Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:24 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:20 pm But Mr Logik - I don't think one can create logic.

All programming languages. All mathematics.

Invented.

Sure, all based on a generic comprehension of logic. If I were to invent a new programming language - I would not be creating logic, it would be derived from a basis that pre-existed - a basic on the pre-existing foundation of logic - binary machine code. Mathematics has the same base logic.

Nobody is creating logic.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:28 pm How many times do I have to keep reminding you that I do NOT have any beliefs?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:28 pm You NEVER had to.

Indeed. you NEVER had to tell us that you have beliefs. We KNOW

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:28 pm Even after you have admitted your mistake you keep on making the same mistake, over and over again.

New evidence keeps arriving. I keep updating my beliefs.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:12 pm But the very reason WHY you speak such things is my point?

Why not? Must I remain silent?

academic research and knowledge is bias and only represents a small fraction of the knowledge out there, but it isn't all garbage/useless, you just have to wade through it and pick out the useful, apart from what they teach you is useful, which could be a lot or a little depending on the area.

you also come to understand the nature of academic knowledge and what is missing, why it is missing - which in itself teaches you something about the world.

knowledge about knowledge.

i became disillusioned in academia quickly upon starting, to me it was obvious it was not about the pursuit of knowledge. but i still had to learn that first hand, in order to even begin to form a conception of real knowledge. i was like an ethnographer or spy more than a student.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:31 pm Sure, all based on a generic comprehension of logic.

There is no such thing as "generic comprehension of logic". There is computation - a Turing machine.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:31 pm If I were to invent a new programming language - I would not be creating logic,

Yeah - you would be.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:31 pm it would be derived from a basis that pre-existed - a basic on the pre-existing foundation of logic - binary machine code.

That's your own misunderstanding. Computers need not be binary, trinary, quantinary, hextnary. That's just implementation detail.
Computers COMPUTE.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:31 pm Mathematics has the same base logic.

Neither logic nor Mathematics has anything I would call a foundation or a base.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:31 pm Nobody is creating logic.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:23 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:51 am
Exactly.

Yesterday you BELIEVED that I am smart.

But I did NOT believe that you were smart yesterday. That is your ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:51 amToday you KNOW that I am not.

But today I do NOT know that. You either really do NOT read what I write or you completely misunderstand/misinterpret what I write.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:55 am The very post before this one you wrote: If you don't have BELIEFS then I have made a mistake concluding that you do.


No. You are mistaken.

Prior to today's interaction I believed that you have no beliefs.
Posterior to our interaction I believe that you have beliefs.

Well you BELIEVED WRONG, once again.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:51 amYou BELIEVED that I am smart. I am not.

But I NEVER believed this, EVER. In fact, if I recall correctly I have NEVER even THOUGHT that you were smart.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:51 amYou mistook your belief for knowledge.

I do NOT have BELIEFS. Therefore, I do NOT believe any thing EVER. If I do NOT have a belief, then I can NOT mistake a belief. So, I could NOT do what you are proposing here.

You completely do NOT understand what I write, regarding BELIEFS.

This is BECAUSE of YOUR own WRONG ASSUMPTIONS and ill-gotten BELIEFS.

Shame. It must be hard coming to terms with the fact that you have beliefs.

You continually WANT to SEE an "error" here. YET you have NEVER been able to SHOW one. So, WHY is that?

Now, if you could produce some evidence, any evidence will do, for just one BELIEF that I have, then produce it. Stop ALLEGING some thing and produce EVIDENCE for that thing instead. Until then what YOU SAY, in regards to this, is simply nothing.

You, yourself, have even written: If you don't have BELIEFS then I have made a mistake concluding that you do.

You have CONCLUDED that I have BELIEFS and have been accusing me of having BELIEFS for quite a while now, but as of yet you have NOT been able to produce just one single piece of evidence nor proof for YOUR own ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION.

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:35 pm academic research and knowledge is bias and only represents a small fraction of the knowledge out there

Naturally. But then we have no effective mechanisms for re-distributing this knowledge.

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:35 pm , but it isn't all garbage/useless, you just have to wade through it and pick out the useful, apart from what they teach you is useful, which could be a lot or a little depending on the area.

If it takes me longer to find it than to acquire it from first principles then it's not very useful it being "out there".
If I can't find it in the time that I need it - it may as well not exist.

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:35 pm you also come to understand the nature of academic knowledge and what is missing, why it is missing - which in itself teaches you something about the world.

Indeed. That practice matters more than theory.

In a world where information is freely accessible, you don't need institutions for knowledge. What you need is a good bullshit filter to sift through the information overload. You need humans who can turn data/information into something useful.

But mostly - you need people who know what a "bullshit" looks like and call it out.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:37 pm You continually WANT to SEE an "error" here. YET you have NEVER been able to SHOW one. So, WHY is that?

Because you are blind?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:37 pm Now, if you could produce some evidence, any evidence will do, for just one BELIEF that I have, then produce it. Stop ALLEGING some thing and produce EVIDENCE for that thing instead. Until then what YOU SAY, in regards to this, is simply nothing.

I produced evidence, you thought it was an crayon to munch on.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:36 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:31 pm If I were to invent a new programming language - I would not be creating logic,

Yeah - you would be.

No, I wouldn't. Just like a new land that formed a new language for conversation would not be creating logic.

Just like, taking an apple, realising one has an extra apple, and considering now there are TWO apples...is NOT creating logic.

The logic of the universe preexists, all we are doing is defining a way of communicating it (to ourselves)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:47 pm No, I wouldn't. Just like a new land that formed a new language for conversation would not be creating logic.

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

Brainfuck is an esoteric programming language created in 1993 by Urban Müller, and is notable for its extreme minimalism.

Please show me where Brainfuck existed before 1993.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:47 pm The logic of the universe preexists, all we are doing is defining a way of communicating it (to ourselves)

It must be locked away in your brain. eh? Just as soon as you find the right words to say it!

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:54 pm

I didn't think you'd be quite so stub.born when you surely must real eyes you are wrong...and I certainly didn't think you'd resort to stupid multitudes of emojis!

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:51 pm But most human beings do not portray, in their writings, an arrogance that they KNOW and UNDERSTAND how logic works better than just about EVERY other person does.

RIchard Feynman said: What I cannot create I do not understand.
I can create logic. So I understand it.

As I pointed out earlier EVERY human being CREATES logic. So, you are NO more special than another human being is. Even when a new born baby learns what to do, in order to get what it wants, it has, obviously, recognized a pattern. it is using logic to get what it wants. This ability for pattern recognition in order to learn, and then understand and reason is what 'intelligence' IS.

ALL human beings have intelligence, EQUALLY. In fact ALL human beings are born equally intelligent. Most just do not grow up arrogant enough to TRY TO portray a sense that they are more intelligent/have pattern recognition than others are, like some do here.

Obviously, the one labeled 'logik' does NOT recognize, let alone even SEE, patterns that "others" can very easily SEE, recognize, and disseminate.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pmWhere is the arrogance in that?

IN the way you write. It is here for ALL to SEE.

Even just now, saying, 'I can create logic. So I understand it', as though not many others could, some might say is portraying a sense of arrogance.

So, that is where the arrogance IS, just in this one small quote of yours here, let alone in the countless other quotes of yours.

Also, just because a human being with the label 'richard feynman' said some thing, and then just repeating what that human being said does NOT give any thing more weight, in my perspective?

Either a statement is True, by Itself, or it is not. This pattern is very easy to recognize, with the right know-how.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:51 pm I would NOT say so. But WHY the constant referral back to YOUR own ASSUMPTION?

There is no assumption.

You asked: Does being logical make me "smart"?

I said what I said here.

The ASSUMPTION you have made is that what I have been saying has some how led to the CONCLUSION that "being logical infers you being "smart". Besides the FACT that this is so OFF TOPIC from what I was just pointing out, your continual diversionary tactics from what I say gets boring.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pmI said I am logical. Demonstrably so. The assumption of "smartness" is yours.

Relating the two together, that is; "logical" and "smartness" is YOUR own ASSUMPTION. This can be EASILY SEEN in our past texts.

Also, saying that you are logical AND demonstrably so, implies a sense of "WHAT" exactly?

Some might say that you are implying that you are logical, and demonstrably so, while "others" are NOT.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:51 pm Some might say EVERY body just does it anyway.

Competence without comprehension. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/dennett_on_comp/

I have competence WITH comprehension.

AGAIN, what does this imply in relation to "others"?

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:56 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am - you earlier defined intelligence as pattern recognition

I did.

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:57 am and logic is basically pattern recognition when combined with abstraction.

No, it isn't.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am So, when you say that you are not "smart" but you also say that do NOT even understand what the word "smart" means, then what kind of logic are you using?

Temporal. I cannot conceptualize what "smart" behaves like and I cannot juxtapose it against what "not-smart" behaves like.

Yet you say that YOU ARE NOT SMART.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am I am not using logic. I am pointing out that you have no falsifiable definition for the concept.

So, instead of LOOKING AT and discussing what what I was actually pointing out, you instead lead down your usual path of using words but when questioned about what do you actually mean when you say those words, you inevitably point us to the FACT that you can NOT conceptualize what they mean or that you put your OWN meaning to words but that you will NOT convey that meaning to us also.

If I recall correctly I have yet to see you even just consider what another might just be saying without you jumping straight into disagreement with them, even if it means you disagreeing with what you, yourself, have said previously.

You are on this forum to; Either disagree with absolutely any and every thing, no matter what it is that is being said, or you are TRYING TO portray that YOUR logic is far superior to any thing else known to human beings, from my perspective of what I have seen so far.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:05 pm IF I bite into the apple I know exactly the kind of juiciness I am to expect and the kind of texture that my tongue will experience.

KNOWING EXACTLY the kind that you are to expect of some thing, which you have NOT yet even experienced, seems to be expecting to KNOW EXACTLY some thing that can NOT yet be KNOWN EXACTLY at all. You seem to be saying that you can KNOW EXACTLY the future.

This helps in explaining some of what you write, and more so the way that you write it.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:05 pmImperative programming says "this is EXACTLY HOW you get from A to B" to get the correct result.

You have already SHOWN with EVIDENCE how you can program a computer to give the INCORRECT results but TRY TO pass them of as the CORRECT results, just on the so called "logical" basis that because computers use logic, so then the results must be the "correct" results.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:08 pm

11011 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:06 pm

That you are teaching institutions more than they can teach you.

that's impossible, you proclaim know everything all institutions have to offer and more? are you that well read?

moreover, that you know more than all of this knowledge combined, at least double? lol

again, perhaps i am not giving you a lax enough interpretation, but strictly speaking, your words arrogant and unrealistic.

I am claiming that I know more than the particular institution I find myself at has to offer.

But, if I recall correctly, at other times you have claimed that you do not know anything at all, am I correct?

Anyway, have you read ALL the words and LOOKED AT ALL of the knowledge in that particular institution?

Could some knowledge have been added to that institution since the last time that you were there?

As I have expressed previously if one want to SEE the Truth of things, then one has to state off by expressing the Truth of things first.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:08 pmI am also claiming that your very concept of "knowledge" is broken. There is only explicit, not tacit knowledge in academia.
With the exception where there truly are great teachers who have mastered the art of teaching tacit knowledge to others.
Explicit knowledge is useless till applied.

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

If that is arrogance so be it - most academics do not know their heads from their asses.
Most academics are intellectuals yet idiots. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

Ivory tower experts.

And, to me, you are sounding more and more just like one of these 'intellectual idiot human beings'. That is; you have grasped some knowledge that then makes you think that you are superior to "others", somehow. Most people with this superiority complex like this that I am aware of usually only see themselves as being better than other human being. You, however, seem to see yourself as not just better than other human beings but also better than academia and institutions, themselves.

i don't think humans created logic, i think they discovered it in the natural world and then subsequently applied it to other fields, creating a variety of artificial logic languages which are essentially translations of natural logic into a variety of fields and applications

the only thing humans contributed is their intelligence, namely the ability to see logic (consistency, lawfulness) in nature and make it intelligible to themselves and others

translation is not creation

logix