|
***My idea of full neurological knowledge is not about traditional scientific inquiry; my idea is that if you had total recall to conception; you might recall CONSTRUCTING your own brain and body and have full understanding of its data-processing systems. This assumes "you" are pure spirit not just body.***
That's pure imaginative speculation. You might as well speculate that if we had total recall of our memories that we would remember our past lives. It is your belief, but you can't use your beliefs to argue a point - at least be very convincing.
***Re: "identity ". This concept involves a double definition, or a matching of patterns. Because there is "A", and this "identity" that "A" allegedly has. Example: "A" has an identity as a pilot. Actually, "pilot" is a subset of "A", if "A" is fully described. If one knows the boundaries of one's existence; if one knows the limits of definition, one just IS and knows IS-ness. "Identity" has collapsed into oneself. To be is to be unique.***
Alan, you seem to be so sold on your own pontificated statements that even you have no idea what they mean. I call it your mumbo jumbo.
***I wrote: "But what if they had an identical twin you didn't know about? How to be sure you know who is at the door?" Why call this question "ridiculous"?***
I'm shocked that I have to explain why a ridiculous question is ridiculous, but since you asked, I will. When is the last time that you weren't sure if you were really 'you'? If you seriously have those concerns, then you probably need medication. Don't get so hooked up on the term 'know' that you begin asking silly questions in life. What we 'know' is based on our human experience and the working assumptions of a well-adjusted human mind. Beyond these limits, we don't 'know' anything. What happens though, is that people start thinking in terms of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, and they become confused about knowledge and reject the pragmatic knowledge that humans, as a general rule, accept - which is why we survived as a species. I imagine that if hominids that, as a group, thought such metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, they probably went extinct.
***My point was about how do you know something for sure, that you are not mistaken? If you have full awareness of the boundaries of your patterns that you compare, that is a start.***
Humans are barely aware of their emotions much less of their 'bounderies of patterns'. That doesn't stop their day to day living from being able to function.
***I'm aware of pragmatism; I was looking at the foundations; from which chosen "pragmatic" less- precise criteria of "knowing" are adopted. But such pragmatic criteria are chosen. Underpinning them one relies on more tautological criteria?***
Maybe you didn't hear the news. Philosophy rejected foundationalism about a century ago. Gödel's proof was the last stake in the heart of this effort (i.e., many logicians, mathematicians, and philosophers turned toward mathematics as a means of putting knowledge on a foundation). The appeal of pragmatism is that it is without foundations and it has shown to be very resilient to attack.
Logical criteria is not what underpins pragmatic beliefs. Success is what justifies the pragmatic approach. Now, one could respond with saying that we justify the use of success by utilizing a logical argument (which is what I suppose you mean by tautological criteria), however the opposite must the case. Any logical argument must have axioms, it must have definitions, it must have rules of inference. None of these are provided by pure logic coming down from Heaven. Rather, they are all selected based on a pragmatic basis. Therefore, even logic is a pragmatic belief. Pragmatism is therefore justified in elevating itself above some logical foundationalism that you are advocating.
*** To seek an explanation of an ultimate explanation is a contradiction in terms; as any explanation found would be the ultimate one instead.***
Hence your 'ultimate explanation' is pragmatically based. You may not realize it, but your ultimate explanation is the law of non-contradiction (LNC). Therefore, the LNC is, unless known to be otherwise, limited to human experience.
***The alternative logicians are fooling themselves with category games. I showed that LNC is basic. "pragmatic experience" is based on LNC; or you could not even talk of its existence with any reliability; as this "pragmatic experience" might transform into something else that contradicts it.***
Not so Alan. The LNC, along with other 'laws' of classical logic, are axioms of classical logic. Axioms are chosen for their wide-spread acceptance. Whenever you say that the LNC is required for pragmatism, you are utilizing axioms to make this deduction. What axiom are you using? LNC! You cannot use the axiom of LNC to justify LNC. That is ridiculous. You select the axiom of LNC because it is our pragmatic experience to select this axiom. You simply cannot see this very simple point, and as a result you develop this whole mumbo jumbo metaphysical philosophy that no one here understands.
***The quantum laws "bizarre"-ness can apparently be resolved by understanding their origin.***
If you understood their origin, then you should be able to offer new predictions about physics. No one has been successful at such endeavors.
***"pragmatism" is political. Who's brand of "pragmatism" depends on who's agenda one is pursuing.***
No, it depends on what we consider 'successful'. As it turns out, there are many kinds of success, so a complete pragmatic theory may not be fully possible (or at least it may not be neat and tidy).
***We are not completely out of touch with reality; but adult humans generally appear to be very very very seriously out of touch with reality.***
Which is evidence that you are thinking mumbo jumbo.
***If those humans had much more internal understanding (obtainable by recalling detail from infancy; ideally recall everything from conception) then those humans neurological understanding would be far beyond our present day science.***
There is no evidence that adults recall details from conception. This is pure pseudo-science.
***If those humans had much more internal understanding (obtainable by recalling detail from infancy; ideally recall everything from conception) then those humans neurological understanding would be far beyond our present day science.***
Baloney.
***Axioms might require a "bedrock" of tautology.***
Might? Define tautology. I want to see if you have the same definition as myself.
***I am well aware of that. But when I show him some detail he has apparently overlooked, I often get no reply.***
Dick doesn't like to reply to mumbo jumbo. I on the other hand have a penchant to do so. It's why I respond to creationists and other silly stuff.
***What he is trying to do is a clever idea though. To identify any built-in constraints in a system; so as to know whether any found constraints go beyond that or not. If he succedes he could still get a Noble prize.***
He might get a Noble prize, but he she the heck isn't going to get a Nobel prize. Those kind of prizes are awarded for magic tricks.
***"Random is that which cannot be algorithmically computed." So it is obtained by one unique path, itself.***
If that's what you mean by unique, then I would agree. But, your definition of unique is a little odd. Something that is 'unique' isn't necessarily random. Unique means that an object possesses an identity that no other object possesses. This says nothing about the algorithmic computability of a process. You might be using the word
'unique' and then later changing the connotation of the word to its original meaning. Be careful.
***"Meaning" is ascribed to things; one can argue that "meaning" can be ascribed to "random" patterns by connecting them in some way.***
That's not what I'm saying. Meaning is ascribed, but for something to be 'meaningful' this ascribing must occur when the thing is created or occurs. For example, songs are written with a particular meaning in mind when the lyrics are originally written. The song has inherent meaning. Now, someone might misunderstand the lyrics and ascribe a different meaning to the song, however this is not the original meaning.
If something is 'random', then it has no original meaning. Someone might come along later and apply meaning to a meaningless thing, but that doesn't make it non-random.
***Truth is Existence. "True laws" is a double definition, a repeat of the same concept twice in a row when the laws referred to are existence laws.***
Let me get this right:
(P1) Truth=Existence, Laws=Truth
(P2) Existence=Universe,
(P3) LNC(Logic)=Truth
(P4) God=Existence
(P5) God=(No cause)
(C6) God=Truth=Existence=Laws=Universe=LNC(Logic)
(C7) Universe/Laws=(No cause) ** see (P5)
(C8) LNC(Logic)=(No cause)
Notice that if your reasoning is correct, then you are an pantheist or atheist. You have equated God with the universe and the laws of the universe, and therefore the universe is without cause (C7). Also, (C8) indicates that logic is without cause, so this contradicts your assertion that the LNC is a requirement of existence since according to (C8) there is no cause for the LNC. In other words, the LNC is an axiom. If that axiom is mistaken, then your statement "...the LNC can never be wrong" is incorrect.
(P9) Existence=Unique
(P10) Unique=Random
(P11) Human identity=Unique
(C11) God=Truth=Logic(LNC)=Laws=Universe=Random
(C12) Everything is random and has no cause
Alan, I think you might qualify as an atheist. You are saying that everything is random and without cause, what room is there for a Creator in your view?
***H: "That's circular". A: No. The circularity is an illusion caused by double-defining. When an item is repeated twice, you have a "go round in circles situation" as the repeated item's two components chase each other. (using metaphors).***
Okay, it's not circular, rather you are using the LNC as an axiom. Why won't you admit that?
***If he thinks I am wrong, I wish he would be polite and point out my alleged errors.***
Too much mumbo jumbo.
***"I've never heard Dick say that everything is random. " Dick said something like that "most of what we think we know is a made-up story".
He found Shrodinger's equation associated with "random" data aquisition, if I recall right.***
You should quote Dick. Not infer from his equations. I think inferring what Dick says is very tricky business given his frequent rebukes to those who try to state his opinion before asking. Since Dick won't respond to you, you should probably find another groupie to worship and idolize.
***Cranks and quacks might melt in the face of precise argument. It is decidely not quackish to invite the strongest challenge people can deliver to one's ideas, which is my approach. I am interested in what exists, and in not denying what exists. To be rational is to be open to argument.***
Trust me. You don't. You simply ignore the challenges and go off in mush land talking mush.
Oh well, you like mumbo jumbo. That is your right.
Harv |
