Circularity is bad??

[Skepdick]

Words have consequences. Not meaning. Language is a tool for affecting and manipulating minds.
Maybe future you. Maybe future me. Future somebody else.

It means whatever it's evaluated and understood to mean by the future evaluator. Despite your intentions.

Words have consequences but they also have meaning.

WHERE is the meaning of a word?

The meaning of a word is set by the speaker and it refers to what the speaker intends to communicate.

So if your intention gets lost in transmission/communication and the listener hears a different intention; or no intention at all?

Your words are meaningless?

When you say "it means whatever it's evaluated and understood to mean", you're merely playing word games.

I have no idea what you indended to communicate with these words. I understood their meaning, but not their intent.

[Magnus Anderson]

WHERE is the meaning of a word?

It's in the mind of the one who speaks. Remember, it is the speaker who decides what his words mean.

So if your intention gets lost in transmission/communication and the listener hears a different intention; or no intention at all?

Your words are meaningless?

No. That's a very bizarre train of thought.

A spoken word is said to be meaningful if and only if it was assigned meaning by its speaker at the time of its utterance. What happens afterwards is irrelevant.

I have no idea what you indended to communicate with these words. I understood their meaning, but not their intent.

Well, if you have no idea what I intended to communicate, then you also have no idea what my words mean. You're either contradicting yourself or you're using the word "meaning" in a different way.

[Skepdick]

It's in the mind of the one who speaks. Remember, it is the speaker who decides what his words mean.

Then how come I understand what these words mean? How did you teleport meaning from your my mind to my mind?

Why can't I teleport the meaning of the word "ggFjhgjhwge" back to you? It's meaningful to me.

A spoken word is said to be meaningful if and only if it was assigned meaning by its speaker at the time of its utterance. What happens afterwards is irrelevant.

Oh hsjhghdkh shfjkhfkshfsk fhjhydgej egsgehgs.

I assigned meaning to all of those.

Well, if you have no idea what I intended to communicate, then you also have no idea what my words mean.

I know what your words mean. I have no idea what your speech-act means. Why are you speaking?

You're either contradicting yourself or you're using the word "meaning" in a different way.

I am using the word meaning in the same way everybody uses it. And it's 100% intentional.

If I used it any differently you wouldn't understand what I mean.

Our meanings wouldn't be synchronized.

[Magnus Anderson]

Then how come I understand what these words mean? How did you teleport meaning from your my mind to my mind?

You understand my words because I'm speaking in English language and you kind of understand English language.

"But how did I learn English language?"

Well, you didn't actually. You didn't learn it properly.

"Cool, cool, cool. But how does one learn a language?"

You ask too many questions and you're already way off-topic.

Why can't I teleport the meaning of the word "ggFjhgjhwge" back to you? It's meaningful to me.

Because you don't know how to do it.

Oh hsjhghdkh shfjkhfkshfsk fhjhydgej egsgehgs.

I assigned meaning to all of those.

Cool, now go do something productive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I understand your argument therein as related to circularity in that thread.
But I have picked it up as a separate issue that represent your [PH & gang] general stance with reference to circularity in general.

From your previous posts your general stance is "circularity is bad' whenever you smelled circularity without taking into consideration 'circularity' is valid in other situations as those mentioned by ChatGpt or generally presented.

I have not dug into the detailed of your arguments against circularity in that thread,
but since morality is part of human nature,
and that circularity [self-reference] is inherent in human nature,
I believe the circularity you highlighted may be necessary in some ways.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Regardless of what this actually means, there is such a thing as circular definitions. A definition is said to be circular if it defines the term using that same exact term. Such definitions are bad definitions for reasons that should be obvious. A definition is supposed to explain the meaning of an unfamiliar term using familiar terms. A circular definition doesn't do that.

Under certain conditions there are circularity [begging the question] that are fallacies, but not in all cases where there are exceptions as highlighted by ChatGpt above.

Note this;
Meanings are circular
(PH's 'Moral Facts' are Circular & Baseless)
viewtopic.php?t=40729

All these terms are circular and question begging that do not represent reality realistically.
For example, what is fact is reality, what is reality is fact and so on with the following terms that explain each other without any realistic predicate.
Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. the state or quality of having existence or substance: the actual state of things, or the facts involved in such a state:

Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; actual not imagined or supposed: true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: having objective existence;

Fact: thing that is known or proved to be true: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which “proof” exists: something that has actual existence: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: an event or thing known to have happened or existed · 2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: Analytic: a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is the case, states of affairs.

Actual: existing in fact; real: 'true', 'real' and 'the thing in itself': existing in fact or reality: existing in act or fact; real: real and not merely possible or imagined : existing in fact:

Actuality: thing that is known or proved to be true: the state of existing in reality: existing conditions or facts: something that is actual; FACT, REALITY: actual existence; reality. an actual condition or circumstance; fact:

True: in accordance with fact or reality: not false, fictional, or illusory; factual or factually accurate; conforming with reality: being in accordance with the actual state of affairs; conformable to an essential reality;

Exist: have objective reality or being; to be, or to be real: to have actual being; be: to be; have existence; have being or reality: Existence is the state of being real or participating in reality;

Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations:
Because of the above circularity, the philosophical realist sense of absolute mind-independent reality and things is not realistic.

Agree?
What is your counter to the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Yes, you stated that.

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

Yes, it was not meant to, so I suggested a specific example be used.

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.

So, can we assume you would accept circular arguments against your positions?

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

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."

It seems you are pointing out the problem with circular reasoning. It presumes its conclusions.

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.

Right. And that's the problem with circular reasoning. It lacks external support for its conclusion. X is true because X is true.

Perhaps you could give an example of a good use of circular reasoning.
Present an argument that you think is a good one, despite being a circular argument.

The good thing with ChatGpt is it help in me avoiding having to 'crack' my head in giving examples;

Here's ChatGpt [with reservations] example;

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.

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.

It's isn't implied. You may well be right, but Chatgpt is not implying that in any way.
Chatgpt is being critical of circular reasoning without qualification.
Where in that text to you see any implication otherwise?

You are obviously ignorant of how ChatGpt works.

I have stated earlier,
If you do not give specific prompts* and context to ChatGpt, then ChatGpt's initial reply will be based on the 'general views' of the day. * in a sense prompts are contexts, conditions and perspective stipulated as basis for ChatGpt to reply.
In the above case, since you did not include any prompt, ChatGpt reply is with reference to the general rule of classical logic.
You are an inefficient user of ChatGpt.
Do you realize there is now a profession of ChatGpt's prompt creators.

Didn't you take into account of reply from ChatGpt where circular reasoning is valid within contexts like constructivism, biochemistry, and other logic, computer science, etc.

[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.

I understand your argument therein as related to circularity in that thread.
But I have picked it up as a separate issue that represent your [PH & gang] general stance with reference to circularity in general.

From your previous posts your general stance is "circularity is bad' whenever you smelled circularity without taking into consideration 'circularity' is valid in other situations as those mentioned by ChatGpt or generally presented.

I have not dug into the detailed of your arguments against circularity in that thread,
but since morality is part of human nature,
and that circularity [self-reference] is inherent in human nature,
I believe the circularity you highlighted may be necessary in some ways.

You lied. Now you are huffing and puffing about it. Just confess and say sorry.

I argued rather tidily that Henry has an output from his argument that it needs as an input in order to justify that same output. That's exactly what you are referring to when you wrote "there are circularity [begging the question] that are fallacies" you preposterous loaf of fool.

If that sort of circular argument is necessary to support moral factual argument then you should surrender that lost cause.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's ChatGpt [with reservation] of the validity of certain circularity within certain syllogism:

ChatGpt: "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."

Please provide a syllogism to the above examples, such that it appear to be circular but still valid within the above context.

Certainly! Here's a syllogism that appears to be circular but is still valid within the context of the citric acid cycle in biochemistry:

Premise 1: In the citric acid cycle, molecules like oxaloacetate and citrate are regenerated to continue the cycle.

Premise 2: The regeneration of molecules like oxaloacetate and citrate allows the citric acid cycle to continue running.

Conclusion: Therefore, the citric acid cycle continues running because molecules like oxaloacetate and citrate are regenerated.

At first glance, this syllogism may seem circular because it appears to state the same thing in both premises and the conclusion – that the cycle continues because certain molecules are regenerated. However, it is a valid representation of the recursive nature of the citric acid cycle. The cycle does indeed continue because these molecules are regenerated, and the regeneration process is a key aspect of its operation. So, while it may appear circular, it accurately describes the cyclical nature of the citric acid cycle in biochemistry.

[Skepdick]

You lied. Now you are huffing and puffing about it. Just confess and say sorry.

I argued rather tidily that Henry has an output from his argument that it needs as an input in order to justify that same output. That's exactly what you are referring to when you wrote "there are circularity [begging the question] that are fallacies" you preposterous loaf of fool.

If that sort of circular argument is necessary to support moral factual argument then you should surrender that lost cause.

There's a circularity at the beginning of Logic, you idiot.

Why are some circularities acceptable; and some circularities unacceptable? Double standards are against the agreed upon conventions, you know.

Play stupid games - win stupid prizes.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's ChatGpt [with reservation] of the validity of certain circularity within certain syllogism:

ChatGpt: "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."

Please provide a syllogism to the above examples, such that it appear to be circular but still valid within the above context.

Certainly! Here's a syllogism that appears to be circular but is still valid within the context of the citric acid cycle in biochemistry:

Premise 1: In the citric acid cycle, molecules like oxaloacetate and citrate are regenerated to continue the cycle.

Premise 2: The regeneration of molecules like oxaloacetate and citrate allows the citric acid cycle to continue running.

Conclusion: Therefore, the citric acid cycle continues running because molecules like oxaloacetate and citrate are regenerated.

At first glance, this syllogism may seem circular because it appears to state the same thing in both premises and the conclusion – that the cycle continues because certain molecules are regenerated. However, it is a valid representation of the recursive nature of the citric acid cycle. The cycle does indeed continue because these molecules are regenerated, and the regeneration process is a key aspect of its operation. So, while it may appear circular, it accurately describes the cyclical nature of the citric acid cycle in biochemistry.

If you really must lower yourself to begging an AI to cover your arse, please include the prompts you used to get those peculiar results.

I see three sentences arranged in the form of a syllogism there, but I don't see a deductive inference within it. At first glance it looks like an inductive syllogism to me, which would make it useless for making a point about deductive validity?

[Skepdick]

If you really must lower yourself to begging an AI to cover your arse, please include the prompts you used to get those peculiar results.

I see three sentences arranged in the form of a syllogism there, but I don't see a deductive inference within it. At first glance it looks like an inductive syllogism to me, which would make it useless for making a point about deductive validity?

Fucking hypocrite. Appeals to the authority of deduction.

Refuses to address the viciously circular reasoning necessary to inductively construct any two-valued system of deductive reasoning from facts alone.

Reality is the totality of truths. Where do you get your falsehoods from?

[Atla]

Haven't read the topic, just noting that for example cybernetic and biochemistric loops aren't truly circular. They are more like spiralic forward movements in a 4D landscape, we have to keep in mind that we are moving forward in (space)time.

They only look circular when we only concentrate on the looping part, and also don't consider the forward movement in (space)time. And even the looping part is held in place with the help of its environment, its environment is necessary, but the environment doesn't show the same looping behaviour.

[Skepdick]

Haven't read the topic, just noting that for example cybernetic and biochemistric loops aren't truly circular. They are more like spiralic forward movements in a 4D landscape, we have to keep in mind that we are moving forward in (space)time.

They only look circular when we only concentrate on the looping part, and also don't consider the forward movement in (space)time. And even the looping part is held in place with the help of its environment, its environment is necessary, but the environment doesn't show the same looping behaviour.

And arguments aren't really circular either.

The premise is in the past and the conclusion is in the future.

The "looping" is in your head.

[Atla]

Haven't read the topic, just noting that for example cybernetic and biochemistric loops aren't truly circular. They are more like spiralic forward movements in a 4D landscape, we have to keep in mind that we are moving forward in (space)time.

They only look circular when we only concentrate on the looping part, and also don't consider the forward movement in (space)time. And even the looping part is held in place with the help of its environment, its environment is necessary, but the environment doesn't show the same looping behaviour.

And arguments aren't really circular either.

The premise is in the past and the conclusion is in the future.

The "looping" is in your head.

Yes and no, yes and no.. woosh, once again you can't differentiate between abstract and concrete.