Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 72626 times)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #100 –
Sparta, I've been an adult for probably twice as long as you've been alive… I don't have "triggers" and I don't much consider that others might: If one has to consider the adverse effects of, say, calling "red" something other than an instantiation of Redness, then we might just as well resort to hurling spitballs at each other! :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #102 –
"triggers" it is not what it is .

it is just terminology for , triggers that can trigger  Manic , or depressive episode .

it can be anything , Topics , arguments [ mostly are argumentum ad hominems ] , events , etc .

it's not about you of course , it's not always about you .

btw ,

nevermind it , probably i just too fear   if my ignorance just be a burden for another people.  :sst:

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #103 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Quote from: ersi on
Uninteresting. It would be interesting if the choice between the two options were justified by something more than "I believe".

You could, of course, "trouble" yourself to read the whole paper — it's 8 pages, including notes. :) You might learn something…

You mean I might learn something different about the quality of the author's approach to methodology than what your quote demonstrated? No thanks. The quote was telling enough. If you disagree, excerpt a quote that proves me wrong.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

An expected response from someone of reason. Not a reasonable response from someone with an "intuition antenna" as a guiding force, tho.

Atheists are notoriously bad at defining intuition. I am sincerely interested in seeing how you define it.

As per my own definition, I demonstrate exclusively intellect here in the forums. No intuition. On occasion my intellect is so blazing fast that even I cannot keep up with it, but this doesn't make it intuition.

Please give your definition first, then we'll compare.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #104 –
Quote from: ersi on
You mean I might learn something different about the quality of the author's approach to methodology than what your quote demonstrated? No thanks.

They say a broken clock is right, twice a day… But the fact that those two times are 12 hours apart doesn't tell much, does it? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #105 –
intelligence is ability to understand or to learn .

so what's the definition of intellect ?

i dont think using complicated language , flip and twist , is definition of intelect .

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #106 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

They say a broken clock is right, twice a day… But the fact that those two times are 12 hours apart doesn't tell much, does it? :)

Makes some remote sense if your analogy refers to the article you quoted. Otherwise you are garfunkelling again.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #107 –
Quote from: Sparta on
i dont think using complicated language , flip and twist , is definition of intelect .


He goes out of his way to do that. Seems it takes him longer to come to the wrong conclusions about what he reads then assumes everyone else is too slow because they didn't arrive at the same explanation... Or some such.

 
Quote from: ersi on
Atheists are notoriously bad at defining intuition. I am sincerely interested in seeing how you define it.

You could just need a dictionary? But don't think I don't know your problem with that word. I picked it specifically. You could try to understand what I meant... If you can squash the feelings it provoked long enough. ;)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #108 –
Quote from: ersi on
On occasion my intellect is so blazing fast that even I cannot keep up with it, but this doesn't make it intuition.

Course not, to be blazing fast wrong differs a bit from being intuitively right.. :)

Intuition it's always linked to being right. If not, it's not intuition but a mere "guess". Intuition's nature it's a tricky thing and many times intuition it's not even intuition at all.

I believe intuition to be the mind equivalent to the theory of Chaos, an hidden order inside an apparent disorder in what refers to reasoning. It happens to be like that but we don't know why.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #109 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
Atheists are notoriously bad at defining intuition. I am sincerely interested in seeing how you define it.

You could just need a dictionary? But don't think I don't know your problem with that word. I picked it specifically. You could try to understand what I meant...

I'm not a dictionary type of guy. I am a concept system type of guy. And from this perspective the quick unfailing conclusion is that you didn't mean much anything besides hoping to stir up some supposed controversy for entertainment purposes.

Belfrager nailed it. And made all further explanation futile.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #110 –
Quote from: ersi on
I'm not a dictionary type of guy.

Of that I have no doubt.

Quote from: ersi on
And from this perspective the quick unfailing conclusion is that you didn't mean much anything besides hoping to stir up some supposed controversy for entertainment purposes.

Not exactly. There's a greater point maybe others will get? But if that's all that comes of it, I'm fine with it.

*(We never did finish our conversation you telling me about reasoning.)

Quote from: ersi on
Belfrager nailed it. And made all further explanation futile.

You've done picked your escape anyway.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #111 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
And from this perspective the quick unfailing conclusion is that you didn't mean much anything besides hoping to stir up some supposed controversy for entertainment purposes.

Not exactly. There's a greater point maybe others will get?

Others just might get it without further explanation if they are of the same culture as you. Based on what do you determine that I am, could be or should be of the same culture as you? The culture over here is up front. Your culture is giggles behind the back without explanation. What's the reason I should switch over?

Dictionary helps nothing in cases like this.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #112 –
Quote from: Sparta on
so what's the definition of intellect ?

Intellect is the ability to tickle oneself!


BTW: Just happened upon the orchestrated version of Ravel's Ma mère l'oye on the radio… Always a treat; but always -in my opinion- played too slowly. (The piano four-hands original performed by Walter and Beatriz Klien remains unsurpassed!) Music combines intellect and emotion, no? :)
————————————————

Quote from: ersi on
Others just might get it without further explanation if they are of the same culture as you. Based on what do you determine that I am, could be or should be of the same culture as you?

Oh? :) It seems it is you, ersi, who hasn't understood Hjelmslev's Prolegomena… (Would you like to read the review I've just finished?)


Or would you now say something like:
Quote
Die sprache ist also ihrem Wesen nach eine soziale Institution, ein "fait social" in Sinne Durkheims … In der Nichtberücksichtigung dieses wesentlichsten Kennzeichens der Sprache, nämlich ihres sozialen Charakters, scheint mir die eigentlich Ursache der sehr abstrakten Auffassung zu liegen, die Hjelmslev vertritt, einer rein formalen Theorie, die nur der kalkülmässigen Seite der geschichtlich und sozial gewordenen Sprache gerecht wird, nicht aber der sprachlichen Ganzheit in ihrer phänomenologischen Wirklichkeit
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #113 –
Quote from: ersi on
Your culture is giggles behind the back without explanation. What's the reason I should switch over?

My point is to fallacies you make. You'll just twist it up if I try a more direct approach. We've been down that road. My aim is to call out some BS, funny or giggling isn't my feelings here. You have no idea how to relate to an obvious attempt to call you out on reasoning. Wanna bitch more or get a hold of yourself and reason? (Emotional control, remember?)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #114 –
Quote from: ersi on
Dictionary helps nothing in cases like this.

Is that because you don't have a use for it or it doesn't help your case..? Help me out here, my cultural background can't help me figure out how this is about you.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #116 –
No problem, sir.

Directly I'm seeing if you'll eat spiders. Okay, more directly, if you'll practice what you preach.

You've already went against several pages you've written. The point of this isn't to show you anything. I've no doubt you'll convolute context to no end. I would like to hear your definition of truth? And if it's pages of what I think you expect, you'll need to start by answer that. But maybe at the very least you can try to actually make me giggle? Why that should matter to you is beyond me, though, you said it didn't.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #118 –
Quote from: ersi on
This is exactly what is at issue right now. If I did this, you can demonstrate it.


Quote from: ensbb3 on
I've no doubt you'll convolute context to no end.


Looks like we're done here. Again, the point wasn't to you. Maybe one or two people will take you a little less seriously now? or not? Ethier way you haven't proven an ability to eat spiders and move forward at will.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #119 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
This is exactly what is at issue right now. If I did this, you can demonstrate it.


Quote from: ensbb3 on
I've no doubt you'll convolute context to no end.


Quote from: ersi on

The culture over here is up front. Your culture is giggles behind the back without explanation.

Seriously, as long as you don't have any facts to point out, you simply have no case.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #120 –
type fast , only prove if  have anger issues .

definition of anger --->  when typing is  faster than thinking .

:beard:

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #121 –
Quote from: ersi on
Seriously, as long asyou don't have any facts to point out, you simply have no case.

Ooh! Bad Eliza… :) (Isn't this where we stopped talking, the last time?)


BTW: The radio is playing the Dolly Suite, piano four-hands! (Too slow to be the Kliens — but still good…)
—————————————————
(I agree, I've likely let this go too long… But anywho :)  ):
Quote from: Belfrager on
Intuition it's always linked to being right. If not, it's not intuition but a mere "guess". Intuition's nature it's a tricky thing and many times intuition it's not even intuition at all.
I believe intuition to be the mind equivalent to the theory of Chaos, an hidden order inside an apparent disorder in what refers to reasoning. It happens to be like that but we don't know why.

If (A) intuition is always right and (B) only after the fact can one determine it was right, and hence, an intuition… (C) How is it distinguishable from a "lucky guess"?
ABCs, Belfrager…
Wouldn't it be simpler to recognize lucky guesses (however they're explained…) than to posit intuitions?
There's an inordinate amount of "psychologism" already going 'round!  (Of course, you might respond with something like this… :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #122 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
If (A) intuition is always right and (B) only after the fact can one determine it was right, and hence, an intuition… (C) How is it distinguishable from a "lucky guess"?
ABCs, Belfrager…

Your (B) it's wrong - there's no "hence", and it should had been obvious to you, no need to me to use Husserl.

However, the intersubjective constitution of objectivity has a certain appeal... I'll use it some other day.

A matter of attitude.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #123 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Do you remember an origins of language thread back on MyOpera, started by jax? A few posts there mentioned Pirahã… What, as a linguist, is your opinion about the possibility of a language without recursion?

First off, drop any adherence to the strong version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Native language doesn't limit one's cognitive abilities. Instead, native language is a working tool with which to conceptualise both the world and one's own cognitive abilities (one's own cognition being another world conceptualised by means of language). The result can be enhanced beyond any specific limit. The mind is the limit.

For example in Uralic languages there's no future tense. Does this mean that Uralic peoples have no idea of the future?

My professional opinion on Piraha is that since it's poorly studied, there are many ways in which it may have been wrongly interpreted.

Edit: As to a language without (much) recursion (lists of adjectives and possessives), my own native language sets limits on these too. There's nothing weird about it. All languages make use of the principle of economy or parsimony in their own way, deviating from this principle as soon as the point of necessary distinctions is threatened.

These are the two opposite principles operating in every language. Language is a dynamic system - a system, but dynamic. And formal on top of that.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #124 –
Quote from: ersi on
These are the two opposite principles operating in every language.

You mentioned one, the principle of economy, what is the other that is opposite to this one?
Asking for curiosity, not as a discussion.
A matter of attitude.