Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:56 am Your logic is superficial garbage as it cannot maintain its own premises without contradiction when cycled back to itself. In simpler terms the function and form of hour argument do not reflect or maintain a symmetry with eachother.

I think a thread about fallacies will be in order soon...and how they are subject to there own fallacious nature.

Holy fuck are you boring.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:46 am To find out whether the findings are true or can be trusted, the proper approach is to find out whether the scientists had applied the Scientific Method with peer review properly in arriving at their conclusion i.e. 'Humans are fundamentally evil'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:56 am Your logic is superficial garbage as it cannot maintain its own premises without contradiction when cycled back to itself. In simpler terms the function and form of hour argument do not reflect or maintain a symmetry with eachother.

I think a thread about fallacies will be in order soon...and how they are subject to there own fallacious nature.

Holy fuck are you boring.

If you want to holy fuck your God that is none of my business.
You are running out of rational arguments?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:46 am To find out whether the findings are true or can be trusted, the proper approach is to find out whether the scientists had applied the Scientific Method with peer review properly in arriving at their conclusion i.e. 'Humans are fundamentally evil'.

There is no single, uniform scientific method. There are many methodologies, techniques and tools. With varying efficiencies producing varying results.
What peer review (tries to, but often fails) to ensure is that no TECHNICAL errors have been committed when using those methodologies, techniques and tools.

Beyond that - turning the results into conclusions is very much about interpretation and is a free-for-all.

And beyond that still - very few studies generalize nicely to real-world application e.g beyond the scope of the experiment/lab. Because in the real world - you can't control all the variables.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:47 pm Reality is interpretation, as interpretation is axiomatic with the interpration most conducive to a penetrating point winning under the majority of circumstances.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:47 pm Reality is interpretation, as interpretation is axiomatic with the interpration most conducive to a penetrating point winning under the majority of circumstances.

I think you are referring to the amalgamation of shared subjective values. It is what most people call "objective morality".

If it were the driving force behind science - I wouldn't have so much problem with it. But it isn't...

Also - that is society's fault. Not science.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Science as pure observation as a way of being in inevitably link to ethical systems and may be argued as an ethical system in itself as a means to truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm what is objective is merely a symmetry being subjective perceptions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm In simpler terms the nature of the scientific method is dependent upon a group opinion which does not necessarily make it true or untrue but rather observing an inherent framework that determines not just its nature, but how both the individual and group reflect upon truth.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Truth at both the personal and seemingly impersonal level is dependent upon a form of symmetry as a repitition of axioms.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:27 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Science as pure observation as a way of being in inevitably link to ethical systems and may be argued as an ethical system in itself as a means to truth.

Not necessarily. That is where I believe there is a huge disconnect. Not all science is equally valuable to humanity. In fact a lot of it is junk, waste of time AND finite resources.

If the statement is true according to science then that means science contradicts itself as some sciences are better than some sciences but this in itself is science.

Science in these respects is not just self referential, but effectively containing simultaneous positive and negative values as truth and falsity. Under these terms science is merely a limit which directed observation with this limit being a means of movement. Science effectively is movement of perception thorough perception as perception.

In these respects science as self referential effectively is not just replicative in nature in the respect it mirrors itself in multiple grades whose standard of truth is determined by a nature of hierchary (which necessitate a direct quality as greater than or less than necessitates a relationship of direction because it is relativistic...this statement I may have to elaborate on) but these grades are extensions on the one scientific method so to speak.

Falsity as deficiency, with deficiency necessitating a form of relativity as what is deficient is a part or lacking in a part, necessitates truth. Falsity effectively is a "gradation as multiplicity" or an approximation of truth with approximation as an absence effectively being chaos (This can be observed in the definition of chaos theory where chaos is synonymous to approximation).

However these multiple grades still exist as extensions of each other much in the same manner multiple atoms are connected as atoms.

If the statement is said from a non scientific state that means nonscience determines the nature of science, and there is not a premise where scientific truth is the foundational standard. However if non science determines science, by acting as a negative boundary to it, then science is an extension of non science and vice versa where one forms the other through a dualism.

So non science is directed towards science and science is in turn directed towards non science where both alternate through each other and effectively form the other.

In this respect they act as dual localization of thoughts which alternate through opposition.

This alternation, however when localized as one moment observes a self reflective points of though which are maintained through a circularity.

The alternation, expressed strictly through linear logic, is an approximation of there inherent connection maintained through a circular nature.

In these respects move science and non science exists according to there directed movements so to speak where the movement of one to another exists as the limits which not just defined, but give origin and maintainance to them existing as axioms (self-evident truths).

This nature of the axiom, as the foundation of all proof, effectively observes that proof is the observation of limits, as a limit which exists through the observer as the observer. Proof is origin, definition, and maintenance and must contain a degree of self referentiality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm what is objective is merely a symmetry being subjective perceptions.

Or you can say that we invented objectivity as practical necessity for human solidarity/social consensus. Otherwise we end up fighting over bullshit.

That would imply that what determines objectivity is practicality, and considering practicality is subjective in the respect it is dependent on group consensus (considering there are many ways to skin a cat), objectivity follows the same form and function and is inherently group subjectivity or the objectification of the self through self referentiality (where the subjective state negates itself to form objective boundaries as to what the self is and is not).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm In simpler terms the nature of the scientific method is dependent upon a group opinion which does not necessarily make it true or untrue but rather observing an inherent framework that determines not just its nature, but how both the individual and group reflect upon truth.

You are speaking of Kuhn's paradigms. One could argue that great science is paradigm-shifting science which is extremely subjective and individualistic.

Maybe Kuhn, maybe not...I have not read all of his work. Regardless of the group agrees individual is best does individualism really exist then?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Truth at both the personal and seemingly impersonal level is dependent upon a form of symmetry as a repitition of axioms.

Kurt Godel has proven (his incompleteness theorems) that there is a disconnect between the concepts of 'truth' and 'proof'. Proofs are axiomatic. There exist truths within a system of axioms that are NOT derivable from the axioms of that system.

See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ndIDcDSGc
But if you really want a broader perspective, read this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

I think you might find many of your ideas expressed in language that most logicians can actually understand.

Logicians base there work around basic language and teach it through basic language...language is self referential through other languages where one language is an extension of the other. Logic and language are intertwined and one cannot exist without the other.

I read "Godel, Escher and Bach" (and it is full of my notes) along with Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop"(which was well written but more subjective in nature considering it referenced often his relationship with his diceased wife). They are both excellent books, but the common theme expressed by the author, and I argue unintentionally in some respects, is that framework is proof. Now the framework as proof is argued by Hofstadter if memory serves but he does not directly explain the "framework of that framework" explicitly except in his myriad of references to loops and how they run through not just logic, but various facets of life in general.



Looking at the nature of a loop, one reduces that it is composed of a base limit of triads:

1. Point
2. Line
3.Circle

Where each not only sets the origin for the other, but defines and maintains the other effectively as one. The following three exist through each other as eachother.

1. The point is conducive to a form of origin.
2. The line is conducive to a means of definition.
3. The circle is conducive to a maintainer.

Now I can elaborate further on the above prime triad, but this triad provides the foundation for not just measurement but consciousness as well considering consciousness existing through various facets of measurement.

These limits provide the foundation for all symbols, logic and various other abstract entities while being observed in the moving qualities of nature through the branch effect, the alternation of seasons, particles, stars, etc.

These limits are the foundations of all proof as they are the foundation of all frameworks, with proof itself as an extension of limit being a limit in itself. Hence what we understand of proof as limit is origin, definition and maintance.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:14 am That would imply that what determines objectivity is practicality

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Regardless of the group agrees individual is best does individualism really exist then?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Logicians base there work around basic language and teach it through basic language...language is self referential through other languages where one language is an extension of the other. Logic and language are intertwined and one cannot exist without the other.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Now the framework as proof is argued by Hofstadter if memory serves but he does not directly explain the "framework of that framework" explicitly except in his myriad of references to loops and how they run through not just logic, but various facets of life in general.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Looking at the nature of a loop, one reduces that it is composed of a base limit of triads:

1. Point
2. Line
3.Circle

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:35 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:14 am That would imply that what determines objectivity is practicality

Correct. If you have any better ideas - 7.5 billion people are all ears. Of course any idea YOU come up with will be subjective also, and so you are going to have to convince the rest of us that your idea is worth consenting to. So, catch 22 ?

People base the majority of there reason on material bases alone with little interest in abstraction or pure truth, let alone the more important balance of the two. People have to work out there own salvation in this respect and the best manner to changes others is to change oneself.

This aspect of changing oneself, by negating the chaotic element of subjectivity by directing itself towards itself leads to objectivity as the subjective self can be observe through a median of objective unity.

Take for example the word and the emotion. A person has one emotion and attaches it to a word. This word is reflected through other people and acts as a means of unity where a subjective state, known only to the self which is inherently unknowable, is connected to another subjective state through the word and a form of objective is given to whatever emotion that exists and help balance it out from separate perspectives.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Regardless of the group agrees individual is best does individualism really exist then?

I didn't say that. I said that paradigm shifts require extreme subjectivity. They require you to doubt the very axioms and grounding of the current paradigm. The flip side of that coin is that 99.99% of extreme subjectivity is not impactful enough to trigger a paradigm shift.
But without the 99.99% failures there won't be the 0.01% success. Paradigm shifts are rare AND risky (to the individual). And so we need a system to encourage failure without the fear of personal ruin for doing so.

If one is to truly doubt, even doubt itself must be doubted. That deep subjective reflection necessary for paradigm shifts occurs where the person effectively universalism the self into an objective state that connects with all.

To create an atmosphere without repercussion for this metaphorical self sacrifice not just eliminate cause and effect thereby eliminating the corresponding structure (as cause and effect is strucuture) but eliminates the problems of the group necessitating no sacrifice what so ever as there is no problem to eliminate. The problem occurs that a society without problems inevitably results in societies which have them as these societies exists as grades or deficiencies of these societies considering one society exists through another under the laws of relativity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Logicians base there work around basic language and teach it through basic language...language is self referential through other languages where one language is an extension of the other. Logic and language are intertwined and one cannot exist without the other.

That would be true for first/second order predicate logic. It's not true for higher order logics and stochastics. Have a look at things like Temporal Type Theory. All of your theorising is geometrical. Geometry is mathematical. Mathematics is language.

You are stuck in the same hamster wheel as logicians.

Higher logics still allow for lower logics to exist, as evidence in the hierarchal structure of type theory. The problem is that this hierarchy is dependent upon a linear direction so to speak where type theory, metaphorically speaking from what I know of it, is simply a line (type) composed of other lines (types) with the types being composed of mathematical entities.

The "type" quite literally is a directive measurement where the type as projective in nature has nowhere to progress as it alone exists; hence is subject to a paradox as one type is directed to another and a form of circularity occurs as all entities are reduced to "type" as a constant median. Another paradox occurs in the respect that type theory must invert to a symmetrical separate theory to define it as type cannot project anywhere with there being some other theory to project to. In this respect type theory is not self sustainable unless it exists relative to other theories, however if it sustains itself it is circular.

If mathematics is geometrical is must allow for an expansion circular function to maintain the premises as part of the answer while expanding them. The Mirror arithmetic 2 thread addresses this in the math logic section.

Geometric limits but be numbers in themselves. The "linear particulate as number?" thread ( or something like that as I cannot remember the name) long with the mirror theory thread observes space as quantity not just quality.

I am not arguing against the hamster wheel, but rather arguing it as necessary as it allow a self reflective quality to all axioms that maintain them as constants.

The problem of the hamster wheel is its lack of progress in definition, as it strictly maintains. However if the argument is alternated upon itself the premised may be dissolved.

For example the statement: "x is true because of y. y is true because of x".

X and y maintain each other; hence the circular reasoning observes x and y as maintaining each other and existing as an approximation of one truth where x and y are connected as 1.

However if x is true because of y and we invert the statement into a circular format:

1. y is true because of x and the form and function of the argument maintains itself; hence has a solid base and is subject to expansion.

2. y is not true because of x hence y does not maintain x and x must maintain itself hence is subject to its own form of circular reason where the boundaries are not observed hence it is subject to strict belief and not reason as a from of proportion. (I may have to elaborate this point.)

3. y is partially true because of x where y and x are both connected, but as parts, hence x and y must continually expand until they are self referential. Once they are self referential they are stable as they are self maintained hence subject to expansion. The majority of logical problems stem from this point.

The circularity of the form and function of the argument also maintains or dissolves the argument.

For example:

X are a violent hateful people. The person making this statement does not like x.

Now circulating the statements it may be observed that:

1. The person does not like violence therefore does not like x.

2. The person does not like x therefore claims sees them as violent as violence is bad.

3. The person sees the x as hateful therefore does not like them, which in itself is observes the statement as violent.

Using this circular nature we can observe that hate, violence, x, and the person saying the statement are all connected where one statement defines the other as inherently connected.

So it is maintained that violence and hate exist, but it is dissolved as to whether it's reference to x is true. Hence the statement maintians a truth value and possible false value.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Now the framework as proof is argued by Hofstadter if memory serves but he does not directly explain the "framework of that framework" explicitly except in his myriad of references to loops and how they run through not just logic, but various facets of life in general.

Yes. That is where Hofstadter missed the boat. The link between proof-theory and language is the Curry-Howard isomorphism and Lambda calculus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

That is the problem of these axioms, Curry-Howard Isomorphism and lambda calculus are axiomatic relative to the observer's understanding of the language. The language is not universal; hence must always reference outside languages for it to be fully understood. The universal language is one of direction as direction is the boundary which gives meaning to a form.

The line point and circle, observed intuitively in all directive qualities of language (linear and circular reasoning and "getting to the point" as a means of unification of an idea while inverting it into a multiple ideas by separating it through "ending") and the inherent spatial qualities we observe in words which compose the majority of languages (full, empty, up, down, etc,) with qualities effectively acting as connectors and seperators.

The qualities of the line point and circle can be observe in all empirical phenomena under:

1) Alternation (seasons, wave movments)
2) Cycles (stars, atoms) as proxy of point one.
3) Repitition as frequency (commonality of events, reproduction as replication of qualities)
4) Inversion as change through multiplicity (entropy through 0d point space)
5) Branching of lines through lines (trees, leaves, genetic ancestry, cracks in rock, movment of rivers, etc.)
6.) Circle and Point (Sun, moon, stars).
7) etc.

All empirical sense are directed towards the line, point and circle with the line, point and circle directed towards empirical phenomena.

This prime triad is the root of all limit and originates as a natural language, defines everything and maintains all phenomena. The universal axiom is the set in these limits and is simultaneously self maintained, progressive and original. Existence, mediated through these limits, is proof and all proof, mediated through these very same limits, is existence with this dichotomy being subject to this prime triad in itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:58 pm Looking at the nature of a loop, one reduces that it is composed of a base limit of triads:

1. Point
2. Line
3.Circle

Point - arbitrary co-ordinate in a Hilbert space
Line - two points in a Hilbert space
Circle - only meaningful in 2-dimensional space.

Either way: x^2 + y^2 = 1

It's still language

You are correct, it is still language but language as a means of definition in itself is a limit and we are left with reflecting upon the nature of limit....lol..again.

Hilbert space may be an extension of these limits, and as such a limit to how one perceives the world, but the question of universality comes to mind as universality acts as both a glue and mediator enabling a rational unity. So is Hilbert space universal? Is it universal perceived or must it be defined through a localized framework that is relative to other frameworks?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:35 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:46 am To find out whether the findings are true or can be trusted, the proper approach is to find out whether the scientists had applied the Scientific Method with peer review properly in arriving at their conclusion i.e. 'Humans are fundamentally evil'.

There is no single, uniform scientific method. There are many methodologies, techniques and tools. With varying efficiencies producing varying results.
What peer review (tries to, but often fails) to ensure is that no TECHNICAL errors have been committed when using those methodologies, techniques and tools.

Beyond that - turning the results into conclusions is very much about interpretation and is a free-for-all.

And beyond that still - very few studies generalize nicely to real-world application e.g beyond the scope of the experiment/lab. Because in the real world - you can't control all the variables.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:31 am Regardless of the forms of the Scientific Method, they can be reduced to a generic model.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:31 am The purpose of Science is very specific, i.e. to produce Scientific Theories as scientific knowledge which has no obligation to teach people how to put them into practice.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:56 am Your logic is superficial garbage as it cannot maintain its own premises without contradiction when cycled back to itself. In simpler terms the function and form of hour argument do not reflect or maintain a symmetry with eachother.

I think a thread about fallacies will be in order soon...and how they are subject to there own fallacious nature.

Holy fuck are you boring.

If you want to holy fuck your God that is none of my business.
You are running out of rational arguments?

Actually it is irrational to argue with someone who takes an emotional stance on a subject as thier emotional stance is the driving force behind there reason.

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy
  -Aristotle

In all truth, your arguments are just a recycled form of empiricism. The scientific method you are proposing being not just subject to the fallacy of equivocation but having multiple camps just like the religions you argue against.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:50 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:06 am
If you want to holy fuck your God that is none of my business.
You are running out of rational arguments?

Actually it is irrational to argue with someone who takes an emotional stance on a subject as thier emotional stance is the driving force behind there reason.

What??
Note the origin of the word 'emotion' is 'emote' i.e. to move.
Being emotional is necessary to turn, instincts, knowledge and reason into actions and preferably right actions.

So definitely one has to be emotional but in the modulated sense, note this wisdom;

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy
  -Aristotle

The above principle must be applied to all primary emotions.
I am applying that to my adopted mission of dealing with religious-related evils and violence.

Yes but when that primary emotion is anger a form of continual reduction or atomism exists where no solution is observed except a form of regressive negation leading to self negation.

Anger in response to an injustice is necessary but when that injustice is generalized over a group of people or a belief system it effectively is unjust under many circumstances as the groups are a labeling of people without respect to there personal identies which often transcend any one group as people are people wherever you go.

You can apply your anger to all non religious related evils and violence if you are going to be just considering it is not limited to religion alone. To localize it to religion alone is unjust.

In all truth, your arguments are just a recycled form of empiricism. The scientific method you are proposing being not just subject to the fallacy of equivocation but having multiple camps just like the religions you argue against.

Scientific Method = fallacy of equivocation??
Prove that.

lol...just Google the scientific method or look in multiple books and you will see multiple definitions.



Note I am not into Scientism but accept Science with a lot of reservations and humility. According to Popper, at best all scientific theories are merely polished conjectures!
But then Scientific Knowledge is the most reliable knowledge available to humans.

So if scientific knowledge is a polished conjecture and all other forms of reasoning and religion are problematic because they are conjectures, who determines what is polished and what is not? You do understand the scientific method is responsible for deaths as wells right? So should scientists be attacked as well?



Scientific knowledge must be applied in the same sense as emotion of anger above with emphasis on the right way, i.e. morally.

And what is the scientifically accepted moral system?



What you don't realize is your expressions of non-self is driven by VERY PRIMAL impulses much deeper than the emotions which are more difficult to modulate. That is why you are lashing out at me [bigot, fuck, irrational, emotional] subliminally.

Honestly, you seem to be driven by anger, don't want to change, so why not help push you over the cliff? The most primal of all concepts and being is the point, why not get to the point and call your arguments for what they are? If you are truly rational, maintaining a balance of emotion and reason, then they should be of no problem. It is very difficult to argue against primitiveness when truth inevitably points to primes and simples.





Ask yourself why all these mental disturbances is happening to you when you are only reading words from a computer monitor?
Truth is the words has triggered your defense mechanisms.

Do you feel defensive always talking about defensiveness?