Speakpigeon wrote:
That's exactly what I did. I'm asking about the Law of Identity and I'm not interested in the logic of it. I think it's very clear. And it's OK if you can't answer that.
You are presuming the 'laws of thought' were laid down by non-logicians. The common meaning of the laws were meant to discuss LOGIC specifically from an 'outsiders' eye looking in on what is common to all forms of logical systems, including scientific reasoning.
You are making up a story here. The Laws of thought were "laid down" by a man who was essentially a philosopher. He had no idea that different "forms of logical systems" would appear. Logic as we think of it now, i.e. as an abstract theory of logical reasoning where truth is merely assumed for the sake of the argument, came about essentially because of the Stoics and the Scholastic. It would have been news to Aristotle. He thought instead of logic as something that made sense only if applied to actual truths, i.e. facts. He had an empirical mind. It's the Stoics who started the abstraction of logic that led to mathematical logic. So, I wouldn't presume to know whether he saw the Law of Identity as essentially logical or as meta-logical.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:09 pm
And if you are "asking about the Law of Identity", you require understanding the motives for the creation of the set of "laws of thought". If you are NOT interested in the 'logic' of it, what are you bothering to speak about this for? ....artistic interpretation? ...literature? Why EXCLUDE the very subject, LOGIC, as the meas to discuss this?
I don't exclude anything.
This thread isn't about the logic of it.
I don't require understanding of anything.
I asked what people "thought" and I asked that because that's what I'm interested in.
EB
Speakpigeon wrote:
That's exactly what I did. I'm asking about the Law of Identity and I'm not interested in the logic of it. I think it's very clear. And it's OK if you can't answer that.
You are presuming the 'laws of thought' were laid down by non-logicians. The common meaning of the laws were meant to discuss LOGIC specifically from an 'outsiders' eye looking in on what is common to all forms of logical systems, including scientific reasoning.
You are making up a story here. The Laws of thought were "laid down" by a man who was essentially a philosopher. He had no idea that different "forms of logical systems" would appear. Logic as we think of it now, i.e. as an abstract theory of logical reasoning where truth is merely assumed for the sake of the argument, came about essentially because of the Stoics and the Scholastic. It would have been news to Aristotle. He thought instead of logic as something that made sense only if applied to actual truths, i.e. facts. He had an empirical mind. It's the Stoics who started the abstraction of logic that led to mathematical logic. So, I wouldn't presume to know whether he saw the Law of Identity as essentially logical or as meta-logical.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:09 pm
And if you are "asking about the Law of Identity", you require understanding the motives for the creation of the set of "laws of thought". If you are NOT interested in the 'logic' of it, what are you bothering to speak about this for? ....artistic interpretation? ...literature? Why EXCLUDE the very subject, LOGIC, as the meas to discuss this?
I don't exclude anything.
This thread isn't about the logic of it.
I don't require understanding of anything.
I asked what people "thought" and I asked that because that's what I'm interested in.
EB
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:38 pm
I don't require understanding of anything.
I asked what people "thought" and I asked that because that's what I'm interested in.
Sophistry revealed.
Fails to recognize that interest and curiosity are the same emotion.
Fails to state criteria which would satisfy his curiosity.
The question: "What is thought?" is born out of curiosity. Out of the need to know thyself.
Newton made his philosophical method quite clear. If Newton made a statement, it was always going to be something which could be tested, either directly or by examining its logical consequences and testing them. If there was no way of deciding on the truth of a proposition except by interminable argument and then only to the satisfaction of the arguer, then he wasn’t going to devote any time to it. In order to derive logical consequences that could be tested, it was necessary to frame his statements with a very high degree of clarity, preferably in algebra, and failing that Latin. Nowadays we drop the Latin option.
The symbol grounding problem is related to the problem of how words (symbols) get their meanings, and hence to the problem of what meaning itself really is. The problem of meaning is in turn related to the problem of how it is that mental states are meaningful, hence to the problem of consciousness.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:34 pm
So tell me, oh wiser one, what have you learned?
I learned what people thought the law of identity means.
EB
If nobody has a good definition of "meaning"...then what is a good definition of "definition"?
I guess some people think a good definition would be one that a computer could compute but dictionary definitions are made for people, not computers. And people understand dictionary definitions. So, I guess, what's the problem already?
EB
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:37 pm
I guess some people think a good definition would be one that a computer could compute but dictionary definitions are made for people, not computers. And people understand dictionary definitions. So, I guess, what's the problem already?
EB
The problem is decidability.
In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer.
The problem is that certain decisions a human can make trivially, while a computer cannot ( subject to the halting problem ).
The problem is that you can trivially determine the truth-value and correctness of "I know murder is wrong." whereas we still have no idea how to explain it to some bonehead philosophers, let alone to a machine!
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:37 pm
I guess some people think a good definition would be one that a computer could compute but dictionary definitions are made for people, not computers. And people understand dictionary definitions. So, I guess, what's the problem already?
EB
The problem is decidability.
In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer.
The problem is that certain decisions a human can make trivially, while a computer cannot ( subject to the halting problem ).
The problem is that you can trivially determine the truth-value and correctness of "I know murder is wrong." whereas we still have no idea how to explain it to some bonehead philosophers, let alone to a machine!
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:30 pmYou claim all is choice, then when someone does not choose your interpretation you claim they are wrong...
Because the very notion of "interpretation" pertains to language!
There is very little to interpret about a kick to the balls. It fucking hurts! Mis-interpret that.
There's very little to interpret about dying. It's a one-way street. Mis-interpret that.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:30 pm
Actually you claim truth and morality are seperate categories...so "the truth-value and correctness of "I know murder is wrong"...you get the point.
No. What I claim is that to speak of truth as separate from ethics is an error. To invent some linguistic notions of "right" and "wrong" and to separate them from moral rightness and wrongness is idiotic.
In fact any definition of "truth" disconnected from ethics is an error. But that's the way most people think - so I adjust my language to their understanding.
Is the Earth flat or round? Who cares? What are the ethical consequences for getting it wrong? None whatsoever? Sophistry!
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:30 pmYou claim all is choice, then when someone does not choose your interpretation you claim they are wrong...
Because the very notion of "interpretation" pertains to language!
There is very little to interpret about a kick to the balls. It fucking hurts! Mis-interpret that.
There's very little to interpret about dying. It's a one-way street. Mis-interpret that.
And language is symbolism and symbolism is grounded in space, space is the grounds of consciousness.
I die...I black out...0d point space.
I get kicked in the balls, I black out...0d point space.
Space is the foundation of all symbolism.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:30 pm
Actually you claim truth and morality are seperate categories...so "the truth-value and correctness of "I know murder is wrong"...you get the point.
No. What I claim is that to speak of truth as separate from ethics is an error. To invent some linguistic notions of "right" and "wrong" and to separate them from moral rightness and wrongness is idiotic.
But you argue language is a tool and people invent tools...and now you claim it is idiotic?
In fact any definition of "truth" disconnected from ethics is an error. But that's the way most people think - so I adjust my language to their understanding.
Is the Earth flat or round? Who cares? What are the ethical consequences for getting it wrong? None whatsoever? Sophistry!
False, because your job is in probability management...you have to understand the nature of the phenomenon you are calculating...but this in itself is sophistry according to the same stance you argue.
