic is a tool for constructing models. LEGO for your mind.
Whether the LEGO model predicts any actual cause-effect relationships as pertaining to reality is model-utility.

There are useful models and there are useless models.

for example, if you get good grades then you will get into a good college is a logical statement based on recognizing the pattern or association of people in the world getting good grades and subsequently being admitted into good colleges. logic is just the mind articulating the pattern it sees.

The error you are making is that you are counting the hits, but not the misses.
You need to count all the people who get good grades but DON'T get into good colleges.
Because - can't afford them, got good but not great grades, got accepted but didn't want to go anyway etc. etc. etc.

and if logic is based on pattern recognition, then it is a form of intelligence, to the extent that intelligence is pattern recognition, and this logical statement is also based on pattern recognition as well using abstract predictive categories.

There are many steps in between. I recognize the pattern of an "apple" on my kitchen table. I connect the pattern with the taste of an apple. I get hungry and I salivate. IF I bite into the apple I know exactly the kind of juiciness I am to expect and the kind of texture that my tongue will experience.

Not sure where the logic is in this? It's just past experience.

[/code]
and logic, at least 'if, then' logic which is often used in for example computer science and many other applications, consists basically of predictive statements based on abstract categories - if it belongs in this category, then it is also this, i.e. we can expect this to occur also based on predictive pattern recognition among things in this category - which are formed using pattern recognition.

You can use statistical and machine-learning models for prediction too. They are usually far more accurate than basic if-then models mostly because the data is too complex to describe using conventional logics.

[/code]
that's a bit convolutedly put together, but do you see the connection? logic is basically just a formalization/articulation of pattern recognition in the behaviour of things, although it depends on the proper categorization (abstraction) of things as well as accurate recognition of the pattern (i.e. is there really a consistent pattern/universal law at work here). some things only behaviour as observed some of the time, and this can weaken the predictive power of logic, or 'truth'

Fundamentally - you don't seem to recognize the "declarative" vs "imperative" distinction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming

Declarative logic says "this is the goal" - get it done without explaining "how".
Imperative programming says "this is EXACTLY HOW you get from A to B" to get the correct result.

[Logik]

if you are admitting to saying these things then that is arrogance, you can't possibly know at least a few of those things, even allowing for a lax interpretation of things like 'academia offers no new insight'. academia can be slow to offer new insights but to say it doesn't is just patently wrong. to the extent that original research goes on in academia which it does, then it offers new insights.

or are we misinterpreting this statement of yours?

Why is truth arrogance?

Am I supposed to not speak truthfully?

The way academia offers new insight is when people who have done ground-breaking research OUTSIDE of academia, go TO academia to write about it.

There is no prescribed process on who, when or how is allowed to acquire knowledge or do research.
Plenty of research happens through private funding and behind closed doors.

[11011]

That you are teaching institutions more than they can teach you.

that's impossible, you proclaim know everything all institutions have to offer and more? are you that well read?

moreover, that you know more than all of this knowledge combined, at least double? lol

again, perhaps i am not giving you a lax enough interpretation, but strictly speaking, your words arrogant and unrealistic.

[Logik]

That you are teaching institutions more than they can teach you.

that's impossible, you proclaim know everything all institutions have to offer and more? are you that well read?

moreover, that you know more than all of this knowledge combined, at least double? lol

again, perhaps i am not giving you a lax enough interpretation, but strictly speaking, your words arrogant and unrealistic.

I am claiming that I know more than the particular institution I find myself at has to offer.

I am also claiming that your very concept of "knowledge" is broken. There is only explicit, not tacit knowledge in academia.
With the exception where there truly are great teachers who have mastered the art of teaching tacit knowledge to others.
Explicit knowledge is useless till applied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge

If that is arrogance so be it - most academics do not know their heads from their asses.
Most academics are intellectuals yet idiots. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

Ivory tower experts.

[11011]

if you are admitting to saying these things then that is arrogance, you can't possibly know at least a few of those things, even allowing for a lax interpretation of things like 'academia offers no new insight'. academia can be slow to offer new insights but to say it doesn't is just patently wrong. to the extent that original research goes on in academia which it does, then it offers new insights.

or are we misinterpreting this statement of yours?

Why is truth arrogance?

Am I supposed to not speak truthfully?

The way academia offers new insight is when people who have done ground-breaking research OUTSIDE of academia, go TO academia to write about it.

There is no prescribed process on who, when or how is allowed to acquire knowledge or do research.
Plenty of research happens through private funding and behind closed doors.

what do you mean when you say academia offers no new insight?

i am saying that is objectively wrong. are you saying right at this moment, new insights, somewhere, in some field, are not being published? even small gains in some highly specific field or topic?

then what the hell is academic research? moreover, what is the history of academic publishing other than the history of new insights being offered?

stop avoiding the issue by just repeating 'it's the truth'. engage the nitty-gritty and clarify your words/meaning.

[Logik]

i am saying that is objectively wrong. are you saying right at this moment, new insights, somewhere, in some field, are not being published? even small gains in some highly specific field or topic?

You are confusing explicit with tacit knowledge.

There is plenty of stuff being published. Not much of it is useful in practice.

then what the hell is academic research?

A waste of taxpayer money?

moreover, what is the history of academic publishing other than the history of new insights being offered?

You mistake the order in which new insights are arrived at. The Wright Brothers didn't study first invent later.
Invent first -> publish later.

stop avoiding the issue by just repeating 'it's the truth'. engage the nitty-gritty and clarify your words/meaning.

Academia is bullshit. There is no effective selection mechanism to filter out the garbage from the useful stuff, so the signal-vs-noise diminishes over time. Sufficient?

Professors chase tennure like politicians chase office. Nice, safe, minimum accountability job.

[11011]

there you've said it. you don't agree that any of it is knowledge - you have a different conception.

that is the turning point of this discussion, and explains the disagreement between you and age, which you could have settled by seeing how your words are likely to be interpreted - as arrogance.

if you have a different, non-mainstream conception of knowledge then you ought to state it to avoid needless disagreement.

assuming you guys were actually disagreeing and not just flinging poop for fun...if the latter pardon my intrusion (holds up shield)

[attofishpi]

RIchard Feynman said: What I cannot create I do not understand.
I can create logic. So I understand it.

Where is the arrogance in that?

OK. So I am not really paying attention to you women playing with yourselves which is unusual...i've got a download to watch.
But Mr Logik - I don't think one can create logic. I would accept that you can create a reasonable proposition that we can apply logic to, and subsequently rationally agree to, but logic already exists.

[Logik]

there you've said it. you don't agree that any of it is knowledge - you have a different conception.

Indeed. Define knowledge.
I don't know what knowledge is in general, but in particular I know what knowledge isn't. USELESS.

if you have a different, non-mainstream conception of knowledge then you ought to state it to avoid needless disagreement.

Strictly tacit knowledge. Know-how. Know-that is useless unless you are playing Trivial Pursuit

[Logik]

But Mr Logik - I don't think one can create logic.

All programming languages. All mathematics.

Invented.

[Age]

But did I call you smart?

I was saying that gauging from what you have informed us all of here you must be a very smart person.

This statement was based on what you are portraying yourself to be and what you are coming across as in your own words.

But I never said I am smart.

You NEVER had to.

That must be your own conclusion.

If you say it must be, then it must be so.

Your belief then?

How many times do I have to keep reminding you that I do NOT have any beliefs?

Even after you have admitted your mistake you keep on making the same mistake, over and over again.

For example you like it be known:

That you are doing a "masters thesis".
That you like to undermine "logicians" and "mathematicians".
That you are producing work that your supervisor says could easily translate into a PhD thesis.
That you work full-time while you are also studying but you still have time for "amusement" here, in this forum.
That your full-time work is ahead of academia by a few decades.
That you believe academia offers absolute no new insight.
That you are teaching institutions more than they can teach you.
That institutions should be paying YOU (capital letters) for your insights.
That you have made a mistake in becoming a student, which some might infer that you believe that you are already beyond 'that' what is being taught.
That you are a self-taught person.

Plus other things.

And this portraying by you, is what you have SHOWN to me, was just in two of your posts only.

And?

This question is in relation to WHAT exactly?

I have experience and knowledge and I speak truthfully.

Absolutely EVERY human being has experience and knowledge, and most speak truthfully.

But the very reason WHY you speak such things is my point?

Why does that make me "smart" ?

The above does NOT make you "smart". Let this be clear.

However, making it quite clearly KNOWN to others:

That I am doing a "masters thesis"
That I like to undermine "logicians" and "mathematicians".
That I am producing work that my supervisor says could easily translate into a PhD thesis.
That I work full-time while I am also studying but I still have time for "amusement" to be on here, in this forum.
That my full-time work is ahead of academia by a few decades.
That I believe academia offers absolute no new insight.
That I am teaching institutions more than they can teach me.
That institutions should be paying ME, in capital letters, for my insights.
That I have made a mistake in becoming a student. (Said after the above has been written).
And, that I am a self-taught person.

Might be perceived by some as you TRYING TO portray a sense of "smartness" about yourself, even to the extend of you being "smarter" than others are, and even to "you" being more "smarter" than academia can offer and above what institutions can teach you.

Now, if you can NOT see that this is what you are portraying to some, then that is okay. You are NOT meant to SEE every thing in life, especially when it comes to LOOKING AT things about one's own self. Most MISS a lot in this regard. But I am just expressing and pointing out what others, themselves, MIGHT see about "you", from what is written/said within YOUR OWN WORDS.

By the way, you also do NOT even have to consider this point of view of mine above. I am just expressing a view of what comes across to me.