Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:46 am Numbers are abstract signifers so do not exist as physical objects but they do however describe physical reality

OK. So point me to "1" of something. Give me an ostensive definition. Show me how you USE the symbol "1".

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

TimeSeeker wrote:
So point me to I of something . Give me an ostensive definition . Show me how you USE the symbol I

Numbers define objects in terms of their quantity and properties and relationship to each other so the number I defines a single object on its own
Therefore without numbers or some alternative signifier there would be no way to logically differentiate between different objects and properties

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:02 am Numbers define objects in terms of their quantity and properties and relationship to each other so the number I defines a single object on its own
Therefore without numbers or some alternative signifier there would be no way to logically differentiate between different objects and properties

You are giving me a definition. Yes - all language is symbol-processing. Signifiers point to signifieds. Even Mathematics. All languages follow rules (grammars). It is the rules (interactions/dynamics between the signifieds) which we are going to end up disagreeing about.

Show me how YOU use it - much easier.

HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:50 pm

Davyboi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:14 pm This new topic I've created, is basically a way of me trying to let go of my anger! And giving a reference point for other people to send, igronant, narrow minded, self obsessed people too.. So these idiots can be reminded why they are here!

I must agree and disagree with you.
Respecting others view are only good for subjective matters, where there are no objectivity.

In objective matters it's another approach, if people say retarded shit, I'm not one that will accept it and will attempt to crush such views.

So how would you deal with it? When you are talking to people whos only goal is to insult?

Hello people, hope you are all o.k? I have been sick last few days... MAN FLU! .. I have been reading all your posts, and it makes interesting reading. I have one quick question for you all? If you all look back at what has been posted, and you were to give an overall opinion, say from an outside point of view, what would you say?

Davyboi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:23 am

HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:50 pm

Davyboi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:14 pm This new topic I've created, is basically a way of me trying to let go of my anger! And giving a reference point for other people to send, igronant, narrow minded, self obsessed people too.. So these idiots can be reminded why they are here!

I must agree and disagree with you.
Respecting others view are only good for subjective matters, where there are no objectivity.

In objective matters it's another approach, if people say retarded shit, I'm not one that will accept it and will attempt to crush such views.

So how would you deal with it? When you are talking to people whos only goal is to insult?

Insults are your cue to do the right thing.
Philosophize.
Begin the path to a universal truth by forming an objective premise.
From your observation, the premise:

Loving brutal truth actually loves brutal.*

First test of this premise, see if a kid can understand it.

If your own investigation indicates the premise is an objective truth, then eureka, you made a discovery.


* note the six-word format based on the KISS principle.

Davyboi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:23 amSo how would you deal with it? When you are talking to people whos only goal is to insult?

Give an example please.

TimeSeeker wrote:
Yes - all language is symbol processing . Signifiers point to signifieds . Even Mathematics . All languages follow rules ( grammars )
It is the rules ( interactions / dynamics between the signifieds ) which we are going to end up disagreeing over

Can you give an example of something we would definitely disagree over so that I have a reference point for it ?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:22 pm Can you give an example of something we would definitely disagree about so that I have a reference point for it ?

System dynamics. The symbols in an equation merely represent the objects/entities at play.

The rules determine the "game" - how the objects interact and influence each other. The relationship/dependency between the objects etc.

Suppose A means "cat". And B means "dog". And + means 'chase'. B + A.
Now imagine you had to represent various other verbs: eats, scares, hates, fears, avoids etc.
The structure is always subject->verb->object. What happens in multi-variate, highly inter-connected systems?

The problem with logic/language is that the rules (grammar) are rigid, whereas real world dynamics are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_o ... tatistics)

As long as it is understood that the map is not the territory but only a representation of it there should be no problem
Also were the rules of logic less rigid then the map would be less precise and therefore less useful as a representation

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:34 pm As long as it is understood that the map is not the territory but only a representation of it there should be no problem
Also were the rules of logic less rigid then the map would be less precise and therefore less useful as a representation

Decision-problem 1: how precise is precise-enough?

And quite on the contrary. Rules don't create precision. Fidelity is a function of the number of elements/interactions you are tracking in your model
Thus complexity is born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space–time_tradeoff

You have to be mindful of the fact that our "wetware" is not upgradable

Reality is always going to be more complex than any map of it but mapping it is how it can actually be understood
The more precise that is the better it is but there is never a point when the map will be as precise as the territory
So an eternal work in progress with increased precision over time but never where it attains a point of completion

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:48 pm Reality is always going to be more complex than any map of it but mapping it is how it can actually be understood
The more precise that is the better it is but there is never a point when the map will be as precise as the territory
So an eternal work in progress with increased precision over time but never where it attains a point of completion

Yes, but that's my point. Precision requires a higher fidelity model.

A higher fidelity model requires more memory AND more computation (time).

The human mind isn't exactly a super-computer and System II (the smarter brain) is quite expensive to run ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow )!

So we default to heuristics most of the time. Autopilot. Gut feel. Instinct etc.

Our 'working memory' is pretty shit: https://www.livescience.com/2493-mind-limit-4.html

TimeSeeker wrote:
The human mind isnt exactly a super computer

Quantum computers and machine intelligence will replace the human mind in terms of processing capability
It could be said that machines are the next stage in evolution even though they are electrical not biological

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:22 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Yes - all language is symbol processing . Signifiers point to signifieds . Even Mathematics . All languages follow rules ( grammars )
It is the rules ( interactions / dynamics between the signifieds ) which we are going to end up disagreeing over

Can you give an example of something we would definitely disagree over so that I have a reference point for it ?

That's the problem with me I can't totally disagree with anyone..even tho I might be 99% against something, there is always that 1% that says to me, that's their view! Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about the way I look at things..it annoys the living shit out of me to be honest!