First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Failure of normative logic to address the progressive nature of existence
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/15

nanikore2 wrote:

I have used reidentification the same way it has always been used in metaphysics and philosphy of consciousness:

http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?siteToSearch=aup&q=reidentification&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true

The purpose of talking about reidentification here is to demonstrate the non-trivial nature of a statement such as A=A, and of such activities as "being logical" (What is being logical, you ask?... I would say ask all the people who routinely throw around such phrases as "people aren't being logical" and "What they think defies logic" since they should have an excellent grasp of it). It's really not geared towards anyone who is already aware of the non-triviality.


Oh FFS, thank got we're getting into some more regular talk here.

So basically you're fighting in one hand with one set of problems, which is how we identify the same object via the lens of time, and how we can call things the same object, and for them to hold the same objective truths, despite the fact that time changes them.

(basically the old "A man cannot cross the same river twice, as he is not the same man, and it is not the same river" problem.

This kinda has HUGE bearing on the whole mind body and identity problem if I'm understanding it correctly.

On the one hand, I may know Bill from childhood. Bill was an asshole, and he stood about 3 feet tall and was one of the ugliest son of bitches you'd even lay eyes upon. Well, I just met up with bill yesterday, and my has he changed! six feet tall and handsome. He's grown a beard and is soft spoken and courteous. I'd swear he wasn't the same Bill! (but he is.........)

On the other hand, I also bought a CD about ten years ago. I made a PERFECTLY identical copy of the CD. (kinda an information/mind body problem that's often proposed about us either being the data, or the body, or both, and what about copies, etc.. Kinda ignoring those questions for another aspect of the problem here). Ten years later, I've been playing one or the other copy from time to time, and they look and sound kinda different. One has grape stains on it from when I made a PN&J sandwich two years ago, and the other kinda skips on track two a bit... Are they still perfect copies of each other? Or does time and entropic forces somehow act upon identical objects and force them to diverge?

Basically you're trying to argue that there's a continuity of the definition of bill through temporal changes (which we agree, he has changed, but is still Bill because we can trace a temporal link from moment to moment all the way back to the former Bill, despite his many changes)

On the other hand, you're admitting that things are always subject to change via time, and when referring to multiple objects especially, as well as new data. When we use a definition, or we define a set, we're doing so temporally too in an implicit manner, as it only deals with the information we have at hand.

The other tricky part of it is that we know the past but not the future, (the lopsidedness of time) we cannot deal with future sets, only present and past sets of data.


37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/15 , edited 3/13/15
I saw how long the OP was...it is about philosophy and such...eh, crunchyroll is just not the kind of place I think I'll find great discussion on philosophy. I probably won't bother to read such a long post. Seriously, CR is just not a good place for great philosophy discussion. This is the same forum that brought us such brilliant topics as "If this loli cockroach showed up at your front door, would you be her friend" and "Do you poop at work or school?".
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/15

nanikore2 wrote:

Thanks for the summary. Logic is a discovery that, as with everything else, could be made into a tool and be abused as a tool. When solving math proofs, it's being shaped and used as a tool. As with any tool, it can be intentionally / unintentionally abused, bent, and broken (with various paradoxes. As far metaphysics, I think of anything that's being understood as more than a "working model" to be abusive. Just my opinion).


In that case, you're basically justifying a pragmaticist's approach.

If you treat everything as a working model, then in some ways, you are admitting to the fact that it won't be finished until time ceases to exist (which is kinda existentialist, and some of the vibe I got from it) and at the same time, you are admitting things are subject to change, and there may be mistakes with it, but it's is what it is, so long as it works for that purpose. In the realm of truths, if it works as being true, it's true... until it shows itself to no longer be true.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/15

Dubnoman wrote:

I saw how long the OP was...it is about philosophy and such...eh, crunchyroll is just not the kind of place I think I'll find great discussion on philosophy. I probably won't bother to read such a long post. Seriously, CR is just not a good place for great philosophy discussion. This is the same forum that brought us such brilliant topics as "If this loli cockroach showed up at your front door, would you be her friend" and "Do you poop at work or school?".



Not formally like the OP did anyhow.. Meanwhile, Hume, Kant, Sarte, Wittgenstein, Quali, Plato, Kirkegaard, Descarte, Liebniz, Hobbes, Berkeley, and others have all popped into discussion at various times in the past 4-5 months... Mainly on the religion vs. science tirades, but still.. It's got a firm group of people that enjoy philosophy and discussing it....

Just not this formally.
Posted 3/13/15
Hmm yep, i took a wrong turn at the i have no idea what the hell people are saying corner...
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/13/15 , edited 3/13/15

serifsansserif wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Thanks for the summary. Logic is a discovery that, as with everything else, could be made into a tool and be abused as a tool. When solving math proofs, it's being shaped and used as a tool. As with any tool, it can be intentionally / unintentionally abused, bent, and broken (with various paradoxes. As far metaphysics, I think of anything that's being understood as more than a "working model" to be abusive. Just my opinion).


In that case, you're basically justifying a pragmaticist's approach.

If you treat everything as a working model, then in some ways, you are admitting to the fact that it won't be finished until time ceases to exist (which is kinda existentialist, and some of the vibe I got from it) and at the same time, you are admitting things are subject to change, and there may be mistakes with it, but it's is what it is, so long as it works for that purpose. In the realm of truths, if it works as being true, it's true... until it shows itself to no longer be true.


In addition to justifying a pragmatic approach, I'm also advocating epistemic humility- "Staying silent" regarding the "really-really-is" of the metaphysical realm.


pvrhye wrote:

A quick skim though seems to say that what something is is contentious because it can be different things to differing amounts to different people. I'm not sure that needs a metaphysical explanation. There are plenty enough objective characteristics to measure without going down the fruitless rabbit-hole of solipsism.


In your opinion, how are logical paradoxes created?
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/13/15 , edited 3/13/15

serifsansserif wrote:
On the one hand, I may know Bill from childhood. Bill was an asshole, and he stood about 3 feet tall and was one of the ugliest son of bitches you'd even lay eyes upon. Well, I just met up with bill yesterday, and my has he changed! six feet tall and handsome. He's grown a beard and is soft spoken and courteous. I'd swear he wasn't the same Bill! (but he is.........)

Basically you're trying to argue that there's a continuity of the definition of bill through temporal changes (which we agree, he has changed, but is still Bill because we can trace a temporal link from moment to moment all the way back to the former Bill, despite his many changes)

On the other hand, you're admitting that things are always subject to change via time, and when referring to multiple objects especially, as well as new data. When we use a definition, or we define a set, we're doing so temporally too in an implicit manner, as it only deals with the information we have at hand.

The other tricky part of it is that we know the past but not the future, (the lopsidedness of time) we cannot deal with future sets, only present and past sets of data.




Basically. "Things" can only retain a general identity, not containing identifiers that are expected to be absolutely specific. Otherwise, you'd get into trouble / create logical problems where you're stuck with an identifier that you're using (really misusing) to pin down the identity of the object. The "black" of a black raven isn't a specific "black", any more than the "green" of a green apple. Once you're stuck, you'd be using something weird and nonsensical to work around the problem, like Bayesian mathematic analysis for the raven paradox (wha?... The mind doesn't work that way anyways... Our brains aren't exactly bean counters)


pirththee wrote:

Did you want to discuss this or publish it?If this already has been published, it's fairly informal, may we be allowed to review the entire text, or be directed to a source?This begs the question as to why you chose this venue to post this?It's somewhat difficult to generate a point by point discussion given the length of your post, and the real time limitations of this format.


Since topics such as "If kissing give you orgasm and makes you pregnant..." were posted, I thought "Ah, I see that literally anything goes".

Therefore, this post.

It's okay to just pick any point you please out of it. As far as time limitations... CR is one giant time sink anyhow, nothing extra lost there.


CheckSix wrote:

Speaking of philosophical modalities, is the following why you want to "narimasu" a "twintail"?


There are far easier ways to get a kiss, but I liked the hilarious transformation music that clearly mocks Sailor Moon Crystal, since it sounds more like the SMC transformation theme rather than the old one.
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/15 , edited 3/13/15
I'm honestly a bit confused. Can you perhaps reiterate some of your basic points, and/or also answer some of the following questions?

1.) What is the difference between intuition and induction?

2.) Do you aim to find some sort of basic structure of thought within the mind?

3.) And if this is so, do you think this structure lay in the conscious or subconscious?

I feel like I am somewhere near the right track of understanding you, but I could be way off.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 3/13/15

nanikore2 wrote:

Basically. "Things" can only retain a general identity, not containing identifiers that are expected to be absolutely specific. Otherwise, you'd get into trouble / create logical problems where you're stuck with an identifier that you're using (really misusing) to pin down the identity of the object. The "black" of a black raven isn't a specific "black", any more than the "green" of a green apple. Once you're stuck, you'd be using something weird and nonsensical to work around the problem, like Bayesian mathematic analysis for the raven paradox (wha?... The mind doesn't work that way anyways... Our brains aren't exactly bean counters)



True, but then you have a tricky situation:

If you're too general with your definitions, they lose meaning from being too inclusive or vague. If you're too specific, they're overly pointed, verbose, and too constrictive, which is kinda agreeing with your overall point.

It reminds me of another counter movement in philosophy led by more of the american philosophers who didn't agree with the overprecision of certain groups of European analytic philosophers who were overly verbose, and said, "make it clear, concise, and as close to the point as possible in order to discuss the subject".

It was good.

and yeah, the mind doesn't do calculations very well, but it does recognize things fairly well, even when said things are in a different context, (like seeing your teacher at a strip club) or when they don't appear exactly the same (if someone's wearing different clothes and got a haircut and maybe is wearing makeup) I love this part about philosophy... the crazier the examples, the better they are sometimes.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/13/15

serifsansserif wrote:

It reminds me of another counter movement in philosophy led by more of the american philosophers who didn't agree with the overprecision of certain groups of European analytic philosophers who were overly verbose, and said, "make it clear, concise, and as close to the point as possible in order to discuss the subject".

It was good.


Major conflicts in philosophy probably aren't wars of ideas as much as wars of habits in thinking.
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Online
Posted 3/13/15 , edited 3/13/15

nanikore2

Thanks for the summary. Logic is a discovery that, as with everything else, could be made into a tool and be abused as a tool. When solving math proofs, it's being shaped and used as a tool. As with any tool, it can be intentionally / unintentionally abused, bent, and broken (with various paradoxes. As far metaphysics, I think of anything that's being understood as more than a "working model" to be abusive. Just my opinion).

Ah, yeah, a bit of "handwaving" does have to happen from time to time, even in disciplines like math and physics to get around some things. Thinking about a few examples like naive set theory, or even Newton's first formulation of calculus from math. Stuff has had to get reworked for sure.

So, re-reading that opening post, I guess I'd ask quite simply where you think that leaves a field like metaphysics? You make implications there I didn't totally dissect in that first go around.
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/14/15

crazykl45 wrote:


nanikore2

Thanks for the summary. Logic is a discovery that, as with everything else, could be made into a tool and be abused as a tool. When solving math proofs, it's being shaped and used as a tool. As with any tool, it can be intentionally / unintentionally abused, bent, and broken (with various paradoxes. As far metaphysics, I think of anything that's being understood as more than a "working model" to be abusive. Just my opinion).

Ah, yeah, a bit of "handwaving" does have to happen from time to time, even in disciplines like math and physics to get around some things. Thinking about a few examples like naive set theory, or even Newton's first formulation of calculus from math. Stuff has had to get reworked for sure.

So, re-reading that opening post, I guess I'd ask quite simply where you think that leaves a field like metaphysics? You make implications there I didn't totally dissect in that first go around.


The field would go on like it always has. This sounds like a cop out but it doesn't really matter if a group of people (or just one person- me) uses metaphysics only for "methodological" purposes. It`s the same as when some do revisionary metaphysics while others don't.
8073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Busan, ROK
Offline
Posted 3/15/15

In your opinion, how are logical paradoxes created?


More often than not, I think they're just a weakness of language since most logical paradoxes I've encountered are easy enough to understand intuitively. When the girlscout cookie factor mistakenly produces a fat thin mint, it's easily understood what that means. If really pressed you could describe that with a very long description like "a thin mint cookie that is fatter than the ones that are typically produced".
39038 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Houston, Texas
Offline
Posted 3/15/15 , edited 3/15/15
No matter how much you don't want it to be so, being that its illogical..
Perception is Reality
.. (drops mic)
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 5 days ago

Rohzek wrote:

I'm honestly a bit confused. Can you perhaps reiterate some of your basic points, and/or also answer some of the following questions?

1.) What is the difference between intuition and induction?

2.) Do you aim to find some sort of basic structure of thought within the mind?

3.) And if this is so, do you think this structure lay in the conscious or subconscious?

I feel like I am somewhere near the right track of understanding you, but I could be way off.


I had to find my own post to reference a link to it and I saw your reply. Sorry for the very late reply.

The main point of the post is that logic depends on our sense of how things in the world are stable and identifiable. This stability in "being" and identity are assumptions we must first take before using logic.

1) To me, intuition means our bodily sense of "the way things are". Induction would be a collection (verb) of these senses.
2) My aim is to show how the world is not. I am working off the assumption that the mind is not the world and vice versa, without offering a description of the mind.
3) N/A
3368 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Offline
Posted 5 days ago

nanikore2 wrote:


Rohzek wrote:

I'm honestly a bit confused. Can you perhaps reiterate some of your basic points, and/or also answer some of the following questions?

1.) What is the difference between intuition and induction?

2.) Do you aim to find some sort of basic structure of thought within the mind?

3.) And if this is so, do you think this structure lay in the conscious or subconscious?

I feel like I am somewhere near the right track of understanding you, but I could be way off.


I had to find my own post to reference a link to it and I saw your reply. Sorry for the very late reply.

The main point of the post is that logic depends on our sense of how things in the world are stable and identifiable. This stability in "being" and identity are assumptions we must first take before using logic.

1) To me, intuition means our bodily sense of "the way things are". Induction would be a collection (verb) of these senses.
2) My aim is to show how the world is not. I am working off the assumption that the mind is not the world and vice versa, without offering a description of the mind.
3) N/A


This reply is beyond late.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.