Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:07 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:07 pm
If what you intend by the word, "Totality," is that which, "includes the class of things that are Absolutely Impossible," it is what everyone else means by the word, "nonsense." Your philosophy sounds like it was written by Lewis Carroll, (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), "I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
[Through the Looking-Glass, the White Queen]

You and the queen have a lot in common.

I thought of this myself. Did you know that he was also into logic? And while I cannot comment on his own intention of writing, there is rationality to this and why I proposed it. Hegel tried to introduce this as well as Lewis' contempory in expanding on what would become the roots in 'multivalued' logic.

Dogson was a polymath: religious, mathematician, writer, poet, politician, photographer, and more. I would not consult him on any philosophical questions, but do recognize his keen intellect. He dabbled in cryptography and symbolic logic, which was, in his day, still innocent.

It [symbolic logic] has not been innocent since the logical positivists perverted it, having interpreted it in terms of the terrible epistemology of Hume and Kant.

I don't know the depth of your concern. I still have trouble trying to determine terms like "positivists" because they are not terms the supposed holders said of themselves. As to Hume and Kant, these philosophers were not necessary to logic and without them logic would still exist. Although I've touched on them and still have their sources to read should I want to in my own library, their philosophy is also not something I can say is or is not relevant here.

How do you define "positivism" and what is perverted to what you think it had value originally as?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am Reality HAS to be understood this way to be unbiased. While it doesn't mean dismissing science and logic for our particular universe, when it comes to the THEORETICAL considerations, you have to assume both nothing and everything to be possible.

This does not even begin to have meaning to me if the words, "everything," "nothing," and, "possible," mean what I understand them to mean. The word, "nothing," means, "NO thing." "Possible," means, within the limits of ontological and psychological existence a thing can be or an event can happen. "Nothing cannot be or happen, else it would not be nothing, and therefore it is impossible for nothing to be or happen.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am The "third" class of possibilities are the 'finite' ones of which our own particular Universe is one such world. But to assume our place in Totality is itself 'special' and appropriately representative (by having only a finite set of 'truths' in Totality), biases one to the anthropic ideals which to me is not science given it speculates beyond its limits to know.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. What do you mean by possibilities. "Truths," are not existents, the word only identifies propositions which have the quality, "true," and I have no idea what you think is being speculated.

I was concerned about even using the word "truth" considering what I already said above. So that use was in light of your thinking. To Totaltity, everything is both 'true' and 'false' depending upon WHICH part of it you are referring to. For instance, whatever happens tommorrow is 'not true' for us until we experience it relative to a subset of time and our Universe.

What is 'possible' is more literally, "what is able to be 'posed'." Yet to 'pose' something presumes an observer. And if you limit "possibility" to only what some human or contemporary living animal CAN experience and this can only be demonstrated prior to experience, then what you might think is 'possible' is only to what YOU can image can be presented to you or others you trust by some measure of authority.

It is hard to NOT use our human-biased words that are filled full of emotional content even to describe most things beyond our biased interest. I could choose to use the word, "contact" or "successful exchange of energy from that which is external to something internal" BUT this loses meaning and sounds even more confusing for others to relate to. So to a term like 'observer' to which "possibility" has meaning. For Totality, all is possible then is hard to convey for you because to you, it would require some human-like essence (like some 'god' being) to have senses in order to 'feel'. But I don't have a choice to use this term to describe that the total reality of all anywhere and everywhere in all times doesn't EXCLUDE ANYTHING "POSE ABLE". Certainly if humans can potentially observe something, it is able to be posed (as in presented). Then if humans are a subset of Totality, anything 'possible' is also 'possible' to Totality.....even if we don't think of an abstract concept as able to observe something 'posed' or 'pro-poses' or 'sup- posed', etc.

So I think trying to use words themselves to communicate much of this is NEVER able to be agreed upon by everyone. So I will not likely be able to prove what you deem is "not possible" or "not true" or "not real".

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am What is non-sensible is implying that reality needs a human-like 'observer' for our Universe to operate should you also presume this means one is literally being crazy or insane.

What do you mean by "non-sensible?" Do you mean nonsense as in silly or absurd, or something else. There is nothing wrong with imagining nonsense as long as one does not confuse it with the world we directly perceive and the fact we perceive it.

This is an example of imposing meaning neutrally without allowing emotions to enter into the discussion. What is "nonsense" is derived specifically and literally to what is presumed to be not sensed and by derogatory extention, deluded for assuming meaning to what cannot be touched or sensed. To me, this just inversely tells me that one who holds this kind of restricted use of meaning, is like the backyard mechanic expressing how the only TRUTH is direct experience and 'book learning' is bunk!

If you presume all that can be possible or true is that which is "sensible", as in "that which can potentionally be sensed", then you steal the value terms we use to express things by the same label. And if you think that this use of "sensible itself is NOT what you mean, then you PROVE how the emotive intent of the term goes beyond its neutral meanings. The only alternative to accepting the latter use it to assume you just INSULTED someone as being insane, delusional, or misguided, ....and without the capacity to know. And that use only closes the door to further effective communication.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am For me, I don't believe that our Universe nor Totality as a greater whole could exist without a mindless non-conscious state of nothing.

Nothing is certainly mindless and non-conscious, because nothing has no attributes at all. If it did, it would be something. But the physical universe is mindless and non-conscious, and not alive either. Life, consciousness, and minds only exist as attributes of physical organisms, not to rest of physical existence.

It DOES have a logical attribute for consistent universes and what we use to discriminate for practical purposes. "Nothing" in essence has the property of universal MINIMAL reality shared by absolutely everything. It is accepting of "contradiction" and thus can provide a reason for why anything exists as a 'motivator', just as we use the reduction to absurdity to discriminate utility of that line of reasoning. Stepping out of the human bias, Totality, if it IS "Absolutely Nothing" means it is also "Absolutely Something": some reality that if true would be ONE truth at least. This contradiction may be precisely WHAT causes change at all. IF there is an 'origin' to anything, even if it is only this one Universe, the minimal reality would have to be nothing, just as the singularity that you no doubt believe with respect to the Big Bang theory.

So I might throw it back at you and ask how could something come from nothing in the Big Bang theory, right? The alternative is to assume NO LIMIT to times or spaces and thus you'd have to resort to a trust in INFINITIES. Since Absolute Nothing also implies Absolutely Anything and Everything, this has to be the only option to GAMBLE on as truer of just this ONE UNIVERSE. That is, if there is more than this Universe to avoid falling into the same contradiction via Big Bang theory, you'd have to accept that there is MORE than what we can deem "possible" for not being able to present evidence for anything OR nothing beyond our Universe.

Thus my logical approach is to assume absolutely everything in the most universal class I'm calling, "Totaltity", and is such that there is not an OUTSIDE of it....and why Absolutely Nothing would also have to be a part of it.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am How can reality come from some special mind for order and laws?

It can't, but who said it did, and why did you think such a question even needed to be asked?

There is only what is and there cannot be anything else. What is not cannot be. The physical universe we directly perceive, see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, is all that exists physically, and together with living, consciousness, mental organisms, make up the entire material universe, which is all there is and is rightly call reality or existence.

If you don't agree with that Scott, that's fine, but I would be curious how you think you could know any other kind of reality or existence.

I have a theory/theorem that I'm working on that can demonstrate what matter, space and energy is, and model how the actual shape and structure of matter is and how each interacts with each other that covers how and why the "forces" operate on each other. It is a bottom-up approach similar to the Euclide's original step-by-step approach in geometry. But it requires an understanding of how you can 'construct' reality from 'nothing'. Now, it COULD BE the case that there is no 'origin' to Totality. But this doesn't matter if you interpret this as 'relative'. What matters is that you CAN understand reality as occurring from such a state to understand what is true even if it were NOT the case.

Think of it this way: When we learn from where we are, we use our senses and the process of using ones' senses (SCIENCE) to induce or guess at what we are made of. Then we guess the logic that this might be and test it. While this is true for us to understanding, you can also induce 'logic' itself as real and that if Totality has NO ESSENCE or 'god' or ULIMATE CREATIVE MIND, then reality itself has to have NOTHING as this kind of causal force. This causal 'force' is just the nature of contradiction. Where Totality has some 'contradiction' in it, it DISCRIMINATES the 'absurdity' by keeping both the non-contradictory reality to one part of it and the contradictory part to another realm, which is 'not real' with respect to the non-contradictory Universal class. This keeps going on infinitely as though trying to maintain balance in a type of "conservation" that can never be.

So the utility of KEEPING the contradictory realities is how change itself for anything, like 'time' or 'energy', occurs.....and ALL without the need for some presumed 'special' reality like a god or our own Universe as though there can be no other. [or...for those still hopeful of some 'god', that if there is one, it would be only something that itself would still be based upon 'nothing', and more about something WE could create as 'programmers' and 'engineers' of some future technology.]

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:06 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:07 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:06 pm I thought of this myself. Did you know that he was also into logic? And while I cannot comment on his own intention of writing, there is rationality to this and why I proposed it. Hegel tried to introduce this as well as Lewis' contemporary in expanding on what would become the roots in 'multivalued' logic.

Dogson was a polymath: religious, mathematician, writer, poet, politician, photographer, and more. I would not consult him on any philosophical questions, but do recognize his keen intellect. He dabbled in cryptography and symbolic logic, which was, in his day, still innocent.

It [symbolic logic] has not been innocent since the logical positivists perverted it, having interpreted it in terms of the terrible epistemology of Hume and Kant.

I don't know the depth of your concern. I still have trouble trying to determine terms like "positivists" because they are not terms the supposed holders said of themselves. As to Hume and Kant, these philosophers were not necessary to logic and without them logic would still exist. Although I've touched on them and still have their sources to read should I want to in my own library, their philosophy is also not something I can say is or is not relevant here.

How do you define "positivism" and what is perverted to what you think it had value originally as?

Don't worry about the terminology. By logical positivism I'm referring to the whole philosophical movement that was actually begun by Hume and formalized by Kant, spawning the Vienna circle and the philosophers that followed such as Rudolf Carnap, Kurt Gödel, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who totally corrupting the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am Reality HAS to be understood this way to be unbiased. While it doesn't mean dismissing science and logic for our particular universe, when it comes to the THEORETICAL considerations, you have to assume both nothing and everything to be possible.

This does not even begin to have meaning to me if the words, "everything," "nothing," and, "possible," mean what I understand them to mean. The word, "nothing," means, "NO thing." "Possible," means, within the limits of ontological and psychological existence a thing can be or an event can happen. "Nothing cannot be or happen, else it would not be nothing, and therefore it is impossible for nothing to be or happen.

The "third" class of possibilities are the 'finite' ones of which our own particular Universe is one such world. But to assume our place in Totality is itself 'special' and appropriately representative (by having only a finite set of 'truths' in Totality), biases one to the anthropic ideals which to me is not science given it speculates beyond its limits to know.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. What do you mean by possibilities. "Truths," are not existents, the word only identifies propositions which have the quality, "true," and I have no idea what you think is being speculated.

I was concerned about even using the word "truth" considering what I already said above. So that use was in light of your thinking. To Totaltity, everything is both 'true' and 'false' depending upon WHICH part of it you are referring to.

With that premise I'm afraid there is no possibility of our having a cogent discussion. There is only what is and it is not contingent on anything else. Things are, and things that are not can be imagined, but no thing is true or false. Only propositions can be true or false and no proposition can be both.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:54 am Don't worry about the terminology. By logical positivism I'm referring to the whole philosophical movement that was actually begun by Hume and formalized by Kant, spawning the Vienna circle and the philosophers that followed such as Rudolf Carnap, Kurt Gödel, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who totally corrupting the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

Don't rely on your ignorance to insult Hume and Kant by connecting them to logical positivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Show me evidence and arguments where Hume and Kant are critical contributors to logical positivism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:27 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:54 am Don't worry about the terminology. By logical positivism I'm referring to the whole philosophical movement that was actually begun by Hume and formalized by Kant, spawning the Vienna circle and the philosophers that followed such as Rudolf Carnap, Kurt Gödel, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who totally corrupting the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

Don't rely on your ignorance to insult Hume and Kant by connecting them to logical positivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Show me evidence and arguments where Hume and Kant are critical contributors to logical positivism.

If you are really interested: The Roots of Revolution, Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 1,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 2,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 3,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 4
.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:54 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:06 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:07 pm

Dogson was a polymath: religious, mathematician, writer, poet, politician, photographer, and more. I would not consult him on any philosophical questions, but do recognize his keen intellect. He dabbled in cryptography and symbolic logic, which was, in his day, still innocent.

It [symbolic logic] has not been innocent since the logical positivists perverted it, having interpreted it in terms of the terrible epistemology of Hume and Kant.

I don't know the depth of your concern. I still have trouble trying to determine terms like "positivists" because they are not terms the supposed holders said of themselves. As to Hume and Kant, these philosophers were not necessary to logic and without them logic would still exist. Although I've touched on them and still have their sources to read should I want to in my own library, their philosophy is also not something I can say is or is not relevant here.

How do you define "positivism" and what is perverted to what you think it had value originally as?

Don't worry about the terminology. By logical positivism I'm referring to the whole philosophical movement that was actually begun by Hume and formalized by Kant, spawning the Vienna circle and the philosophers that followed such as Rudolf Carnap, Kurt Gödel, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who totally corrupting the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

Well, now it matters because I don't understand your concern. The underlying concept of 'positivist' is to the concept of verification, which basically means that the INPUTS of any logical system where it is not one of a prior theorem of that or some other system, has to be induced by observation through science (empiricism).

I accept this idea but only differ in that I think you can assume the first-order INPUT as apriori, "nothing", given this is included in absolutely everything. That is, given any variable from reality, you can always add "nothing" as a part of it. So the most perfectly universal idea that contains nothing is the 'empty set' concept. Everything else, including the formulation of logic itself is 'induced' empirically.

If this is not what you think it means, please tell me. I can't determine what the alternative you have in mind is other than to permit apriori concepts that are complex, like 'god', as one example for why they assumed the least input (premise) has to be about science.

Note that the labels may not matter, but then you require spelling out what particular YOU understand is meant when using such terms as "positivism". I also learned that "logicism" is another alternative name, something I was re-introduced to in a prior recent discussion with Skepdick here, I believe.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 1:32 am Reality HAS to be understood this way to be unbiased. While it doesn't mean dismissing science and logic for our particular universe, when it comes to the THEORETICAL considerations, you have to assume both nothing and everything to be possible.

This does not even begin to have meaning to me if the words, "everything," "nothing," and, "possible," mean what I understand them to mean. The word, "nothing," means, "NO thing." "Possible," means, within the limits of ontological and psychological existence a thing can be or an event can happen. "Nothing cannot be or happen, else it would not be nothing, and therefore it is impossible for nothing to be or happen.

The "third" class of possibilities are the 'finite' ones of which our own particular Universe is one such world. But to assume our place in Totality is itself 'special' and appropriately representative (by having only a finite set of 'truths' in Totality), biases one to the anthropic ideals which to me is not science given it speculates beyond its limits to know.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. What do you mean by possibilities. "Truths," are not existents, the word only identifies propositions which have the quality, "true," and I have no idea what you think is being speculated.

I was concerned about even using the word "truth" considering what I already said above. So that use was in light of your thinking. To Totaltity, everything is both 'true' and 'false' depending upon WHICH part of it you are referring to.

With that premise I'm afraid there is no possibility of our having a cogent discussion. There is only what is and it is not contingent on anything else. Things are, and things that are not can be imagined, but no thing is true or false. Only propositions can be true or false and no proposition can be both.

I think that you are limiting "logic" to the analysis of words or symbols, which again begs asking what you have a difficulty with regarding the 'positivist' given they might agree to this. From how I interpret 'logic', I include this to mean the functional mechanisms of reality. For instance, the 'logic' of a car isn't just the statements discussing how a "car is a vehicle", but how the literal engine is designed to make this vehicle go. It is the actual physics, chemistry, and design that assure it operates. Another example? A calculator or computer is the physical realization of logic, not merely statements.

And going back to how I define 'true' (truth) as the CONDITION, "Given X, then Y follows" or any implication like, "If X exists, Y must exist". Y can exist even where X does not, so this statement reflects the semanic meaning to 'X', whatever X may be as being called, "true" when it assures Y exists necessarily.

So, if Y is "this real Universe", X is "true" only when "this real Universe" is linked necessarily to that concept.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am I can't determine what the alternative you have in mind is other than to permit apriori concepts that are complex, like 'god', as one example for why they assumed the least input (premise) has to be about science.

Alternative to what? There is no such thing as the Kantian nonsense, "a priori," knowledge.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am I think that you are limiting "logic" to the analysis of words or symbols, ...

No, that is what I object to. That is what I meant when I wrote, "logical positivism corrupted the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am And going back to how I define 'true' (truth) as the CONDITION, "Given X, then Y follows" or any implication like, "If X exists, Y must exist". Y can exist even where X does not, so this statement reflects the semantic meaning to 'X', whatever X may be as being called, "true" when it assures Y exists necessarily.

So, if Y is "this real Universe", X is "true" only when "this real Universe" is linked necessarily to that concept.

I have no idea what "given X then Y follows," could possibly mean. You are doing the very thing I object to, unless your symbols actually identify existents, you are just manipulating symbols. Neither an X or a Y can be either true or false, even if they identify existents, that is, are symbols for concepts. For example, if Y is a symbol for the concept, "this real universe," it can be neither true or false. Concepts are neither true or false, they are only identification. Only propositions can be true or false. Whether the concept is, "book," "planet," or "universe," until something asserted about a "book," "planet" or "universe," none are either true or false, and they can all be used in propositions that either true or valse. "A book a kind of earthworm," is false, but, "a book is bound sheets of paper with writing on them," is true; and "a planet is a kind of cake," is false, but "a planet is a body that revolves around a star," is true; and, "a universe part of spinal column," is false, but, "a universe is all there is," is true. Just the term, "universe," or the phrase, "this real universe," is neither true or false, only something asserted about the "universe," or "this real universe," can be true or false.

I think you might be confusing the word, "true," with, "exists."

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:54 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am I can't determine what the alternative you have in mind is other than to permit apriori concepts that are complex, like 'god', as one example for why they assumed the least input (premise) has to be about science.

Alternative to what? There is no such thing as the Kantian nonsense, "a priori," knowledge.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am I think that you are limiting "logic" to the analysis of words or symbols, ...

No, that is what I object to. That is what I meant when I wrote, "logical positivism corrupted the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

This is where the subtle distinctions of concern are lacking ground, for me. I find that what you say contradictory or contrary. You say that 'truth' is only the values assigned to symbols, which seems in accordance with the 'analytical' part of the positivist position. It means that IF you assign the value 'true' to the inputs, then the conclusion must have the same consistent value, 'true'. They only further add that what is presumed 'true' of its inputs should be something taken from the observed world.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am And going back to how I define 'true' (truth) as the CONDITION, "Given X, then Y follows" or any implication like, "If X exists, Y must exist". Y can exist even where X does not, so this statement reflects the semantic meaning to 'X', whatever X may be as being called, "true" when it assures Y exists necessarily.

So, if Y is "this real Universe", X is "true" only when "this real Universe" is linked necessarily to that concept.

I have no idea what "given X then Y follows," could possibly mean. You are doing the very thing I object to, unless your symbols actually identify existents, you are just manipulating symbols. Neither an X or a Y can be either true or false, even if they identify existents, that is, are symbols for concepts. For example, if Y is a symbol for the concept, "this real universe," it can be neither true or false. Concepts are neither true or false, they are only identification. Only propositions can be true or false. Whether the concept is, "book," "planet," or "universe," until something asserted about a "book," "planet" or "universe," none are either true or false, and they can all be used in propositions that either true or valse. "A book a kind of earthworm," is false, but, "a book is bound sheets of paper with writing on them," is true; and "a planet is a kind of cake," is false, but "a planet is a body that revolves around a star," is true; and, "a universe part of spinal column," is false, but, "a universe is all there is," is true. Just the term, "universe," or the phrase, "this real universe," is neither true or false, only something asserted about the "universe," or "this real universe," can be true or false.

I think you might be confusing the word, "true," with, "exists."

I think you don't recognize that 'values' are themselves concepts and how I interpret them. The value 'assignment' is just a type of relationship classification that is linked to other concepts. We are not likely disagreeing here but talking past each other due to the confusion of the subtleties of expressing meaning.

I interpret "exist" as "all other 'I's relative to me as an 'I' ". So when I used the term "true" when I say, "All it true in Totality", I agree that it just means it exists, and why I was weary of using it before. To all other considerations, 'true' means a fitness or 'agreement' about two other concepts where one is at least contained in another, implied by another, or conditioned upon another. If it is 'agreed' that X is in Y, then the relationship of X to Y is in sync with their existence such that Y must coincide with existence necessarily when X exists. But Y may not require being considered, 'true', just presumed. Y can be false and thus assure that X is also "not true" by that relationship.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:12 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:27 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:54 am Don't worry about the terminology. By logical positivism I'm referring to the whole philosophical movement that was actually begun by Hume and formalized by Kant, spawning the Vienna circle and the philosophers that followed such as Rudolf Carnap, Kurt Gödel, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who totally corrupting the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

Don't rely on your ignorance to insult Hume and Kant by connecting them to logical positivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Show me evidence and arguments where Hume and Kant are critical contributors to logical positivism.

If you are really interested: The Roots of Revolution, Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 1,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 2,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 3,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 4
.

The above are not evidence Hume and Kant are direct contributors to logical positivism.

I disagree with Hume's dogmatic empiricism but he nevertheless contributed greatly to Philosophy with his other ideas.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:50 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:54 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am I can't determine what the alternative you have in mind is other than to permit apriori concepts that are complex, like 'god', as one example for why they assumed the least input (premise) has to be about science.

Alternative to what? There is no such thing as the Kantian nonsense, "a priori," knowledge.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:54 am I think that you are limiting "logic" to the analysis of words or symbols, ...

No, that is what I object to. That is what I meant when I wrote, "logical positivism corrupted the field of epistemology, by the simple lie that a concept means its definition (thus divorcing all knowledge from reality) and that logic was merely the manipulation of symbols (thus divorcing reason from reality).

This is where the subtle distinctions of concern are lacking ground, for me. I find that what you say contradictory or contrary. You say that 'truth' is only the values assigned to symbols, ...."

I never said that. That is what logical positivists and Kantians say. Truth is not a, "value," as that term is normaly used. In boolean algebra and symbolic logic it used by analogy, as the words, "true," and, "false," are. But a boolean expression is neither true or false, those words are used in symbolic logic only to indicate states or relationships between symbols. They have nothing to do with, "truth," in the philosophical sense. The same disastrous mistake is made in, "information theory," which has nothing to do with, "information," in the epistemological sense, and only to do with the integrity of stored or transmitted electronic states.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:50 am ... which seems in accordance with the 'analytical' part of the positivist position. It means that IF you assign the value 'true' to the inputs, then the conclusion must have the same consistent value, 'true'. They only further add that what is presumed 'true' of its inputs should be something taken from the observed world.

I have no idea what "given X then Y follows," could possibly mean. You are doing the very thing I object to, unless your symbols actually identify existents, you are just manipulating symbols. Neither an X or a Y can be either true or false, even if they identify existents, that is, are symbols for concepts. For example, if Y is a symbol for the concept, "this real universe," it can be neither true or false. Concepts are neither true or false, they are only identification. Only propositions can be true or false. Whether the concept is, "book," "planet," or "universe," until something asserted about a "book," "planet" or "universe," none are either true or false, and they can all be used in propositions that either true or valse. "A book a kind of earthworm," is false, but, "a book is bound sheets of paper with writing on them," is true; and "a planet is a kind of cake," is false, but "a planet is a body that revolves around a star," is true; and, "a universe part of spinal column," is false, but, "a universe is all there is," is true. Just the term, "universe," or the phrase, "this real universe," is neither true or false, only something asserted about the "universe," or "this real universe," can be true or false.

I think you might be confusing the word, "true," with, "exists."

I think you don't recognize that 'values' are themselves concepts and how I interpret them. The value 'assignment' is just a type of relationship classification that is linked to other concepts. We are not likely disagreeing here but talking past each other due to the confusion of the subtleties of expressing meaning.

We are definitely disagreeing.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:50 am I interpret "exist" as "all other 'I's relative to me as an 'I' ". So when I used the term "true" when I say, "All it true in Totality", I agree that it just means it exists, and why I was weary of using it before. To all other considerations, 'true' means a fitness or 'agreement' about two other concepts where one is at least contained in another, implied by another, or conditioned upon another. If it is 'agreed' that X is in Y, then the relationship of X to Y is in sync with their existence such that Y must coincide with existence necessarily when X exists. But Y may not require being considered, 'true', just presumed. Y can be false and thus assure that X is also "not true" by that relationship.

And that explanation is the basis of our disagreement. I don't care if you use the word exist as you have described it, but exist means nothing more than, "is." To exist mean, "to be," and nothing else. Existence precedes all relationships. There are no relationships except between existents, but first you must have your existents.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:49 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:12 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:27 am
Don't rely on your ignorance to insult Hume and Kant by connecting them to logical positivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Show me evidence and arguments where Hume and Kant are critical contributors to logical positivism.

If you are really interested: The Roots of Revolution, Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 1,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 2,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 3,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 4
.

The above are not evidence Hume and Kant are direct contributors to logical positivism.

I disagree with Hume's dogmatic empiricism but he nevertheless contributed greatly to Philosophy with his other ideas.

He certainly did. He contributed all the following destructive ideas that literally destroyed all future philosophical development:

—A denial of an objective external world, or at least, being able to know it.
—A denial of abstract ideas or principles, supposedly based on empiricism.
—A corruption of the meaning of "causation," mistakenly called "cause and effect."
—A denial of knowledge of existents by his corrupt version of induction.
—A denial of the individual conscious self.
—A denial of volition (wrongly called "free will").
—A denial of objective ethical values (his so-called "is/ought" problem).

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:49 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:12 pm

If you are really interested: The Roots of Revolution, Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 1,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 2,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 3,
Hume, Father of Postmodernism and Anti-rationalism—Part 4
.

The above are not evidence Hume and Kant are direct contributors to logical positivism.

I disagree with Hume's dogmatic empiricism but he nevertheless contributed greatly to Philosophy with his other ideas.

He certainly did. He contributed all the following destructive ideas that literally destroyed all future philosophical development:

—A denial of an objective external world, or at least, being able to know it.
—A denial of abstract ideas or principles, supposedly based on empiricism.
—A corruption of the meaning of "causation," mistakenly called "cause and effect."
—A denial of knowledge of existents by his corrupt version of induction.
—A denial of the individual conscious self.
—A denial of volition (wrongly called "free will").
—A denial of objective ethical values (his so-called "is/ought" problem).

WHO ARE YOU to judge Hume had literally destroyed all future philosophical development.'

Note Russell's

Philosophy is to be studied,
not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather
for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

As per the above Hume had contributed to Philosophy by enabling the raising of questions by all other philosophers with his own justified arguments [btw not blind faith].

What do you mean by "all future philosophical development"?
You mean some end goals of philosophy?

All your above points as I had highlighted can be summarized to;

The philosophy of Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.
If you can justify the central tenet [main principles] of Philosophical Realism you can destroy all of Hume's points above easily.
Can you do that?
Nah, your philosophical theories are focused on the principles of Philosophical Realism which is not realistic at all.

Show argument yours philosophies [which is philosophical realism] is real and realistic?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:55 am WHO ARE YOU to judge Hume had literally destroyed all future philosophical development.

Well, I am a kind of being it is impossible for you to understand, someone able to think for himself. I was only answering your question. You don't have to agree with it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:43 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:50 am I think you don't recognize that 'values' are themselves concepts and how I interpret them. The value 'assignment' is just a type of relationship classification that is linked to other concepts. We are not likely disagreeing here but talking past each other due to the confusion of the subtleties of expressing meaning.

We are definitely disagreeing.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:50 am I interpret "exist" as "all other 'I's relative to me as an 'I' ". So when I used the term "true" when I say, "All it true in Totality", I agree that it just means it exists, and why I was weary of using it before. To all other considerations, 'true' means a fitness or 'agreement' about two other concepts where one is at least contained in another, implied by another, or conditioned upon another. If it is 'agreed' that X is in Y, then the relationship of X to Y is in sync with their existence such that Y must coincide with existence necessarily when X exists. But Y may not require being considered, 'true', just presumed. Y can be false and thus assure that X is also "not true" by that relationship.

And that explanation is the basis of our disagreement. I don't care if you use the word exist as you have described it, but exist means nothing more than, "is." To exist mean, "to be," and nothing else. Existence precedes all relationships. There are no relationships except between existents, but first you must have your existents.

I can't make sense of what you are saying clear enough. You are apparently begging that whatever is is, without adding anything more meaningful. When you are not denoting associations directly, you require a means to communicate the reasoning using symbols that refer to the reality. There is no escape from this.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:43 pm I don't care if you use the word exist as you have described it, but exist means nothing more than, "is." To exist mean, "to be," and nothing else. Existence precedes all relationships. There are no relationships except between existents, but first you must have your existents.

To be is to be the value of a variable --Willard Van Orman Quine

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... d-variable

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:42 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:43 pm I don't care if you use the word exist as you have described it, but exist means nothing more than, "is." To exist mean, "to be," and nothing else. Existence precedes all relationships. There are no relationships except between existents, but first you must have your existents.

To be is to be the value of a variable --Willard Van Orman Quine

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... d-variable

I'll assume you are making a joke, because a, "variable," is simply a concept for a symbol used in mathematics or logic, both human inventions which have no existence independently of human minds. Before there can be variables there must be human beings.