The Law of Identity

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry for stating the obvious, but formal logic is a theory, so it can only work within a limited scope of applicability. Seeing decision as a logical issue".

Well, thank you for making my point. If logic is a theory within a scope of applicability then you are taking an instrumentalist view on logic.
It serves a particular purpose within a particular domain of applicability.

So all I need to rebutt your point is to point this out: given a set of different tools/instruments (THEORIES!) you could use within the particular domain you are USING logic.
How and why did you CHOOSE logic and not some other tool?

What do you mean by "you"? Are you talking to my brain?
People choose, that's an empirical fact, something you normally should be able to observe for yourself, on yourself, notwithstanding the idiots who deny we have free will. However, choices are not entirely or even necessarily made by the conscious and rational part of the mind. Choices are essentially made by our brain and, most of the time, we, i.e. the conscious rational homunculus, is just made to believe it is doing it. So, essentially, and most of the time, I have not the faintest idea how I get to choose what I do. It's only a small part of what I do that I have a say about as a rational and deciding homonculus. As a rational thing, all I can do is pay attention to the oracle and the oracle insisted logic is the most important thing in the whole universe. So, I sort of got interested. I choose to do it because I listened to my inner oracle. What else? It's the only thing that seems to have some expertise.
Also, I don't limit myself to logic. For example, listening to the oracle doesn't require that I use logic at all. Also, action is based on logic but also on facts. And facts aren't logic, although I guess deep down it's still logic but not conscious, and deeper still is the law of nature, not logic. Deep enough, there's no longer any logic at all. And at the boundary, there has to be inputs and those aren't logic. The thing is, I seem to have plenty of facts and plenty of inputs without having to sweat. Even my logic is 99.99% intuitive. Basically, it's also a fact. So, decision isn't such a problem. I didn't decide to be born. Yet, here I am. See? I think decision is overrated. It's a thing we do and clearly we have to do it. What's the problem exactly?
EB

[Logik]

What do you mean by "you"? Are you talking to my brain?
People choose, that's an empirical fact, something you normally should be able to observe for yourself, on yourself, notwithstanding the idiots who deny we have free will. However, choices are not entirely or even necessarily made by the conscious and rational part of the mind. Choices are essentially made by our brain and, most of the time,

Until you recognize that a choice exists where you allowed your brain to go on auto-pilot before.

Where you have defaulted to Classical logic - another choice exist. Decision theory.

we, i.e. the conscious rational homunculus, is just made to believe it is doing it. So, essentially, and most of the time, I have not the faintest idea how I get to choose what I do.

And that is what I mean by "you have not claimed your free will". 60-70% of my day I get to choose PRECISELY what I do. Every move is calculated. Every word uttered is intentional. Every command typed into the computer has a clear and precise purpose.

And the work I do has consequences impacting millions of people. So when I fuck up - people notice. Rather quickly at that.

Also, I don't limit myself to logic. For example, listening to the oracle doesn't require that I use logic at all. Also, action is based on logic but also on facts. And facts aren't logic, although I guess deep down it's still logic but not conscious. And at the boundary, there has to be inputs and those aren't logic. The thing is, I seem to have plenty of facts and plenty of inputs without having to sweat. Even my logic is 99.99% intuitive. Basically, it's also a fact. So, decision isn't such a problem. I didn't decide to be born. Yet, here I am. See? I think decision is overrated. It's a thing we do and clearly we have to do it. What's the problem exactly?
EB

The concepts of control/power/determinism etc are completely foreign to you.

Sure. You don't need any of those notions when you are merely passively observing the universe, but when you want to change something. Anything. Then you immediately recognize their importance.

Horses for courses.

[Speakpigeon]

What do you mean by "you"? Are you talking to my brain?
People choose, that's an empirical fact, something you normally should be able to observe for yourself, on yourself, notwithstanding the idiots who deny we have free will. However, choices are not entirely or even necessarily made by the conscious and rational part of the mind. Choices are essentially made by our brain and, most of the time,

Until you recognize that a choice exists where you allowed your brain to go on auto-pilot before.
Where you have defaulted to Classical logic - another choice exist. Decision theory.

Maybe your brain works differently from mine, which wouldn't be surprising given your frenzied and chaotic posting here.
Personally, I trust my brain more than I trust myself or indeed any so-called "expert". I listen to the oracle. Maybe we're not trying to achieve the same kind of thing. But I'm fine, thanks.

we, i.e. the conscious rational homunculus, is just made to believe it is doing it. So, essentially, and most of the time, I have not the faintest idea how I get to choose what I do.

And that is what I mean by "you have not claimed your free will". 60-70% of my day I get to choose PRECISELY what I do. Every move is calculated. Every word uttered is intentional. Every command typed into the computer has a clear and precise purpose.

That sounds to me like you have a serious mental condition.
You can't choose not to have it, though.

And the work I do has consequences impacting millions of people. So when I fuck up - people notice. Rather quickly at that.

???
You seem really confused. This piece of trivia is irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Also, I don't limit myself to logic. For example, listening to the oracle doesn't require that I use logic at all. Also, action is based on logic but also on facts. And facts aren't logic, although I guess deep down it's still logic but not conscious. And at the boundary, there has to be inputs and those aren't logic. The thing is, I seem to have plenty of facts and plenty of inputs without having to sweat. Even my logic is 99.99% intuitive. Basically, it's also a fact. So, decision isn't such a problem. I didn't decide to be born. Yet, here I am. See? I think decision is overrated. It's a thing we do and clearly we have to do it. What's the problem exactly.

The concepts of control/power/determinism etc are completely foreign to you.

It's not but I'm not insane. You are.

Sure. You don't need any of those notions when you are merely passively observing the universe, but when you want to change something. Anything. Then you immediately recognize their importance.

You're talking too much about what you don't know. I'm not passively observing the universe.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Of the possible epistemic positions (foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism) HOW and WHY have you CHOSEN foundationalism?
Why didn't you CHOOSE the other ones?

Sorry, my position is nothing that simple. And I came to it because it was the only logical solution.
See? People can decide to do believe something on recognising that it is the only logical possibility. Does this not show conclusively that logic can be used to decide.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Sure, we all know that and I would have thought we all understand why that is.

If you reject decidability as being part of logic/reason then it is pertinently obvious that you do not understand WHY that is.

Prove to me I don't understand.

The simple answer is complexity.

???
Er, no.
And you keep misinterpreting what I say, most likely because you have an attention-deficit disorder or some such. I didn't exclude decisions from being logical. Quite the contrary. I'm assuming that whatever our brain does from neurons upwards, it must be possible to usefully describe it in logical terms. But that's logic, not formal logic. I said decision is excluded from formal logic. You just missed one word. One out of two.
EB

[Eodnhoj7]

Don't freak out because choice theory has a massive hole in it...I am not arguing for it...you are.

Are you sure I am the one freaking out?

Because you sure are arguing for interpretation. And interpretation is grounded in choice.

You can CHOOSE to interpret "murder is wrong".
You can CHOOSE to interpret "murder is right".
You can CHOOSE to interpret "murder is undefined".

I know that murder is wrong!

That you can CHOOSE a know differently is not a hole in my theory. It's a hole in your morality.

If you want to plug the hole just make a different choice!

Actually you claim to be a coherentist. And that "choice"? Choice theory is an interpretation. It because recursive...choice leads to interpretation which leads to choice which leads to interpretation...etc.

It is not assymetric.

However, even under the nature of "choice"...the "choice theory" you push as dogma...is subject to the same choice of not just interpretation but how to manifest it...or even listen to it all together.

Is murder wrong? Yes. Are people free to choose it? Yes. Choice theory argues this, you fail to take this into account.

There is no "hole" in the Golden Rule, because the Golden rule is grounded in reciprocation and value formation...as well as the consequences that come with it.

You claimed that the ideal, if memory serves, is to literally or metaphorically reduce the human condition to "a brain in a vat". This is murder. Everything you stand for is murder as man as strictly being a "computer" to you, is strictly man as a disposable tool.

The only thing I am arguing is "existence".

[Logik]

Actually you claim to be a coherentist. And that "choice"? Choice theory is an interpretation. It because recursive...choice leads to interpretation which leads to choice which leads to interpretation...etc.

You are still stuck on a linguistic notions of "interpretation". There is nothing to (mis?)interpret to a kick in the shins. It hurts!

Given the CHOICE to get kicked or NOT to get kicked. I prefer not getting kicked. Nothing to do with interpretation.

[Logik]

And you keep misinterpreting what I say, most likely because you have an attention-deficit disorder or some such. I didn't exclude decisions from being logical. Quite the contrary. I'm assuming that whatever our brain does from neurons upwards, it must be possible to usefully describe it in logical terms. But that's logic, not formal logic. I said decision is excluded from formal logic. You just missed one word. One out of two.

Your very conception of "logic" is amiss then! That you seem to draw a distinction between "logic" and "formal logic" is already some incoherence!
Your very conception of what a "description" is seems to be further incoherence.

Observe that you use the term "usefully describe". State your utility! Draw us a distinction between a "useful" and a "useless" description!

"The cat is black" Is that a useful or useless description?

I am certain that we CAN describe the brain in logical terms. Something like temporal type theory: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10258.pdf
Not only can we describe it in temporal type theory that is precisely what we are using to build artificial brains!

And I am also absolutely certain that you are NOT going to describe it in Classical Logic e.g set theory. Why? Because Godel incompleteness!

What we are simply disagreeing on is WHAT logic is. Your ontology and my ontology are vastly different.

The way I conceptualize logic is in terms of structure, determinism, precision, clarity, lack of ambiguity. ALL the things English is NOT.
If a description in what you call "logic" can be interpreted in 1000 different ways - it's not logic.

[Logik]

Prove to me I don't understand.

Q.E.D

In asking me to prove a negative you have proven your lack of understanding!

This is my bar for what it means to "understand": What I cannot create - I do not understand --Richard Feynman

Have you ever created a logic from first principles? If you have - then I will concede that you "understand" logic.
Until then - you fall short of my own standard for "understanding".

Inventing logics is part and parcel for any computer science degree nowadays. Here is free knowledge: https://online.stanford.edu/courses/soe ... -compilers

This self-paced course will discuss the major ideas used today in the implementation of programming language compilers, including lexical analysis, parsing, syntax-directed translation, abstract syntax trees, types and type checking, intermediate languages, dataflow analysis, program optimization, code generation, and runtime systems. As a result, you will learn how a program written in a high-level language designed for humans is systematically translated into a program written in low-level assembly more suited to machines. Along the way we will also touch on how programming languages are designed, programming language semantics, and why there are so many different kinds of programming languages.

[Logik]

That sounds to me like you have a serious mental condition.

Indeed. My mental condition is called "knowing how to think for myself".
It is quite obvious to me that you don't suffer from it.

You can't choose not to have it, though.

I can, but I don't want to. On the other hand you can't choose TO have it.
Not trivially anyway. Like all skills it requires practice, practice, practice!

Ignorance must be bliss.

[Speakpigeon]

Have you ever created a logic from first principles? If you have - then I will concede that you "understand" logic.
Until then - you fall short of my own standard for "understanding".

Mathematicians have been busy over the last 120 years creating any number of various theories about what they think of as "logic". Yet, they still understand logic. So your claim is hereby falsified.

Inventing logics is part and parcel for any computer science degree nowadays. Here is free knowledge: https://online.stanford.edu/courses/soe ... -compilers

This self-paced course will discuss the major ideas used today in the implementation of programming language compilers, including lexical analysis, parsing, syntax-directed translation, abstract syntax trees, types and type checking, intermediate languages, dataflow analysis, program optimization, code generation, and runtime systems. As a result, you will learn how a program written in a high-level language designed for humans is systematically translated into a program written in low-level assembly more suited to machines. Along the way we will also touch on how programming languages are designed, programming language semantics, and why there are so many different kinds of programming languages.

Only idiots will believe that that kind of training will help you understand logic. You're just one in a very large bunch of morons. As I understand it, there may be today, worldwide, 3000 to 25,000 researchers working on logic, either on the theory or the application of it. You're all mindlessly busy building upward still another floor.
Logic is downstairs.
EB

[Logik]

Mathematicians have been busy over the last 120 years creating any number of various theories about what they think of as "logic". Yet, they still understand logic. So your claim is hereby falsified.

Mathematicians are fools. Mathematics is a language and most mathematicians haven't got the first clue of how linguistics work as a system.
So they keep making the same irrational mistakes as you - equivocation, linguistic overloading, identity violations.

You're all mindlessly busy building upward still another floor.

And you are naively insisting to remain on the ground floor.
Because reality absolutely MUST fit in the language we have for it.

Such idiotic entitlement...

Logic is downstairs.

Precisely. Logic is metaphysics. It's the building blocks with which you construct your understanding of reality.

https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

Don't mind us, though. You sure "know" what logic is - just a shame that you can't tell anybody about it.

[Speakpigeon]

Logic is downstairs.

Precisely. Logic is metaphysics. It's the building blocks with which you construct your understanding of reality.

You read too much stuff you don't understand. Logic is not metaphysics.

Don't mind us, though. You sure "know" what logic is - just a shame that you can't tell anybody about it.

Where's the shame? What would be the use to telling anyone?
What would be the use of a correct method of logic?
Remember, we already have a brain...
Well, most of us anyway.
EB

[Logik]

You read too much stuff you don't understand. Logic is not metaphysics.

It is for me. I made sure of it when I engineered my mind.

What would be the use of a correct method of logic?

You don't think it's useful to have a model/conception of one's own mind?
So that you can reason about its inner workings, as well as communicate them to others?

Remember, we already have a brain...

It's a shame you aren't using it to its full potential.

The difference is your brain is a black box to you.

[Eodnhoj7]

And you keep misinterpreting what I say, most likely because you have an attention-deficit disorder or some such. I didn't exclude decisions from being logical. Quite the contrary. I'm assuming that whatever our brain does from neurons upwards, it must be possible to usefully describe it in logical terms. But that's logic, not formal logic. I said decision is excluded from formal logic. You just missed one word. One out of two.

Your very conception of "logic" is amiss then! That you seem to draw a distinction between "logic" and "formal logic" is already some incoherence!
Your very conception of what a "description" is seems to be further incoherence.

False, all things are incoherent to you except your own position. I can make the claim "y" is incoherent and claim it is not conherent because I can continually take it apart through regression or atomism. This continual regression however effectively makes it coherent, withou your intention, as all axioms are extension of the axiom being "torn apart".

Observe that you use the term "usefully describe". State your utility! Draw us a distinction between a "useful" and a "useless" description!\

Tell me what a "distinction" is first?




"The cat is black" Is that a useful or useless description?

I am certain that we CAN describe the brain in logical terms. Something like temporal type theory: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10258.pdf
Not only can we describe it in temporal type theory that is precisely what we are using to build artificial brains!

Actually an artificial brain is strictly a replica, and as a replica is not equal to the original; hence we cannot fully understand the original source (the brain) through an artificial version as the original version built it. In simpler terms, the artificial version is an approximation.

And I am also absolutely certain that you are NOT going to describe it in Classical Logic e.g set theory. Why? Because Godel incompleteness!

False, Godel's incompleteness is subject to its own laws as what is deamed as "incomplete" is canceled out under its own methodology. Existence "is".



What we are simply disagreeing on is WHAT logic is. Your ontology and my ontology are vastly different.

False, you just continually observe divergent thinking...you have no ontology other than taking one axiom and inverting it into another. You create chaos, and have no value.

The way I conceptualize logic is in terms of structure, determinism, precision, clarity, lack of ambiguity. ALL the things English is NOT.
If a description in what you call "logic" can be interpreted in 1000 different ways - it's not logic.

Thanks for giving that statement in english...

Actually observing a statement exists through continual variation, observes all logic as existing through a progressive continuum from which one axiom is directed to another.

Prime triad...get over it.

Actually on second thought you can't, because if you cannot program it you cannot understand it.

Finite mind...