The Existential Crisis

[uwot]

...tell me your method that makes you not an idiot.

You aren't hearing a thing of what I am saying. It's not your choice that makes you an idiot. It's not that you don't know HOW you've chosen that makes you an idiot. It's that you have NO WAY OF KNOWING if your choice is wrong - that's why you are an idiot.

I'm guessing that you think that you calling me an idiot should concern me. Presumably that is because you do have some way of knowing if your choice is wrong, and that makes you less of an idiot. So again:

...tell me your method that makes you not an idiot.

That's right Skepdick, because idiot or not, I can identify red with the same accuracy as you.

You can't really assert that without a criterion for inaccuracy! Idiot.

Well, that's the thing about being an empiricist; while in day to day language it appears I'm making an assertion, really I'm just predicting that if you and I were to play guess which red is red, any criterion you apply for inaccuracy will give you no advantage.

[Age]

But telling and explaining HOW I tell things apart, including the very simple issue of morality, is an extremely simple and easy thing to do, as can be evidenced, and proven.

Stop telling me it's easy and show me how easy it is.

I did show you already, before when you said and wrote; "OK. Explain that process to me."

Did you miss it?

[Age]

I looked at them.

I looked at them too. And then what did you do?

According to who? Certainly not the Paul Feyerabend who famously wrote 'Against Method'. Which Feyerabend are you 100% in favour of?

Are you sure you've read the book?

He was against method. Singular.
He was certainly not against methods. Plural.

From my perspective, "method", singular, was what was clearly actually written and expressed, to you.

"Anything goes" implies that there is SOME method.

Why can't you tell me what YOUR method is?

But I have told you what my method is. You, for some actual reason, have just either misinterpreted it, misunderstood it, mistook it, or just completely missed it altogether.

Well yeah Skepdick, telling colours at different ends of the visible spectrum apart is trivial. That you find it difficult is laughable.

Is that the best strawman you could come up with?

Telling colors apart is trivial for me too.

I am not asking you to tell me THAT you have done it.
I am asking you to tell me HOW you have done it.

You looked at it.... and then... the answer miraculously appeared?

For me, the answer did NOT "miraculously appeared". The process and method that I used to obtain the answer, I have explained to you ALREADY.

If I were a philosopher of morality, that would be a problem.

You are a philosopher of science. And you can't even science.

Ethics is one of those things we haven't yet managed to turn into a science.

And what caricatured version of "science" do you have there?

Remove humans from the decision-making process? Let the models think for us?

If one day we do, it will almost certainly be with help from computer scientists.

It's already a "science". Our great great great great mothers had it figured out.

In the language of the Christians: All of you are sinners!
Which neatly translates into English: All of you are wrong!

Wisdom comes in knowing that it's not always wrong to be wrong.

But are you even wise enough to KNOW that the word 'sinners' can actually mean something else completely different?

If you were, then you would also KNOW that with that definition it does NOT translate into "all of you are wrong", at all.

But not ones such as yourself who insist that the tautology 'murder is immoral' is some kind of insight.

What sort of "insight" do you expect? Do you expect to outsource your thinking?

The history of science is littered with cranks who thought that some method suited to one field was universally efficacious.

Yes! NOT dying is universally efficacious to scientists.

You don't need to do science to be alive, but you need to be alive to do science.

Whatever use you find for having to define your method for contrasting red and blue in computer science, you haven't made your case that it isn't simply needless obfuscation in other fields.

We don't have ANY use for contrasting red and blue.
But we have ALL the use for contrasting things like true and false.

But, according to your own so called "logic" it is not possible to know what is true and false, right and wrong, correct?

You can't even do it for trivial stuff. Why do you think you can do it for anything else?

But as already explained to you, the very simple and easy method and process for contrasting red and blue IS USEFUL, which is, in fact, ALSO
the very useful EXACT SAME method and process for contrasting things like true and false, right and wrong. Unfortunately for you though, because of your beliefs you are not able to discover, learn, recognize, nor understand this process and method.

[Age]

Age wrote:

Is there a way to produce a non-linguistic description of X?

Some artists make non-linguistic, non-symbolic, descriptions of x, and n too. Such descriptions are characterised by self reference .
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/lauriemull/ ... ferential/

A picture of a pipe with caption "This is not a pipe" and Skepdick's coloured propositions have the same logical structure.

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

Paralinguistic information, because it is phenomenal, belongs to the external speech signal (Ferdinand de Saussure's parole) but not to the arbitrary conventional code of language (Saussure's langue).

Thank you "belinda" for answering my question.

[Age]

And you think you can make that point by making out that identifying red as red is problematic? Okie-dokie, if our problem is that we don't have a method by which can prove to ourselves that our choice of red is the correct one, tell me your method that makes you not an idiot.

You aren't hearing a thing of what I am saying. It's not your choice that makes you an idiot. It's not that you don't know HOW you've chosen that makes you an idiot. It's that you have NO WAY OF KNOWING if your choice is wrong - that's why you are an idiot.

Do you, yourself, have a WAY OF KNOWING if your choice is wrong?

If yes, then what WAY is that way?

A. THIS IS RED IS THE CORRECT RED
B. THIS IS RED IS THE INCORRECT RED

That's right Skepdick, because idiot or not, I can identify red with the same accuracy as you.

You can't really assert that without a criterion for inaccuracy! Idiot.

What is your criterion for accuracy, and inaccuracy?

[Age]

This is not not-red

This is not not-red

This is not not not-red

This is not not not-red

The symbol/sign/signal is not the thing itself , and any language about the symbol/sign/signal is self referential. My examples are about the uses of negatives. Do multiple negatives cancel each other out?

Great question the answer to which goes right to the core of one's logical foundations.

What you have demonstrated/discovered is the question of how to deal with double negation.

Classical logic uses double-negation elimination - that is, it simply discards double negations.
Intuitionistic logic doesn't. Double negations are treated constructively.

That's what makes it empirical/epistemic. Double negation (falsification in empirical terms) produces new information.

Your discussion, Skepdick, considers the form of my examples, not the meanings. Same goes for your coloured texts , they are useful for illustrating form not meaning. It's unfair to ask how someone knows what red means, based on your coloured texts which refer to the form of the texts themselves , not the meaning of the texts.

If you asked "How do you know the font is red in the following : text ? I think that would be a genuine question that is not self referential.

Yes, asking a genuinely clarifiable question, then helps in the process of actual Truth and clarity being obtained.

Obviously the WAY OF KNOWING can be clarified. But, and again, ONLY to those who are OPEN to the FACT that it can be explained, AND understood.

[Skepdick]

Your discussion, Skepdick, considers the form of my examples, not the meanings.

On the contrary.

If you were to say to me "X is not a lion" then as far as I am concerned X could mean everything and anything in the entire universe.
And if you were to say to me " X is not-not a lion" then I'd have to wonder whether you are a classical or an intuitionistic logician.

Same goes for your coloured texts , they are useful for illustrating form not meaning. It's unfair to ask how someone knows what red means, based on your coloured texts which refer to the form of the texts themselves , not the meaning of the texts.

Not at all! I am well familiar with the form/meaning distinction - I am a formalist (in the mathematical/logical sense) after all. The purpose of the experiment is to demonstrate that "red" doesn't mean anything. Whatever meaning is - it's not in the word (form?) "red"

THIS COLOR MEANS WHATEVER IT MEANS - I CALL IT RED
THIS COLOR MEANS WHATEVER IT MEANS - I CALL IT RED

The very purpose of the experiment is to draw a sharp line between meaning and linguistic expressions. You could even see it as me asking the question "Why have you assigned THIS MEANING to the word "red' instead of THIS MEANING?"

In my usual Postmodern understanding of language I am basically taking a stand against Logocentrism.

"Logocentrism" refers to the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality.

I would correct the above statement as follows: Words and language are a fundamental expression of an internal reality.

The point of me asking is THIS RED; or is THIS RED? is precisely so that you can communicate your meaning of the term "red" to me.

[Skepdick]

Well, that's the thing about being an empiricist; while in day to day language it appears I'm making an assertion, really I'm just predicting that if you and I were to play guess which red is red, any criterion you apply for inaccuracy will give you no advantage.

And you still missed the point! Who would arbitrate the "accuracy" or "inaccuracy" or our selections? Who would keep score in our little game?

Who would determine and how whether me OR you guessed "correctly" or "incorrectly?"

I say that THIS IS RED. By what criterion would an arbiter determine my "wrongness"?

[Belinda]

Your discussion, Skepdick, considers the form of my examples, not the meanings.

On the contrary.

If you were to say to me "X is not a lion" then as far as I am concerned X could mean everything and anything in the entire universe.
And if you were to say to me " X is not-not a lion" then I'd have to wonder whether you are a classical or an intuitionistic logician.

Same goes for your coloured texts , they are useful for illustrating form not meaning. It's unfair to ask how someone knows what red means, based on your coloured texts which refer to the form of the texts themselves , not the meaning of the texts.

Not at all! I am well familiar with the form/meaning distinction - I am a formalist (in the mathematical/logical sense) after all. The purpose of the experiment is to demonstrate that "red" doesn't mean anything. Whatever meaning is - it's not in the word (form?) "red"

THIS COLOR MEANS WHATEVER IT MEANS - I CALL IT RED
THIS COLOR MEANS WHATEVER IT MEANS - I CALL IT RED

The very purpose of the experiment is to draw a sharp line between meaning and linguistic expressions. You could even see it as me asking the question "Why have you assigned THIS MEANING to the word "red' instead of THIS MEANING?"

In my usual Postmodern understanding of language I am basically taking a stand against Logocentrism.

"Logocentrism" refers to the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality.

I would correct the above statement as follows: Words and language are a fundamental expression of an internal reality.

The point of me asking is THIS RED; or is THIS RED? is precisely so that you can communicate your meaning of the term "red" to me.

I suspect I am feeling my way more than you are. I must try, as this discussion is so interesting.

I don't know how to draw diagrams or pictures on my computer but if I did I'd draw a picture of

"Why have you assigned THIS MEANING to the word "red' instead of THIS MEANING?"

The picture would be captioned "Why?" and would feature a smiley emoticon , the = sign, and an amorphous red blob. A case in point is some Chinese characters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_c ... sification. this is evidence words are not the only or even the best means of communication.

Most English words if any are not pictographs. What fun if they were.I daresay the best that can be done in this direction are onomatopoeia , assonance, and rhythm which poets specialise in. There is also concrete poetry.E.g. The Mouse's Tale by Lewis Carroll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse ... d_Ch.3.jpg

My point is your coloured words examples are artefacts made by you. you intend to imply a specific interpretation and no other. But I prefer to interpret your coloured words as self reflective, because your claims are about words, and words in precisely that form you moulded. Claims about the structure of a bit of language can't also be claims about what the bit of language means to somebody else surely? As I said, poets have gone as far in that direction as anyone can. BTW Lewis Carroll was a logician .

A minor point; can you correct "internal reality" so I know whether you intend subjective reality or structural reality of the form ?

[uwot]

I say that THIS IS RED. By what criterion would an arbiter determine my "wrongness"?

I say, 'Because it's blue.' Here's a little story for you:
Once upon a time there was a sad little troll called Skepdick. He lived in his mummy's basement, where he sat all day in his underpants eating ice cream and making up stories about how he used to be very important and rich. The End. Now, do I actually believe this story? Funnily enough I do, but not so much that that some evidence to the contrary wouldn't persuade me otherwise. That evidence wouldn't be some shit-for-brains 'arbiter', it would be some empirical evidence. I genuinely don't give a fuck what your arbiter says, and you know perfectly well that you cannot give me a reason why I should.

[Skepdick]

I say, 'Because it's blue.'

I know what you said. I am not interested in your conclusion. I am interested in your thought process.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

THIS IS BLUE OR RED
THIS IS BLUE OR RED

Once upon a time there was a sad little troll called Skepdick. He lived in his mummy's basement, where he sat all day in his underpants eating ice cream and making up stories about how he used to be very important and rich. The End. Now, do I actually believe this story? Funnily enough I do, but not so much that that some evidence to the contrary wouldn't persuade me otherwise.

That is PRECISELY how confirmation bias works!

Q.E.D Idiot philosopher.

That evidence wouldn't be some shit-for-brains 'arbiter', it would be some empirical evidence. I genuinely don't give a fuck what your arbiter says, and you know perfectly well that you cannot give me a reason why I should.

I know this!

The arbiter would be "some empirical evidence" - BUT YOU CAN'T TELL US!!! You keep mystically referring to "the evidence" but you continue NOT telling us what "the evidence" is!

You can't tell us what "empirical evidence" YOU EXAMINED to confirm the hypothesis THIS IS RED!!!
You can't tell us what "empirical evidence" YOU EXAMINED to dismiss the hypothesis THIS IS RED!!!

All you are doing is re-affirming that you suffer from confirmation bias and you have NO CLUE how to escape it.

[Belinda]

This top line
is shorter than this lower line which has more characters.

Is this true for me, true for you, or true to the form of the text?

It's true for me and you because we have learned a) it's useful to compare lengths and b) because we have been presented with things of different sizes.

It's true to the form of the text because we can compare each of these lines to the same criterion e.g. a ruler marked in centimetres.But we have to specify the linear perspective before we measure the lengths.

Colours seem mysterious compared with lengths and breadths however colours are attributes like spatial dimensions are attributes. We learn colours from our experiences, and we know that the form of such and such is red because we can if necessary compare it with a spectrum.

I conclude you and I know which is red or redder , and which is long or shorter, because we learn from experience. We also learn linear perspectives from experience. Formal measurements are arbitrary however that's not to say formal measurements reflect eternal truths.

It would be odd if Skepdick and uwot did not share very much the same learning opportunities as each other and everyone else. It's reasonable conclude nearly everybody shares much the same neuronal patterns concerned with learned experiences.

[uwot]

You can't tell us what "empirical evidence" YOU EXAMINED to confirm the hypothesis THIS IS RED!!!

Skepdick me old china, I understand that you have given yourself license to cobble together any old string of words and insist that it means whatever you happen to be thinking at that moment, and that could be abso-fucking-lutely any shade of shit. Do yourself a favour and take at least one step up from your mum's basement and drop this silly nonsense about red being an hypothesis.

[Skepdick]

This top line
is shorter than this lower line which has more characters.

Is this true for me, true for you, or true to the form of the text?

So I can confidently answer "yes, it's true" because I have inferred that what you mean by "length" is "number of characters".
And so by counting the number of letters in the top (13) is less than the number of letters at the bottom (57).

It's quantitatively true. But I am attempting to walk a very thin line between quantities and qualities, so there's a meta-question here.

"This sentence." has exactly the same grammatical and semantic structure as "This sentence".
How about "This sentence."?

So the question for me is do they have the "same structure" for you? By answering this question you are allowing me to infer whether you consider font color and font size as "part of the structure".

A reductionist (as I understand that word) would answer affirmatively "Yes. They have the same structure."
A holist (as I understand that word) would answer affirmatively "No. They don't have the same structure."

It's true to the form of the text because we can compare each of these lines to the same criterion e.g. a ruler marked in centimetres.But we have to specify the linear perspective before we measure the lengths.

So this comment is raising some confusion in my mind. The length of the sentence when measured in centimetres is different to the length of the sentence in "number of characters it contains".

So as far as I can tell you are equivocating the notion of "length". To demonstrate.

This is a sentence.
This is a sentence.

By your first notion of length (number of letters) both of the above are "the same length", but by the latter notion of "length" (centimetres) they are not the same length.

Nothing new here really. It's good ol' Protagoras: Man is the measure of all things.

Colours seem mysterious compared with lengths and breadths however colours are attributes like spatial dimensions are attributes. We learn colours from our experiences, and we know that the form of such and such is red because we can if necessary compare it with a spectrum.

So this is perhaps the crux of my point. We learn how to use language empirically, but that's very very limiting.

The human mind works much better with richer forms of communication. Text, imagery, video, sound (as you point out in your previous post).
All of these things help makes inter-personal communication more effective/rapid. They contain extra information - they contain more of the colour of our emotions/memories/experiences.

I conclude you and I know which is red or redder , and which is long or shorter, because we learn from experience. We also learn linear perspectives from experience. Formal measurements are arbitrary however that's not to say formal measurements reflect eternal truths.

Formal measurements are indeed arbitrary, but that's hardly a problem. If I can communicate my measurement method in a way that you can perform it for yourself - I have effectively allowed you to experience what I am experiencing. We are (as we say) on "the same page".

In computer science we call this "synchronization", but that's more technical jargon that is really not necessary. It's what comes intuitive to most women, but men are completely stupid at it - it's emotional bonding.

It would be odd if Skepdick and uwot did not share very much the same learning opportunities as each other and everyone else. It's reasonable conclude nearly everybody shares much the same neuronal patterns concerned with learned experiences.

I wouldn't be so hasty to draw such conclusions. As humans we probably share much of the same experiences. Is just that for very strongly pragmatic purposes my social/professional circle has developed mandatory skills (and language) to be able to collectively do the kind of work that we do.

Like I said: we went and systemised what comes to comes to women naturally. Cooperation and communication.

We turned it into a science.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick me old china, I understand that you have given yourself license to cobble together any old string of words and insist that it means whatever you happen to be thinking at that moment, and that could be abso-fucking-lutely any shade of shit. Do yourself a favour and take at least one step up from your mum's basement and drop this silly nonsense about red being an hypothesis.

OK! Let it not be a hypothesis. Let it be a theory - supported by evidence and everything (or so you claim). You aren't claiming that it's something more than a theory, are you? If it's not a theory what sort of beast is it?

According to your evidence-based theory the English word "red" means THIS COLOR.

So show me the fucking evidence already!

P.S My "mum's house" doesn't have a basement. I should know - I bought it for her. My house does have a basement, but my mom doesn't live here. So...go fuck yourself ?