Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:20 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:18 am Total strawman; again your example is comparing two concrete objects, it's not about the abstract vs concrete.

You genuinely can't process the abstract vs concrete (which I said right from the start).

And yet you can't even compare two letters.

But you think you can compare the complex notions of 'abstract' and 'concrete'

You are like the 5 year old who thinks he can win at the 100m sprint at the olympics. You don't even know what you don't know.

Here is a clue. You claim those objects are concrete. I am claiming they are abstractions.

And if you answer my yes/no question I will prove me right and you wrong

I could compare them, but I won't engage in a total strawman.

There's nothing complex about the abtsract vs concrete - claiming that it's complex shows again that you can't process the difference.

You don't know what you don't know, even if I tell you a hundred times. You have to know somewhat how your mind works. And the fact is, most people use the abstract and concrete all the time, and it's totally a part of English; but your mind can't process the difference.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:26 am I could compare them, but I won't engage in a total strawman.

It's not a strawman. It's the elephant in the room that your ego is preventing you from acknowledging.

So answer yes or no, otherwise fuck off

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:26 am There's nothing complex about the abtsract vs concrete - claiming that it's complex shows again that you can't process the difference.

Bullshit. It's a binary classification problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

If it is 'so simple' you will be sure to provide the classification rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

Your continued inability to produce the evidence speaks volumes.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:26 am You have to know somewhat how your mind works.

Yeah. You do

So tell me HOW YOUR MIND WORKS? HOW do you sort things into categories like 'abstract' and 'concrete'?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:26 am And the fact is, most people use the abstract and concrete all the time, and it's totally a part of English; but your mind can't process the difference.

Bandwagon fallacy

I speak 4 languages. Why are you focusing on English? Is Logocentrism getting in your way ?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:33 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:26 am There's nothing complex about the abtsract vs concrete - claiming that it's complex shows again that you can't process the difference.

Bullshit. It's a binary classification problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

If it is 'so simple' you will be sure to provide the classification rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

Your continued inability to produce the evidence speaks volumes.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:26 am You have to know somewhat how your mind works.

Yeah. You do

So tell me HOW YOUR MIND WORKS? HOW do you sort things into categories like 'abstract' and 'concrete'?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:26 am And the fact is, most people use the abstract and concrete all the time, and it's totally a part of English; but your mind can't process the difference.

Bandwagon fallacy

I speak 4 languages. Why are you focusing on English? Is Logocentrism getting in your way ?

And yet you can show me a concrete object like a rock; but you can't show me an abstract "object" like numbers or information. Your religion is based on bullshit.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:43 am And yet you can show me a concrete object like a rock; but you can't show me an abstract "object" like numbers or information. Your religion is based on bullshit.

And yet YOU can't tell me why TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, that are DIFFERENT in shape, DIFFERENT in weight, DIFFERENT in color AND DIFFERENT in chemical composition are both "THE SAME" thing you call 'rock'. It seems all very .... abstract.

Yeah, but it's the useful kind of bullshit. Compost

Since you can't even answer a simple yes or no question, I will accept that as a concession of defeat.

Thank you. You are so generous

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:44 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:43 am And yet you can show me a concrete object like a rock; but you can't show me an abstract "object" like numbers or information. Your religion is based on bullshit.

And yet YOU can't tell me why TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, that are DIFFERENT in shape, DIFFERENT in form, DIFFERENT in color AND DIFFERENT composition are both "THE SAME". It seems all very .... abstract.

Yeah, but it's the useful kind of bullshit. Compost

Since you can't even answer a simple yes or no question, I will accept that as a concession of defeat.

Thank you. You are so generous

You are an idiot. No one said that they are the same, but that they fall into the same concrete category.

All you can do is lie at this point to avoid the fact that you don't process the abstract vs concrete.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:50 am You are an idiot. No one said that they are the same, but that they fall into the same concrete category.

A CONCRETE category? Well there is an oxymoron!

Then please produce a CONCRETE CATEGORIZATION RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule


Categories are properties of minds, not of reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:50 am All you can do is lie at this point to avoid the fact that you don't process the abstract vs concrete.

I process it DIFFERENTLY to you. My way is better. Q.E.D.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:52 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:50 am You are an idiot. No one said that they are the same, but that they fall into the same concrete category.

A CONCRETE category?

Then please produce a CONCRETE CATEGORIZATION RULE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule


Categories are properties of minds, not of reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:50 am All you can do is lie at this point to avoid the fact that you don't process the abstract vs concrete.

I process it DIFFERENTLY to you. My way is better. Q.E.D.

I produced the "rule" many times but you failed to process that too.

Anyway since you love Wiki links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

Your way is idiotic and unusable. It's a fallacy through and through. It's just that the people around you do use the abstract vs concrete, that's how the human world is already built mostly, so your bullshit can't do all that much damage.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:55 am I produced the "rule" many times but you failed to process that too.

Anyway since you love Wiki links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

Your way is idiotic and unusable. It's a fallacy through and through. It's just that the people around you do use the abstract vs concrete, that's how the human world is already built mostly, so your bullshit can't do all that much damage.

Give me the rule in Python or Mathematics.

English is ambiguous.

Since I have far more experience with complex systems and risk management, I beg to differ. Your distinction is unnecessary

Your definition sucks. Is the mind abstract or concrete? Oops!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:56 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:55 am I produced the "rule" many times but you failed to process that too.

Anyway since you love Wiki links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

Your way is idiotic and unusable. It's a fallacy through and through. It's just that the people around you do use the abstract vs concrete, that's how the human world is already built mostly, so your bullshit can't do all that much damage.

Give me the rule in Python or Mathematics.

English is ambiguous.

Since I have far more experience with complex systems and risk management, I beg to differ. Your distinction is unnecessary

Your definition sucks. Is the mind abstract or concrete? Oops!

That's quite nonsensical; Python and mathematics are already abstract.

I also think that you don't have much experience with humans; mostly only with computer systems.

But I guess you are just not bright enough to see the big picture, even if it's thrown at you a thousand times.

TimeSeeker wrote:
You know like when I said you cannot be convinced ? You have defined objective morality as perfect knowledge while
ALSO knowing that perfect knowledge is impossible FOR ANY ENTITY INSIDE THE SYSTEM. You are a human .... so you
have to let go of one of those beliefs. Or you can preserve your belief and invent God


Objective Morality is EXACTLY asymptotic
Exactly like science is asymptotic

I agree that morality [ and knowledge ] are asymptotic though I would not describe either as absolute or objective as this would mean they were complete. Your use of objective therefore to describe morality was confusing which is why I asked you for evidence. I would say that morality is asymptotic without the need to qualify it by claiming it is also objective. I would never use that descriptor myself since it is simply unnecessary
I would not usually describe morality as asymptotic either as it is strictly a mathematical term but for the purpose of this thread it will suffice

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:03 am I agree that morality [ and knowledge ] are asymptotic though I would not describe either as absolute or objective as this would mean they were complete.

Then your conceptions of 'absoluteness' and 'objectivity' are as ridiculous as the Christian conception for 'God. In this universe there are no absolutes, or objectivity. Except by definition IN A FORMAL SYSTEM. But.....

ALL FORMAL SYSTEMS ARE INCOMPLETE.

ALL!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_i ... s_theorems

Therefore ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IS INCOMPLETE.

So then you appeal to completeness (God!) again. And you commit the SAME FALLACY. Over and over and over.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:03 am Your use of objective therefore to describe morality was confusing which is why I asked you for evidence.

Then you are not really asking me to define morality - you are asking me to define objectivity. Uuuuh... in which INCOMPLETE SYSTEM would you like me to DEFINE OBJECTIVITY?

Like I said - you are impossible to please

TimeSeeker wrote:
In this universe there are no absolutes or objectivity Except by definition IN A FORMAL SYSTEM

But ALL FORMAL SYSTEMS ARE INCOMPLETE

Therefore ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IS INCOMPLETE

I make a distinction between formal systems and physical reality and so with regard to the latter it is true that the Universe exists
This statement is both absolute and objective. The existence of the Universe however does not render human knowledge complete
which will be incomplete for all of eternity

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 am I make a distinction between formal systems and physical reality

That is a linguistic illusion. You have a FORMAL SYSTEM in which you evaluate 'truth' and 'falsity'.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 am and so with regard to the latter it is true that the Universe exists
This statement is both absolute and objective.

You can't assert that the above statement is 'objective' or 'true' without defining the FORMAL SYSTEM which ASSERTS objectivity or truth.

It's a collection of English letters! In formal logic the statement 'The universe exists' is represented with one symbol: U
It's an axiom. Pre-supposition. There is no proposition.

If the universe exists then.... ?

True or false doesn't factor in until you tell me how you make such determinations.

In the language of Mathematics/Computer science you have already committed an error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

You asked the Yes/No question: Does the universe exist?
You answered: Yes

HOW?

The fundamental problem with logic is that it doesn't cater for ASKING questions. It only caters for MAKING statements.

TimeSeeker wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
it is true that the Universe exists. This statement is both absolute and objective

You cant assert that the above statement is objective or true without defining the FORMAL SYSTEM which ASSERTS objectivity or truth

It is a collection of English letters ! In formal logic the statement The universe exists is represented with one symbol : U

It is an axiom. Pre supposition. There is no proposition

If the universe exists then .... ?

True or false doesnt factor in until you tell me how you make such determinations

The Universe existed long before human beings and formal systems of logic ever did. Its existence therefore
is not predicated upon either of these so it can be described without them. Only that that is within a system
has to be described by it because it is actually a part of it and not something distinct or independent from it