Your somewhat literal interpretation might miss the point that what a city is like is dependent on what one chooses to do in that city. — Banno

Is there a difference between what something is like and what something is?

Why do you think that? The problem is that the "contextualists" presumably do not see their position as precluding realism. — Leontiskos

Is the framework that supports the realism of other minds and their contents context-de/independent?

So now we are asking, "Are there [paradigm/framework/worldview/evidence regime/language game/scheme]-independent standards?" — Leontiskos

Talk about "language on holiday".

It seems to me that you're simply asking if realism is the case. Is it?

It seems to me, although I am not certain, that logic requires higher mind functions and perhaps self-awareness. I'd say rather that animals think and behave effectively. — T Clark

Sure. I can agree with that. It depends on how we're defining "logic". If I were defining "logic" in more broad terms, I would say that it is a means of processing inputs to produce accurate/useful outputs, and all brains (and computers) do that.

Many animals have much more complex and intelligent behaviors than that. I think, although again I don't have specific knowledge, moths aren't attracted to the moon but to a bright light against a dark background. This is, I assume, a genetically encoded instinct and is not learned. That's not logic or even logical. — T Clark

As I said, the moth's behavior only appears illogical because we can distinguish the difference between the porch light and the Moon. So of course many animals are capable of more complex behaviors because they can make finer distinctions thanks to their larger, more complex brain.

Moths use the Moon to navigate. They use the distant light source to keep an angle that allows them to fly straight. If you were to take the position of the Moth, having evolved in an environment where there were no porch lights, this method works, and would continue to work until the Moon ceases to exist as a light source. If we were living in a time before there were porch lights and observed the moth's behavior, it would appear completely and utterly logical. The environment changed and now the method is not as useful as it once was. We can tell the difference, but the moth cannot. It was designed to handle a different problem, or handle different input.

humans are exponentially more complex in the way they perceive and behave in the world than the other animals.
— Harry Hindu

This is just not true. — T Clark

Please, explain why it isn't. What other animals are aware of their own extinction and have the power to do something about it?

It's clear, at least to me, that organisms without brains have had a much greater impact on the environment than those with them. This is from Wikipedia: — T Clark

Environmental scientists are saying that we're doing the same thing - modifying the atmosphere on a global scale. We even have theories of how to do it on Mars.

Is this right? Or is it sufficient that we be able to treat things as distinct entities?

Couldn't this be mistaking method for ontology? Mistaking what we do for how things are?

So again, I'm far form convinced that you are not presuming your conclusion. — Banno

It depends on the goal. Sometimes it is useful to treat things as distinct entities. Sometimes it isn't.

If treating entities one way or the other produces useful results in that you are able to realize your goal, then there must be some semblance of truth to the way we are treating it. Can there be distinct entities that form relations between other distinct entities? Yes. You just have to ensure you're not conflating the relation with the distinct entity when you're trying to solve a problem or achieve some goal.

Having goals is the reason we categorize and organize reality into labeled boxes, and we can store boxes within larger boxes. Each box is a tool for solving a problem.

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case?
— Harry Hindu

There are many things without which you cannot perform logic - breathable atmosphere, for example. What's the point of this and the rest of your questions?

Again, there doesn't seem to be a clear direction of inquiry here - just random things being thrown out. — SophistiCat

You're trying to finish the race before starting it. Most people on this forum, once they realize the direction of inquiry, start to dance around the issue. Does a newborn baby have a direction of inquiry when trying to understand and make sense of what its senses are telling it? Don't worry about the direction of inquiry right now and just answer the questions as posed. If there is a problem with the question or you need some definitions for the words in the question, just say so.

Your answer to my quoted question seems to imply that a breathable atmosphere is required to to perform logic. While that wasn't my question it does show that determinism and causation are required - that there are certain circumstances that have to exist prior to other circumstances existing.

My question was more about the logical process itself, not what preceded its existence.

Reasoning takes time. It is a process. As such it is causal.

You provide a reason for your conclusions. Your reasons determine your conclusion. Your premises determine the validity of the conclusion. As such it is deterministic.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

Has any of these humans made it into the sky using their own wings?

Your anthropocentrism is using the method of cherry picking. And your conclusions are naturalistic fallacies. — Quk

Your response does not address what I said. Read what I said and respond appropriately.

Humans have made their own wings. Has any other animals designed complex machinery that adds functionality to the human body? Have other organisms designed other body parts to replace failing ones using their brains? Sure lizards can regrow tails, but that is a biological function, not a logical one. I did say that the brain is the logical organ. Your legs, hands and mouth are not logical organs. They are driven by your logical organ.

I'm not saying that humans are special. I'm saying that they are different in respect to their brains and how they use them. This is not an anthropocentric stance. It is merely an observation.

Humans are the only ones at this moment that stand a chance of saving themselves from extinction from dangers that the other animals aren't even aware of - asteroid impacts, black holes, the sun expanding and consuming the Earth, human activity destroying the environment, etc.

I guess I confused things when I wrote "just as much." I didn't mean sentient animal's minds and behaviors are as complex as human's. I meant their minds, their intelligence, are just as big a part of their nature. Animals are capable of using their minds to make images, remember, communicate, create abstractions, and solve problems, obviously, some more than others. — T Clark

Then we agree that animals think and behave logically given the way they are designed and the sensory information they receive as inputs, just as I explained with my example with the moth.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

You, or rather Jacob Brownoski, wrote "he is not a figure in the landscape—he is a shaper of the landscape." I responded that animals shape the landscape too, some with their brains some not. What does that have to do with going to the moon? — T Clark

Again we are talking about degrees of complexity where humans are exponentially more complex in the way they perceive and behave in the world than the other animals. They all use their brains to shape the landscape. Name an animal that can shape the landscape without a brain, or that when shaping the landscape they are not using their senses and brain. For what reason are they shaping the landscape? How do they know when to stop shaping the landscape?

Causation was not thought to be a law of logic, even in Hume's time. Aristotle, whose doctrines on both these subjects were predominant in Western philosophy, certainly didn't present it in that way. While Hume's analysis sharpened and clarified the distinction, he wasn't breaking any new ground with this observation. It was rather his austere empiricist take on causality that distinguished his view, but that is about more than simply noting that there is no logical contradiction in denying any particular instance of causation. — SophistiCat

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case? What is logic? What does it mean for a conclusion to "logically follow" from the premises? Is reasoning a causal process?

Sure, but the fact that some particular process led to man's desire for truth as such doesn't preclude the fact that man can now desire truth for its own sake. That is, man can seek truth for the sake of truth and not for the sake of evolutionary advantage. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I doubt we seek truth for the sake of seeking truth. We seek truth to acquire some kind of advantage (knowledge) about how to improve our lives to some degree. But that doesn't mean we don't acquire knowledge that does not have a direct effect on our survival. We do.

Like I said, survival is the best incentive to get your perceptions about the world right, and that may require that we pick up things that don't have a direct impact on our survival. Understanding that there are other planets that we can colonize to improve the chances of humanity avoiding extinction is one thing, but understanding how to do it another thing. You'll need to know about all the physics that goes into designing a rocket ship to accomplish it, which is in itself not knowledge that has a direct impact on our survival.

Yes. His defense of free speech argues that soundwaves do not cause the hairs in the inner ear to convert mechanical energy into electrical signals. I have only been trying to explain that this interpretation of causation is false, and so his defense of free speech fails. — Michael

Personally, I don't care.

I'll interpret the lack of any rebuttal on your part to everything else I said regarding free speech as an agreement with what I said about free speech.

This also speaks to our curiosity. We always want to know what is over the horizon. We are natural explorers. It is in our nature to see the world more openly - to seek out new worlds and new civilizations - to boldly go where no man has gone before, because you never know what part of reality might be useful for something

Or simply because "men by nature desire to know," or because they desire the glory of achieving the difficult. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"By nature" meaning that they were naturally selected to be curious because being curious allows one to be open to new solutions to existing problems.

Going back to the quote from James, humans are just as instinctual as other animals and sentient animals learn from experience just as much as humans. Animals also adapt their behavior in real-time in dynamic environments. That is the whole point of the quote. — T Clark

All you need to do is make some basic observations of animal behavior to realize that this is not true. To say that other animals are "just as" humans simply does not fit our observations. Humans are obviously capable of much more complex behaviors than other animals.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that humans are the only logical organisms. A brain is a logical organ. It receives inputs and processes them to produce meaningful behaviors. Instincts are logical processes. Natural selection is a logical process. By "logical", I mean that it is causal and deterministic - similar causes lead to similar effects. Similar inputs can lead to similar behaviors. The issue is that any logical process is limited by the type of input it receives and the type of process that handles the input. There are different logical process meant to handle specific input. If you try to enter the wrong input into a logical system that was not designed to handle that input, you will get logical errors. Junk goes in, junk comes out.

A moth that flies around your porch light is mistaking the porch light for the Moon. It is only behaving illogically from our perspective because we can distinguish the difference between a porch light and the Moon. The moth, however, is doing what it was designed to with the information it was designed to perceive. It does not adapt it's behavior in real-time. It flies around the porch light until it dies of exhaustion.

Animals; and plants, fungi, bacteria and all other living organisms for that matter; shape the landscape. Beavers build dams that create lakes that provide habitat for fish that provide food for eagles. Grasses prevent erosion and create prairies. They are are also explorers of nature and have migrated to every continent. — T Clark

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power? If what you say is true, we wouldn't be able to distinguish between humans and other species. There is an obvious exponential difference in scope.

Again, the point is the logical one, that we can say of a statement that it is true, and we can say that it is false, and thirdly sometimes we can say that we don't know it's truth value, and that doing so does not, as your statement quoted above implies, lead immediately to "anything goes". — Banno

It depends on what you're talking about. When you are ignorant of the facts, it certainly does appear that "anything goes", or "anything is possible". That is what probability and randomness are - projections of our ignorance. While probabilities seem to narrow down the list of possible truths, randomness seems to imply that anything goes. A probability is probable, but all probabilities are possible.

Well, yes. If your commander gives an order, you are thereby under an obligation, even if you do not follow that order. — Banno

The obligation is created when you signed up for the military - obligating you to follow your commander's intentions - not when the commander speaks. The commander is just informing you of his intentions.

That's right. When I say "Hello" to someone walking towards me on the mountain path, I'm not informing them that we intend to start a conversation. I'm too focused on getting up the mountain and don't really want a chat. — Banno

Now you're moving the goalposts. In the situation where one says, "Hello" to strike up a conversation, what I said still holds.

I can say, "Hello!" when it appears that someone does not hear or understand what I'm saying - to get their attention. Your example appears to be one where you simply want someone to acknowledge your existence and you theirs.

Yes. We say "They ignored my greeting". — Banno

In other words, they did not want to converse with you or acknowledge your existence.

Are you saying all behaviour must be explained algorithmically? I won't agree. — Banno

I wasn't saying anything. I was asking if there are reasons to get married or scratch your nose.

This was written more than 100 years ago, but it is consistent with other things I have read that are more recent. — T Clark

I would prefer that you provide links to those other things because the language used in your quote is unwieldy.

Instincts are useful or else they would not have been selected. They are like a general purpose tool for handling a variety of situations or situations that rarely change. Conscious behavior allows an organism to adapt one's behavior in real-time in dynamic environments. This is why humans have been able to spread into all sorts of environments, including space.

"Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts which make him unique among the animals: so that, unlike them, he is not a figure in the landscape—he is a shaper of the landscape. In body and in mind he is the explorer of nature, the ubiquitous animal, who did not find but has made his home in every continent."
Jacob Bronowski

This also speaks to our curiosity. We always want to know what is over the horizon. We are natural explorers. It is in our nature to see the world more openly - to seek out new worlds and new civilizations - to boldly go where no man has gone before, because you never know what part of reality might be useful for something.

Whose goals are being realized - yours or the hacker's?
— Harry Hindu

The hacker's. — Michael

Now, who should be arrested for what Siri does?

No, I don't. I'm not yet addressing that, because NOS4A2 can't even accept that sounds can cause the ears to send an electrical signal to the brain. He can't even accept that sounds can cause the lights to turn on. — Michael

He has accepted that but you keep dancing around the issue with your over simplistic assertions.

Then the hacker is at fault for what Siri does, and not you - the speaker. In other words, your own example can be used to show what I am trying to show you - that there are other, more immediate intervening causes to one's behavior than the sounds that enter one's ear and send signals to the brain.

I am simply responding to this claim made by NOS4A2:

So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

His claim is false. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands. — Michael

Then what you're saying is that you and NOS4A2 have gone off-topic arguing about the validity of eliminative materialism.

I, however, am focused on the topic at hand - Free Speech and who is culpable for the actions of an individual - someone that makes sounds with their mouth, or the one that decides what to do when hearing those sounds. The validity of eliminative materialism is irrelevant to the topic and does not need to be settled to settle the issue of who is culpable for one's actions.

I have shown that there is a more immediate cause to a behavior than your voice that explains why there are different responses to hearing the same sound, and does not contradict the fact that speech is part of the causal sequence that preceded one's actions - but so is their mother giving birth to them, and the Big Bang.

We award and punish people based on their actions, not the actions of another because what other people do is not the FINAL cause of one's actions. It is your decision about what to do when you hear certain words or see others behaving a certain way and allow the mob's behavior influence your own into committing immoral acts.

I have also equated freedom to full access to all information. In a society that has a free press with various points of view, everyone has access to most information so if you choose to listen to only one view, and are then influenced by others that share that view to commit violence against others because you've closed yourself off from the information that would show what was being said is false - that is your fault because that was your decision to live in a bubble.

Now, if we do not live in a free society and live under a government that suppresses information and runs the media then we have no freedom of thought or speech anyway and have no way to argue against what some authority is saying and would be easily influenced by their speech.

Then saying "Siri, open the blinds" will cause the doors to open. — Michael

Whose goals are being realized - yours or the hacker's? Who had more control over what happens when you say, "Siri, open the blinds." You or the hacker?

The "reliable" outcome is that my speech will cause the listener's ears to send an electrical signal to their brain (unless they're deaf). This is where NOS4A2 disagrees, and is the extent of my argument with him (notwithstanding the corollary debate on the nature of free will).

Again, you seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. What do you think I'm saying? — Michael

I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure that out.

You can talk about what happens between the listener's ears and their brain, but what happens after that? You seem to be thinking that that is where the story ends, but it isn't. The sound of your voice enters everyone's ear within earshot and their ears all send signals to their brains, but some of them do not respond to your speech as you intended. That is what we are pointing to. You continue to point everywhere else (at strawmen).

Call x the determinate, and y the indeterminate, and z the mixture.
We live in, and are, z - a mixture in motion.
Because z is mixed with the indeterminate, z is more akin to x, the indeterminate. The indeterminate is the dominant gene, so to speak. The indeterminate poisons everything it touches turning determination into a best guess. — Fire Ologist

Exactly. Once you declare that there is some aspect of the universe that is random, or indeterminate, then you've create a dualistic problem of trying to explain why there are so many things that are determined.

It seems to me that mixing the determinate and the indeterminate would be like "mixing" water and oil. Or, that the indeterminate is a projection of one's ignorance and trying to use the indeterminate as a tool to understand a deterministic universe would create the problems you cite. Dualism just causes more problems than it solves.

Sure.

But that's not all there is going on here. A command also creates of an obligation, a question seeks a reply. That's more than just a transfer of data. — Banno

You seem to be conflating intent with the intended outcome. You can intend to create an obligation for someone to stop when you say, "Stop!" but when they don't did you actually create an obligation? Could you even say that you conveyed any information? Maybe you did and the listener heard you clearly and understands what you want them to do, but the other is under no obligation - ever - to respond in the way you intend. You might need to convey more information, like holding a gun to their head, for them to respond as you intend. The same goes for intending to receive a reply. Just look at many of the conversations on this forum where someone asks a question that is ignored or answered in a way that the questioner did not intend. In these cases, there was an intent, and information was conveyed, but no obligation was created and no reply was received, so how can you say that an obligation was created when one wasn't?

"hello". It doesn't name a greeting, it is a greeting. And I know you will object to this, saying it names an intent to greet or some such. But it doesn't name an intent to greet. It greets. — Banno

I've addressed this one with you before, but your response was that you simply didn't like what I was saying.

Would you consider, "Hello" informative? Are you informed of something when someone says, "Hello"? If you are, then what is it that you are informed of? What does it refer to? — Harry Hindu

["Hello"] is a scribble or sound used to point to the start of communication, similar to how computers establish "handshakes" with each other across a network before they actually begin the transfer of data over the network. When the computers are finished with transferring data, they close the connection in a way that is similar to saying "goodbye". These sounds/scribbles that we make are pointing to the opening and closing of an exchange of information. — Harry Hindu

They are informing the other that we intend to start a conversation (exchanging information) with them and when we intend to stop exchanging information.

"Hello" greets except when it doesn't. If you say, "Hello" to someone and they ignore you, did you greet them? If the other refuses to participate in the "game" do you have a "game"?

Marriage? Scratching your nose? — Banno

Are you saying that you don't have reasons to get married or scratch your nose?

Where did logic come from? Natural selection.

Yes, but this presupposes something prior that determined human logic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Like that the universe is causal and deterministic? Yes. Could a mind evolve in any other type of world?

This is what Konrad Lorenz had to say:

This is the basis of our conviction that whatever our cognitive faculty communicates to us corresponds to something real. The 'spectacles' of our modes of thought and perception, such as causality, substance, quality, time and place, are functions of a neurosensory organization that has evolved in the service of survival. When we look through these 'spectacles', therefore, we do not see, as transcendental idealists assume, some unpredictable distortion of reality which does not correspond in the least with things as they really are, and therefore cannot be regarded as an image of the outer world. What we experience is indeed a real image of reality - albeit an extremely simple one, only just sufficing for our own practical purposes; we have developed 'organs' only for those aspects of reality of which, in the interest of survival, it was imperative for our species to take account, so that selection pressure produced this particular cognitive apparatus...what little our sense organs and nervous system have permitted us to learn has proved its value over endless years of experience, and we may trust it. as far as it goes. For we must assume that reality also has many other aspects which are not vital for us.... to know, and for which we have no 'organ', because we have not been compelled in the course of our evolution to develop means of adapting to them.
— Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror — T Clark

My response is that survival is the best incentive for getting your perceptions right about the world, and to be open to new information that might be useful because you never know what part of reality might be useful to promote one's survival. That is the direction evolution seems to be headed from instinctive, hard-coded behavioral responses to general stimuli to conscious minds capable of making finer distinctions and therefore finer behavioral responses as well being able to change one's behavior based on new sensory information effectively overriding those instinctive behaviors when they are not the best response in a given situation. We can change our behavior in almost real-time compared to instinctive behaviors which can take generations to change.

It’s turned off or broken.

Much like sometimes when I flick the light switch the light doesn’t turn on, perhaps because of faulty wiring or a power cut. But it’s still the case that I can and do often cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch.

What is so difficult to understand about this? You seem to think I’m saying something I’m not and I don’t know what that is. — Michael

There are many other possible causes. What if a hacker hacked your home network and now Siri unlocks your doors instead of opening the blinds? Who would you call to fix the issue - a linguist, a political scientist, an electrician, or an information technology expert?

It is only the case that you often do cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch because the intervening technology is reliable - far more reliable than your speech's effect on other people. So how do you explain the discrepancy between the reliable outcome of your light turning on vs the unreliable outcomes of your speech?

It's false. I can open the blinds by saying "Siri, open the blinds." — Michael

But sometimes Siri does not open the blinds. How do you explain that and wouldn't that mean there's a more immediate cause of the blinds opening or not rather than just your voice saying "Siri, open the blinds".

You sometimes appear to accept that speech can causally influence machines and sometimes you don’t — Michael

There is nothing contradictory about this. In fact, this is the actual point that we are making - that some people can be influenced (but not directly caused) by speech and some aren't. We are simply trying to ask you why there is a distinction, and since there is a distinction then maybe one's speech is not the immediate cause of another's actions, but can be a contributor, but that is only determined after the speech is made, but before the behavioral response.

I have showed that people are influenced by another's false speech when they do not have access to the information that would prevent them from acting on the faulty information. Whose fault is it that a person lacks the necessary information to make informed decisions? Did the person make deliberate choices about which sources they receive information from and exclude others (living in a bubble), or is it the media that controls our access to information's fault? So there seems to be a more immediate cause to one's actions and that is their access to relevant information that would either reject or accept what is currently being said and the culpability would be laid at the feet of either the media itself or at your own feet as the sources of information you have chosen to listen to or not. Isn't this why it is illegal to groom a child - because a child has not had enough life experiences (access to relevant information) to reject what the groomer is saying? The child would be innocently ignorant. An adult living in a bubble could be living in a bubble of their own making.

Thanks, ↪Harry Hindu. I was writing a longish response, only to have it deleted whiel refreshing multiple windows. Bugger. — Banno

Yikes. I hate it when that happens.

It was a list of the various points you made, and how I agreed or disagreed. The upshot was that I pretty much agreed with all you said, except for a few thigns.

Not everything we do with words is communication, if communication is understood as the transfer of information. We also command, ask, promise, and so on. To be clear, I do not see how these can be reduced to just the transfer of information, and also, if they were, it would be very inefficient to talk about them in those terms. — Banno

Commanding and asking are conveying information about one's intent. When someone yells, "Stop!" what they are doing is conveying information about their intent. What they are actually saying is, "I want you to stop!", and "Stop!" is really just shorthand for saying "I want you to stop!". We could just say, "I want you to stop!", or we could just say, "Stop!" (they mean the same thing), and let the other things in our immediate environment speak for us (context), like your hand signals or you reaching out to physically stop the person from stepping into a hole and breaking their ankle. Like I said, scribbles and sounds are just one of many things we use to represent what it is we intend to convey. Its just that scribbles and sounds are what are more commonly used as they are readily available.

If the person did not stop, then how can you say you used the word, "Stop!"? How can you say that it refers to the person stopping. You can't. This is why the command doesn't point to the actions of another, but to your intent to change the actions of another. We can convey our intentions, but that does not mean we always get what we intend.

Information is conveyed even beyond what was said. By looking at someone's writing and listening to them speak information about which languages they can speak and their level of understanding of the language they are using are also conveyed. Those things are just irrelevant to what the speaker is saying, but could be relevant in other situations.

Promises and apologies are conveying information about one's intent, or to solicit help in the future. To promise someone something is to convey that in the future they would provide assistance to another. It is a way of reinforcing social bonds. Apologies are saying, "Please don't socially exclude me for my mistake as it will not happen again, and I intend to correct the wrong." That is a mouthful no doubt, but that is why we can rely on other things to participate in conveying what we mean more efficiently.

And not every word is either a noun or a helper word. — Banno

Examples?

Generally, it seems to me that you are setting out much the same sort of approach as is found in the Tractatus, an approach that needs to be superseded for the same reasons that that book was superseded by the Investigations — Banno

And why wouldn't the Investigations not need to be superseded? Isn't his "language on holiday" from the Investigations? I've been using this to support what is found in the Tractatus in that language is on a holiday when we don't use words as they were intended - to convey something about the world, which includes your intentions. Anything else is just an artful use of scribbles and sounds.

I dunno, the aporetic dialogues of Plato seem quite useful. But we may be saying the same thing -- that aporia is an invitation to reconsider. My idea is that the reconsidering is a lot more radical than looking for a "bug" in the logic, because I think aporia is often a sign that we've set the whole problem up incorrectly.
— J
Which is the same as saying that the program was written incorrectly and/or is handling input that is was not designed to handle. — Harry Hindu

Or, perhaps, the solution is not algorithmic. — Banno

I would need an real-world example of a "solution" that was reached without an algorithm.

I would just like to point out the reason we frequently ask for each other's definitions here, on a philosophy forum, is because when someone does not use a word how it is commonly used, or does not align with any of the multiple definitions the word might have, we are asking for the user's private definition.

Once we learn how each other are using the scribble, we can communicate with an understanding of each other's uses and translate to our own use. We could continue doing this without having a shared, or common, use. The problem is that it is very inefficient when communicating with multiple people every day. We would have to learn every individual's private use to translate to our own. It's much easier to learn one common language rather than millions of private languages. That is why we have a common usage, but can get by by understanding another's private use if we needed to. It would be like two people that speak their native language and the foreign language of the other. They could both communicate by speaking the other's native language without ever using their own native language, or a common language.

Stage 2: This requires differentiated being — tom111

This is something like what I've said before in that mathematics is based on the idea that there are categories of things. For there to more than one of anything means that you have established some sort of categorical system where similar objects are part of the same group to say that there is a multitude of those things. If everything were unique the we would have no basis to claim that there is two or more of anything. There would only be one of everything. How can one do math if there was only one of everything?

Logic also involves causation. Logic is a type of thought process that we were born with. We take in information, integrate it with our current knowledge and produce meaningful outputs. We reason our way to conclusions. Conclusions must logically follow the premises to be considered proper thinking. We were also born with emotions and start from a place of almost complete ignorance - with very little experience to base our first perceptions of the world on. As we get older we begin to understand what good thinking entails - what thought processes produce the best results - and we call those thought processes "logic" to help us distinguish between logical fallacies and logical thought processes.

Where did logic come from? Natural selection.

Ask AI how did logic evolve and you something like this:
"In evolutionary psychology, logic is understood to have emerged as a cognitive adaptation to solve adaptive problems in ancestral environments. It's not a single, isolated trait, but rather a set of cognitive mechanisms that allow for effective problem-solving, decision-making, and reasoning, ultimately contributing to survival and reproduction."
-Google AI

If science only becomes science when it is testable, then a great deal of what scientists do, especially theoretical work, is philosophy and not science. So, like I said, the line is not very clear by this criteria, or at least it fails to corresponds to common usages. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was thinking about it a bit more and can see philosophy, with the application of logic, tests the theories for soundness, while science tests them by experimentation - a process involving both logic and observation. So, philosophy and science done well would be where the conclusion reached passed all, or at least most, of the tests each one performs.

Right, become the former are seeking different ends from the latter. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Seems like you're just defining "intent" here.

Potentially. That's a question ethics and politics studies, the role of the "common good" being key here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not when the "common good" is bad for the individual. The good of the individual vs the good of the group is a well-known ethical dilemma and has not been settled as far as I know.

Good questions. The difficulty in answering these are precisely why I don't see a particularly strong line between the two. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If you're having difficulty answering the questions then how can you say whether there is a strong line or not? The point of asking the questions was to try to get at whether there is a strong line between the two or not, and if the distinction is useful or not. The conclusions reached in any field of knowledge must not contradict the conclusions reached in another field. All knowledge must be integrated. The field of genetics integrates well with the field of biology. The field of quantum mechanics does not integrate well with classical physics. The interpretations of what the science of QM is showing would be in the domain of philosophy as none of them are testable at the moment.

In this context, I meant philosophically helpful or provocative -- something worth our time to understand. Is there a way you prefer to think of it? -- I'm certainly not married to this one. — J

I would define useful as being applicable in real-world situations and produces the expected results.

What does "philosophically helpful" mean if not helpful in extending language's holiday?

I take your use of "provocative" to mean that it causes one to reflect upon the usefulness of one's own ideas in contrast with a different idea, or to think differently about something in a way that is useful, with usefulness being defined here as I did above.

This is why I'm saying that philosophy as language on holiday is not useful as I have defined it. It's just scribbles that are not applicable to the world as we know it, and might never be applicable, so it's only use could be to provide some social benefit by using language in artful ways, not to say anything useful about the world.

I'm not really sure why these should be different. Ethics is the study of ends. Politics, as a sort of archetectonic study of ends in the broadest sphere possible, is both a study of what people do and what they would benefit from doing, and this is recognized in the contemporary social sciences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ethics is not necessarily the study of ends, but the ends in relation with some intent because we see people that accidentally caused harm different than people that intentionally caused harm.

What people do and what is best for them is different than what an individual does and what is best for the individual, which could conflict with what is best for the group. The questio s and conclusions of ethics and politics are subjective and why science doesn't bother with them.

To be fair, it is counterintuitive because for the entirety of linguistic human history we have thought and spoken about language as having supernatural powers. — NOS4A2

:smile:
Ironically it is only our native language that has this supernatural power as hearing a language I don't know has no supernatural power over me.

But you made a distinction between philosophy and science. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Only when it comes to providing answers. The only way we obtain the answer is by testing all possible answers. An untestable answer is just as valid as all the other untestable answers.

As commonly conceived, philosophy deals in observations all the time. This is true of phenomenology, ethics, metaphysics, etc. Is the claim that whenever these involve observation they are actually "science" and not "philosophy?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Isn't logic a fundamental branch of philosophy and isn't rationalism vs empiricism a philosophical debate? I think the claim that philosophy deals in observations all the time is suspect.

Do you agree that science also deals in observations (all the time)? If so, then dealing in observations is neither philosophical or scientific, but something else and philosophy and science would be types of this something else. What is that something else?

Do you agree that philosophy and science both deal in rationalism (all the time)? Are there any irrational scientific theories? Can there ever be such a thing as an irrational scientific theory? Is there such a thing as an irrational philosophical theory like in the fields of religion and politics?

If both philosophy and science deal in observation and rationalism (all the time), then dealing in observation and rationalism are not defining qualities of either. What makes them different is their defining qualities and the difference is in how testable the answers to any question we pose are.

Yes, I would have an emotional reaction to the news. I am disgusted and angry even considering your example. But it is I who evokes the emotion, drawn as they are from my own body and actions, influenced entirely by what I know, think, understand, believe etc. The words are not responsible in any way for what I feel. — NOS4A2

Exactly. And a psychopath would probably not have any emotional response at all, or if they did would probably experience the opposite feelings you are, and Relativitst's example doesn't seem to take this into account.

Their arguments continually keep missing the mark. While they are focused on the cause, we are focused on the effect, or more specifically the difference in effects given the same cause. They refuse to explain why there is a difference in effect given the same cause and given determinism is true.

I dunno, the aporetic dialogues of Plato seem quite useful. But we may be saying the same thing -- that aporia is an invitation to reconsider. My idea is that the reconsidering is a lot more radical than looking for a "bug" in the logic, because I think aporia is often a sign that we've set the whole problem up incorrectly. — J

Which is the same as saying that the program was written incorrectly and/or is handling input that is was not designed to handle.

Define "useful".

If you have reached the conclusion that we don't know anything [about X] - doesn't that constitute knowledge?
— Harry Hindu

Yes, but not about X. So no contradiction, I'd say. — J

Your edit of my post isn't what I intended to say.

anything = everything about every X

If you have reached the conclusion that you don't know why or how the universe (everything) exists, then aren't you effectively stating that you don't know anything about everything? Doesn't the conclusion of you not knowing anything about X create doubt in your understanding of all the other X's? If I'm wrong about X, how do I know I'm not wrong about all the other X's?

as I've said before, it seems to me that for you language is all names, that you think each word stands for something. And I think this is mistaken. I think that what counts is not what the word stands for - if anything - but what we do with our words in context.

And i think this difference prevents us seeing eye to eye. — Banno

Exactly. Context helps to establish the meaning (what a word points to) of certain words. Some words are helper words in that they establish the context of the other words in a sentence. When we have agreed that a certain scribble can have multiple meanings, we use helper words to distinguish between the multiple meanings. So we can say that the helper words point to the specific definition of another word in the sentence.

Words (scribbles and sounds) are like anything else in the world. We can use other scribbles to establish context, or something else in the immediate shared environment to establish context, like the direction you are pointing. More scribbles is just one of the possible things we could use to establish context.

This is what I mean when I say that we use the world (scribbles, sounds, braille, pointing, etc) to communicate. Scribbles are just one of many things we can use to refer to other things.

When you look at or listen to another language you do not know you see scribbles and hear sounds. You can't even tell where one word ends and the other begins when hearing a foreign language. It is only by learning the rules for interpreting the sounds does one perceive the spaces between the spoken words. The spaces is what makes language modular, where you can plug in various strings of scribbles with other strings to create new meanings. So there are times when it is useful to use a single word as pointing to something and useful to take the whole sentence as pointing to something depending on the words being used.

Sure, and that's why a charitable reading can be important. You can help make the position clearer and more compelling! (And maybe start by discarding the assumption that the person "hasn't bothered questioning it themselves." Perhaps they've done so to the best of their ability.) — J

My point was that charitability it is a two-way street. I can only help make the position clearer if the other participates in answering the questions or explaining why the question is irrelevant.

Well, showing discrepancies, that's step two, which requires a whole new mindset, I've found. Quite often, if I start by indicating that I do have some understanding of the position, and can see some value or importance, and then describe the discrepancies I also see, it's received more openly. Or not, of course! -- people get defensive. — J

If understanding is the first step, can you say you have successfully completed the first step if your questions that would help you understand are not answered (they get defensive by the simply fact that you are questioning anything they say)? When I show a discrepancy between their current claim and their prior claims is it fair to say that either I don't understand their position or their position is a contradiction BEFORE even reaching step two, and if they don't address the discrepancy by agreeing to either of those two possibilities, then what? At what point are we to say that they are simply insulting our intelligence and wasting our time?

Is the "you" here the "British 'one'" -- that is, "one should be asking oneself . . ." etc. -- or do you mean "you" as in me, specifically the position about understanding another's position that I was sketching? — J

The former.

If the conclusion you have reached is aporetic then you've made a wrong turn somewhere in your thinking and would need to reflect.
— Harry Hindu

Say more about this? I'm not understanding yet why aporia wouldn't be a possible outcome for a philosophical inquiry. — J

A possible outcome - yes. A useful outcome - no. Computers produce errors even though they are the most logical devices we know of. If the output is aporic then you need to re-evaluate the input or the program for bugs. If you have reached the conclusion that we don't know anything - doesn't that constitute knowledge - that we don't know anything and therefore creates a contradiction?

I don't agree with any strong distinction between science and philosophy, but let me ask: can we (ought we) ever ask questions about ethics or aesthetics? Would these fall under the category of "science?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

It depends on from which view we are talking about ethics and aesthetics. Are we talking about them from the "internal" position of distinguishing right and wrong and beauty and plainness, or "externally" with ethics and aesthetics simply being one of the many means humans use complex social behaviors to improve their social fitness?

At the same time, it seems that there are at least questions about what makes science a good way to know things that must be prior to science, and which tend to fall into the common box of "philosophy." — Count Timothy von Icarus

How about what makes science a good way to know things is that it is the only method that has provided answers and philosophy has provided none. Name one answer philosophy has provided that did not involve some semblance of the scientific method - observing and rationalizing one's observations.

Of course, the line between "philosophy of biology" and biology, or "philosophy of physics," and physics, is always quite blurry. So too the line between philosophy of science and epistemology and foundational questions of evidence and the role of mathematics and logic in scientific discourse and models. That's why I actually think the art/science distinction is more useful than philosophy/science. — Count Timothy von Icarus

All philosophy can do is ask questions. Will there be questions that cannot be answered? Sure, but those questions will only seek subjective answers (ethics and aesthetics from an internal view - similar to how Banno is invoking Godel in this thread), or just be silly (language on a holiday).

Because I’m trying to understand statements like this:
And this:
But then there is this: — Fire Ologist

Let me guess, you haven't received a response? I would then refer you to my post just after the one you've quoted me on here in this thread (the last post on page 2).

This implies a world we are separated from - you need there to be me and separately the world logically before there can be me “in relation with” the world. The “already” is the ontological pickle (the chicken and egg portion of the discussion), but recognizing this tension does not collapse the gap that maintains a separate world to be articulated. — Fire Ologist

Not only that but that the very scribbles and sounds that we make that manifest as language is somehow not part of the world either. We can talk about words and sentences like we can talk about cars and traffic.

My sense is that there is the world, and there is the language about the world. Language is always from the outside looking back in, fashioning a window into being. I say looking back in, because it requires reflection, a move from the world, processed in mind, back onto the world. This “back in” move reflects Banno’s “already in relation with” but accounts for the distance between me and the world that must exist for me to have a relation to the world. — Fire Ologist

Exactly. This is what I mean by language is scribble and sound usage that follow some rules. You have to use things in the world (scribbles and sounds) to communicate your "internal" ideas. The mind is just another process in the world that interacts with the rest of world to produce novel outputs in the world.

I think we precisely must assume this. There must be one true narrative, or else, all narratives are equally born and equally soon to be gone.

Maybe there is not one true narrative. But then, in such case, never can there be error or accuracy in any narratives that may arise, if one remains the narrating type. — Fire Ologist

And oh, how the same ones that say there isn't a true narrative like to say that you are wrong in yours. I wish they'd just make up their mind. Are they talking about the world, or are they just making surreal scribble art?

"You have to restrain your desire to respond and refute until you've thoroughly understood the philosopher or the position you're addressing. [And boy did he mean "thoroughly"!]. You really don't have a right to an opinion until you're sure you've achieved the most charitable, satisfying reading possible. Otherwise it's just a game of who can make the cleverer arguments." I forget this constantly, as we all do, but I still hold it as ideal. You can't start being wise until you first understand. — J

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third, by experience, which is the bitterest."
- Confucius

The issue I have experienced is that in trying to understand the other's position you find that the person doesn't appear to understand it themselves because they haven't bothered questioning it themselves (reflection). In trying to understand another's ideas I am trying to adopt them as my own, but I naturally reflect upon it, testing it by integrating it with other things that we know or that the other has said and find issues. When I show the discrepancies it is ignored - as if I didn't say anything (and if I didn't then why not explain why it isn't relevant if your intent is to help me understand?). I'm not asking a rhetorical question. I'm asking a question you should be asking yourself about your own position if you reflect honestly upon your own position.

It seems to me that many simply think that wisdom comes only by imitating - by referring to the group or an authority - the easy things, but does not lead to wisdom on its own.

Honestly questioning your own positions (reflection) and facing reality (experiences) are difficult. It means you have to accept that you might be wrong. I try to criticize my own position before actually submitting it for others to criticize so as to not waste time going back and forth on the trivial things. Using others to help you reflect on your own position can help you achieve a more objective view of the argument and evaluate whether it integrates well with the rest of what we know or not. This is where the experience comes in and why it is bitter. It can show you that you may have been wrong and you need to start over and reflect.

And yes, quite often the wisdom is aporetic, but that should teach us something about the nature of philosophy, not make us look forward to some glorious day when all the questions will be answered correctly, as demonstrated by superior argumentative skill. — J

If the conclusion you have reached is aporetic then you've made a wrong turn somewhere in your thinking and would need to reflect.

Philosophy is not intended to answer questions, but to ask them. The question enters the domain of science when it becomes testable, and it is here where we end up answering the question. I would just end with another quote from Confucius:
"The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones".

That's not why Biden essentially allowed an open border to fester. The Biden admin wasn't that strategic. Many Democrats had come to believe the Trump admin's border policies were racist, and this led the online far left to reflexively oppose ANY immigration enforcement on Biden's part. The Biden admin thought they couldn't risk losing this segment of the party, so they let it define immigration policy, which turned out to be a mistake. — RogueAI

That is what I mean by group-hate as a product of political parties. Their hate of anyone that does not follow the party line clouds their judgement, and they often go by their own party's characterization of the opposition rather than actually making an effort to understand the opposition.