Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

[Age]

There is plenty of stuff being published. Not much of it is useful in practice.


Academia is bullshit. There is no effective selection mechanism to filter out the garbage from the useful stuff, so the signal-vs-noise diminishes over time. Sufficient?

Have I got this correct? You state that there is NO effective selection mechanism to filter out the garbage from the USEFUL stuff but you also state that there is plenty of stuff being published which you KNOW that not much of it is USEFUL in practice?

If this is correct, then what 'effective selection mechanism' have you got/do you use if you KNOW that not much of the "stuff" is useful. Maybe others would like to TRY your 'effective selection mechanism' some time.

Or, if that was NOT correct, then were you just stating that not much of the stuff being published is useful but you also do NOT know how to separate the useful from that what is not useful?

Or was some thing else being said here that I missed and/or misinterpreted?

[attofishpi]

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!

No. It's just hidden in the universe, my brain only needs to comprehend it via one of man's forms of communicating - mathematics, for example.

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

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

Here (it's where its logic came from) - nobody created new logic, somebody just formed its language:-

[Age]

How many times do I have to keep reminding you that I do NOT have any beliefs?

You NEVER had to.

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

Can you provide just one example?

As of now, you have NOT yet.

It is very easy to say any thing, but providing examples AND evidence says far more.

By the way, who is "we" that you are referring to here? Do you feel more RIGHT and more supported when you use the "we" word.

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.

You mean CHANGING your BELIEFS. Some times your beliefs change to the exact opposite belief that you held not very long prior.

YOUR beliefs change as quickly as your errors in reasoning are being pointed out?

And, this is quite OFTEN I might add.

But the very reason WHY you speak such things is my point?

Why not? Must I remain silent?

Of course NOT. I WANT you to speak. The more you do, the more evidence is being SHOWN, and thus also SEEN.

Surely a Truly logical one, however, would already realizes just how arrogant that they would appear, and come across as, when expressing how much more superior they THINK they are than "others" are.

By the way do you NOT want to LOOK AT and discuss the other points I made in that post, or other posts?

[Logik]

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.

Where 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.

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.

I 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.

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"?

- you earlier defined intelligence as pattern recognition

I did.

and logic is basically pattern recognition when combined with abstraction.

No, it isn't.

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.

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.

Seems like you are still hungry. Would you like another crayon?

[attofishpi]

Age...just cut to the chase and ask her on a date, what I pile of pedantic crap.

[Logik]

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

If that's the case then you should have no problem showing me some logic in the natural world? e.g that which you call "natural logic".

Maybe archeologists found some around the time the dinosaurs were around - I don't know.

[Logik]

No. It's just hidden in the universe, my brain only needs to comprehend it via one of man's forms of communicating - mathematics, for example.

Naturally. That's what physicists are trying to do. Describe reality in the language of Mathematics.

Here (it's where its logic came from) - nobody created new logic, somebody just formed its language:-

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

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, translit. logikḗ[1]) is the systematic study of the form of valid inference

Is there any other object/species in the universe that cares about inference?

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences;

Sounds to me like we are strictly talking about the human brain here. Reasoning....

[attofishpi]

Sounds to me like we are strictly talking about the human brain here. Reasoning....

Did you create or anybody create reasoning? ...and still reasoning derives from a basis of comprehending logic. You have NEVER created logic.

[Logik]

Did you create or anybody create reasoning? ...and still reasoning derives from a basis of comprehending logic. You have NEVER created logic.

We created a MODEL of how reasoning works. Symbol manipulation. Language.

You take that stuff for granted. If I take away your words - your mind stalls.

[attofishpi]

Did you create or anybody create reasoning? ...and still reasoning derives from a basis of comprehending logic. You have NEVER created logic.

We created a MODEL of how reasoning works. Symbol manipulation. Language.

Yes. What I have been saying - we create language to communicate what we comprehend from our reality - our universe - the logic is there, all we are doing is formulating ways of communicating it to ourselves and each other.

[Logik]

Yes. What I have been saying - we create language to communicate what we comprehend from our reality - our universe - the logic is there, all we are doing is formulating ways of communicating it to ourselves and each other.

OK. So you have the language already. You know how to invent new languages/symbols.

Express the knowledge.

[attofishpi]

Yes. What I have been saying - we create language to communicate what we comprehend from our reality - our universe - the logic is there, all we are doing is formulating ways of communicating it to ourselves and each other.

OK. So you have the language already. You know how to invent new languages/symbols.

Express the knowledge.

There is a ledge in know_ledge, but i digress. What is your point regarding knowledge?

[Age]

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.

, 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.

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.

Which is what some are doing.

It is just that you do NOT have a good enough filter to SEE this.

Seeing the bull from the outside can some times be far easier than seeing it from the inside.

I think that most people here on this forum agree with you that academia and institutions, and the teaching of academia through institutions can be and is mostly full of bull, but most here do NOT going around portraying bull at the same time about how they are "better" than others are. We just give our view of things, which is what you are doing, but if we do NOT like what "others" are saying, then we say so, and preferably and hopefully with reasons and evidence too.

I am just expressing my views of your writings, and give reasons with evidence, for what I am seeing and saying. Just take it or leave it. If, however, you are going to propose that what I say is WRONG or is BULL, then give the reasons WHY and provide at least some evidence as well. Also, if you are going to accuse me of things, then providing some examples so we can LOOK AT them helps.

[Logik]

There is a ledge in know_ledge, but i digress. What is your point regarding knowledge?

It's made by civilization for civilization.

Which is why the knowledge of civilizations long gone is incomprehensible to us.

It's encoded in a way that can be used BY humans.

[attofishpi]

There is a ledge in know_ledge, but i digress. What is your point regarding knowledge?

It's made by civilization for civilization.

Which is why the knowledge of civilizations long gone is incomprehensible to us.

It's encoded in a way that can be used BY humans.

...it seems apparent to me that knowledge is storage of what man knows. It is not creating new logic, it was formulated by rationale and stored in language for civilisations to later comprehend.