Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:31-54|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reason, logic, and what we assume

Anonymous
8/26/2013 6:28:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And how is my standard low? I assume nothing that is not a required assumption for :living my life as though it is real. IE: I assume that my perceptions are valid.

I also have implicit assumptions when debating in scientific areas. For instance, I :assume naturalism and uniformitarianism.

Please, do explain how this equates to low standards, because my only other choice is :solipsism.

I, of course, believe that my reasoning corresponds With reality, but that's just an :assumption.

If you base your judgements of truth on what might as well be an arbitrary value (the status of your life), how can you claim that others doing the same are wrong? Assuming anything else would have the same logical value as assuming that your perceptions are valid, and this makes it self-defeating. Unless the "logic" you're assuming to be valid is not logic at all, your position cannot be held with any amount of certainty.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 9:25:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2013 6:28:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
And how is my standard low? I assume nothing that is not a required assumption for :living my life as though it is real. IE: I assume that my perceptions are valid.

I also have implicit assumptions when debating in scientific areas. For instance, I :assume naturalism and uniformitarianism.

Please, do explain how this equates to low standards, because my only other choice is :solipsism.

I, of course, believe that my reasoning corresponds With reality, but that's just an :assumption.



If you base your judgements of truth on what might as well be an arbitrary value (the status of your life), how can you claim that others doing the same are wrong?

Without an initial assumption, that reality is as I perceive, I can never know truth beyond my existence and certain abstract concepts. Even that's in question, because my logic in determining that could be invalid. I only make the assumptions I need to live my life as though it is real. I've never said that assuming anything you want is wrong, just that I find it detrimental to the way I wish to live my life. If you want to assume that your crap is gold in disguise, you do that. I don't care as long as It doesn't affect me. But having a conversation becomes useless.

Assuming anything else would have the same logical value as assuming that your perceptions are valid, and this makes it self-defeating.

If you start from solipsism as a frame of reference, then I agree with that. But, if you start from where I do, then it's not so.

Unless the "logic" you're assuming to be valid is not logic at all, your position cannot be held with any amount of certainty.

Nothing can ever be held with true certainty. Our brains are simply to susceptible to interference.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 3:06:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 10:33:33 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I think I can be absolutely certain that I exist.

It certainly seems so. But, you're using your logic to validate your logic, so it's inherently circular in the end. Logic starts with an axiom, so I don't believe certainty can ever be absolute. That's one of the reasons I get so pissed off at presuppositionalists. They refuse to acknowledge the fallibility of their mental processes.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Anonymous
8/28/2013 3:15:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2013 9:25:54 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:28:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
And how is my standard low? I assume nothing that is not a required assumption for :living my life as though it is real. IE: I assume that my perceptions are valid.

I also have implicit assumptions when debating in scientific areas. For instance, I :assume naturalism and uniformitarianism.

Please, do explain how this equates to low standards, because my only other choice is :solipsism.

I, of course, believe that my reasoning corresponds With reality, but that's just an :assumption.



If you base your judgements of truth on what might as well be an arbitrary value (the status of your life), how can you claim that others doing the same are wrong?

Without an initial assumption, that reality is as I perceive, I can never know truth beyond my existence and certain abstract concepts. Even that's in question, because my logic in determining that could be invalid. I only make the assumptions I need to live my life as though it is real. I've never said that assuming anything you want is wrong, just that I find it detrimental to the way I wish to live my life. If you want to assume that your crap is gold in disguise, you do that. I don't care as long as It doesn't affect me. But having a conversation becomes useless.
That initial assumption, without any solid grounding, makes conversation useless. How do you know that what you're doing allows you to live your life?
Assuming anything else would have the same logical value as assuming that your perceptions are valid, and this makes it self-defeating.

If you start from solipsism as a frame of reference, then I agree with that. But, if you start from where I do, then it's not so.

Unless the "logic" you're assuming to be valid is not logic at all, your position cannot be held with any amount of certainty.

Nothing can ever be held with true certainty. Our brains are simply to susceptible to interference.

By typing that statement, we can know many things with absolute certainty.
1. Something exists (cogito ergo sum)
2. Something is capable of detecting the fact that something exists
3. Something is capable of recognizing truths
4. For something to exist, it needs to exist. Therefore, something has an identity (A is A)
5. Something cannot have a unique identity and have the opposite be true (non-contradiction)
etc.
xx. Pressure on a key will result in the corresponding letter showing up on screen (using what we mean when we use these words, not some wishy-washy abstract definitions)

These are simply undeniable facts.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 3:55:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 3:06:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/28/2013 10:33:33 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I think I can be absolutely certain that I exist.

It certainly seems so. But, you're using your logic to validate your logic, so it's inherently circular in the end. Logic starts with an axiom, so I don't believe certainty can ever be absolute. That's one of the reasons I get so pissed off at presuppositionalists. They refuse to acknowledge the fallibility of their mental processes.

I think that propositions are either true or false, and cannot be both. I proceed then to conclude that something must exist, as all of this cannot be nothing. Then I conclude that I exist, for 'I' is nothing more than that very thought.

What refutation do you have of this?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:11:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 3:55:16 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/28/2013 3:06:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/28/2013 10:33:33 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I think I can be absolutely certain that I exist.

It certainly seems so. But, you're using your logic to validate your logic, so it's inherently circular in the end. Logic starts with an axiom, so I don't believe certainty can ever be absolute. That's one of the reasons I get so pissed off at presuppositionalists. They refuse to acknowledge the fallibility of their mental processes.

I think that propositions are either true or false, and cannot be both. I proceed then to conclude that something must exist, as all of this cannot be nothing. Then I conclude that I exist, for 'I' is nothing more than that very thought.

What refutation do you have of this?

Well, to start with, I can refute your statement that all propositions are either true or false, quite easily. This statement is false. Which is that, true or false?

Secondly, i didn't say I could refute the idea that one can know that one exists. I said the there can be no certainty on the matter, because our brains are suceptible to interference.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:12:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 3:15:27 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/26/2013 9:25:54 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:28:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
And how is my standard low? I assume nothing that is not a required assumption for :living my life as though it is real. IE: I assume that my perceptions are valid.

I also have implicit assumptions when debating in scientific areas. For instance, I :assume naturalism and uniformitarianism.

Please, do explain how this equates to low standards, because my only other choice is :solipsism.

I, of course, believe that my reasoning corresponds With reality, but that's just an :assumption.



If you base your judgements of truth on what might as well be an arbitrary value (the status of your life), how can you claim that others doing the same are wrong?

Without an initial assumption, that reality is as I perceive, I can never know truth beyond my existence and certain abstract concepts. Even that's in question, because my logic in determining that could be invalid. I only make the assumptions I need to live my life as though it is real. I've never said that assuming anything you want is wrong, just that I find it detrimental to the way I wish to live my life. If you want to assume that your crap is gold in disguise, you do that. I don't care as long as It doesn't affect me. But having a conversation becomes useless.
That initial assumption, without any solid grounding, makes conversation useless. How do you know that what you're doing allows you to live your life?
Assuming anything else would have the same logical value as assuming that your perceptions are valid, and this makes it self-defeating.

If you start from solipsism as a frame of reference, then I agree with that. But, if you start from where I do, then it's not so.

Unless the "logic" you're assuming to be valid is not logic at all, your position cannot be held with any amount of certainty.

Nothing can ever be held with true certainty. Our brains are simply to susceptible to interference.

By typing that statement, we can know many things with absolute certainty.
1. Something exists (cogito ergo sum)
2. Something is capable of detecting the fact that something exists
3. Something is capable of recognizing truths
4. For something to exist, it needs to exist. Therefore, something has an identity (A is A)
5. Something cannot have a unique identity and have the opposite be true (non-contradiction)
etc.
xx. Pressure on a key will result in the corresponding letter showing up on screen (using what we mean when we use these words, not some wishy-washy abstract definitions)

These are simply undeniable facts.

Ok, so, I assume you used logic to come to these facts. How do you know your logic is valid?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:14:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 3:15:27 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 8/26/2013 9:25:54 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/26/2013 6:28:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
And how is my standard low? I assume nothing that is not a required assumption for :living my life as though it is real. IE: I assume that my perceptions are valid.

I also have implicit assumptions when debating in scientific areas. For instance, I :assume naturalism and uniformitarianism.

Please, do explain how this equates to low standards, because my only other choice is :solipsism.

I, of course, believe that my reasoning corresponds With reality, but that's just an :assumption.



If you base your judgements of truth on what might as well be an arbitrary value (the status of your life), how can you claim that others doing the same are wrong?

Without an initial assumption, that reality is as I perceive, I can never know truth beyond my existence and certain abstract concepts. Even that's in question, because my logic in determining that could be invalid. I only make the assumptions I need to live my life as though it is real. I've never said that assuming anything you want is wrong, just that I find it detrimental to the way I wish to live my life. If you want to assume that your crap is gold in disguise, you do that. I don't care as long as It doesn't affect me. But having a conversation becomes useless.
That initial assumption, without any solid grounding, makes conversation useless. How do you know that what you're doing allows you to live your life?

By using my logic to allow me to see that it does, and my logic is grounded in the initial assumption.

If your plan is to point out some flaw in my logic here, don't bother. This isn't an area where logic works.

Assuming anything else would have the same logical value as assuming that your perceptions are valid, and this makes it self-defeating.

If you start from solipsism as a frame of reference, then I agree with that. But, if you start from where I do, then it's not so.

Unless the "logic" you're assuming to be valid is not logic at all, your position cannot be held with any amount of certainty.

Nothing can ever be held with true certainty. Our brains are simply to susceptible to interference.

By typing that statement, we can know many things with absolute certainty.
1. Something exists (cogito ergo sum)
2. Something is capable of detecting the fact that something exists
3. Something is capable of recognizing truths
4. For something to exist, it needs to exist. Therefore, something has an identity (A is A)
5. Something cannot have a unique identity and have the opposite be true (non-contradiction)
etc.
xx. Pressure on a key will result in the corresponding letter showing up on screen (using what we mean when we use these words, not some wishy-washy abstract definitions)

These are simply undeniable facts.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 6:37:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Easily, hm?

'Stalagtites cling tightly to the tiny perforations stationed across the sky'
'God is in the T.V.'
'Semen stains the mountaintops'

These propositions all attempt to describe what is the case, so they are not meaningless, but they can only do if the also claim to be true, clearly. Consider: 'Semen stains the mountaintops; that is the truth' - the addition is tautological, redundant, and so the claim of truth must be implicit in the proposition.

So, now we can reflect upon "This statement is false", and make an unnecessary (but illuminating) addition to it. 'This statement is false; that is the truth'. To my understanding, this constitutes a contradiction along the lines of 'This statement is true and it is false'. I propose that a contradictory statement cannot be true (and so is false) because it fails to describe what is the case. 'There are no tiny perforations stationed across the sky and there are tiny perforations stationed across the sky' conveys to me that the sky has perforations and that it does not have perforations, which is meaningless.

Some choose to stop there and say that meaningless statements are neither true nor false, but I disagree. A true proposition accurately describes what is the case, and so a proposition which is meaningless must fail to accurately describe what is the case, and so it is false.

Regarding interference... to what kind of interference do you refer, how do you know that interference prevents the derivation of the truth, and how do you know that my mind is being interfered with when I realise that I am myself?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 7:29:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 6:37:10 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Easily, hm?

'Stalagtites cling tightly to the tiny perforations stationed across the sky'
'God is in the T.V.'
'Semen stains the mountaintops'

These propositions all attempt to describe what is the case, so they are not meaningless, but they can only do if the also claim to be true, clearly. Consider: 'Semen stains the mountaintops; that is the truth' - the addition is tautological, redundant, and so the claim of truth must be implicit in the proposition.

The Intent of truth is not in those words, but in the person speaking them. Those statements could just as easily be intended to describe what is not the case, as they are to describe what is the case. Intent is in the speaker, not the words.

Instead, it is meaning which infers truth. They do not have intent, but they have a meaning. A purpose. But purpose and intent are different.


So, now we can reflect upon "This statement is false", and make an unnecessary (but illuminating) addition to it.

The addition is as necessary as the one who created the sentence wishes it to be. Even if your logic above was valid, the addition of the word false does not make this tautological, or redundant, because that would mean that falsity is just as inherent as truth, in a statement of what is the case.

'This statement is false; that is the truth'. To my understanding, this constitutes a contradiction along the lines of 'This statement is true and it is false'.

DING, DING, DING! You win, it's a condradiction! A contraction is another type of sentence, similar to true and false.

I propose that a contradictory statement cannot be true (and so is false)

If you assume there is a true false dichotomy, then yes, that would be true.

because it fails to describe what is the case. 'There are no tiny perforations stationed across the sky and there are tiny perforations stationed across the sky' conveys to me that the sky has perforations and that it does not have perforations, which is meaningless.
Some choose to stop there and say that meaningless statements are neither true nor false, but I disagree. A true proposition accurately describes what is the case, and so a proposition which is meaningless must fail to accurately describe what is the case, and so it is false.

Again, assuming a true false dichotomy, that is the case.

Just like if you have an atheism theism dichotomy, one is always either atheist or theist. But throw in agnostic, and you have a third. All you're doing is begging the question.


Regarding interference... to what kind of interference do you refer,

Any kind......

how do you know that interference prevents the derivation of the truth,

I don't. All I know is that it's possible.

and how do you know that my mind is being interfered with when I realise that I am myself?

I don't, but you don't know that it isn't.

The man in the insane asylum truly believes he is napoleon.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 7:51:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 3:06:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/28/2013 10:33:33 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I think I can be absolutely certain that I exist.

It certainly seems so.

The Fool: it can't seem so and be false..

muzebreak: But, you're using your logic to validate your logic,

The Fool: The Cogito is not dependent on logic as you need to exist to be using logic, and so you just proved it whether you like it or not.

Muzebreakso: it's inherently circular in the end.

The Fool: Red is red is inherently circular, and absolutely true. There is a valid and invalid circularity.

Moreover, if I myself, and seeing Red, well, I'm seeing red. There is no such assumptions or presumptions needed. I need not use logic to show that I'm seeing red as it would always be after the fact that I'm seeing red.
It sounds, like you yourself have created your own self-presumptions and Self-assumptions to project onto others for your own self-consciousness and confusion.. For you have claimed to yourself, for yourself, that you yourself can't know anything for certain, and so if you take yourself seriously, or truly. Then follows from yourself, presumptions
The possibility that you yourself are the only one who is uncertain and that everybody else may really be certain, for perhaps we are and we are all fooling you..

Muzebreakso: Logic starts with an axiom, so I don't believe certainty can ever be absolute.

The Fool: Nonsense, Logic starts with rational thought. We then use symbols to symbolize a rational thought process, which is the language we call Logic.
We say something, like 1=1 or by law of identity or by an axiom, but it is not because of the axiom or by law of identity that it is true, it is true because it is simply 1 on its own. But if we just put one symbol 1. People could not communicate self-reference.

Nothing but an axiom follow from an axiom,, and an axiom is a rule derived from something which is the case, already, not the other way around..

Muzebreakso: They refuse to acknowledge the fallibility of their mental processes.

The Fool: If you have such wisdom about the minds of others should you not have applied it that to yourself, for your own self refutation, and self-freedom? But, Perhaps I am speaking to much foolishness. Perhaps....

<(8D)

BIG PERHAPS!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 8:14:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"f you assume there is a true false dichotomy"

What is true is what is the case. What is false is what is not the case. There is a necessary dichotomy or 'true' and 'false' become meaningless, as are they not defined as mutually exclusive properties? If what is the case is the same as what is not the case... well, it's quite obvious.

Anyway, back to the ego. What I am, or what the sense of ego is, is just that, a sense of ego. If I am nothing but the product of interference, this does not detract from 'I'. So in merely having the thought 'I', I do indeed prove that I exist, whatever I am.

Also, I don't think it logically follows that because I may be irrational that I cannot put forward a rational argument.
Anonymous
8/28/2013 10:19:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"If your plan is to point out some flaw in my logic here, don't bother. This isn't an area where logic works."
Why not?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 2:53:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 7:51:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/28/2013 3:06:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/28/2013 10:33:33 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I think I can be absolutely certain that I exist.

It certainly seems so.

The Fool: it can't seem so and be false..

It seems as though matter is not made up of tiny particles. But when you look through an electron microscope, you see this is false.


muzebreak: But, you're using your logic to validate your logic,

The Fool: The Cogito is not dependent on logic as you need to exist to be using logic, and so you just proved it whether you like it or not.

And how do you know that that logic is valid?


Muzebreakso: it's inherently circular in the end.

The Fool: Red is red is inherently circular, and absolutely true. There is a valid and invalid circularity.


Yes, there is. But this is an example of vicious circularity.

Moreover, if I myself, and seeing Red, well, I'm seeing red. There is no such assumptions or presumptions needed. I need not use logic to show that I'm seeing red as it would always be after the fact that I'm seeing red.

And yet you've just used your logic to come to this conclusion, as you do with any other.

It sounds, like you yourself have created your own self-presumptions and Self-assumptions to project onto others for your own self-consciousness and confusion.. For you have claimed to yourself, for yourself, that you yourself can't know anything for certain, and so if you take yourself seriously, or truly. Then follows from yourself, presumptions
The possibility that you yourself are the only one who is uncertain and that everybody else may really be certain, for perhaps we are and we are all fooling you..

Muzebreakso: Logic starts with an axiom, so I don't believe certainty can ever be absolute.

The Fool: Nonsense, Logic starts with rational thought.

No, logic is rational thought. Logic inherently has to start with an axiom, otherwise it's just self validating.

We then use symbols to symbolize a rational thought process, which is the language we call Logic.
We say something, like 1=1 or by law of identity or by an axiom, but it is not because of the axiom or by law of identity that it is true, it is true because it is simply 1 on its own. But if we just put one symbol 1. People could not communicate self-reference.

Nothing but an axiom follow from an axiom,, and an axiom is a rule derived from something which is the case, already, not the other way around..

No, an axiom is something that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self evidently true.


Muzebreakso: They refuse to acknowledge the fallibility of their mental processes.

The Fool: If you have such wisdom about the minds of others should you not have applied it that to yourself, for your own self refutation, and self-freedom? But, Perhaps I am speaking to much foolishness. Perhaps....

Not perhaps, you definitely are.


<(8D)

BIG PERHAPS!.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 2:58:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 8:14:14 PM, Wocambs wrote:
"f you assume there is a true false dichotomy"

What is true is what is the case. What is false is what is not the case. There is a necessary dichotomy or 'true' and 'false' become meaningless, as are they not defined as mutually exclusive properties? If what is the case is the same as what is not the case... well, it's quite obvious.

Let's take 'this statement is false'. Now, let's assume it's false. Then it's true, but it can't
be true, because it's false. This sentence neither describe what is the case, nor what is not the case. It is a trick of language, and it creates a paradox, a contradiction.



Anyway, back to the ego. What I am, or what the sense of ego is, is just that, a sense of ego. If I am nothing but the product of interference, this does not detract from 'I'. So in merely having the thought 'I', I do indeed prove that I exist, whatever I am.

It seems that way.


Also, I don't think it logically follows that because I may be irrational that I cannot put forward a rational argument.

Agreed. But you can never be sure whether it actually is rational, or if you just think it's rational.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 2:59:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2013 10:19:23 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
"If your plan is to point out some flaw in my logic here, don't bother. This isn't an area where logic works."
Why not?

Because the is where you see that logic must be self validating, which is viciously circular.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 8:25:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm fairly certain your rebuttal to my rebuttal of 'This statement is false' was to claim that I am assuming a true / false dichotomy.

And your rebuttal to my proof of the true / false dichotomy is to say 'This statement is false'.

I think it is you, not I, who is being circular here. Presumably when I copy and paste my previous answer to that 'paradox' you will repeat that I am assuming a true / false dichotomy...

Let's try this. My argument is perfectly in accordance with my logic, and my logic is perfectly in accordance with reality, therefore my thinking is perfectly in accordance with the truth.

All I have to do then is show that my thinking is logical, and that my logic fits reality. Didn't I do that earlier?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 5:14:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2013 8:25:40 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I'm fairly certain your rebuttal to my rebuttal of 'This statement is false' was to claim that I am assuming a true / false dichotomy.

That was one point I had, which I expounded on. I find your explanation to be a bit to simplistic.


And your rebuttal to my proof of the true / false dichotomy is to say 'This statement is false'.

That's just plain wrong. I expounded on that several times.


I think it is you, not I, who is being circular here. Presumably when I copy and paste my previous answer to that 'paradox' you will repeat that I am assuming a true / false dichotomy...

Yes, because you are. Do you even know what a circular argument?


Let's try this. My argument is perfectly in accordance with my logic, and my logic is perfectly in accordance with reality, therefore my thinking is perfectly in accordance with the truth.

Prove that your logic reflects reality.


All I have to do then is show that my thinking is logical, and that my logic fits reality. Didn't I do that earlier?

No, you didn't. You asserted it, then when I presented a doubt, you just kinda said 'nu-uh!'.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 7:39:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh, what a feisty individual thou art.

"I find your explanation to be a bit to simplistic."

This does not constitute a refutation of any sense.

"That's just plain wrong. I expounded on that several times." - Let's look at the evidence.

W: "I propose that a contradictory statement cannot be true (and so is false)" - in response to 'this statement is false'

m: "you assume there is a true false dichotomy"

W:"What is true is what is the case. What is false is what is not the case. There is a necessary dichotomy or 'true' and 'false' become meaningless, as are they not defined as mutually exclusive properties? If what is the case is the same as what is not the case... well, it's quite obvious."

m: "Let's take 'this statement is false'. Now, let's assume it's false. Then it's true, but it can't be true, because it's false. This sentence neither describe what is the case, nor what is not the case. It is a trick of language, and it creates a paradox, a contradiction."

Your evidence that 'This statement is false' is a paradox is that there is no true / false dichotomy, and your evidence that there is no true / false dichotomy is 'This statement is false'.

m: 'This statement is false' proves there is no true / false dichotomy as it is neither
W: No, it is false, there is a contradiction
m: Okay, prove that there is a true false / dichotomy without assuming it
W: (Does so)
m: Have I told you about 'this statement is false'?

Shouldn't you be explaining how what is true can also be what is false?

"Prove that your logic reflects reality."

Something exists. Therefore it is true that 'something exists' and it is not true that 'nothing exists'. Therefore what is true is not what is false, and what is true is what is true. Therefore 'This statement is true and it is false' is false. Therefore there is no paradox.

"No, you didn't. You asserted it, then when I presented a doubt, you just kinda said 'nu-uh!""

Maybe I did, I wasn't so sure I did explain it. I think we should put this kind of scepticism back in the drawer and bow down to the majesty of Wittgenstein when he pointed out that doubting requires you to place some ground from which you can doubt... doesn't doubting assume both 'true' and false'?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2013 9:38:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2013 7:39:15 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Oh, what a feisty individual thou art.

"I find your explanation to be a bit to simplistic."

This does not constitute a refutation of any sense.

"That's just plain wrong. I expounded on that several times." - Let's look at the evidence.

W: "I propose that a contradictory statement cannot be true (and so is false)" - in response to 'this statement is false'

m: "you assume there is a true false dichotomy"

W:"What is true is what is the case. What is false is what is not the case. There is a necessary dichotomy or 'true' and 'false' become meaningless, as are they not defined as mutually exclusive properties? If what is the case is the same as what is not the case... well, it's quite obvious."

m: "Let's take 'this statement is false'. Now, let's assume it's false. Then it's true, but it can't be true, because it's false. This sentence neither describe what is the case, nor what is not the case. It is a trick of language, and it creates a paradox, a contradiction."

Your evidence that 'This statement is false' is a paradox is that there is no true / false dichotomy, and your evidence that there is no true / false dichotomy is 'This statement is false'.

m: 'This statement is false' proves there is no true / false dichotomy as it is neither
W: No, it is false, there is a contradiction
m: Okay, prove that there is a true false / dichotomy without assuming it
W: (Does so)
m: Have I told you about 'this statement is false'?

Shouldn't you be explaining how what is true can also be what is false?

"Prove that your logic reflects reality."

Something exists. Therefore it is true that 'something exists' and it is not true that 'nothing exists'. Therefore what is true is not what is false, and what is true is what is true. Therefore 'This statement is true and it is false' is false. Therefore there is no paradox.

"No, you didn't. You asserted it, then when I presented a doubt, you just kinda said 'nu-uh!""

Maybe I did, I wasn't so sure I did explain it. I think we should put this kind of scepticism back in the drawer and bow down to the majesty of Wittgenstein when he pointed out that doubting requires you to place some ground from which you can doubt... doesn't doubting assume both 'true' and false'?

I would like to point out here, that there are logical programmes which do not involve the true-false dichotomy you speak of (which is often referred to as logical bivalence). Intuitionism is one, (which is a form of constructivism) relevant logic is another. It is intuitive that a statement must be either true or false and cannot be neither or both at first glance, but on careful inspection of the concepts many philosophers have come to reject one or the other assumption (law of excluded middle or law of non-contradiction). A constructive (definitional) understanding of the world necessitates that some statements are neither true nor false and the sentence 'This sentence is false' is a prime example of the kind of statement that cannot be reliably assigned a truth value. Some statements (like the continuum hypothesis) are unprovable (not just unproven) from the standard axioms of their theory. In what sense must a statement either be true or false if we know that it cannot be decided which (and this is not just knowing that we don't know if it is true or false, it is that we know that we can't know). For even if we were to pick one, it is still an arbitrary choice, because there is no good reason either way. Sometimes we use abduction (look at the consequences of the statement being true and if you like them, assume that it is) to do it, but abduction is not universally valid either.

In regards to your example reasoning you committed an inductive generalisation (which is not guaranteed to be valid) at the step indicated.
1. Something exists.
2. Therefore: it is true that 'something exists' and it is not true that 'nothing exists'. (debateable but generally accepted)
3. Therefore what is true is not what is false, and what is true is what is true. (inductive generalisation from a specific case to a universal, not valid, it might be the case that this works for existence, but not for other predicates)
4. Therefore 'This statement is true and it is false' is false. Therefore there is no paradox. (I do not understand this step, how did you get here?)

And finally, doubting probably does require true and false, however, it does not require that they be mutually exclusive and exhaustive things, only that they are not precisely the same which would be the case if just one statement possessed one of these properties but not the other.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 1:42:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
muzebreak: It seems as though matter is not made up of tiny particles. But when you look through an electron microscope, you see this is false.

The Fool: Lol. High School? No S-h-i-t!

muzebreak: But, you're using your logic to validate your logic,

The Fool: The Cogito is not dependent on logic as you need to exist to be using logic, and so you just proved it whether you like it or not.

muzebreak: And how do you know that that logic is valid?

The Fool: read much?
-----The Cogito is not dependent on logic as you need to exist to be using logic, and so you just proved it whether you like it or not.<-----
The proof of the self doesn't need a logic, because you need to exist to even use a logic. Just like you have to exist to have a believe at all. Even if you doubt that your existing the fact that you're doubting anything is the proof that you exist.

Muzebreakso: it's inherently circular in the end.

The Fool: Red is red is inherently circular, and absolutely true. There is a valid and invalid circularity.

Muzebreakso: Yes, there is. But this is an example of vicious circularity.

The Fool: There's nothing vicious about it, were are you deriving "viciousness" from? Yourself perhaps..

A self-reference is not an invalid argument , as it is not even an argument but a reference. The circle is in the linguistic reference not in the thing being referenced.
You're confusing argumentative circularity, with tautological circularity.
An ARGUMENT which is INVALID by circularity is one where the Reason for A , is claimed to be true by something other than A, B perhaps, and then the reason why B is claimed to be true is because A is true. B

E.g
Muzebreakso: why is it A?
The Fool: why is it A?
The Sophist: Because of B,
The Fool: why is it B?
Muzebreakso: Because of A

THE REASON FOR A is not the very same thing As the fact "That" A

For example I don't need to know "why" I'm seeing red, to know, "that" I'm seeing red.

Nor, do we need to know "why" it rains to know, "THAT" there is in fact Rain.
Is the "sun" hot? and why is the "sun" hot? Are different questions and require different validation..
The "Why" question presumes a purpose.

Ergo:
Moreover, if I myself, am seeing Red, well, I'm seeing red. There is no such assumptions or presumptions needed. I need not use logic to show that I'm seeing red as it would always be after the fact that I'm seeing red.

Muzebreakso: And yet you've just used your logic to come to this conclusion, as you do with any other.

The Fool: No, you yourself have created for yourself, that I myself, used logic. You are projecting the way you yourself understand things, and then confusing your own self-understanding as someone else's, for your own self-betrayal. As I, myself am the only one who has direct access to my conscious perception. It is you that must use inference, perhaps with logic, or the way you are now, it is only your inference about another's mind state that has a possible of being wrong. Not the other way around.

The fact that I'm seeing red, is synonymously and the same fact that Red is being Seen, It's not a deduction, induction or an inference at all. It's just seeing red.. An immediate conscious perception. No inference, no decision, no choice, no claim and no proofs needed.
Seeing red is the proof and the truth is synonymously the fact of seeing red.

Not by axioms, not by reasoning, not by belief, not by establishment, not by acceptance, not by your Religion, not by anything else, as other than the "seeing of red" itself.

For even babies know this, without ever knowing anything about an axiom, And perhaps fools.
It is itself the evidence, and thus self-evident..
And it is this conception from which we derive self-evidence which we use to create axiom, as a tool, in the language of logic. But it is not true, or self-evident, or a fact, by or because of an axiom. An axiom is and abstract conception derived from an intuition.

Ergo:
Nothing but an axiom follow from an axiom,, and an axiom is a rule derived from something which is the case, already, not the other way around..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 1:43:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Muzebreakso: Logic starts with an axiom, so I don't believe certainty can ever be absolute.

The Fool: For such self-beliefs are best for yourself, and even your own ears, for whom they sound the soundest.

The Fool: Nonsense, Logic starts with rational thought.

Muzebreakso: No, logic is rational thought.

The Fool: No, Rational thought is rational thought. Why so you self-surmise such things?

Logic is a "word" that is derived from Logos which Means WORD/WAY. A logical system is a proofing tool which we create with rational thought; it consist of symbols aimed at representing rational thought to the best degree possible, but it can have errors, be false and/or fail to represent rational thought. But rational thought cannot fail to be itself.

Logic, has improved a lot since Aristotelian times, and it is not the logic that improves itself, but rational self-thinkers, that improve the logic.

Ergo:
We then use symbols to symbolize a rational thought process, which is the language we call Logic.

Muzebreakso: Logic inherently has to start with an axiom, otherwise it's just self-validating.

The Fool: That is what you yourself are saying. But who concerns themselves with such "Sayings". You have said many things out load, but have only demonstrated to yourself. A self-satisfied self-stration. via things "said" But It would be more interesting to discuss sayings with true references.

Have you ever listen to yourself for yourself for a moment?

From you yourself:

------>Muzebreakso: Logic inherently has to start with an axiom,--- otherwise it's just self-validating."
To you yourself:

----Muzebreakso: No, an axiom is something that is "regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true."

And back to yourself again:

Muzebreakso: Logic inherently has to start with (something that is "regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.) ------otherwise,---- it's just self-validating."

The Fool: The only thing that needs accepting here is your own self-defeat. In addition to that, those are all inconsistent definitions of the same term. For yourself, you probably got off the
What is accepted is not necessarily self-evident or established. what is established is not necessarily true, accepted or self-evident.

So based on your own self-evidence, and self-assuredness, and some self-stupidity, it is fair and just, as opposed to mere self-surmising, to conclude, that you, yourself, are quite self-confused to yourself, let alone to be self-promoting and self-projecting this self-contained confusion through the minds of selves, other than yourself.

What do you think to yourself is the "Entity", that is, "the Something", which you use the word axiom to refer to, "an axiom"?

<(80)
Muzebreakso: They refuse to acknowledge the fallibility of their mental processes.
The Fool: If you have such wisdom about the minds of others should you not have
applied it that to yourself, for your own self refutation, and self-freedom? But, Perhaps I am speaking to much foolishness. Perhaps....

Muzebreakso: Not perhaps, you definitely are.

The Fool: And so you refute yourself, again, by your own self-created axiom, That you yourself doesn't know anything certain.

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.