Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 01-09-2015, 07:37 PM   #6381
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Self-evident isn't a bad term for it, but it's not really an axiom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
At the very least, you CAN prove it using just modus ponens. If you have the axiom "2 different things can not exist at the same place at the same time", then you just apply that to red and green to get "Red and Green cannot appear in the same place at the same time". But would the 1st one be an axiom, or a theorem? More importantly, is it actually true?


"2 different things can not exist at the same place at the same time"
"He is a father and a husband"
Father and husband are two different things. All you can say now is "that's not what I meant".

But that aside, what are you trying to achieve by "applying" that premise to the colour statement? Surely you're just stating it twice, not reinforcing it. It's not scientific. It can't be reinforced with evidence. You're just transposing it into more words.

"All bachelors are unmarried. I know this because I've met them all". No you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Trying to refine that is what I think is important and makes you try to figure out more about the world. You HAVE to somehow justify things not existing at the same time. You either prove them based on other propositions (which you have to explore), or you just assume they are true and treat them as axioms or postulates. But you need a really good justification for it being an axiom, specially if you are talking about reality and shit.


And how would you justify that justification for the axiom?
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 07:41 PM   #6382
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
6 + 6 = 12

3 + 3 + 6 = 12
(3 x 2) + (3 x 2) = 12
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 5 = 12

Which one is the justification for 6 + 6 = 12?
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 07:59 PM   #6383
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
"2 different things can not exist at the same place at the same time"
"He is a father and a husband"
Father and husband are two different things. All you can say now is "that's not what I meant".


Clearly, it wouldn't be that easy would it?

That means the actual proposition is not correct. So we should try to refine it and get a theorem that is correct. For example, instead of saying "2 different things ..." you can redefine it to say "2 different things which are X" to include a subset of entities X. This subset would include "red" and "green", but not "father" and "husband". You would do this constructively, with other subsets and considerations to get the actual correct theorem, that defines explicitly what it entails to "things not being 2 things at the same time". If that is defined, there is no ambiguity and all philosophers can rest easy and stop shouting at each other.

But yeah, don't expect me to solve the universe in 10 lines in a post in a guitar forum. Clearly this should be the focus of heavy research from various areas, both logicists (is that a thing?), philosophers, and baristas (they'll need all the coffee they can get).


Like, when someone says "I'm an existentialist" or "I'm a reductionist" or whatever, I want to know exactly what they mean. If we have some logical model for those theories, where one has some specific axioms and rules, and the other has a different set of axioms and rules, you can go, look at it and say "Oh, I get this". Then you can say "I agree with this view on reality" or say "I disagree with it". You choose your axioms, and prove everything else. If it fits your view of reality, then horray.
I'm tired of subjective discussions that are based on semantics and stupid linguistic misunderstandings or whatever. I'm tired of having to spend 20 pages arguing for shit because nobody can figure out what "entity" or "free will" or "property" or "essence" or whatever is and everybody is using incompatible definitions.
Yes, this may be unrealistic, but you can't say it wouldn't make things clearer to at least try to put some order and logic into these arguments, whatever small amount.

Quote:
And how would you justify that justification for the axiom?


How do you justify anything?

If I ask you "are you a reductionist or not?", how do you justify it? If you can, just use that same justification to justify the axioms that said beliefs entail.

The logical framework isn't a supreme entity that rules the universe. It's just an ad hoc structure for us to make any sense about anything at all instead of babbling random words and stuff. The structure should be created with things in mind, which is what we believe and try to reason about reality and other stuff. You use this shit to create a logical structure (i.e theory), and then try to see if it fits. If it fits, horray, you can use this structure to keep reasoning about our world, comparing it with other structures other people create. More importantly it allows you to have a consistent belief system that's backed up by actual reasoning and logic, and not just a bunch of random beliefs you have based on intuition and things people convince you of, which may make no sense at all when grouped together (specially in a field like philosophy where you have "big" theories regarding a bunch of different things, and it's quite hard to reconcile all of them together in specific instances).

Last edited by gonzaw : 01-09-2015 at 08:02 PM.
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 08:04 PM   #6384
beadhangingOne
Gnomesaiyan?
 
beadhangingOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaincrunk
nope, most of those guys were born in like the thirties or something, and they're all dying.

i am not a reductionist, I am an emergentist (is that a word lol)


As in emergent properties?

Emergent properties are certainly a good argument against reductionism. I don't know how I'd go about explaining it, but I personally think qualia are a type of emergent property.
__________________
Ours is but a fragile existence

su nioJ
su nioJ
su nioJ

Welcome back!

SLAYER! NOT PRAYER!
beadhangingOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 08:07 PM   #6385
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
6 + 6 = 12

3 + 3 + 6 = 12
(3 x 2) + (3 x 2) = 12
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 5 = 12

Which one is the justification for 6 + 6 = 12?


None. All of those are propositions based on a specific theory and logic. You have to know what a '6' is, what a '12' is, and what a '+' is. Those can easily be defined. You can define numbers using Peano Arithmetic, then say that '6', '12' and stuff are syntactic sugar for base-10 numbers in said arithmetic. '+' can be defined as a function between said natural numbers, and can be done so inductively so you know how to decompose it and reason about it. Basically this
Code:
0 + n = n (S n) + m = S (n + m)


That's the definition of '+' you can use, and you can use it, plus the primitive induction principle on natural numbers to "justify" (i.e prove) that 6 + 6 = 12. You can also prove that (3 x 2) + (3 x 2) = 12 too if you want.

Anyways yeah, this is turning a little too specific
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 08:24 PM   #6386
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
I'm tired of subjective discussions that are based on semantics and stupid linguistic misunderstandings or whatever.

This is what I want


Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
I'm tired of having to spend 20 pages arguing for shit because nobody can figure out what "entity" or "free will" or "property" or "essence" or whatever is and everybody is using incompatible definitions.

Yeah, isn't it weird how you can go on about logic til you're blue in the face and still not have somebody understand you? *NUDGE NUDGE*


Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
How do you justify anything?

With evidence, if it's science. Logic isn't science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
If I ask you "are you a reductionist or not?", how do you justify it? If you can, just use that same justification to justify the axioms that said beliefs entail.

There you go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
None. All of those are propositions based on a specific theory and logic. You have to know what a '6' is, what a '12' is, and what a '+' is. Those can easily be defined. You can define numbers using Peano Arithmetic, then say that '6', '12' and stuff are syntactic sugar for base-10 numbers in said arithmetic. '+' can be defined as a function between said natural numbers, and can be done so inductively so you know how to decompose it and reason about it. Basically this
Code:
0 + n = n (S n) + m = S (n + m)


That's the definition of '+' you can use, and you can use it, plus the primitive induction principle on natural numbers to "justify" (i.e prove) that 6 + 6 = 12. You can also prove that (3 x 2) + (3 x 2) = 12 too if you want.


I don't understand any of that yet I know what a 6, 12, and + are. Your fancy symbols have not helped me in the slightest to calculate 6 + 6 = 12.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Anyways yeah, this is turning a little too specific

Yeah, you're doing the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 08:40 PM   #6387
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
Yeah, isn't it weird how you can go on about logic til you're blue in the face and still not have somebody understand you? *NUDGE NUDGE*


To be fair, whenever I post my "super logic posts" nobody disagrees with them

Comparing it with the usual "write a wall of text post that shifts into a 20 page argument" posts, that's a win for me.


Quote:
With evidence, if it's science. Logic isn't science.


I'm talking about the fundamentals of reality. Like "do I exist?" or "what are things?" or something.


Quote:
I don't understand any of that yet I know what a 6, 12, and + are. Your fancy symbols have not helped me in the slightest to calculate 6 + 6 = 12.


Yes, you intuitively know what 6, 12 and + are. But to ever reason about them, you need a framework to work on. Logic provides that framework, so when you calculate "6 + 6" it's the same result as anybody else, and you don't have people running around saying stuff like "6 + 6 = 42" without justification nor context.

Like, there are 2 sides. The conceptual intuitive side, and the "reason and logic" side. Can we agree that logic and reason are like...helpful and stuff? If so, there's great value in trying to model our intuitive conceptions into logical theories and structures. Logic itself tries to model reasoning, which is exactly what you use everyday to conclude anything about anything, so it makes sense to try and put as much as possible into that realm, and when you finish your calculations and proofs, you take that result back out into the "intuition realm" to understand what it means.

So the "fancy symbols", rules and stuff are just that structure. You know what numbers are, what sum is, and you know what "equality" is too. You map these concepts into the corresponding logical ones, work with them in said logical framework, and then when you get the result "6 + 6 = 12" you map it back. I.e you understand what it means, and what that entails in the real world. That gives you more knowledge about the world (now you know that 6 plus 6 is 12, you didn't before), assuming said framework is correct.

Of course you could just not do this. But internally, in your mind you ALWAYS do something similar. If you use any kind of reason or logic you are doing something like this behind the scenes, but with an implicit and hidden logic framework (i.e theory and model) you construct in your own mind, but which may not be correct and you may fail to follow at times, leading to inconsistent conceptions and invalid reasonings.
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2015, 08:56 PM   #6388
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
To be fair, whenever I post my "super logic posts" nobody disagrees with them

But everyone says "that was unnecessary"

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
I'm talking about the fundamentals of reality. Like "do I exist?" or "what are things?" or something.

So you begin with questions?




Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Yes, you intuitively know what 6, 12 and + are. But to ever reason about them, you need a framework to work on. Logic provides that framework, so when you calculate "6 + 6" it's the same result as anybody else, and you don't have people running around saying stuff like "6 + 6 = 42" without justification nor context.

Like, there are 2 sides. The conceptual intuitive side, and the "reason and logic" side. Can we agree that logic and reason are like...helpful and stuff? If so, there's great value in trying to model our intuitive conceptions into logical theories and structures. Logic itself tries to model reasoning, which is exactly what you use everyday to conclude anything about anything, so it makes sense to try and put as much as possible into that realm, and when you finish your calculations and proofs, you take that result back out into the "intuition realm" to understand what it means.

So the "fancy symbols", rules and stuff are just that structure. You know what numbers are, what sum is, and you know what "equality" is too. You map these concepts into the corresponding logical ones, work with them in said logical framework, and then when you get the result "6 + 6 = 12" you map it back. I.e you understand what it means, and what that entails in the real world. That gives you more knowledge about the world (now you know that 6 plus 6 is 12, you didn't before), assuming said framework is correct.

So what's the framework of that framework?



Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Of course you could just not do this. But internally, in your mind you ALWAYS do something similar. If you use any kind of reason or logic you are doing something like this behind the scenes, but with an implicit and hidden logic framework (i.e theory and model) you construct in your own mind, but which may not be correct and you may fail to follow at times, leading to inconsistent conceptions and invalid reasonings.

How do you know?

When I understand someone's facial expression, or tone of voice, or gesture, am I implicitly consulting a hidden theory that hasn't yet been discovered?

Even if I were, how would articulating this theory help us at all?
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 01:33 AM   #6389
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
But everyone says "that was unnecessary"


Well, I prefer that than the alternative. Though if it was really "unnecessary" then I was heavily underestimating people, since I didn't think the stuff I posted was trivial ("God is logically impossible", "There is no paradox between determinism, knowledge of the future and free will", etc).

Quote:
So you begin with questions?


I'm not sure I follow.

If your criteria for justification is "evidence", how do you justify determinism, reductionism, or any other metaphysical argument?

Quote:
So what's the framework of that framework?


????

How does logic have a framework itself? I guess you could say the English language, the specific syntax we've developed for it, etc. But that's kind of a different discussion.

Quote:
How do you know?

When I understand someone's facial expression, or tone of voice, or gesture, am I implicitly consulting a hidden theory that hasn't yet been discovered?

Even if I were, how would articulating this theory help us at all?


What are your thoughts on reason and logic?

Your perception and conception of someone's facial expression, etc, is quite different with what you actually do with said perception afterwards. You think, reason about it and choose a course of action, or a trail of thought. That is using reasoning, and if it uses reasoning it implicitly uses logic ("Mark is smiling, when people smile it's because they are happy, therefore Mark is happy. If someone is happy in a conversation, then it's okay to joke around, therefore it's okay to joke around with Mark"). You obviously don't follow it rigorously like the theory states, but you do follow something that the theory is trying to model.
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 12:11 PM   #6390
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
If your criteria for justification is "evidence", how do you justify determinism, reductionism, or any other metaphysical argument?

I don't believe in metaphysics



Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
How does logic have a framework itself? I guess you could say the English language, the specific syntax we've developed for it, etc. But that's kind of a different discussion.

Exactly. Foundations have to stop somewhere, and it's elephants all the way down unless you can find one that everyone would agree with when they heard it, even the mentally ill. They couldn't help but accept it. This is obviously absurd, so why not just cut out all the elephants? If someone denies that 2 + 2 = 4, they're not denying any fact about the world and no further justification is going to convince them. They just don't know what the words mean, and all you can do is reiterate it or phrase it differently until they grasp it. Same goes for colour. We know how to use the words so we don't need foundations or strict definitions.

EDIT: I don't know what all the mathematics geeks do on their yellow paper but this definitely applies to colour if not mathematical words. Nevertheless we can use mathematics without having solid foundations.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
What are your thoughts on reason and logic?

I think "Reason" with a capital R was a once useful now outdated expression that has lost all meaning. What people mean when they say Reason is just "whatever makes sense to me!", or they mean "everything that isn't religion!". Or it just means "thinking", which, again, is so ubiquitous that it has no meaning. There is no capital R Reason, there are only different kinds of reasoning.

Logic is logic


Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Your perception and conception of someone's facial expression, etc, is quite different with what you actually do with said perception afterwards. You think, reason about it and choose a course of action, or a trail of thought. That is using reasoning, and if it uses reasoning it implicitly uses logic ("Mark is smiling, when people smile it's because they are happy, therefore Mark is happy. If someone is happy in a conversation, then it's okay to joke around, therefore it's okay to joke around with Mark"). You obviously don't follow it rigorously like the theory states, but you do follow something that the theory is trying to model.

But that just isn't true ...

When a pretty girl smiles at you, your reaction bypasses all reason. Being in a face-to-face conversation with someone is more like dancing than it is Reason. If you're doing it properly, your internal monologue isn't happening. You're definitely not consulting some theory.

Unless you're an anxious bastard

Last edited by WhiskeyFace : 01-10-2015 at 12:15 PM.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 02:04 PM   #6391
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
Exactly. Foundations have to stop somewhere, and it's elephants all the way down unless you can find one that everyone would agree with when they heard it, even the mentally ill. They couldn't help but accept it. This is obviously absurd, so why not just cut out all the elephants? If someone denies that 2 + 2 = 4, they're not denying any fact about the world and no further justification is going to convince them. They just don't know what the words mean, and all you can do is reiterate it or phrase it differently until they grasp it. Same goes for colour. We know how to use the words so we don't need foundations or strict definitions.


First order logic is pretty conventional. If you go that "it's elephants all the way down" route then you can do that about anything ever, and you won't have much fun trying to figure out how the world works.

I don't see how "cutting down the elephants" gives you any use at all. It's like saying "Yeah, let's stop thinking at all!". You could do that, but you'd be kind of an idiot if you just went through your life not thinking just because you don't believe in foundations or something.

Quote:
I think "Reason" with a capital R was a once useful now outdated expression that has lost all meaning. What people mean when they say Reason is just "whatever makes sense to me!", or they mean "everything that isn't religion!". Or it just means "thinking", which, again, is so ubiquitous that it has no meaning. There is no capital R Reason, there are only different kinds of reasoning.

Logic is logic


I don't mean "reason" as some definitive expression that has to mean something specific or has some specific forms people have been discussing throughout the ages. I mean "reason" as the simplest it can be: the ability for us to think, apply logic, conceive facts about the world, etc.
Yeah, it is "thinking". So what do you think about "thinking"? Do you think thinking is overrated? Do you think we can't do anything at all by thinking? I doubt so. If some "foundation" tries to come and explain exactly what "thinking" is, and put some consistency and order in it so you can "think better", would you just instantly shrug it off? Wouldn't that imply that you don't really believe "thinking" to be a useful tool for us? If not, what exactly are your thoughts about the "mechanics" of thinking?

Quote:
But that just isn't true ...

When a pretty girl smiles at you, your reaction bypasses all reason. Being in a face-to-face conversation with someone is more like dancing than it is Reason. If you're doing it properly, your internal monologue isn't happening. You're definitely not consulting some theory.

Unless you're an anxious bastard


Do you have to consciously do things for you to do them? The theory tries to model things, so if you do those you are applying the theory, whether you consciously think "Ok, I'll apply the theory here and say this other thing!" or not.

For instance, if you are a small child and put your hand in the fire, you get burned and feel pain. Next time you encounter fire, your brain instinctively prevents you from touching the fire, because it equates it with the previous sensation.
This can be modeled with logical theory. "If I put my hand on fire, I feel pain", "I don't want to feel pain", "Therefore, I should not put my hand on fire". Obviously nobody is going to say a 2-year-old is going through this conscious thought process when they encounter fires, but you can't say it doesn't work like that. It does work like that, which means the toddler is applying the theory, one way or the other.
Then you can use the same model to reason about other toddlers all over the world doing similar things. And with this is how all the other sciences get developed too. If you say to the above "pfff, that's not true since the toddler doesn't think like that", then no science would ever be developed and we'd be living picking lice off each other and ****ing tortoises or something.
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 04:00 PM   #6392
beadhangingOne
Gnomesaiyan?
 
beadhangingOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
When a pretty girl smiles at you, your reaction bypasses all reason. Being in a face-to-face conversation with someone is more like dancing than it is Reason. If you're doing it properly, your internal monologue isn't happening. You're definitely not consulting some theory.


The day a reductionist can explain women is the day I become a reductionist, ha.
__________________
Ours is but a fragile existence

su nioJ
su nioJ
su nioJ

Welcome back!

SLAYER! NOT PRAYER!
beadhangingOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 06:03 PM   #6393
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2015, 07:35 AM   #6394
Nietsche
Registered Hoover
 
Join Date: May 2009
__________________
.
Nietsche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2015, 04:17 PM   #6395
Weaponized
positive thinking
 
Weaponized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: phx, az
damn we watched a theist vs atheist argument in class and on the foundation for objective morality and someone was like "Yes, theist smashed him, can't argue with that, if there were any non-believers were here right now they would agree" and I was like nooooooo

It's hard going to a christian school sometimes
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazysam23_Atax
Is the officer going to ask for the butt, so he or she can check whether it is hot?


last.fm
Weaponized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2015, 08:56 PM   #6396
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Was it a philosophy class?
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2015, 09:20 PM   #6397
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
@gonzaw 1. You're equating "thinking" to empirical investigation or theorising and generalising

2. The term "thinking" in isolation has no meaning for me. What you call "thinking" is way too broad. What do you think not-thinking is?

3. I don't see how you can say you apply a theory when you do it unconsciously. Is there anything we do that isn't theoretical then? Just because you can rationalise it after the fact doesn't mean there is any theoretical action going on. Similarly, just because you can insert the toddlers behaviour into a syllogism doesn't mean the toddler knows dick all about logic. Do you think the concept of theory has any limits? Is there anything science can't touch? The way you talk about theory is, at the very least, misleading.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:33 PM   #6398
gonzaw
UG's Secret Agent
 
gonzaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Uruguay
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
@gonzaw 1. You're equating "thinking" to empirical investigation or theorising and generalising

2. The term "thinking" in isolation has no meaning for me. What you call "thinking" is way too broad. What do you think not-thinking is?


No, I mean reason. I just said "thinking" because I thought that was what you were going with.

Quote:
3. I don't see how you can say you apply a theory when you do it unconsciously. Is there anything we do that isn't theoretical then? Just because you can rationalise it after the fact doesn't mean there is any theoretical action going on. Similarly, just because you can insert the toddlers behaviour into a syllogism doesn't mean the toddler knows dick all about logic. Do you think the concept of theory has any limits? Is there anything science can't touch? The way you talk about theory is, at the very least, misleading.


Do you not apply Newton's theory of physics when you jump in the air? Do you consciously decide to apply Newton's theory or not?
What is Newton's theory of physics then? Does it exist? What does it have to do with it if I can jump without giving a shit about it?

Theory = Axioms + Logic + Model. Once a theory exists, it can be applied anywhere, be it toddlers, people who jump in the air, or cats. Yes, there could, technically, be NOTHING that you do that ISNT theoretical, somehow. But it being theoretical or not tells you nothing, since it could be any arbitrary boring useless theory (you don't know about). For it to tell you something, the theory has to be interesting and known. First Order Logic, or any other kind of theory of logic, is indeed interesting, and gives you information about the world and people.

In the context of this discussion, theory gives you information about how people conceptualize and reason about said concepts. People conceive the notion of numbers, addition, and in particular "6", "+" and "12". Then they have this intuitive reason they use to deduce "Hey, maybe 6+6 is 12, I dunno". This can be indeed modelled by theory, and explained. That "intuitive reason" people have that makes them deduce "12" from "6+6" can be perfectly explained by said theory (down to the granulanity that matters). So by trying to model your intuitions and stuff with this theory, you can instead use logic itself to reason instead of basing it on your flimsy intuition, which may fail you.
You already know, for the correct granulanity (in this case just talking about numbers), that the theory models exactly what your intuition does, so working with the theory, or with your intuition, is exactly the same. But the use of the theory can be double-checked by others, automated by computers, proved by mathematicians. You don't have to do that on your own.
Tell me, when you put 6521323 + 1312334245 in a calculator and get back 1318855568, do you trust it? That is a result that didn't come directly from your intuition of what "6521323", "1312334245" and "+" are. You just put those numbers and operator in a black box that, for all intents and purposes, just randomly spouted that other number. Why do you trust this number is the one you believe is real? Because it's based on a theory, which is the same you apply yourself with your intuition. So calculator = based on a computation = based on a theory = intuition, so you trust the result of the calculator as if you had calculated it on your own
gonzaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:18 PM   #6399
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
Once a theory exists, it can be applied anywhere, be it toddlers, people who jump in the air, or cats. Yes, there could, technically, be NOTHING that you do that ISNT theoretical, somehow. But it being theoretical or not tells you nothing, since it could be any arbitrary boring useless theory (you don't know about). For it to tell you something, the theory has to be interesting and known. First Order Logic, or any other kind of theory of logic, is indeed interesting, and gives you information about the world and people.


Well now you're just presupposing that there are existing theories that are unknown to us. You're saying:

1) All understanding is theoretical
2) If we understand something without using theory, then there must exist a theory unknown to us
3) Therefore all understanding is theoretical
etc.

It's circular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzaw
In the context of this discussion, theory gives you information about how people conceptualize and reason about said concepts. People conceive the notion of numbers, addition, and in particular "6", "+" and "12". Then they have this intuitive reason they use to deduce "Hey, maybe 6+6 is 12, I dunno". This can be indeed modelled by theory, and explained. That "intuitive reason" people have that makes them deduce "12" from "6+6" can be perfectly explained by said theory (down to the granulanity that matters). So by trying to model your intuitions and stuff with this theory, you can instead use logic itself to reason instead of basing it on your flimsy intuition, which may fail you.

Surely you know about the rule following paradox?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittge...rivate_Language




gonzaw let me reiterate what I'm getting at. I'm not saying theories are wrong or useless. If anything I'm saying the opposite: that their usefulness is their only claim to validity. If a theory is useless then it is bogus. Theories work in science, but not much else. A theory will never tell me why Picasso's paintings are better than mine, or how to tell if my friend is being sarcastic or sincere. Btw logic isn't a theory, it's a set of rules for stringing propositions together. (Logic doesn't predict things, the propositions do).

Last edited by WhiskeyFace : Yesterday at 09:19 PM.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2015
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.