For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Unless we have managed to get our asses to another solar system, or another galaxy.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:54 am There are only five billion years left before the Sun goes red giant and Earth becomes a fireball
1 Had you actually abandoned the rules of logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - neither you nor we could understand what you're saying. So you haven't. You've chosen to follow them, because communication is impossible without them.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:26 pmFalse dichotomy. You are the one who is STILL clinging onto logical contra-position. Insisting that the opposite of 'error' is 'correctness'. I've long given up the law of excluded middle - sorry. In my world the negation of A is (1 - A). You think it's ¬APeter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:17 pm 1 To say 'all categories are errors' is to say that no categorisation, such as the distinction between 'human' and 'chimpanzee' is correct. (Your claim, not mine.)
Categorization serves purpose. Purpose requires 'ought'. Otherwise both 'chimpanzees' and 'humans' are both mammals, or animals, or quarks, leptons and electrons fluctuating through spacetime.
One can CHOOSE to identify only the difference.
One can CHOOSE to identify only the similarity.
Why have you CHOSEN (an ought!) to see the difference?
To perceive heat (through your skin) is to perceive colors (through your eyes). Same physical phenomenon (waves!)- different human sensation.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:17 pm 2 To perceive light waves is not to perceive the concept of colour - whatever that means.
What is it then?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:17 pm 3 An observation (a perception) is not a conceptual category - whatever that is.
My conception of phenomenon A is different from my conception of phenomenon B.BECAUSE I can tell a difference they are classified (categorized) differently in my head.
And if I had any intention of communicating them to somebody else - I would give them different labels/words.
OK. Here are THREE conceptual categories that aren't linguistic expressions:Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:17 pm 4 Please give an example of a concept - or a supposed conceptual category - that isn't a linguistic expression.
http://www.piano-midi.de/ogg/beethoven/ ... us10_1.ogg
drawn-artwork-mc-escher-12.jpg
54213-primary-0-740x560.jpg
Argument from ignorance.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am 1 Had you actually abandoned the rules of logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - neither you nor we could understand what you're saying. So you haven't. You've chosen to follow them, because communication is impossible without them.
That is WHY there are contradictions in my language. Only syntactic errors. Or parsing errors on your part!Type theory is closely related to (and in some cases overlaps with) type systems, which are a programming language feature used to reduce bugs. Type theory was created to avoid paradoxes in a variety of formal logics and rewrite systems.
In the rules of classical logic. Which I have rjected over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Both 0 and 1 represents absolute (infinite? maximum?) certainty. I leave it to you to decide where you ground those numbers.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am Your introduction of probability (1-error) demonstrates your confusion. But if the negation of error actually is 1-error, what does 1 represent?
Ok Deepak. Dictionaries are appeals to authority - there is no authority on language. Language is for communication. if no serious errors occur as a result of miscommunication - then the language is sufficiently precise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am 3 An observation is an observation. That you feel it reasonable to call an observation - and those two-dimensional images - examples of concepts or conceptual categories, demonstrates the ill- or rather undefined nature of concepts. One dictionary has 'concept: an abstract idea' - as though that explains anything. The myth of abstract things in general, and concepts in particular, is powerful, pervasive and deeply misleading.
My ontology is as mystical as that of any quantum physicist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_informationPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am Can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? How mystical is your ontology?
All models are wrong. Some are useful. My mental model is more useful than yours. Because it allows me to translate between the metaphysical languages of different groups e.g theists and atheists. They are both equivocating! And they think they are different from each other!The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."
It's just language.1 'An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.'TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:13 amArgument from ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informati ... ing_theoryPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am 1 Had you actually abandoned the rules of logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - neither you nor we could understand what you're saying. So you haven't. You've chosen to follow them, because communication is impossible without them.
Logically (and therefore linguistically), I am a type-theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
In the rules of classical logic. Which I have rjected over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Sorry. It's 2018. Aristotle is no longer relevant.
2nd time for effect. I am a type-theorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
Both 0 and 1 represents absolute (infinite? maximum?) certainty. I leave it to you to decide where you ground those numbers.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am Your introduction of probability (1-error) demonstrates your confusion. But if the negation of error actually is 1-error, what does 1 represent?
Epistemically - I am a Bayesian.
Ok Deepak. Dictionaries are appeals to authority - there is no authority on language. Language is for communication. if no serious errors occur as a result of miscommunication - then the language is sufficiently precise.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am 3 An observation is an observation. That you feel it reasonable to call an observation - and those two-dimensional images - examples of concepts or conceptual categories, demonstrates the ill- or rather undefined nature of concepts. One dictionary has 'concept: an abstract idea' - as though that explains anything. The myth of abstract things in general, and concepts in particular, is powerful, pervasive and deeply misleading.
My ontology is as mystical as that of any physicist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_informationPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:01 am Can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? How mystical is your ontology?
Observe that while you are shitting over my ontology, you do not present an alternative. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-grayAll models are wrong. Some are useful. My mental model is more useful than yours. Because it allows me to translate between the metaphysical languages of different groups e.g theists and atheists. They are both equivocating! And they think they are different from each other!The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."
What a Christian calls 'God' an atheist calls entropy/luck/randomness/universe.
Whether you call it a 'mistake', an 'illusion', 'abstract' , 'pervasive' or 'misleading' - I don't care about your OPINION
Actions speak louder than words.
You claimed communication is 'impossible' without abiding to the rules of logic. I provided evidence which falsifies that claim by offering you a probabilistic mode of communication.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:49 am 1 'An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.'
Please explain why I'm making an argument from ignorance. What claim am I saying is true because it hasn't been shown to be false?
Ad hominem. I am dodging nothing. Educate yourself on binary classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristicPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:49 am 2 If 'both 0 and 1 represents absolute (infinite? maximum?) certainty', what does '1-error' mean? Dodging the question.
The ROC curve is created by plotting the true positive rate (TPR) against the false positive rate (FPR) at various threshold settings. The true-positive rate is also known as sensitivity, recall or probability of detection[1] in machine learning. The false-positive rate is also known as the fall-out or probability of false alarm[1] and can be calculated as (1 − specificity). It can also be thought of as a plot of the Power as a function of the Type I Error of the decision rule (when the performance is calculated from just a sample of the population, it can be thought of as estimators of these quantities). The ROC curve is thus the sensitivity as a function of fall-out. In general, if the probability distributions for both detection and false alarm are known, the ROC curve can be generated by plotting the cumulative distribution function (area under the probability distribution from − ∞ {\displaystyle -\infty } -\infty to the discrimination threshold) of the detection probability in the y-axis versus the cumulative distribution function of the false-alarm probability on the x-axis.
Appeal to the authority of lexicographers againPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:49 am Talk to any lexicographer. Dictionaries can only record usage. You need to abandon this straw man.
Yes. They also have a lot to say about the nuances of Unicorn hairstyle; and the aesthetic appeal of ball-tickling when done with a French feather duster. We talk a lot of nonsense to pass time in between doing science.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:49 am 4 'My ontology is as mystical as that of any physicist.' Dodging the question: can you demonstrate what and where concepts are? Or do you just assume they're 'abstract entities' that exist in 'minds'? Do physicists - as physicists - have anything to say about the existence, nature and location of concepts?
Wittgenstein figured out this game 100 years ago and I've mastered it.Ad hominem and argument from ignorance.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:49 am 5 'What a Christian calls 'God' an atheist calls entropy/luck/randomness/universe.' Bollocks - grandstanding, unsubstantiated bollocks. Deepak-woo.
No point in any further discussion with you. You failed to address the 10-20 big and small errors I already pointed out in your worldview. You are a Dunning-Kruger idiot.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:16 pmThat is a tautology.
All categories are errors - the universe has none. Minds do.
Pity. If you actually understood the IMPLICATIONS of the Dunning-Kruger effect you would know damn well that you have no way to assert whether you are the idiot in the conversation. The probability IS 50/50.
Which is a very fashionable Dunning-Kruger nowadays, as I explained thoroughly. Carry on.
You didn't explain it. You criticized it. But you offered no alternative
Offer me a view more colorful than information, or retreat back to your irrelevance.The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."
—Marc Stiegler, David's Sling
I explained it in every way I could think of, also explained why asking for a strict alternative on the same level is also a fallacy, while talking about the actual "alternative" or rather (more) correct view all along.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:46 am You didn't explain it. You criticized it. But you offered no alternative
So you failed to explain it? Would you say that is evidence that your system doesn't work?
Argument from ignorance. Information theory is probabalistic. The kind of logic you speak of is not. Your CONCEPTION of logic is absolutist. I reject YOUR conception of logic. See - you even misunderstood what it is that I am rejectingAtla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:06 am This is all known, well-established fact for those who actually look into what information actually is. Which you didn't do, you cling to your magical beliefs about information like a religious zealot. You also cling to Information theory and computations, which are using on logic, while also rejecting logic.
Well no, you see - this is me actually me exercising the principle of charity. While you are spending all your time 'not believing me'. This 'fad' of mine is dominating the economy, politics, science and well - it's dominating societyAtla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:06 am You are also the great saviour of humanity through global consensus, but your suggested methods make communication and therefore global consensus pretty much impossible. And the kind of global consensus you are after would probably quickly destroy humanity anyway.
What do I sound like a charity? I am shorting your stupidity! That is - I PROFIT from your errors/idiocy!
There is a sucker born every minute...Aah, so to protect your information religion, payment has to be consensus now.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:11 am I am trying to convince you, I too am failing (like you are failing to convince me), but that is less of a problem for me than it is for you, because even though you are "not convinced" - you still use all the things that I am building and you are PAYING ME FOR IT. And I am OK with you voting with your wallet instead of your "verbal agreement". Payment is a form of consensus
Q.E.D You are using this "fad and non-concrete" computer, over this "fad and non-concrete" internet on this "fad and non-concrete" forum. And for every byte of information you move over this "illusion" my bank account gets fatter and fatter
Well are YOU saying that payment Is NOT consensus ?Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:30 amAah, so to protect your information religion, payment has to be consensus now.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:11 am I am trying to convince you, I too am failing (like you are failing to convince me), but that is less of a problem for me than it is for you, because even though you are "not convinced" - you still use all the things that I am building and you are PAYING ME FOR IT. And I am OK with you voting with your wallet instead of your "verbal agreement". Payment is a form of consensus
Q.E.D You are using this "fad and non-concrete" computer, over this "fad and non-concrete" internet on this "fad and non-concrete" forum. And for every byte of information you move over this "illusion" my bank account gets fatter and fatter
That's a pretty bad position you had to retreat to, on a philosophy forum.
Especially seeing how I occasionally get paid for working with computers / writing some software as well.
Aha. We pay for software/hardware, therefore information is more than an abstraction.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:31 am Well are YOU saying that payment Is NOT consensus ?
Why would you pay me for something that doesn’t work with your hard-earned money?
I mean you are stupid but you aren’t THAT stupid!