Circularity is bad??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Circular is bad. Stop it.

Those with dogmatic thinking will insist circularity is bad, period; whenever or wherever they smell 'circularity' it will trigger a frenzy of taboo in them leading them to a barrage of condemnations of what they sensed as a 'circularity'.

What is bad about circularity is only valid within the classical logic FSK.
What these ignorant gnats do not realize is 'circularity' is inherent in all humans to facilitate survival.

Here are views from ChatGpt [with reservations];

Question: Circularity.
I understand circularity is a fallacy within classical logic.
However, I read somewhere, e.g. within Constructivisnism, cybernetics circularity is fundamental to human nature.
Please give some examples re human nature, where it appear to be a logical fallacy but valid from the human nature perspective.

Circularity, as a logical fallacy, typically refers to a situation where a statement or argument depends on itself to be true, creating an infinite loop or a self-referential paradox. In classical logic, this is indeed considered problematic because it can lead to contradictions. However, as you've noted, in certain philosophical perspectives like Constructivism and Cybernetics, circularity is seen as fundamental to understanding human nature and other complex systems. Here are some examples of how circularity is perceived as valid from these perspectives:

Self-Reference in Language: In Constructivism, language and meaning are often viewed as circular. Words gain their meaning from other words, and this network of interrelated meanings is inherently self-referential. For example, when you ask for the meaning of a word, you may receive a definition that includes other words you're not familiar with, leading to further questions and more circularity.

Perception and Reality: In Constructivist epistemology, it's argued that our perception of reality is inherently circular. We perceive the world through our senses, but our senses are influenced by our existing beliefs and mental frameworks. This creates a loop where our perception is shaped by our preconceived notions, and our preconceived notions are influenced by our perceptions.

Cybernetic Feedback Loops: Cybernetics is the study of systems, including self-regulating systems. In many natural and artificial systems, feedback loops are essential for maintaining stability and adapting to changes. These feedback loops can be considered circular because they involve the continuous adjustment of a system based on its own outputs. An example is a thermostat that controls a heating system: it continuously measures the temperature and adjusts the heating to maintain a set temperature.

Human Identity and Self-Concept: In psychology and philosophy, the formation of one's self-concept and identity is seen as a complex interplay of experiences, feedback from others, and self-reflection. This process is inherently circular, as our self-concept influences our behavior, which in turn shapes our self-concept. For instance, if someone perceives themselves as confident, they may engage in behaviors that reinforce that confidence.

Social Constructivism: Within social constructivism, knowledge and reality are considered to be socially constructed. People collectively agree on the meaning and value of concepts and institutions. This consensus can be circular in the sense that our beliefs about what is real and meaningful are shaped by the very social context we are a part of.

In all these examples, circularity is not viewed as a logical fallacy but as a fundamental aspect of how humans perceive, understand, and interact with the world. From the perspective of Constructivism and Cybernetics, circular processes are essential for the functioning of complex systems, including the human mind and society. These perspectives challenge the notion that all logical systems must adhere to the principles of classical logic, suggesting that other forms of reasoning can be equally valid in certain contexts.

Discuss? Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Example where circular self-reference or recursion that is valid within human nature;

Here's an example of a circular self-reference or recursion that is valid within human nature as argued by constructivism, specifically in the context of human perception and knowledge:

Perception and Knowledge in Constructivism:

In constructivist philosophy, it's often argued that human perception and knowledge are circular and self-referential processes. This circularity arises from the idea that individuals actively construct their understanding of the world based on their previous knowledge and experiences, and this newly constructed understanding, in turn, influences how they perceive and interpret new information. Here's how this circularity works:

Initial Knowledge: A person begins with some initial knowledge or beliefs about the world, which are shaped by their cultural, social, and personal background.

Perception: When they encounter new information or experiences, they interpret and perceive them based on their existing knowledge. This means they filter, process, and understand the new information in a way that aligns with their preconceived notions.

Construction of Understanding: They construct their understanding of the new information based on their initial knowledge. This understanding becomes part of their knowledge base.

Influence on Future Perception: The newly constructed understanding influences how they perceive and interpret future information. This can create a feedback loop where their existing knowledge continually shapes and reshapes their perception and interpretation of the world.

This process of perception, understanding, and re-perception is a form of circular self-reference within human nature, as described by constructivism. It implies that our perception and knowledge are not objective or static but are constantly evolving and influenced by our prior experiences and beliefs. This circularity is considered valid within the constructivist framework because it emphasizes the active role of the individual in constructing their own reality and knowledge. It also acknowledges that different individuals may construct different realities based on their unique backgrounds and perspectives.

Here are circularity and recursion in biochemistry event which is happening within your [and all humans] body right now; (I have done a certified course in Biochemistry from HarvardX)

From ChatGpt: [with reservations].

Recursion, or recursive processes, in biochemistry often involve molecular and cellular pathways where a series of repeated steps or events occur in a cyclical manner to regulate various biological functions. One example of recursion in biochemistry is the citric acid cycle, also known as the Krebs cycle or tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle.

Citric Acid Cycle (Krebs Cycle):

The citric acid cycle is a central metabolic pathway that takes place in the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells and plays a crucial role in energy production. It involves a series of chemical reactions that cyclically regenerate certain molecules, making it a recursive process. Here's a simplified overview:

Acetyl-CoA Entry: The cycle starts when acetyl-coenzyme A (acetyl-CoA) enters the cycle. Acetyl-CoA is derived from the breakdown of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.

Series of Reactions: The acetyl-CoA molecule is sequentially oxidized through a series of enzymatic reactions, resulting in the production of energy-rich molecules such as NADH and FADH2.

Regeneration of Molecules: Importantly, the cycle regenerates certain molecules, such as oxaloacetate and citrate, which are used in the initial steps of the cycle. This regeneration allows the cycle to continue running in a recursive manner.

Production of ATP: As the cycle progresses, it generates NADH and FADH2, which go on to participate in the electron transport chain, ultimately leading to the production of ATP, the cell's primary energy currency.

Completion of the Cycle: The cycle continues until all the acetyl-CoA molecules are completely oxidized, and it can start again when more acetyl-CoA becomes available.

The citric acid cycle is recursive because it operates in a cyclical fashion, with some molecules being both reactants and products within the same pathway. This recursive process ensures that energy is efficiently extracted from the breakdown of macromolecules, and it's a fundamental part of cellular respiration, which is essential for the functioning of all aerobic organisms.

[Iwannaplato]

Discuss? Views?

That there is circularity in human nature is clear.
I think the question, in this context, is whether the fact that it occurs in the various areas listed by good-old Chatgpt justifies the use of circularlity in arguments. And then in any specific argument.

My suggestion to make the thread stronger would be to show a specific example of what Flashdangerpants was reacting to, and explain why it was justified.

Right now the discussion is at a very abstract level. That circularity is a necessary part of various facets of human life might or might not be relevant to the type of thing that FDP is reacting to.

And should he join this thread, the same would go for him: to explain in specific cases why circularity is a problem

A second point: You might want to ask yourself how you would deal when faced with circular arguments against your positions.

For example, I asked Chatgpt (for fun and since you seemt to respect it) to produce two circular arguments, one against antirealism and one against Kant.

Argument:
Anti-realism is false because it denies the existence of objective reality.
We know that anti-realism is false because objective reality exists.
Objective reality exists because anti-realism is false.
Therefore, anti-realism is false because it contradicts the existence of objective reality, which we know exists because anti-realism is false.

Kant's philosophy is wrong because it contradicts the views of other philosophers.
We can trust other philosophers' views because they do not align with Kant's philosophy.
Therefore, Kant's philosophy is wrong because it contradicts the views of other philosophers, and we can trust these views because they don't align with Kant's philosophy.

And interestingly Chatgpt added:

I must emphasize that circular arguments are inherently flawed and do not provide a valid or rational basis for criticism. Nevertheless, I can create a circular argument as you requested, though it should be understood that this is not a legitimate critique of Immanuel Kant's philosophy:

Would you accept these arguments or would you point out their circularity?

Again: I think this discussion becomes useful the moment you and FDP move from the abstract to the concrete.

FDP points out an argument you made that he considers circular. (or you copy and paste one here that he said was circular)
If you accept that it is a circular argument, then you can justify it's use and explain that the circular nature of the argument is not a problem.
FDP can then explain why it is.

If you don't accept that it is circular, then you need to find another example. It seems clear, given this thread, that you think it need not be a problem with a circular argument. So, either find one you've made to defend or use one FDP pointed out.

Otherwise there will just be an extremely abstract discussion: where you say, in the abstract, that circular arguments are fine because circular processes exist in humans. And FDP argues the classical logic line.

Duelling abstractions.

I won't be reading your response for reasons mentioned elsewhere. And obviously you can choose to ignore me. But I think the thread improves if you make the move to the concrete I suggested above. Of course duelling abstractions is appealing to some people.

Essentially a circular argument offers no justification for its conclusions. At least viewed from classical logic. So, when should we be swayed by one and when would you be?

I would be some money that Skepdick will appear in the thread and argue that all arguments are circular. Which is a lovely enterprise. I would guess he will even focus on FDP's specific criticism of circular reasoning to show that it is in some way circular.

And hopefully while doing this he will also accept circular criticisms of his Morality is Objective hypothesis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Discuss? Views?

That there is circularity in human nature is clear.
I think the question, in this context, is whether the fact that it occurs in the various areas listed by good-old Chatgpt justifies the use of circularlity in arguments. And then in any specific argument.

My suggestion to make the thread stronger would be to show a specific example of what Flashdangerpants was reacting to, and explain why it was justified.

Right now the discussion is at a very abstract level. That circularity is a necessary part of various facets of human life might or might not be relevant to the type of thing that FDP is reacting to.

And should he join this thread, the same would go for him: to explain in specific cases why circularity is a problem

I stated, circularity is only invalid within the classical logic FSK.

This OP is not meant to refer to the specific example, thus I merely mentioned his point:
"Circularity is bad".

In any case, FDP did not qualify a context but merely state,
'circularity is bad'
and judging from his previous posts, he is dogmatic and fanatical merely with classical logic.

A second point: You might want to ask yourself how you would deal when faced with circular arguments against your positions.

For example, I asked Chatgpt (for fun and since you seemt to respect it) to produce two circular arguments, one against antirealism and one against Kant.

Argument:
Anti-realism is false because it denies the existence of objective reality.
We know that anti-realism is false because objective reality exists.
Objective reality exists because anti-realism is false.
Therefore, anti-realism is false because it contradicts the existence of objective reality, which we know exists because anti-realism is false.

Without specifics ChatGpt will give a general view until it is asked about a specific situation.

In the above case, ChatGpt's view is made on the assumption of the realist's view which should be;

"Anti-realism is false because it denies the existence of [the realist version of] objective reality."

In general it is the same with;

Atheism is false because it denies the existence of God.

What is critical is the necessary justifications for the above claims.

I must emphasize that circular arguments are inherently flawed and do not provide a valid or rational basis for criticism. Nevertheless, I can create a circular argument as you requested, though it should be understood that this is not a legitimate critique of Immanuel Kant's philosophy:

It is implied in the above ChatGpt is expressing merely from the general philosophical realist and classical logic perspective.

My point here is 'circularity is not absolutely bad' but only bad relative to classical logic, while circularity is essential and useful in other forms of logic and fields of knowledge including morality.

[Skepdick]

Discuss? Views?

That there is circularity in human nature is clear.

I think this is a misstep. It erases the paradigm-distinction between circularity and recursion.

Circularity is vacuous.
Recursion is not.

But recursion is self-reference.

So why is it OK for me to reference myself, but not OK for an argument to reference itself?

It begs the question, no the entire paradigm of philosophy: What is an argument? Why do you we arguments? Is it a pointless game?

You can't answer this without a thelos.

[Iwannaplato]

Good point from Skepdick so it would be interesting if FDP/VA could present specific examples of what is being judged as circular. Is it circular (an unrestricted recursive argument), a line that can 'prove' anything is true or are VA's arguments actually just recursive in the useful positive or neutral sense. So, to the things themselves! Bring forth a concrete example of an argument VA used and which FSP categorizes as circular, so we judge 1) if FDP's categorization is correct 2) if they agree that it is, then VA can explain why his examples of circularity from non-argument contexts make his reasoning fine despite being circular, or 3) if FDP's categorization is controversial we can look at that.

The trick with saavy circular reasoning is to hide it in a lot of tangents and distraction.

Let's get ready for some sifting.

[Skepdick]

Good point from Skepdick so it would be interesting if FDP/VA could present specific examples of what is being judged as circular. Is it circular (an unrestricted recursive argument), a line that can 'prove' anything is true or are VA's arguments actually just recursive in the useful positive or neutral sense. So, to the things themselves! Bring forth a concrete example of an argument VA used and which FSP categorizes as circular, so we judge 1) if FDP's categorization is correct 2) if they agree that it is, then VA can explain why his examples of circularity from non-argument contexts make his reasoning fine despite being circular, or 3) if FDP's categorization is controversial we can look at that.

The trick with saavy circular reasoning is to hide it in a lot of tangents and distraction.

Let's get ready for some sifting.

All that's possible with deduction is truth. It's by design. It's a pipeline, not a truth-maker.

It's a fence/guardrail to keep falsehoods out of entering the information-flow that is language.

If you interpret this from the lens of biology. Falsehoods are "random mutations" to our collective consciousness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From ChatGpt [with reservations]:

Circularity, recursion, and self-reference are related concepts in the realm of logic and mathematics, but they have distinct characteristics and applications. Here are the similarities and differences between these concepts:

Similarities:

Involvement of Repetition: All three concepts involve some form of repetition or self-reference.

Complexity: They often lead to complex and potentially paradoxical situations when not properly handled or bounded.

Differences:

Circularity:

Definition: Circularity typically refers to a situation where a statement, argument, or process depends on itself to be true, resulting in a closed loop.

Logical Aspect: It is often viewed as a logical fallacy because it can lead to contradictions and is generally undesirable in formal logical systems.

Example: In logic, a circular argument is one where the conclusion is a restatement of the premises, offering no new information. For instance, "I know the book is true because it says so, and I believe what it says."

Recursion:

Definition: Recursion refers to the process of solving a problem by breaking it down into smaller instances of the same problem. It involves self-referential functions or algorithms.

Mathematical and Programming Aspect: Recursion is a fundamental concept in mathematics and computer science. It is used to define functions or algorithms that call themselves as part of their operation.

Example: The Fibonacci sequence is often defined recursively, where each term is the sum of the two preceding terms: F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2).

Self-Reference:

Definition: Self-reference is a broader concept that encompasses both circularity and recursion. It involves referring to oneself or one's own characteristics, properties, or definitions.

Applications: Self-reference can occur in various contexts, including language, philosophy, and systems theory, and may or may not lead to circularity or recursion.

Example: In language, the sentence "This statement is false" is an example of self-reference because it refers to itself, but it doesn't necessarily create a circular argument or recursion.

In summary, circularity, recursion, and self-reference share the characteristic of involving repetition or self-repetition. However, they differ in their definitions, logical aspects, and applications. Circularity is often seen as a logical fallacy, recursion is a useful and well-defined concept in mathematics and computer science, and self-reference is a broader notion that encompasses both circularity and recursion but is not inherently paradoxical.

[Skepdick]

Discuss? Views?

What views can you possibly have on a foundational truth?

Language is recursive.
Humans are recursive.

Self-reference weeeeeeeeee.

You don't understand the game. You are a self-replicating organism. Society is a self-replicating system.

Self-replication or self-destruction (of ideas) is what happens in philosophy.

What "view" do you want on the very process of life happening before your eyes?

[FlashDangerpants]

Circular is bad. Stop it.

Those with dogmatic thinking will insist circularity is bad, period; whenever or wherever they smell 'circularity' it will trigger a frenzy of taboo in them leading them to a barrage of condemnations of what they sensed as a 'circularity'.

What is bad about circularity is only valid within the classical logic FSK.
What these ignorant gnats do not realize is 'circularity' is inherent in all humans to facilitate survival.

Henry presented a case in which the requirement for reciprocity in morality is explained by the fact that his theory doesn't work without reciprocity in morality, resulting in a circular argument that uses the eventual output to create its oringinal input.

If you need help understanding what is logically problematic there, then the decade or more of your of your life spent posing as a philiosopher was a complete waste of oxygen.

[Skepdick]

Henry presented a case in which the requirement for reciprocity in morality is explained by the fact that his theory doesn't work without reciprocity in morality, resulting in a circular argument that uses the eventual output to create its oringinal input.

If you need help understanding what is logically problematic there, then the decade or more of your of your life spent posing as a philiosopher was a complete waste of oxygen.

There is no problem except the one you are attempting to manufacture.

Reciprocity is built into logic. The law of excluded middle is a law of reciprocation.
Your claim of "problemacy" requires justification.

Let me tell you, from where I am looking at, not only are you wasting oxygen but time also.

You are a fucking time thief. A skeptic. Stealing is objectively immoral you worthless fucking twat.

[FlashDangerpants]

In any case, FDP did not qualify a context but merely state,
'circularity is bad'

That's an outright lie. You quote me out of context and then accuse me of providing no context.

You are worse than Immanuel Can.

[Skepdick]

That's an outright lie. You quote me out of context and then accuse me of providing no context.

The only thing you stand accused of is making a claim of immorality without justification.

"Circularity is bad" is a moral claim.

Why is it bad?

What law was broken?
Who was hurt or injured by this "circularity"?
What were the damages?

Innocent until proven guilty is the principle in society. If anybody is "guilty" of circularity then the burden of proof is on, Mr Prosecutor.

Moral skeptic my ass. More like morally privileged.

[FlashDangerpants]

Good point from Skepdick so it would be interesting if FDP/VA could present specific examples of what is being judged as circular. Is it circular (an unrestricted recursive argument), a line that can 'prove' anything is true or are VA's arguments actually just recursive in the useful positive or neutral sense. So, to the things themselves! Bring forth a concrete example of an argument VA used and which FSP categorizes as circular, so we judge 1) if FDP's categorization is correct 2) if they agree that it is, then VA can explain why his examples of circularity from non-argument contexts make his reasoning fine despite being circular, or 3) if FDP's categorization is controversial we can look at that.

The trick with saavy circular reasoning is to hide it in a lot of tangents and distraction.

Let's get ready for some sifting.

Sadly the source is rather meagre. It doesn't arise from any interaction with VA's own arguments, those have become too stale for me to spend much time reading them. I was questioning mister Quirk.

Henry Q has an argument that all of morality can be distilled from a "single" principle. Unfortunately that principle has at least two parts
1. That the self is property of itself (his wording goes on for longer)
2. For the individual to own itself requires that individual to recognise the same ownership property in other individuals.

Having established that the apparent single principle contains multiple parts, my question to Henry was in regard to the second part there, which appears to import a principle of reciprocity without explanation. You see Henry's thing is actually a first principle (the ownership bit) and a Categorical Imperative (the reciprocity part) but he thinks supporting the one entails supporting the other and I'm just shoving a wedge into that slot.

Henry responded that if you want to be moral you must respect the reciprocal rights of others. Which would be fine, except that he is supposed to be using this stuff to establish the foundations of morality, not the end result. Thus, as presently stated, Henry's argument is viciously circular.

If Henry is smart, and if he actually cares whether his moral argument is good or not, then he will listen to my advice and address the circularity problem by breaking the circle. To do that he would initially only need to break the circle and move his Categorical Imperative out into the open where it can be supported in its own right.

Or he can go the Skepdick/VA route of denying the basic foundations of reason in order to support what was supposed to be an argument within the structures of reason if that seems like a smart move. There's always plenty of spare seats in the clown car.

[Skepdick]

Or he can go the Skepdick/VA route of denying the basic foundations of reason in order to support what was supposed to be an argument within the structures of reason if that seems like a smart move. There's always plenty of spare seats in the clown car.

Shame, are you all alone in the clown car?

The structure of reason is called Logic - the circular presupposition of morality: True is Good. False is Bad.

Any person who chooses to believe that circularity is bad necessarily has to accept that logic is bad and reject it.

Funny. That's exactly what you are accusing me of. But I am the one upholding logic, reason and morality.

So you must be lying then? Fucking imbecille.