Philosophy Now Forum

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:02 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:40 pm
You used TWO undefined words ( 'facts' and 'information') to define ONE undefined word ( 'evidence' ).

But the Truth IS I will ALWAYS use undefined words to define words. Would it even be possible to define words IN the word itself?

Explain to us readers here how we could define a word, with defined words?

EVERY word, used to define ONE word, is undefined. This is just the Nature of words and how they are used.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:40 pmUntil you define 'facts' and 'information' you haven't defined 'evidence'.

But I DO NOT CARE.

Also, I HAVE defined the word 'evidence'. Although I may NOT have defined the word 'evidence' FOR YOU. But as explained this might be because you are VERY SLOW to learn and understand, some times.

Even if I define them FOR YOU. You CAN and WILL change that definition into your OWN definition to fit in with and correspond with your OWN ALREADY HELD ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. So, it would NOT matter how ANY person defines ANY word FOR YOU. As long as you MAINTAIN those very strongly HELD ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, then you WILL DEFINE ALL words ANY way that you WANT TO, and CHOOSE TO.

Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:40 pmSo it is obvious to EVERYBODY watching. Here. That you DID NOT define 'evidence'.

But this is NOT correct at all. SOME have SEEN where I HAVE ALREADY CLEARLY defined the word 'evidence'. There 'evidence' for this is WHERE 'IT IS WRITTEN', What some, however, ALSO SEE here is your misbehavior of STUBBORNNESS and RIDICULOUSNESS, which as it appears is so you can GET some sort of ATTENTION, is becoming more and more OBVIOUS.

While you will always some undefined term IN a particular definition, those 'undefined' ones are necessarily DENOTED (pointed to in your direct presence). Because we cannot BE in your direct presence NECESSARY in order to denote the undefined terms, IF you still disagree to some definition provided or interpreted of you for the un-sharable 'undefined meanings', there is no way to prove nor disprove anything to you NOR by you. We just have to toss our hands up in the air and give up trying with you at all or you are just wasting people's time and energy investing in a hopeless discussion.

I am NOT really sure what you are saying/suggesting here. But WHY the point about no way in proving any thing?

If some thing NEEDS to be 'proved', then it probably does NOT reflect the actual and real Truth that much anyway, or some one is holding onto a BELIEF so strongly that they are incapable to SEE that actual and real Truth of things.

Just to add to Scott's post, when Samuel Johnson wrote the first English dictionary he traveled the length and breadth of Britain to find out how words are used. He understood that you can't just impose a meaning and demand that everyone agrees with it. It is the context that defines a word, they are pretty much meaningless in isolation.
The major mistake that philosophy made in the 20th was the obsession with meaning, starting with Russell's logical atomism, boosted by Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which inspired logical positivism. Anyone who is committed to exact definitions should understand that some of the most brilliant minds of the last 100 years tried and failed.
Language is messy. Get over it.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:43 am Just to add to Scott's post, when Samuel Johnson wrote the first English dictionary he traveled the length and breadth of Britain to find out how words are used. He understood that you can't just impose a meaning and demand that everyone agrees with it. It is the context that defines a word, they are pretty much meaningless in isolation.
The major mistake that philosophy made in the 20th was the obsession with meaning, starting with Russell's logical atomism, boosted by Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which inspired logical positivism. Anyone who is committed to exact definitions should understand that some of the most brilliant minds of the last 100 years tried and failed.
Language is messy. Get over it.

It's a matter of horses for courses. Spoken language is a tool for communication, not Truth (or any such nonsense).

Its sole purpose is to relay information between humans. The world is messy. If language wasn't - it wouldn't work.

The whole notion of formalism is an attempt to introduce form to the mess.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:53 amThe whole notion of formalism is an attempt to introduce form to the mess.

Handy if you're a computer scientist, but it is unlikely to make the world and people any less messy.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:17 am

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:53 amThe whole notion of formalism is an attempt to introduce form to the mess.

Handy if you're a computer scientist, but it is unlikely to make the world and people any less messy.

Well, kind of. The forms aren't meant to fix the world. The forms (models) are for your mind so you can cope with the mess.

Heuristics are useful to humans in general.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:10 amThe forms aren't meant to fix the world. The forms (models) are for your mind so you can cope with the mess.

Kinda like mathematical and philosophical models used by scientists.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:10 amHeuristics are useful to humans in general.

Yes indeedy. Have I mentioned my book lately? It's loaded with heuristics. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:21 am Have I mentioned my book lately? It's loaded with heuristics. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

You should totally start a thread about it!

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:35 pm ...

Looks like I struck a nerve by pointing out that the observable universe is expanding, something your allmighty True Self didn't tell you or didn't know.

What do you mean by "struck a nerve"? What do you think has happened differently this time from all the other times you have just proposed the idea that the observable universe is expanding?

The idea that the observable universe is expanding has been around for quite some time, and thus this idea has been KNOWN by the True Self for just as long, as for how long i have known that this is what some human beings assume and believe is true is another matter.

The Truth about what ACTUALLY happens is also ALREADY KNOWN by the True Self, but which is YET to be revealed to most human beings.

Most adult human beings are STUCK in the BELIEF that the observable universe IS expanding so they are incapable of SEEING and KNOWING what the actual and real Truth IS. Just like those people who were STUCK in the BELIEF that the sun revolves around the earth were incapable of SEEING and KNOWING what the actual and real Truth WAS.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:03 pm(By the way, Hubble WAS a person. They named the telescope after him. Another thing your True Self didn't know. Must be a pretty ignorant True Self if it thought that we had space telescopes 90+ years ago.)

But it was KNOWN, and NOT what was thought. i, however, were completely and utterly WRONG in what i wrote. i did NOT read what you wrote properly and mistook some thing you said for some thing else. So, my apologies.

Also, if you ever thought or assumed that i could write or express at all accurately for the True Self, then you could NOT be any further from the Truth, even if you tried to be.

What the True Self KNOWS and what is thought can be two very completely different things.

By the way depending on what your definition of 'space telescopes' is some might disagree with you on what you said here.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:03 pmYour insanity seems to be spinning out of control, and it's only matched by your cluelessness. Good, please become more unhinged.

So, I took some thing you wrote out of context, by misreading it, and therefore, to you, I am spinning out of control and am also clueless. What else could I do but apologize?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:56 am So, I took some thing you wrote out of context, by misreading it, and therefore, to you, I am spinning out of control and am also clueless. What else could I do but apologize?

Talk less. Read more.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:53 am

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:43 am Just to add to Scott's post, when Samuel Johnson wrote the first English dictionary he traveled the length and breadth of Britain to find out how words are used. He understood that you can't just impose a meaning and demand that everyone agrees with it. It is the context that defines a word, they are pretty much meaningless in isolation.
The major mistake that philosophy made in the 20th was the obsession with meaning, starting with Russell's logical atomism, boosted by Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which inspired logical positivism. Anyone who is committed to exact definitions should understand that some of the most brilliant minds of the last 100 years tried and failed.
Language is messy. Get over it.

It's a matter of horses for courses. Spoken language is a tool for communication, not Truth (or any such nonsense).

Its sole purpose is to relay information between humans. The world is messy. If language wasn't - it wouldn't work.

The whole notion of formalism is an attempt to introduce form to the mess.

"If language was NOT messy, then it would NOT work." Well that is one way to TRY TO "explain" and/or "justify" things to one's self.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:00 am "If language was NOT messy, then it would NOT work." Well that is one way to TRY TO "explain" and/or "justify" things to one's self.

You might come to my understanding too once you give up your idealism.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:57 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:56 am So, I took some thing you wrote out of context, by misreading it, and therefore, to you, I am spinning out of control and am also clueless. What else could I do but apologize?

Talk less. Read more.

The MORE I READ, the MORE 'an expanding Universe' can be easier FALSIFIED, and the MORE my VIEW can be substantiated.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:04 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:00 am "If language was NOT messy, then it would NOT work." Well that is one way to TRY TO "explain" and/or "justify" things to one's self.

You might come to my understanding too once you give up your idealism.

What definition do you give to the word 'idealism'?

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:41 am

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:21 am Have I mentioned my book lately? It's loaded with heuristics. https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

You should totally start a thread about it!

Well, I've thought about it, but I'm worried some clueless twerp will carpet bomb it with bullshit.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:04 amThe MORE I READ, the MORE 'an expanding Universe' can be easier FALSIFIED, and the MORE my VIEW can be substantiated.

Great. So start your own fucking thread about it.