I am very interested in the 'argument from reason', but I don't want to use it to persuade others that God exists. I think what interests me about it, is the claim that reason itself is not something that can be or ought to be explained in terms of any other factor. Whereas nowadays it is widely accepted that, because we evolved, then reason is, in some sense, just another natural faculty, like a particularly successful adaptation, something that is a consequence of an essentially unreasoning process, which is assumed by nearly all scientific philosophy. — Wayfarer

Thanks, yes, As it happens, I was just listening to Steven Pinker discuss this view of reason via his new book Rationality. It does interest me that he and other Enlightenment tradition inheritors seem to use the word reality with minimal philosophical reflection. It seems that Pinker defines reason as coming into being as the most efficient method to help humans achieve their goals.

Now, we could, if we wanted to, enter into a gentlemen's agreement that a thing that is not identical to itself is nothing. — James Riley

Ok, it is something - but only if it is nothing. That's where contradiction gets you.

Ok, it is something - but only if it is nothing. That's where contradiction gets you. — litewave

The idea that something is self-evident sounds like "Because I said so." It sounds religious. Yeah, religious. Anyway, I try to avoid use of the word "thing", by itself or as a suffix. It's too limiting, because it fails to account for non-things. In the end, I find "A" (i.e. All) as necessarily accounting for the absence of itself. And really, if it didn't, what kind of All would that be? Kind of like "limited infinity" or "limited sovereignty." Which brings us back to God. What kind of god could not render itself, or be, that which we will never or cannot fathom? That would be a real pussy of a god! So, God, like logic, says "Because I said so." It's a gentlemen's agreement, coming and going. Is logic our god? We can't question it? We can't demand that it prove itself?

The idea that something is self-evident sounds like "Because I said so." It sounds religious. — James Riley

Is it self-evident to you that it sounds religious?

So, God, like logic, says "Because I said so." It's a gentlemen's agreement, coming and going. — James Riley

But without the gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen's agreement would still be there. What kind of agreement is it then?

Is it self-evident to you that it sounds religious? — litewave

No. That's my subjective perception.

But without the gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen's agreement would still be there. — litewave

Yes and no. I think that long before "logic" was formalized, Og and Ug agreed that a club is a club and a bonk on the head hurt. But once Ug was dead, I'm not so sure he agreed. Also, what Og and Ug thought was their subjective perception and not necessarily some truth that did not apply to them or which they could not fathom.

What kind of agreement is it then? — litewave

If, without the gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen's agreement would still be there, then it would be a gentlemen's agreement. And not.

They are optional if you are not talking about reality. Regardless, the question I have is, are they proven with lesser proofs than simply saying "self-evident" or "can't prove a negative"? — James Riley

In a book titled "The Hermeneutics of Original Argument: Demonstration, Dialectic, Rhetoric," P. C. Smith, and a mighty good book too, the author offers as proof the LNC & etc. are true "because they had better be," italics added. Maybe not what's expected, but there it is.

In a book titled "The Hermeneutics of Original Argument: Demonstration, Dialectic, Rhetoric," P. C. Smith, and a mighty good book too, the author offers as proof the LNC & etc. are true "because they had better be," italics added. Maybe not what's expected, but there it is. — tim wood

:rofl:

No. That's my subjective perception. — James Riley

Is it self-evident to you that it is your subjective perception?

See, whenever you deny the existence of self-evidence, you invoke it. Or in other words, whenever you deny the existence of truth, you invoke it. Or in other words, whenever you deny the principle of identity/non-contradiction, you invoke it.

So, you can't deny it. It's not an option.

Is it self-evident to you that it is your subjective perception? — litewave

No. Perception is not self-evident. I'm not sure any "thing" or no "thing" is self-evident. If something were self-evident then you'd think it would be subject to lesser proofs. You know, non-anecdotal proofs.

See, whenever you deny the existence of self-evidence, you invoke it. — litewave

Uh, no, I don't.

Or in other words, whenever you deny the existence of truth, you invoke it. — litewave

No; Unlike God, or logic, I don't pretend to truths, nor do I invoke them.

Or in other words, whenever you deny the principle of identity/non-contradiction, you invoke it. — litewave

? No, I don't.

So, you can't deny it. It's not an option. — litewave

I just did deny it. Does that make you wrong? I mean, you just said I can't do something that I did. You just denied me an option. Hmmm.

No; Unlike God, or logic, I don't pretend to truths, nor do I invoke them. — James Riley

Is it true that you don't pretend to truths?

Thanks for the comment. Yeah, the OP is just dumb, but I'd come across Hoffman before and thought it would be an interesting topic. The critical paper that you referenced is in the same issue as the HSP paper. Full text: Perceptual representation, veridicality, and the interface theory of perception.

What Hoffman brings is the idea that this disconnect is not going to be random, it's going to be subject to selective pressure. I can see that, but the fundamental function of these models is surprise reduction and that is correspondence dependant (or at least there's no reason to assume it's not). — Isaac

Isn't making good predictions (and thus minimizing surprise, i.e. failed predictions) the real test of correspondence?

Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave

Yes and no. I was just thinking that if you followed me around on this site you could easily find examples where I took positions, asserted truths, etc. But I've been assuming you've understood the "yes and no." The fact that we are all engaged in a gentlemen's agreement does not mean we are. The fact that we agree a club is a club and that a bonk on the head hurts does not mean it is or does. Mankind is notorious for choosing what is easy and what works and what appeals to his confirmation bias. But that doesn't speak to truth.

In other words, when I say A = A and A = -A, you can't can ignore the fact that I just said A = A and focus only on the fact that I just said A = -A. But actually, you can. You just did. And you have been. So, while you may not disagree with me that A = A; and you may only disagree with me that A = -A, I can acknowledge the possibility of both. You can't. (Well, you could, but you don't, unless you do. Do you?)

Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave

Yes and no. — James Riley

The answer is no, because you have claimed something as true (when you said that you don't pretend to truths).

Is it true that you don't pretend to truths? — litewave

Yes and no.
— James Riley

The answer is no, because you have claimed something as true (when you said that you don't pretend to truths). — litewave

No; the answer is yes and no, precisely because I lack your pretense.

No; the answer is yes and no, precisely because I lack your pretense. — James Riley

What does the answer "yes and no" mean? You have asserted a truth (it is still there if you scroll a few posts up), so why not just answer "no"?

What does the answer "yes and no" mean? You have asserted a truth (it is still there if you scroll a few posts up), so why not just answer "no"? — litewave

". . . I've been assuming you've understood the "yes and no." The fact that we are all engaged in a gentlemen's agreement does not mean we are. The fact that we agree a club is a club and that a bonk on the head hurts does not mean it is or does. Mankind is notorious for choosing what is easy and what works and what appeals to his confirmation bias. But that doesn't speak to truth.

In other words, when I say A = A and A = -A, you can't can ignore the fact that I just said A = A and focus only on the fact that I just said A = -A. But actually, you can. You just did. And you have been. So, while you may not disagree with me that A = A; and you may only disagree with me that A = -A, I can acknowledge the possibility of both. You can't. (Well, you could, but you don't, unless you do. Do you?)

Well, I still don't understand what you meant by "yes and no".

But for some reason you have answered just "no" here:

No; — James Riley

↪James Riley
Well, I still don't understand what you meant by "yes and no".

But for some reason you have answered just "no" here:

No;
— James Riley — litewave

I explained it to you twice. I can say yes and no (and actually believe it!) while you are bound to the two-valued orientation, dualistic thinking, the either/or, the black/white dichotomy that logic (your God?) binds you to, apparently with your consent. Not only that, but you pretend to know what you don't know. I can pretend, but have no pretense to truth. You pretend and have all the pretense in the world, without having first carried your burden of proof. Don't worry about it. You are in good company. The best minds in the world, that logic has to offer, agree with you. And I am but a fool. It's cool. You know, I don't.

The idea that something is self-evident sounds like "Because I said so." It sounds religious. Yeah, religious. — James Riley

And if it sounds religious, then the grounds for rejecting it are self-evident.

As it happens, I was just listening to Steven Pinker discuss this view of reason via his new book Rationality. — Tom Storm

Reviews I have read have been scathing. His views are not philosophically informed.

And if it sounds religious, then the grounds for rejecting it are self-evident. — Wayfarer

:rofl: I want to say "funny, but true." But I'm afraid someone will jump on me for saying something is true. :yikes:

You might as well write a negation of your whole post and it wouldn't make any difference to you, so why did you even bother?

Well I'm glad it is at least funny.

You might as well write a negation of your whole post and it wouldn't make any difference to you, so why did you even bother? — litewave

I was kind of hoping someone would prove that A = A and that A does not = -A. You know, with something more than "Well, dummy, it's self-evident!" Or "Well, dummy, you can't prove a negative!" And etc. I was hoping it was you because you can apparently explain yourself without a bunch of equations/calculations that are over my head. I can't read math so well.

I neither know nor think I know; but I do pretend to know without pretense of knowing. And not.

I was kind of hoping someone would prove that A = A and that A does not = -A. — James Riley

What do you think it means, that A = A?

It's not logic that is the problem, but appealing to evolutionary biology to rationalise it. — Wayfarer

Yes!

The edifice of evolutionary biology is built using the grammar of rationality. To use it to suggest that evolution undermines that very rationality is to undermine one's own argument.

What do you think it means, that A = A? — litewave

I think A = A is a gentlemen's agreement that a thing must be limited to what we say it is, and no more, no less, and no different.

What do you think it means, that A = A? — litewave

P.S. Gentlemen would also agree that it does not rely upon us to agree, acknowledge, or perceive it to be it.

I think A = A is a gentlemen's agreement that a thing must be limited to what we say it is, and no more, no less, and no different — James Riley

Interpreting A = A as limiting a thing to what we say it is would make the thing's identity subjective to us and vulnerable to our misidentification or mischaracterization of it. Objectively though, A = A limits the thing to what it is, regardless of what anyone may say it is. Is this objective definition of A = A not self-evident to you?

Is this objective definition of A = A not self-evident to you? — litewave

It can be (see below). Anyway, 2 points of order:

1. I had anticipated the subjectivity aspect with my second post, above. So, asked and answered;

2. You asked me what I thought A = A means. I mistakenly answered your question assuming X, not A. And I answered as I thought logic would answer, not me. So let me clarify. For me, A means All. Thus, A = A means to me that A not only = A, but it also = -A. In other words, All is not only All but it must necessarily account for (=) the absence of itself. Otherwise, it could not be All.

You can substitute "God" for All (A) if you are are a believer.

2. You asked me what I thought A = A means. I mistakenly answered your question assuming X, not A. And I answered as I thought logic would answer, not me. So let me clarify. For me, A means All. Thus, A = A means to me that A not only = A, but it also = -A. In other words, All is not only All but it must necessarily account for (=) the absence of itself. Otherwise, it could not be All. — James Riley

By A, I meant any object. So any object must be limited to what it is. But if A stands for all objects, what else is there in addition to all objects? Nothing. So not-A is nothing (no object) and it can't be identical to A because A is something (objects).