Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote:

Can you explain the meaning of the word 'alive' empirically? What makes you 'alive'? Your heartbeat? Your brain and neural activity? Your lungs, liver and kidneys? Your cells? Your blood flowing through your veins? The human body is a very complex system - any answer you provide will be incomplete! A pragmatic over-simplification. The whole organism is 'alive'! Nobody can objectively define that word, yet just about everybody can assert the difference between a corpse and a living person!

Logic (language) will always be an incomplete description of reality. And there is no way to fix that unless context is encoded in the word's meaning (Type 2 and 3 on Chomsky hierarchy)

Right here is your problem. You're 'guilty' of ignoring the assumptions of which you accuse the rest of us. For example, can you explain precisely the meanings (uses) of all the words you've written here? If not, how do you know what you intend to mean by them? And how can we possibly understand them? Performative contradiction, or what?

You say 'the human body is a very complex system'. But by what criterion do you distinguish between simplicity and complexity? Is it the same non-existent (objective) criterion by which we so uselessly distinguish between cold and hot?

Your expression 'objectively define' demonstrates your confusion. To define a thing is to describe it, which we can do by making falsifiable factual assertions which, if they correctly ascribe (note the word) properties, are true, given our use of the signs involved. A true factual assertion isn't less true - or even false - just because it doesn't assert other truths. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

To say that such a description must be incomplete - and so can't be objective - is to entertain the metaphysical fantasy of completeness, precision, perfection, absoluteness and timelessness - the delusion of a description that says everything that can be said. You're in the grip of that delusion.

And to say ordinary language must fail, but special invented languages can succeed, is to fantasise about a non-linguistic language - one in which a complete description is possible - as logicians do when they imagine 'logical form' exists. The dream of signs that contain their own 'context' and interpretation - that are, in effect, context-free - is a fantasy.

There is a difference between a living person and a corpse - never mind what we say about the difference - and we can and do say the living person is alive and the corpse is dead.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am Right here is your problem. You're 'guilty' of ignoring the assumptions of which you accuse the rest of us. For example, can you explain precisely the meanings (uses) of all the words you've written here? If not, how do you know what you intend to mean by them? And how can we possibly understand them? Performative contradiction, or what?

Peter, this is a silly red-herring.

You don't get to question my MEANING. My meaning is encoded into words. The words are communicated to you. You interpret the words into YOUR MEANING.

What you get to question is whether in the process of communication - the meaning I INTENDED to convey and the meaning that you INTERPRETED coincide. If they don't - that is called miscommunication. And it is a constant challenge interlocutors needs to consciously navigate around! Stay in your lane! (2nd verbal warning that you are over-stepping your mandate). Just because you have delusioned yourself to believe that you have some special access to "the objective facts of reality" through the objective power of your perception doesn't mean the rest of us have to tolerate you.

If we have no common understanding of what we mean by the very notion of 'objectivity', 'facts' and 'truth' (which is an entirely metaphysical conception) - then it is very unlikely that we encode/decode the meaning of words the same way. So the two of us are even more prone to miscommunication. That much more reason to be more careful!

It is obvious that you do not consider the temporal dimension, and therefore you probably do not interpret MY words against it.
And yet - I INTEND to encode temporal information in my words! But if you don't have my background knowledge in systems theory/mathematics/statistics/computer science - it is unlikely that you would actually interpret my words against that body of knowledge. Because that reference frame doesn't exist in your mind.

Now. I can try to teach you - but if you insist on 'being right' and try to undermine me at every step - well. To hell with you.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am You say 'the human body is a very complex system'. But by what criterion do you distinguish between simplicity and complexity? Is it the same non-existent (objective) criterion by which we so uselessly distinguish between cold and hot?

Every one of my distinctions is QUANTIFIABLE. In Mathematics. Those are my definitions/uses. Until you can do that in your language your skepticism is just an argument from ignorance.

'Complexity' has a mathematical distinction. It is a function of the number of parts that make the whole, and a function of the number of inter-connections and interactions between the parts of the whole. Or in the language of statistical mechanics - complexity is the total number of unique micro-states which makes up the macro-state we recognize.

The average human body has 7*10^27 atoms, so at atomic level of analysis the most primitive description of a "human" requires 7*10^27 bits of information. This is WITHOUT taking system dynamics into account. How those atoms are inter-connected. How they behave etc.

From graph theory a system of N nodes which are inter-connected as a full mesh - it has (N-1)! inter-connections.
A 2-node system has a complexity factor of 1
A 10-node system has maximum complexity of 362880
A 100 node system has complexity of 9 * 10^157

I will let you do the maths on 7*10^27 atoms all by yourself. It gets even worse if you conceptualize the human body in terms of quantum mechanics.

A simple system has few parts. A complex system has MANY parts. Complexity grows factorially. English words fail to capture this FACT!
The most simplest thing in the world is an electron. The most complex thing in the world is The Universe. Side by side on a piece of paper that distinction is entirely lost in the poverty of English!

We do not understand what the ontology of a 'human' is. The English label is a pragmatic placeholder!

That is the 30 second introduction to complexity theory that I am willing to dispense with. Unfortunately the English language is incapable of conveying bodies of knowledge spanning 200 years in just a paragraph!

If you would like to learn more see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... ity_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstat ... mechanics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am Your expression 'objectively define' demonstrates your confusion. To define a thing is to describe it

Ad hominem and an argument of ignorance. Go ahead and describe every single atom that makes up my body.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am which we can do by making falsifiable factual assertions which, if they correctly ascribe (note the word) properties, are true, given our use of the signs involved. A true factual assertion isn't less true - or even false - just because it doesn't assert other truths. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

Any description in English is incomplete. You omit information about the object. Go ahead and describe ME in a way that you think is "sufficient" 'falsifiable" manner! Falsification requires positive AND negative criteria!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am To say that such a description must be incomplete - and so can't be objective - is to entertain the metaphysical fantasy of completeness, precision, perfection, absoluteness and timelessness - the delusion of a description that says everything that can be said. You're in the grip of that delusion.

Whatever. Define 'alive' and then define 'dead'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am And to say ordinary language must fail, but special invented languages can succeed, is to fantasise about a non-linguistic language - one in which a complete description is possible - as logicians do when they imagine 'logical form' exists. The dream of signs that contain their own 'context' and interpretation - that are, in effect, context-free - is a fantasy.

There is a difference between a living person and a corpse - never mind what we say about the difference - and we can and do say the living person is alive and the corpse is dead.

Of course there is a difference. I am asking you to DEFINE that difference. Again. I am posing challenges in front of you have so far been unable to resolve. You lack KNOW-HOW. Until you actually tackle any of them your arguments from ignorance do not interest me.

Start with the challenge of how TWO PEOPLE decide which conception of 'objectivity' is the one they adopt as convention.

Until you can tackle this problem you have absolutely no credibility to tackle the decision of which descriptions of reality are 'sufficient' and 'insufficient'! That is a value judgment! Every time you decide to describe me by my height, hair color and skin color but NOT by my shoe, jeans and t-shirt color you need to ask yourself "why?". Why did you INCLUDE those aspects but EXCLUDE the other aspects from your definition? Mr Objectivity!

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:54 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am Right here is your problem. You're 'guilty' of ignoring the assumptions of which you accuse the rest of us. For example, can you explain precisely the meanings (uses) of all the words you've written here? If not, how do you know what you intend to mean by them? And how can we possibly understand them? Performative contradiction, or what?

Peter, this is a silly red-herring.

You don't get to question my MEANING. My meaning is encoded into words. The words are communicated to you. You interpret the words into YOUR MEANING.

What you get to question is whether in the process of communication - the meaning I INTENDED to convey and the meaning that you INTERPRETED coincide. If they don't - that is called miscommunication. And it is a constant challenge interlocutors needs to consciously navigate around! Stay in your lane! (2nd verbal warning that you are over-stepping your mandate). Just because you have delusioned yourself to believe that you have some special access to "the objective facts of reality" through the objective power of your perception doesn't mean the rest of us have to tolerate you.

If we have no common understanding of what we mean by the very notion of 'objectivity', 'facts' and 'truth' (which is an entirely metaphysical conception) - then it is very unlikely that we encode/decode the meaning of words the same way. So the two of us are even more prone to miscommunication. That much more reason to be more careful!

It is obvious that you do not consider the temporal dimension, and therefore you probably do not interpret MY words against it.
And yet - I INTEND to encode temporal information in my words! But if you don't have my background knowledge in systems theory/mathematics/statistics/computer science - it is unlikely that you would actually interpret my words against that body of knowledge. Because that reference frame doesn't exist in your mind.

Now. I can try to teach you - but if you insist on 'being right' and try to undermine me at every step - well. To hell with you.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am You say 'the human body is a very complex system'. But by what criterion do you distinguish between simplicity and complexity? Is it the same non-existent (objective) criterion by which we so uselessly distinguish between cold and hot?

Every one of my distinctions is QUANTIFIABLE. Mathematically. Until you can do that in your language your skepticism is just an argument from ignorance.

'Complexity' has a mathematical distinction. It is a function of the number of parts that make the whole, and a function of the number of inter-connections and interactions between the parts of the whole. Or in the language of statistical mechanics - complexity is the total number of unique micro-states which makes up the macro-state we recognize.

The average human body has 7*10^27 atoms, so at atomic level of analysis the most primitive description of a "human" requires 7*10^27 bits of information. This is WITHOUT taking system dynamics into account. How those atoms are inter-connected. How they behave etc.

From graph theory a system of N nodes which are inter-connected as a full mesh - it has (N-1)! inter-connections.
A 2-node system has a complexity factor of 1
A 10-node system has maximum complexity of 362880
A 100 node system has complexity of 9 * 10^157

I will let you do the maths on 7*10^27 atoms all by yourself. It gets even worse if you conceptualize the human body in terms of quantum mechanics.

A simple system has few parts. A complex system has MANY parts. Complexity grows factorially. English words fail to capture this FACT!
The most simplest thing in the world is an electron. The most complex thing in the world is The Universe. Side by side on a piece of paper that distinction is entirely lost in the poverty of English!

We do not understand what the ontology of a 'human' is. The English label is a pragmatic placeholder!

That is the 30 second introduction to complexity theory that I am willing to dispense with. If you would like to learn more see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... ity_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstat ... mechanics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am Your expression 'objectively define' demonstrates your confusion. To define a thing is to describe it

Ad hominem and an argument of ignorance. Go ahead and describe every single atom that makes up my body.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am which we can do by making falsifiable factual assertions which, if they correctly ascribe (note the word) properties, are true, given our use of the signs involved. A true factual assertion isn't less true - or even false - just because it doesn't assert other truths. That we can always say more doesn't mean we can never say enough.

Any description in English is incomplete. You omit information about the object. Go ahead and describe ME in a way that you think is "sufficient" 'falsifiable" manner! Falsification requires positive AND negative criteria!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am To say that such a description must be incomplete - and so can't be objective - is to entertain the metaphysical fantasy of completeness, precision, perfection, absoluteness and timelessness - the delusion of a description that says everything that can be said. You're in the grip of that delusion.

Whatever. Define 'alive' and then define 'dead'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:24 am And to say ordinary language must fail, but special invented languages can succeed, is to fantasise about a non-linguistic language - one in which a complete description is possible - as logicians do when they imagine 'logical form' exists. The dream of signs that contain their own 'context' and interpretation - that are, in effect, context-free - is a fantasy.

There is a difference between a living person and a corpse - never mind what we say about the difference - and we can and do say the living person is alive and the corpse is dead.

Of course there is a difference. I am asking you to DEFINE that difference. Again. I am posing challenges in front of you have so far been unable to resolve. You lack KNOW-HOW. Until you actually tackle any of them your arguments from ignorance do not interest me.

Start with the challenge of how TWO PEOPLE decide which conception of 'objectivity' is the one they adopt as convention.

Until you can tackle this problem you have absolutely no credibility to tackle the decision of which descriptions of reality are 'sufficient' and 'insufficient'! That is a value judgment! Every time you decide to describe me by my height, hair color and skin color but NOT by my shoe, jeans and t-shirt color you need to ask yourself "why?". Why did you INCLUDE those aspects but EXCLUDE the other aspects from your definition? Mr Objectivity!

As before, you don't actually address the points I make. For example, this last paragraph about the sufficiency of a description precisely demonstrates your misunderstanding. You are the one claiming that a linguistic description can't ever be sufficient, because it can't capture everything that can be said. My point is that the possibility of such a 'complete' description is a fantasy. Your metaphysical fantasy.

I'm out of this conversation now. You have deep conceptual problems which you seem unwilling or unable to address or even acknowledge. Ciao.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:37 am I'm out of this conversation now. You have deep conceptual problems which you seem unwilling or unable to address or even acknowledge. Ciao.

'Deep conceptual problems"

How did you assert THAT without making a value judgment of 'right' and 'wrong' you fucking hypocrite!

Your own conception of 'objectivity' is IMPOSSIBLE to arrive at without crossing the is-ought gap.
Neither is mine - but I openly admit that I don't care about the is-ought gap. You PRETEND that you do!
And then you are missing the 'metaphysical delusion' of TIME from your conception of 'objectivity'. Oooops!

And if your conception of 'objectivity' is flawed then the house of cards of 'facts', 'judgments' and 'morality' goes down with it.

Address and acknowledge that gaping hole in your entire world-view. Then we can get to the minutia of incomplete descriptions.

Go fuck yourself with your blame externalization tactics

Until you work your way up to consequentialism and ergodic theory - objective morality is here to stay.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:53 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:37 am I'm out of this conversation now. You have deep conceptual problems which you seem unwilling or unable to address or even acknowledge. Ciao.

'Deep conceptual problems"

How did you assert THAT without making a value judgment of 'right' and 'wrong' you fucking hypocrite!

Your own conception of 'objectivity' is IMPOSSIBLE to arrive at without crossing the is-ought gap.
Neither is mine - but I openly admit that I don't care about the is-ought gap. You PRETEND that you do!

And if your conception of 'objectivity' is flawed then the house of cards of 'facts', 'judgments' and 'morality' goes down with it.

Address and acknowledge that gaping hole in your entire world-view. Then we can get to the minutia of incomplete descriptions.

Go fuck yourself with your blame externalization tactics

Until you work your way up to consequentialism and ergodic theory - objective morality is here to stay.

Why so cross? Perhaps you've bullied or bored your way through so far, so that having your incomprehension called out hurts. Could be that. Or it could be that you're just an unself-aware and unself-critical twat. Could be that. But I don't care. You aren't worth bothering with, imo.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:03 pm Why so cross? Perhaps you've bullied or bored your way through so far, so that having your incomprehension called out hurts. Could be that. Or it could be that you're just an unself-aware and unself-critical twat. Could be that. But I don't care. You aren't worth bothering with, imo.

And what about having your 'objectivity' called out ? And your blame externalization/projection? And your metaphysical, theoretical and epistemic gaps?

I am angry at your ignorance. Because you peddle the stupid idea that objective morality doesn't exist. And then the rest of society has to clean up your mess.

It is a harmful idea! And I am angry at your disregard for the consequences of spreading it.

Do you have a problem with me being angry at you or expressing it? Is that not 'allowed' in logic?

Why still drawing attention from the elephant in the room instead of addressing it? Perhaps you have been caught with your pants down and you need to turn the spotlight away from yourself?

I'll leave the elephant dancing around on your grave (should you choose to address it).

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:07 pm 2 We agree that any use of signs is conventional, so your transmitter-receiver point is trivial

In a society of two (You and I) there are two proposed conceptions of 'objectivity' on the table.
The merits of both need to be examined and one needs to be elected as the social convention for 'objectivity'.

What TRIVIAL process/mechanism/strategy can two people use to decide on a convention for the sign ''objectivity'?
And according to what criteria would we DECIDE that one conception is 'better' than the other?

What TRIVIAL mechanism do you propose to solve distributed consensus? (I bet you didn't even know you were on my turf!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

TimeSeeker wrote:

What is the 'objective standard' for 'hot' (vs 'cold')? Where do you draw the line? Above 25 Celsius? Above 30? 35?

Objective standards are arbitrated by those who have the power to do so ;in this case, scientists. For all I know there is no Greenwich mean time regarding temperatures, or there may be for all I know. But it's still up for arbitration. Some madman may have her own criteria however generally it's society that grants the powers to accredited scientists.

This leaves a gap which can never be filled by he who believes in objective morality. God is a mirage that we can't live without. We always have to say "as if".

That gap is just a symptom of the complexity of reality and the poverty of language.
[/quote]

I do agree that is the nature of the gap. My agreement is based on my subjective metaphysical preference regarding reality. There are others who would say that reality is not ordered at all, and yet others who are agnostic.

Regarding 'alive'. What I'd say is not the same as what medics who are thinking of switching off the machine would say. Brain dead is becoming quite the popular criterion. However, somebody in poetic mood might say that the dance made him feel really alive. Your own discussion, TimeSeeker, of 'alive' is within a physiological discourse. The tenor of the discourse is legitimated by the social group concerned.

TimeSeeker, do you believe that reality is ordered? Does order necessitate an orderer? Do you believe in God?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:12 pm Objective standards are arbitrated by those who have the power to do so ;in this case, scientists.

That is a rather cynical view. I am a scientist. Most of the time I am just guessing. Or I invent my own "standards" to meet my own needs
But if you find my "standards" useful - be my guest and use them also!

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:12 pm For all I know there is no Greenwich mean time regarding temperatures, or there may be for all I know. But it's still up for arbitration. Some madman may have her own criteria however generally it's society that grants the powers to accredited scientists.

Because GMT and Celsius are just conventions. Instead of choosing GMT as timezone 0, we could've chosen Beijing. 100 degrees Celsius is the "boiling point of water". Anders Celsius could've picked the "boiling point of milk" or "the boiling point of pig blood".

It doesn't matter what the convention is - as long as everybody agrees to it. And as long as we can calibrate our watches and thermometers to be accurate enough in measuring time and temperature then we are all on the same page.

Calibration of basic measurement units is all science offers. Measurement tools. What you measure with those tools is entirely up to you.
In this context we are correlating "high temperature" to the "feeling of hotness".

If I had told you "Damn! It's 35 degrees outside!" that would've been far more useful than "Damn! It's hot outside"

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:12 pm TimeSeeker, do you believe that reality is ordered? Does order necessitate an orderer? Do you believe in God?

I don't have much to say about reality and whether it's ordered. Or belief. Or Gods.

Some parts of reality are predictable (ordered?). Some are not.

All I have is a bunch of mathematical models and measurement tools that I find useful for problem-solving/predicting.
The things I can't predict are obviously not "ordered"

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

TimeSeeker, your second answer in your last post addressed to me is what I meant by "arbitrary". I reckon that we agree and thanks I am now better informed.

My metaphysical questions to you were about how I have wondered whether or not scientists think they are discovering or, alternatively, inventing. Your reply is like "shut up and calculate!".However I bet not all scientists are shut up and calculate scientists. Einstein wasn't. Nor Darwin.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:20 am TimeSeeker, your second answer in your last post addressed to me is what I meant by "arbitrary". I reckon that we agree and thanks I am now better informed.

I recon that most humans agree even if their language (logic) prevents them from reaching consensus.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:20 am My metaphysical questions to you were about how I have wondered whether or not scientists think they are discovering or, alternatively, inventing. Your reply is like "shut up and calculate!".However I bet not all scientists are shut up and calculate scientists. Einstein wasn't. Nor Darwin.

I think the line between discovery and invention is blurry. You may discover some consistent pattern of behavior about the world, but then you put it in language (logic) an you have necessarily left out something from your "discovery". Because all logical (read: linguistic) descriptions of reality are incomplete ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems )

And so as far as Einstein and Darwin - they were both making calculations. Or rather they were both making predictions based on calculations! The difference is only in their degree of precision.

Einstein was using the field equations to make ridiculously accurate predictions (14 decimal places or something) about gravitational phenomena so his science was very much quantitative.
Darwin made predictions about long-term trends in genetics (adaptation, extinction etc). He couldn't put them in mathematics (e.g he couldn't even put them down to 1 decimal place) so we call them qualitative. But that was in the 19th century.

In the 21st century we can measure genetic changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_d ... c_distance so you could say that Darwin didn't have the tools to make his theory quantitative at the time.

But then a question remains: how much precision do you want/need from science?

Even to this day we use Newton's equations way more than Einstein's equations. They are less precise, but they are precise-enough for application on Earth. Why do we do that? Because Newton's equations are simpler, less computationally intensive. They are "cheaper" on our brains. They are good enough To say that they are "true" or "false" is to miss the pragmatic point.

But to close the loop on your "discovery" vs "invention" question. Did Newton or Einstein "discover"or "invent" gravity? No. They just described it differently in the language of Mathematics.

Which only leaves the conflict between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

QFT makes even more precise predictions than GR, but on very very short time-scales (sub-second).
GR makes less less precise predictions than QFT but on very large time-scales (10^500 years) etc.

Which one is more useful to humans? If the goal is prediction then GR (because it buys us time). If the goal is control then QFT because it tackles the causal factors of the phenomena we care about.

The difference is time-complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity

In computer science, the time complexity is the computational complexity that describes the amount of time it takes to run an algorithm. Time complexity is commonly estimated by counting the number of elementary operations performed by the algorithm, supposing that each elementary operation takes a fixed amount of time to perform. Thus, the amount of time taken and the number of elementary operations performed by the algorithm are taken to differ by at most a constant factor.

Cheap vs expensive algorithms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

TimeSeeker wrote:

I think the line between discovery and invention is blurry. You may discover some consistent pattern of behavior about the world, but then you put it in language (logic) an you have necessarily left out something from your "discovery". Because all logical (read: linguistic) descriptions of reality are incomplete ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems )


--------------------------------------------------------


But to close the loop on your "discovery" vs "invention" question. Did Newton or Einstein "discover"or "invent" gravity? No. They just described it differently in the language of Mathematics.

I trust it's okay to leave out the middle part from what you wrote. What I have copied from yours seems to me to point to the nature of scientific theories as interlocks on a heuristic net. But I cannot accept that because some scientific theories are so powerful and my little mind's grasp of reality is the better for these great theories. It is hard for me to deny progress and the absolute value of enlightenment science .

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:01 pm I trust it's okay to leave out the middle part from what you wrote. What I have copied from yours seems to me to point to the nature of scientific theories as interlocks on a heuristic net. But I cannot accept that because some scientific theories are so powerful and my little mind's grasp of reality is the better for these great theories. It is hard for me to deny progress and the absolute value of enlightenment science .

Naturally - I am not denying that progress is being made. I think the point I am trying to make that through better languages (Mathematics, Higher Order Logics) come far more precise descriptions of real-world phenomena which leads to better conceptions of the phenomena around us and thus - better understanding.

Mathematics is a superior language to English for describing The Universe. Which is why mathematicians speak of their 'mathematical intuition'. The hardest part of that intuition is to translate it in English.

I guess what I am pointing to is Linguistic relativity and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

And because I not only use, but invent languages (programming languages) I have a conception for "language" itself that is difficult to narrate in English. Language is a tool. The closest I have ever come to agreeing with somebody on how I see language is this video: https://youtu.be/TDiENpmpY78

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:42 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:01 pm I trust it's okay to leave out the middle part from what you wrote. What I have copied from yours seems to me to point to the nature of scientific theories as interlocks on a heuristic net. But I cannot accept that because some scientific theories are so powerful and my little mind's grasp of reality is the better for these great theories. It is hard for me to deny progress and the absolute value of enlightenment science .

Naturally - I am not denying that progress is being made. I think the point I am trying to make that through better languages (Mathematics, Higher Order Logics) come far more precise descriptions of real-world phenomena which leads to better conceptions of the phenomena around us and thus - better understanding.

Mathematics is a superior language to English for describing The Universe. Which is why mathematicians speak of their 'mathematical intuition'. The hardest part of that intuition is to translate it in English.

I guess what I am pointing to is Linguistic relativity and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

And because I not only use, but invent languages (programming languages) I have a conception for "language" itself that is difficult to narrate in English. Language is a tool. The closest I have ever come to agreeing with somebody on how I see language is this video: https://youtu.be/TDiENpmpY78

I want to take time to watch the video, TimeSeeker. I think that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was about natural languages, not abstractions from natural languages, which is part of the definition of mathematics.

You say "naturally-" (your second paragraph). However it's not inevitable that anybody would be a modernist. Some quite respectable people are postmodernist regarding scientific theories.I'm not. Like you, I'm a modernist who presumes that post- enlightenment science is better than what went before.

I do intend to study your video.Meantime may I recommend the sociolinguistic theory of Basil Bernstein ? According to that theory it seems to me that I place more value upon the "restricted code" than do you. In other words people who are not speaking within the "elaborated code" which included mathematics and formal logic, are in my opinion, as likely as anybody else to formulate morality. Poetry is a function of "restricted code". Many poets are moralists. Religion is another function of restricted code.Although I like to write in as vernacular way as is consistent with clarity I am during this post writing elaborated code, as am writing as an independent mind as if I am truly objective. This is of course not the case, because I am as much a product of my culture as anybody else. Nobody can have access to moral objectivity.

Mathematical objectivity is another , different, category, from morality. Mathematics is tautological ---a huge tautology. It cannot create as can natural language. M. can explain and quantify what science finds but M. cannot create responses to a learner's environment. Perhaps artificial intelligence can do the latter. However even so it's hard to imagine that AI might be set the task of objective morality. I really think that we have to relinquish moral objectivity to the believers in a personal God; and I am not one of those.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:06 pm I want to take time to watch the video, TimeSeeker. I think that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was about natural languages, not abstractions from natural languages, which is part of the definition of mathematics.

I don't draw such a distinction. The word 'logic' comes from the Greek λογική. It means the 'spoken language'. The only distinction between formal and informal (natural and un-natural?) languages is that they lack consistency in structure and symbol representation/meaning. Colloquially: internal consistency.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:06 pm I do intend to study your video.Meantime may I recommend the sociolinguistic theory of Basil Bernstein ? According to that theory it seems to me that I place more value upon the "restricted code" than do you. In other words people who are not speaking within the "elaborated code" which included mathematics and formal logic, are in my opinion, as likely as anybody else to formulate morality.

From a phenomenological perspective the difference between 'elaborated code' and 'restricted code' is the same as the difference between 'natural' and 'formal' languages, and is the same as the difference between regular vs irregular languages from the Chomsky hierarchy.

And if I were to adopt Bernstein's perspective and vocabulary the Bernstein expresses the idea using 'restricted code' while Chomsky expresses the idea using 'elaborated code'. It is still the same idea/phenomenon being described

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:06 pm Poetry is a function of "restricted code". Many poets are moralists. Religion is another function of restricted code.Although I like to write in as vernacular way as is consistent with clarity I am during this post writing elaborated code, as am writing as an independent mind as if I am truly objective. This is of course not the case, because I am as much a product of my culture as anybody else.

Which is perfectly in line with the idea of 'language as a tool'. Poetry is using language for the goal of describing your experiences in a way that is aesthetically appealing to you. No rules - just expression! Human feelings are difficult to put into Mathematical equations without discarding a LOT of detail!

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:06 pm Nobody can have access to moral objectivity.

For varying conceptions of morality - I disagree. I believe in objective morality in the context of humans.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:06 pm Mathematical objectivity is another , different, category, from morality. Mathematics is tautological ---a huge tautology. It cannot create as can natural language.

This is where we fundamentally disagree! Lambda calculus (programming languages) ARE the creation! It is its own living proof of its existence! Robots, Artificial Intelligence, Self-driving cars, any and all automata. They are human desires expressed as 'elaborated code'!

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:06 pm M. can explain and quantify what science finds but M. cannot create responses to a learner's environment. Perhaps artificial intelligence can do the latter. However even so it's hard to imagine that AI might be set the task of objective morality.

Yeah, but there is no distinction - AI runs on mathematics And yes. Solving morality is a hard problem in AI. See some of Yudkowski and Bostrom's work in the field. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_ ... telligence ).

Strictly in the context of 'human beings' objective morality exists - survival, no harm. You and I understand what harm is (by example).
The problem is when you add a non-human entity into the equation. Explaining the word 'harm' to a computer is hard. VERY HARD.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer