Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 72547 times)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #25 – 2014-07-05, 19:18:28

This is jousting, play in the form of combat...

If for no other reason than that I can't maintain ersi's level of seeming-seriousness! No harm is intended, and if any occurs it should be reckoned accidental and incidental.

But, yes, one must admire ersi persistence! (Even upon being "reminded" that he's forgotten his horse, he perseveres. On with the joust!)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #26 – 2014-07-05, 22:06:44

Thanks for the emotional support, Befrager. Nice to know that someone else is also reading my posts besides, hmm, me

Despite all of his lack of substance otherwise, Oakdale hit one nail on the head. Namely, the metaphysics as I laid it out requires the concept of *degrees of reality* and not everyone is able to stomach this. Oakdale identified this point, correctly (standing ovations), so I'm going to elaborate on it, even though nobody asked me to. (If you already have mental indigestion, Oakdale, then stop reading now.)

I maintain that the concept of degrees of reality is sufficiently represented in common-sense experience, so anyone can get accustomed to it. One easy example is again the mirror. The reflection in a good mirror may easily be confused with reality. So, from the point of view of perception, the mirror image is real (or, more accurately, real enough), but when one approaches the image with the intention of doing with it what one would do with the real thing, the nature of the illusion is uncovered.

Now, careless thinkers off-handedly equate "illusion" with "unreal", but on metaphysical realism (as opposed to nominalism), illusion is real enough. The technical term is *relative reality*. Some common-sense examples how illusion is real enough are memory, night-dream, imagination, hallucination, visualisation, etc. Some of these are are so-called normal psychological functions while others are pathological, but they all serve to exemplify the point. Also some physical phenomena, such as rainbow and hologram, go to exemplify the same point.

For example, night-dream may bring to us images of nightmare which results in real fear and corresponding physiological effects, such as sweat, trembling, etc. In the name of consistency, it makes sense to acknowledge that since the effects (fear and sweat) are real, the cause (the contents of the dream) is also real. Obviously, the contents of the dream is not physically real, but since the effects are undeniably real, it's consistent to say the dream is also real. Hence psychological reality is a form of reality. It's less tangible and more elusive than the physical reality, but in dreams we undeniably experience the connection of these two relative realities, the dream world and the physical world.

The physical world is also a relative reality, not ultimate, because things in the physical world are limited in various ways, such as size, life span, and horizon of perception. On the concept of degrees of reality, temporary fleeting things are less real, so to say, whereas eternal things are more real. The physical world is basically as unreliable as the dream world. When one wakes up, the dream world ceases and the physical world begins, and when one goes to sleep, the physical world ceases and the dream world begins. Hence these two worlds mutually delimit each other as relatively real.

Then there's also the ultimate reality, which relates to relative reality like temperature relates to cold and warm, or like density relates to gaseous, liquid, and solid objects. One is universal, omnipresent, and the other is as if different modes of the universal. (I'd probably need to elaborate further on ultimate reality in order to not appear a Spinozan or Berkeleyan, but this is already more than enough to a hostile audience.)

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-05, 18:15:42

How does one see this interior mirror, let alone see in it? Of course, "see" is just an analogy? No light needed, but there's likely an inner eye... Really real objects shine! Is that it?

[...]
However satisfying it may be, as a tool or physic to quiet your mind, it is not knowledge but belief...

Introspection, mind, self-reflection, and even soul are standard concepts in psychology. If you deny this, you are making two errors. One is the error of denying ordinary everyday science that performs an officially authorised function in the society. The other, more serious error, is denying your own mind along with any possibility of rationality and intellect. Why should anyone listen to some self-admitted irrational mindless rambler?

Here's a hint on how to perceive the mind: Anything you think, it's your mind that is doing it! The mind is the thinker, observer, perceiver. Probably you acknowledge that you are reading some text in front of you, but who is reading and understanding? The mind. If the text is real, then so is the mind, because your experience of perception is real, continuous, ongoing, and the mind is the logically necessary precondition to this experience.

Another hint: Thoughts and emotions are (psychologically, inevitably) real. Observation of one's own thoughts is observation of the mind. Too bad for you that the mind is not a physical entity and that you cannot read the minds of others, but it's better to put an end to the reductionist perspective rather sooner than later.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-05, 18:15:42

But, as usual, you have images, ambulatory and discriminating concepts; or inappropriate ones that play you false, pigeon holes ready made, and an "outside" reality -- how exactly do you justify that?
No, never mind: Unless your answer is It just is! you'd have problems with your system, beyond those that you already ignore. And if that is your answer, you haven't offered one, really.
Ohm!

Let's get a tiny little fact straight. Given how hostile you are, I naturally have NOT laid out even half of the things I know (or, from your perspective, believe in). Even so, I have opened up - and consequently made myself vulnerable to attack - massively more than you have. All you do in return is criticise and ridicule me while you keep your own system conveniently hidden. By now I know the reason too:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-05, 09:29:26

My life and well-being are not dependent upon a philosophical "position" beyond common sense, I believe; so, I'm an unlikely candidate for any school…

So, you take pride in having no system, and playing the game "you can't put me in any of your boxes! neener! neener!" - which of course puts you in the inconsistent-incoherent-irrational box, for the time being. You are a smart man. You can climb out of it any time you choose.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #27 – 2014-07-06, 01:15:25

ersi:
I am truly sorry that you take these little back-and-forths so personally. And I am grateful for your "opening up"... I appreciate your position much better today than I did even just yesterday. (But I never presumed that others, more likely to benefit from your posts than I, were not always somewhat interested; and now, since you're being more forthcoming, their interest should grow!) You are, of course, correct in charging that I have no "grand system" to offer... If that means your utter lack of interest (in what I do believe, and why), sobeit. And if you think that fact disqualifies me as a critic, sobeit.
I can no more profess or proffer such, for your critical attention, than I can accept Pascal's Wager: I'd not be that insincere and I'm not afraid of the Mobs.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #28 – 2014-07-06, 05:15:51

An interlude from Far Afield (of ersi, and Belfrager… But "close to home" for me, given my age and education) — which can arguably be blamed on our host, Frenzie [Yes, he thought of that handle's connotations in many languages before he committed himself on-line to it! Or -once again- serendipity has triumphed!] for pointing me to the site…

Read Smell All About It!

Social structures are still not well understood. And I think Burke (and later Oakeshott) came closest to capturing the West's (or England's and America's) essential urges toward conservatism…which I can't help but recognize and applaud.
Is this assumption "safe": Belfrager, ersi and I are all considered "conservative" by the others here?

__________________
Similarly (with analyses of social structers…), the heap paradox doesn't puzzle most people. I could easily and reasonably leave to ersi the explication of this paradox's misunderstandings… What I'd say and what he'd say might be incompatible; but we'd make the same point by similar means:
A heap is not a definite, specifically quantified or quantifiable entity… (I hope we'd agree): In much the same way as (aleph-null)-1 = aleph-null, a heap of sand minus a grain of sand is still a heap. The difference being the obviously finite multitudes consisting of heaps and no-longer heaps…
(Obviously, the bolded "-1" above is -at least- ambiguous… But bear with me:)
We're no longer dealing with (in terms of) only one definition: We're crossing boundaries of meaning, in the most obvious of ways.
The speaker of language A who says "This is a heap" who contradicts the speaker of language B who says "No, it isn't" must be confused… The application and use of such terms don't permit such fine distinctions; the mystery, the paradox, is entirely due to the mis-use of a common language.
That is, that they mis-understand each other.
ersi recently said something like "I'd beat you about the head and ears, were I not so nice!" I didn't react to his statement, because I am also male: Whether it's testosterone (or anything else), I am familiar with that reaction. (I've had it, myself!) I've sometimes felt similar inclinations!
But it's his intellect I'd engage, not his armament or physical prowess.
And if he kills me, even on his own theories, my posits and arguments will persist…since they always were! So, I've no fear of that.

I'd ascend (or descend, as others' metaphysics prefer) to the merely verbal communication of such facts: When vagueness is "built into" the definition of a term (…not necessarily a defect!), the point of specification is beside the point! Only metaphysicians and anti-metaphysicians find a cause for argument: Everyone else easily makes understanding the metric and meaning of such scales…

[I'm tired, and drunk! I need sleep…]

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #29 – 2014-07-07, 06:23:21

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-06, 05:15:51

Similarly (with analyses of social structers…), the heap paradox doesn't puzzle most people. I could easily and reasonably leave to ersi the explication of this paradox's misunderstandings… What I'd say and what he'd say might be incompatible; but we'd make the same point by similar means:
[...]
We're no longer dealing with (in terms of) only one definition: We're crossing boundaries of meaning, in the most obvious of ways.

Your quantification analysis, which I omitted, made sense, but your last statement here doesn't follow nor apply. In semantics the way I studied it, there are no solid boundaries of meaning the way you seem to assume. There are two ways words acquire meanings, and the relevant way to consider now is contradistinction, e.g. the word "cold" has a meaning in contradistinction from "warm". You know very well that there is no solid boundary between the two. Cold and warm are themselves subject to the heap paradox: Where does cold end and warm begin? Given just this set of vocabulary, the answer is: Cold ends where warm begins, and warm ends where cold begins.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-06, 05:15:51

The speaker of language A who says "This is a heap" who contradicts the speaker of language B who says "No, it isn't" must be confused… The application and use of such terms don't permit such fine distinctions; the mystery, the paradox, is entirely due to the mis-use of a common language.

Given my own analysis, the conclusion is that the paradox is built into language. If the intention of language is to express the infinite via finite means, there's no mystery about it. It should be so and cannot be any other way.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-06, 05:15:51

That is, that they mis-understand each other.

In your example about speakers, they seemed to speak the same language (despite your attempts to make it appear otherwise), so how did they misunderstand each other? One took the point of view that there's a heap, the other took the point of view that there's no heap, they both expressed their point of view and got through with their respective messages. There's no misunderstanding whatsoever. Without any misunderstanding, they delivered their contrary opinions. It was just a case of disagreement among the speakers of the same language. The assumption that everybody must agree is itself a huge fallacy, possibly a variation of Nirvana Fallacy or some such.

In English, there are words for lake, sea, and ocean. In Semitic languages, there used to be just one word for those. Surely you noticed how your Bible calls on the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee seas, while on the maps they are actually average lakes. The "mysterious" reason to this is that there's a single word for it (meaning lake-sea-ocean) in Semitic languages and it was translated the same way at all times. This is the same paradox of the heap all over again, but it really becomes a paradox only by making some further distinctions, as happens in translation.

The semantic field is a continuum. Words are labels attached to different ultimately arbitrary areas of it, and arbitrarily reattacheable. To make sense of this requires methodical thinking, i.e. not to arrange your labels at random, but methodically, systematically. You may want them to stick and remain, but it's realistic to keep in mind that ultimately words are still just labels and can shift of their own accord when you are not looking, because you don't own the language.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-06, 05:15:51

When vagueness is "built into" the definition of a term (…not necessarily a defect!), the point of specification is beside the point!

The vagueness as you call it is there for a reason, and makes specification work in a different way. It's not exactly working the way you want it - i.e. by means of reductionism, by removing vagueness and leaving only specification - but this doesn't mean that it's not working full stop. Both vagueness and specification work just fine side by side. It works! Some are mystified by this, some puzzled and annoyed, but some can make sense of this and make rational use of what's given.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #30 – 2014-07-14, 06:55:03

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-06, 22:23:21

There are two ways words acquire meanings

That's just silly! There are more ways than we can count… Nobody yet has come up with an acceptable (certainly, not an unassailable) theory of meaning!

The main thing science has (had?

) going for it was that it was somehow tethered to everyday experience…
Do I have to be the one to say Oops! here?

——————————————————
There's a silliness essentially involved in human rationality that is pervasive, perennial and pernicious: We need to know more than we can warrant…even to ourselves.
Am I the only one that would explore this need, as an object worthy of study?

I don't think contemporary (or past) versions of psychology help much. Philosophy meanders, as always… Other sciences are incapable of contributing much, because they won't use reasonably justified statistical logic.
(Imagine physics accepting the modes of justification used by sociology?

)
——————————————————
I'm quite willing to begin with epistemology. But I not only don't require absolute surety; I reject it, as a reasonable goal… (Hence, I avoid Descarte's dualism difficulties by fiat. They're not my problem!) So:
Shall we begin again?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #31 – 2014-07-14, 07:15:55

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 06:55:03

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-06, 22:23:21
There are two ways words acquire meanings

That's just silly! There are more ways than we can count…

List five. Or four. Or three. Let's have a look.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 06:55:03

Nobody yet has come up with an acceptable (certainly, not an unassailable) theory of meaning!

Apart from those used in linguistics, maybe. But those work just fine for me. I employed it in the previous post. You have not shown yet how it was unassailable.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 06:55:03

The main thing science has (had? ) going for it was that it was somehow tethered to everyday experience…
Do I have to be the one to say Oops! here?
——————————————————
There's a silliness essentially involved in human rationality that is pervasive, perennial and pernicious: We need to know more than we can warrant…even to ourselves.

Perhaps you can reformulate this when you get sober again.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #32 – 2014-07-14, 07:32:11

Oak , it seems you know very huge amount of Hilarious Words -- like pervasive, perennial and pernicious

btw what is the right term n/or english for -- Knowing the right place ?

i mean something like , know where must to use physics in physics

Pyschology in Psychology

satire in satire , etc

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #33 – 2014-07-14, 08:08:47

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-13, 23:15:55

Perhaps you can reformulate this when you get sober again.

No need to wait!

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-13, 23:15:55

List five.

Ostensibly. Pointing — not often a very useful tack. (What is the meaning of "is"?)
Intentionally. Recourse to "ideas" — which need, first, to be conveyed…
Synonymy. Presumes previously understood meaning, which is arrived at — how?
Definitionally. Ditto.
Mystically: You just grok it! (You're preferred mode, ersi?

)

But there's more: Operationally, which is of use to science. And its bane!

Linguistics has languished, for good reason: Adequate theories are lacking. Some people seriously argue (seriously!) that Chomsky's Transformational Generative Grammar must be wrong, because it's too hard to program a computer to use it! (Liefrink's Semantico-Syntax has been called "pre-theoretical," and that's not the worst of it… As I'd have Logic's syntax take as much as possible of semantics, he'd have semantics permeate syntax. But our goals are likely not the same.) And philosophers vacillate between picture theories and coherence theories; the few retrograde fellows who follow Plato imagine an entirely separate realm of existence that -somehow, never quite explainably- "connects" reference and referents: Ideas, ideals; universals and abstract entities…

Want more?
Sarcastically!
Mnemonically.
Prosodically.
Preternaturally…

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #34 – 2014-07-14, 08:15:30

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-13, 23:32:11

btw what is the right term ~~n/or~~ in english for -- Knowing the right place ?

"Appropriate" is the common one… But people often appropriate the appropriate word, for other uses…

Please explain compound interest to an infant, and then tell it why its college fund is gone! Is that two different "definitions" of "explanation"?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #35 – 2014-07-14, 08:47:03

it's something like - Social skills / ability to be Appropriate ( Appropriatability , Fitability )

lemme try to describe it .

ability to know the situation , environment , nature , n/or with who we Speak and then adjust n/or react with the right manners and attitude .

yeah it's a bad description , meh ..

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #36 – 2014-07-14, 09:45:51

No, Sparta, I've never had to placate the "powers that be" — so I can, if I choose, speak my mind in whatever way amuses me! I don't feel compelled to use "appropriate" language, just to seem pleading or fawning, for those who expect their opinions to be respected — because of who they are, or who they think they are…
Here, it's just words! Slippery, slovenly, somnolent, prim, priapic, pseudoscientific, mystic, manic, myopic, moronic, meme-isms of not much meaning. In context, perhaps sometimes interesting; technical terms of science and philosophy, intermingled with the everyday and -on Sundays- poetic usages: In short, conversation from a rude, crude, semi-literate American.

Perhaps I understand what you posted from Popper better than I thought I did: I have no compulsion to convince anyone, so I don't take the expected social pains to sway their opinion toward mine.
On a related matter: I don't think most people "change" their minds via argument; nor even evidence that they're wrong…

So: What were we talking about?

Oh, yes: ersi said "There are two ways words acquire meanings, […] contradistinction" and some other (unspecified) way… One wonders what that other way was that he had in mind?
Perhaps, by "acquire" he and I mean different things?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #37 – 2014-07-14, 10:42:50

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 09:45:51

Oh, yes: ersi said "There are two ways words acquire meanings, […] contradistinction" and some other (unspecified) way… One wonders what that other way was that he had in mind?

Regular distinction?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #38 – 2014-07-14, 10:50:40

@Sparta: perhaps the words "context" or "scope" would help.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #39 – 2014-07-14, 10:57:42

Quote

So: What were we talking about?

of course about Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems .

well ..

i guess, i have difficulty with terminology , or probably lost in translation in this cross-culture communication .

i do not intend to do some circular reasoning .

but, how your people express something like ,

--understanding the situation and condition .

--wherever earth stepped , lift the heaven there

-- adapt with the place , not change the place based on habits . ( something like Flexibility )

i/e

--it's seems not the right place to speak about Science , politics , etc in family area .

--in a thread about science , is not a good manner / attitude to red herring / hijack the topic to religion , politic , etc .

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #40 – 2014-07-14, 14:05:57

@Oakdale
Your list obviously stems from lack of rigorous theory. But it's okay, because this way you have lots of happy discoveries ahead of you.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 08:08:47

Ostensibly. Pointing — not often a very useful tack. (What is the meaning of "is"?)

Words function by pointing to the meaning. It's a metaphor to describe how language operates. Consequently, when you say "Operationally, which is of use to science" then that's no different.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 08:08:47

Intentionally. Recourse to "ideas" — which need, first, to be conveyed…

The ideas don't have to be conveyed. They have to be merely conceived in order to have a word to point to them. And there's no differene in pointing to a physical thing or pointing to an idea. So, pointing and "intentionally" are also the same thing. Anyway, your list lacks any common denominator or unifying theory, so it's not properly analysable.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 08:08:47

As I'd have Logic's syntax take as much as possible of semantics, he'd have semantics permeate syntax. But our goals are likely not the same.

You want "syntax take of semantics" instead of "semantics permeate syntax"? Do you know the distinction properly? By "properly" I mean: Do you have a clear idea why you cannot have it your way? You most likely have the wrong goal altogether. To me it was clear already when you wanted to do away with vagueness and only have specificity.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 08:08:47

And philosophers vacillate between picture theories and coherence theories; the few retrograde fellows who follow Plato imagine an entirely separate realm of existence that -somehow, never quite explainably- "connects" reference and referents: Ideas, ideals; universals and abstract entities…

There's nothing wrong with the theories when they work. The reason why they are not working for you is that you mix up the conceptual world with the physical.

Structuralist linguistics is not dead. Here's a little insight into how terminologies (I hope this counts as specificity for you) operate. One of the intermediate conlusions there is that when you confuse taxonomy for ontology, you'll end up in trouble.

I am partial to the continuum theory of semantics. Semantic field is the continuum, essentially indivisible. What makes the apparent divisions is the set of vocabulary. When vocabulary is organised into syntax and subdivided into morphology, orthography, etc., it appears as if words and sentences have meanings in themselves, but this is the wrong impression. Does "I" in separation have any meaning? Without any context, can you tell if it means anything or is it a mispring or an unintended scratch on paper? Meanings only occur with reference to the indivisible semantic field. Indivisible here entails that the meanings of the words, when each word is considered in separation, are illimitable, i.e. "vague". Meanings of words are only specified via contradistinction, i.e. vis-a-vis other words.

The other way to derive meaning is the list of properties or attributes of the referent. Atomists would prefer this latter way to be the only way, but it has its problems, because it presupposes prior knowledge of the referent, which cannot always be had, and the list of properties is essentially illimitable, i.e. "vague" again.

Continuum theory or atomism - which one makes more sense?

Mod edit: fixed link.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #41 – 2014-07-14, 15:45:45

@Oak

i guess i figured it , with lesser margin of error .

but not sure too if it is what it is .

"situational approach"

B = F ( P.E )
Behavior is the Function of Personality x Environment .
Personality theories = The Trait Approach, The Situational Approach, The Interactional Approach

to Situational approach .
it need ability to diagnose / identify the situation / environment

, flexibility , and social skills .

know the situation , know the condition , know speak with who
then Speak with appropriate language and react with appropriate behaviour .
since , in different land there are different grasshopper , and in different lake there are different fish.

btw , this dude is fabulous .

he translate almost in the same term with what my ancestor used to say .

Understand b'cos ask to someone .
Can b'cos imitate / modelling
Smart b'cos socialize

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #42 – 2014-07-14, 18:49:01

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 06:05:57

Continuum theory or atomism - which one makes more sense?

They both make a lot of sense. But neither makes enough sense… I don't believe I have this mania for specificity you ascribe to me; but I am certainly not so enamored of theories that lead to absurdities as you are…

~~[More, in a bit]~~
Many years ago I was hired by the Universal Life Church to prepare for publication a great mass of sermons and other writings of the Rev. Kirby Hensley. They owned a behemoth of an electronic system, which made editing quite easy. But I soon found an insuperable problem: The text itself -the good Reverend's words- usually rambled off into disjointed nonsense, either because that's how he spoke/thought or because that's how they were transcribed...
When I asked for guidance, from some authoritative source, I was refused, and told to just "let it go" the way it was!
I told them they neither wanted nor needed an editor, showed them which buttons to push to format what they had for printing, and promptly quit their employ.

So: Was that "paper" only 12 pages long? Was it incompetently transcribed? Was it a court document obligingly prepared by a "patient" in a committal hearing?
I'd guess the latter, since it seemed to me hardly more than word salad. And, yet, I can somehow believe that a government paid someone to write it!

Am I too cynical?

——————————————————————
@mod: Thanks for fixing the link; saved me a little effort…

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #43 – 2014-07-14, 19:12:12

Quote from: string on 2014-07-02, 14:24:17

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-02, 12:17:53

Donc, Il doit existre!!
Respondez, Monsieur!

+!&**#(**)!

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #44 – 2014-07-15, 02:46:03

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 18:49:01

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 06:05:57
Continuum theory or atomism - which one makes more sense?

They both make a lot of sense. But neither makes enough sense…

Since you self-admittedly have quit trying to make sense of things, how is that a problem?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 18:49:01

I don't believe I have this mania for specificity you ascribe to me; but I am certainly not so enamored of theories that lead to absurdities as you are…

Absurdities such as?

And I did not ascribe the mania for specificity to you. You demonstrated it in the post where you were trying to get rid of vagueness without taking the time to understand how semantics works. Or maybe you understand it but you just don't like how it works. Well, for everyone of us there are aspects of reality we don't like. You are not special in any way here. Like it or not, you still have to live with reality, because this is what reality means.

To me the answer to your issues is obvious. It's the underlying non-philosophy that you hold which leads you to these problems. When you don't properly believe in *meaning* in the first place, you obviously cannot make *enough* sense of things, because it's *meaning* which makes sense of things, but you don't believe in it, so you are left with "word salad" and, without a theory of semantics, you cannot properly tell if it's your own projection or not.

Your own system doesn't work (obviously, because you have no system), you are not making *enough* effort to comprehend any other system and accept a few necessary facts (such as the fact that in order to make sense of anything a system is inevitable), and then you blame other systems for not making sense. This attitude doesn't itself make sense. First, acquire yourself a system that works, so you can demonstrate how any other system doesn't work.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-14, 18:49:01

Am I too cynical?

Maybe, if you insist. But more evidently you are self-conflicted. Instead of cynicism, I detect futile whining and stubborn unwillingness to go through the necessary motions of proving any claims you have. In this case the claim that neither continuum theory or atomism make enough sense for you (how much is enough sense? what does "make sense" mean to you at all?), and absurdities where some theories lead (which theory and which absurdity?). You have to demonstrate it. Until then, you remain on the level of word salad.

PS. Right, I didn't properly close the link, but I noticed it myself and I fixed it (or thought I did) as soon as I could. Probably me and mod were doing it at the same time.

Question to the mod: Does an unclosed tag like this have an effect only to the end of the post or would it ruin the whole forum page? In the latter case some tweaking of the forum engine may be necessary...

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #45 – 2014-07-15, 02:54:31

i just wish there are upvote / downvote button in this DND .

so , i can downvote every argumentum ad hominem , aka poisoning the well .

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #46 – 2014-07-15, 03:18:58

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-15, 02:54:31

so , i can downvote every argumentum ad hominem , aka poisoning the well .

But then others could downvote unconstructive posts that don't contribute to the topic. You see the problem? When you get to downvote, everybody will...

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #47 – 2014-07-15, 03:32:10

Quote

When you get to downvote, everybody will...

that is pretty Brutal ..

but also interesting ...

in my perspective , that's not a big deal .

timendi causa est nescire .

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #48 – 2014-07-15, 03:45:39

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-14, 18:54:31

i just wish there are upvote / downvote button in this DND .

Maybe tea and cucumber sandwiches should be served... We could each take a turn staying away, so the others could talk about us.

__________________________________________________

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 18:46:03

trying to get rid of vagueness without taking the time to understand how semantics works

If one doesn't understand..., semantics doesn't work!

One could make the term heap a little less vague. (For example, call it a pile of like items too many to count by a glance. Most people would agree with that.) But the term is meant to be vague! I don't have a problem with such. I do have a problem with the sort of "reasoning" that then seriously asks if one, zero (or negative) items can still be a heap:
To me, that indicates a misunderstanding of the word. Or, worse, a deficient logic...

Because one can analyze a language into syntax and semantics (some add pragmatics -- for no good reason, I think...) doesn't mean that that language consists of such separate entities (or call them, if you wish, categories). Our theories about language are on a par with our physical theories: They treat of our experience, attempting to systematize what might very well be chaotic, stochastic or -this we hope!- law-bound.
The difficulty I often see is that we come to prefer our theories over our experience before too long. What usually happens then is that we make ad hoc adjustments (consider the case of Ptolemaic epicycles...) to the theory, which becomes less and less reasonable.

Idiomatic speech as a lone example should suffice to convince anyone that language is not entirely law-bound; at least as far as it is creative, its uses and rules of usage are free of any static system.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #49 – 2014-07-15, 03:57:40

i guess Jseaton is right , it's all about physics .

so the Formula is something like :

For those who understand , no explanation is needed .
For those who do not understand , no explanation is possible .

that's how to never argue with someone that just want to hear , what they want to hear .