Words are signs, they stand for things. What they stand for is up to us, whatever we fancy that is. That's Wittgenstein.
— TheMadFool
That's just an assertion. — Wheatley

Do I have a choice?

The essence of a thing is not the same as the essence of a word used to refer to that thing.
— TheMadFool
I never suggested otherwise. — Wheatley

:ok:

I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for.
— TheMadFool
But you do mention words in your OP. — Wheatley

And...?

I think what you are describing here is called a rigid designater. — Wheatley

I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for.

Is it true that there is nothing that makes words words? — Wheatley

Words are signs, they stand for things. What they stand for is up to us, whatever we fancy that is. That's Wittgenstein.

true nature of a thing whatever that thing is.
— TheMadFool
essence of water
— TheMadFool
is that which makes water water.
— TheMadFool — Wheatley

The essence of a thing is not the same as the essence of a word used to refer to that thing.

I think we first need to be clear on what an essence is. We can start by tracing the philosophical idea of essence through history. Then a good strategy would be to start an inquiry why Wittgenstein rejected the idea of essences. — Wheatley

An essence to my understanding is anything that sums up the true nature of a thing whatever that thing is. For example, let's stick to water, the essence of water (the referent of "water", not the sign/word "water" itself) is that which makes water water. :grin:

Here's a way out of the climate change - fossil fuel predicament: Invent/develop $CO_2$ capturing chemical-based devices, attach them to the exhaust pipes and smoke stacks of vehicles and coal plants. That way we can make everyone (Big Oil and climate activists both) happy - we can keep burning oil and coal and there would be no negative effects on the environment/climate.

Without souls, most religions would collapse, being as they are wholly dependent on a promise of an afterlife to make sense of their theories which, unfortunately for us, includes morality.

A life would become rather unbearable sans morality - ethics would become nonsensical (good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. WTF?) and bedlam is unavoidable - and hence, we need souls, if only as a gennaion pseudos.

A rather pessimistic point of view I admit but look around you, is any other option viable?

Yes, it appears that social existence is key to the question of morality, gives it some semblance of truth and objectivity but note this is telelogical in character - morality (justice) is needed to run society in the best way possible, its truth is secondary or irrelevant.
— TheMadFool

Yeah, you can see this if you challenge the morality of humans continuing to survive. They you can't use the argument that justice is good for society, since the existence of society is now under question, morally speaking. Which some environmentalists and anti-natalists do on grounds of hedonism or concern for other living species. What possible fact about the world would settle that dispute?

It's just for humans to survive. Is that statement truth-apt? — Marchesk

I would like to say that the statement "it's just for humans to survive" is truth-apt, it feels like that's the right thing to do but the question is, in what sense is it true? In other words, which definition of truth is being used here?

If I visit the doctor and inform him that I'm a chain smoker, he'll say "you should stop smoking (or else you'll regret it)" but how is "you should stop smoking" true?

There are two important aspects to certainty:

1. The belief generating engine - logic

2. The input to that belief generating machine - propositions

I doubt both 1 and 2. Thus, I doubt everything including what I just said.

Doubt is overrated.

You can only doubt against an indubitable background. You might doubt anything, if you like, but you can't doubt everything. — Banno

Cogito ergo sum. — Descartes

I had never heard of "predatory logic" before. But, after a brief review, I see it's not talking about capital "L" Logic at all. Instead, it refers to the innate evolutionary motives that allow animals at the top of the food chain to survive and thrive. PL is more of an inherited hierarchical motivation system than a mathematical logical pattern. Logic is merely a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes. To call the "logic" of an automobile "evil" is to miss the point that a car without a driver, is also lacking a moral value system. It could be used as a bulldozer to ram a crowd of pedestrians, or as an ambulance to carry the wounded to a hospital. The evil motives are in the moral agent controller, not the amoral vehicle. — Gnomon

I was just wondering how the body structure of predators seem more complex, very designed (retractable claws, pincers, stereoscopic vision, fangs, agility, power, clubs, etc.) compared to those of prey. If I were the creator, I'd have to put more work into the blueprint for a predator than a prey.

Basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that predators need to be more intelligent than prey. Planet earth is a case in point - the most intelligent organism viz. humans are predatory, in fact they're the apex predator. Makes me wonder about the wisdom of the Arecibo Message, SETI, Voyager Golden Record. Are we sending out an invite for a gala feast, us on the menu?

A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Epistemic Responsibility.

Logic Is Evil. Change My Mind

I know people who are racist or sexist and they are able to justify their ideas — Jack Cummins

That's what worries me. We need to tread carefully because logic and morality are different subjects, neither is obligated to the other.

I do challenge racism and sexism, but it is extremely difficult because such ideas and values are deep seated beyond the surface of rational logic. — Jack Cummins

What's the relationship between instinct, intuition and logic?

Self-serving bias: people "demonize" those they disagree with and "worship" those they agree with especially when the social or political stakes are high enough. — 180 Proof

:up: Thanks.

I fight the good fight because all the tyranny of stupidity needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. — praxis

:up:

Perhaps this is what you're looking for? — Andrew M

:up: Yes and No.

The link you provided to a science forum does lead me to the exact same question I asked but it still seems deeply immersed in mathematical concepts that don't have corresponding, matching ideas that are part of normal, non-technical discourse. The question then is, is math invented or discovered?

So, what you’re saying is that there exists another state, between +y and -y, that you call 0, and that this ‘in-between state’ is the balance/equilibrium, or symmetry. This 0 is manifest either as nothing (where +y and -y cancel each other out) or as something: “the correlation manifests itself when the two correlated objects both interact with a third object, which can check”. This third object is you. As Rovelli states: “the existence of a third object that interacts with both systems is necessary to give reality to the correlations.” You can abstract and talk about a ‘mathematical sense’ all you want, but in reality, 0 is either nothing or something. If it’s nothing, then +y and -y do cancel each other out. If it’s something, then there are three players in the game, not two, and there is no ‘cancelling out’; only ignorance/isolation/exclusion — Possibility

Indeed there's a consciousness that must exist to appreciate a duality, any duality but duality exists independently of a consciousness. What I mean is yes, an observer (the third e.g. me) is necessary to become aware of the hot sun and the cold snow but hot ans cold would exist even if I didn't exist and they would interact in the same way as any yin-yang pair would.

And now you’re back to five-dimensional abstraction, describing not ‘items’ or objects observed in nature or in time, but perceived concepts or patterns of potential. ‘Non-apple’ is not an item in reality, but an indeterminate value in relation to your experience/knowledge relative to the concept ‘apple’. It is your remaining perception of potentiality from which ‘apple’ is differentiated - the background or negative potential, so to speak. And your differentiation of apple vs non-apple is not identical to mine - the joint properties of these two concepts as a ‘duality’ exist only in relation to one’s perception. — Possibility

Non-apples are as real as apples. There's no necessity to take the matter into higher dimensions and even if you did, yin-yang would figure in it (not so sure about that though).

The apparent duality of the universe is a reductionist perspective - its potential symmetry is contingent upon an external perception: what you refer to as 0, the relational structure that necessarily exists between the two. The yin-yang symbol as rendered is the third aspect that is necessary for symmetry, whether it is rendered as ink on a page, stones in a mosaic or pixels on a screen. But the symmetry of yin-yang has nothing to do with the opposition of light and dark (which is a Western interpretation), and everything to do with quality, energy and logic. To focus on ‘opposites’ in yin-yang is to miss the point entirely — Possibility

Au contraire, yin-yang is about opposites. Suppose it isn't about that and I'm under the grave misconception that it is. Edify me as to what it is. Thank you.

It seems to me that you're thinking of a superposition as a kind of law (like F=ma). It's not. It's just a particular kind of state that a quantum system can be in. — Andrew M

Even if we take Schrödinger's equation as just that and not a law which I think it is, we should be able to come up with a one line description of it.

Take this equation: $y = 2x + 7$. In English it would be y is equal to twice x increased by 7.

Weren't you arguing against it yesterday? — khaled

:blush: I haven't made up my mind...yet. Thank you for noticing. We usually lack insight into our own condition. Good day Khaled.

I am not sure what my 'boo boo' was. Have a look at the reply which I sent to Proof and see if it makes sense rationally. — Jack Cummins

Read my post just above yours. Edited.

When I said 'stand back from beliefs — Jack Cummins

Yes, we shouldn't, it's better that we stand back from examining our beliefs critically. See my reply to 180 Proof and epistemic responsibility which might open Pandora's box.

Back when we were a young species: Work, if it did have any meaning, meant foraging, hunting and farming and the point of it all was simple - calories.

Now: Work is not just for calories, there seems to be something more to working, not all of it good.

As to your question, no idea. Somehow we are creatures for which sight not only saved us from predators, it also allowed us to see certain aspects of physics. — Manuel

:ok:

He is (you are) not ONLY "defined by" his (your) "beliefs" which is why he could have changed them (you can change yours). — 180 Proof

So, it's yes and no kinda deal. Yes, Hitler is Nazism but not quite. :chin:

Let's take another, more benign, example, the Pope. The Pope draws his identity from Christianity i.e. if the Pope thinks/says/does anything that's Chrsitianity thinking/speaking/doing but the Pope is, and I quote, "not ONLY" Christianity. We are more than just our beliefs. Why then are we demonized/worshipped for our beliefs? We shouldn't be, right? We can change our beliefs just as easily as women slip into attire after attire.

Epistemic Responsibility?

But then...

Ok, here's a little something to ponder upon. I'd love it if 180 Proof weighs in.

1. Epistemic responsibility is, well, a really good idea. Beliefs have moral consequences - they can either be fabulously great for our collective welfare or they could cause a lot of hurt.

2. Epistemic responsibility seems married to rationality for good, there's little doubt that that isn't the case. Rationality is about obeying the rules of logic and, over and above that, having a good handle on how to make a case.

So far so good.

3. Now, just imagine, sends chills down my spine, that rationality proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that immoralities of all kinds are justified e.g. that slavery is justified, racism is justified, you get the idea. This isn't as crazy as it sounds - a lot of atrocities in the world have been, for the perps, completely logical.

Here we have a dilemma: Either be rational or be good. If you're rational, you end up as a bad person. If you're good, you're irrational.

As you can see this messes up the clear and distinct notion of epistemic responsibility as simulataneously endorsing rationality AND goodness.

Thoughts... — TheMadFool

What is it about light that gives it an edge over other media (for information)? Didn't the written word follow, temporally, the spoken word? Mayhaps time is flowing backwards. :grin:

Brain-teaser.

1. Hitler's identity was/is defined by his beliefs (Nazism)

2. I can change my beliefs and yet I don't change (my beliefs are not me).

Ergo,

3. Something's wrong (We've misidentified Hitler, Hitler is not Hitler if to be Hitler is to subscribe to Nazism or I can change who I am by changing my beliefs).

Why are the two of you fighting over nothing? :lol:

Reid points out that if you are walking down a street and hear the sound of a horse pulling a wagon and then you turn around and look at it, the sound produced does not resemble the objects producing it.

Likewise, the pain in my finger looks not at all like the tip of a sword which caused it. — Manuel

Methinks Reid's observation delves into what things really are. Reid seems to have made an assumption - sight reveals the true nature of things, reality. Thus his question about some perceptions, sound in this case, not matching the visual input and not any other thing.

Is this justified?

Why can't sound be the standard of measure here? We could then ask why what a horse straining on a heavily-loaded wagon looks like fails to resemble the sound they make? A bat (which can think), whose primary sensory system is hearing, might ask just such a question.

So, which sensory modality is primary - vision, auditory, gustatory, tactile, olfactory? There must be a reason why we have all these senses together for none alone gives you a complete picture of (earthly) reality. This then makes Reid's question meaningless: it's like asking why the tail of a horse doesn't resemble a horse? The tail, which may differ from the head, neck, hooves, etc. of a horse is part of what a horse is.

I guess what I'm getting at is there doesn't seem to be any good reason why the sound of a horse wagon should resemble a horse wagon.

The quintessential prey - plants - seem to have given up running from their persecutors (herbivores). I suppose the moment they lost their ability to feel (pain & joy too), their instinct to flee predators also vanished with it and they got, quite literally, stuck to a given spot by their roots.

Lepers for spies! Lepers for spies!

I think you have a very good point here. With all the disbute about Hoffman the focus was lost that my complaint is that logic is evil. If Hoffmann would be right ( I start to have some doubt now too but I will need more time to think this through) this would not have made logic really evil it would have just made it into an intelectual disapointment. What could make it evil is more it's origin in predation. — FalseIdentity

Why the asymmetry - predators being more intelligent than prey animals - you think? The most intelligent species, debatable, on this planet at least is an apex predator viz. h. sapiens BUT, this is where it gets interesting, we're the only ones that have a sense of right and wrong.

So, yeah, logic (intelligence), say, evolved with predation but look at what it's telling us - predation is bad. It's kinda like a reformed criminal, we should give the devil his due.

Sophisticat had mentioned here that the ultimate test of the truth of our mental models is if we can do predict events correctly. At this point it makes sense to look more on how a brain actually learns to make predictions. Any neural network has to be "backtrained" what was a wrong prediction and what was a correct prediction in several rounds. When the prediction was false some neural connections will be cut in the hope that the error they produced will not reoccur. When the prediction was right the connections that this prediction made are reinforced so that the network get's better with every training round. Now I am afraid that the ultimate measure for the brain of what was a wrong prediction and what was a correct prediction is if it gained or lost energy through this prediction. But you can gain energy only by stealing (either directly or indirectly) life energy from other life forms. And since other life forms don't want their life energy to be stolen, the only way to train your brain is by constantly breaking the golden rule. The idea that we are morally allowed to take the life of so called " inferior" species is highly dubious and sounds like an excuse. I think there would be strong opposition if "intelectually superior" aliens came here and would harvest us justifying this with the same line of reasoning. — FalseIdentity

Yes but as I said, again it's logic (intelligence) that made the case for the golden rule. Going by how (some) women are turned off by men being mean, I'd say breaking the golden rule is not going to be advantageous to evolutionary success but...in the animal world, the rules maybe radically different (even herbivores engage in violence in the mating season).

Now the neural network that is trained for this purpose and in this way it should have strong limitations in what kind of intelectual problems it can solve. For example in computer science you can't use a neural network that was trained for language recognition to recognize images. — FalseIdentity

Agreed! Our brains may have become specialized over time, literally putting some problems, the solutions to which beyond our ken.

In the case of the human brain that was in effect trained on how to break the golden rule most efficiently I am for example sure that it can not know what evil is in the metaphysical sense. I agree hence with the critique that - if I am really only that network - I can not know what evil is either. But if I am unable to recognize what evil is I could commit very evil deads all the time without noticing and that alone bothers me.A second unexpected but straightforward conclusion is that if it's impossible to understand for humans what evil is, they should stay away from building counter proof of god based on that term (I mean the problem of evil). — FalseIdentity

Possible. Our brains, if adapted only for food & mates, may have been desensitized/become accustomed to true evil, so much so that it might even seem good and if not that, at least normal.

Yet, as I mentioned before, logic (intelligence), seem to have made some progress - ever wonder why religion seems so, well, obsessed with, as Sam Harris (atheist, neuroscientist, author) puts it, "...what we do naked..." and also with what we eat (halal, kosher, vegetarianism).

Idenpendent of if or not Hoffmann is right - it should be hard to impossible for this network to understand anything that is not either food or can be used as a tool to obtain food. If you see everything just as food or as a tool to food this will preclude you from understanding it's deeper nature. Understanding that deeper nature would just waste energy and maybe it even would over time degrade the strength of the network at least in relation to the task of gathering energy efficiently. — FalseIdentity

Yep! Too bad. Read what I wrote vide supra.

Pro Life vs Pro Choice — rickyk95

What is life without choice and what is choice without life? Luckily or not, we can't have, as some like to say, the best of both worlds. Pragmatically speaking, we should actually be examining the metaphysical aspects of the problem - do their truth/falsity in any way affect our lives, what would we do different if they were true/false? Souls?

:sad:

Read Pyrrho. He allegedly walked into the path of an oncoming wagon because he wasn't sure of the report of his senses and yet...

What's the difference between me trying to express my exclusively private experiences to someone and an alien, from another dimension, shareable but not yet shared, trying to express himself to us? :chin:

Be on another planet (Cambridge Dictionary)

The Garden Of Eden! :rofl:

Key ideas vis-à-vis Wittgenstein's general thesis:

1. Ostensive definitions. Are they any good? They seem to be.

2. Consistency of word usage. Memory failure. Can we remember the first word-referent association we decided upon? This is a major setback.

3. Beetle-in-the-box problem. The referent, insofar as private experiences are concerned, drops out of consideration (pain). The word/sign for them but must necessarily attach themselves to some shareable, externalizable thing (tears, wincing, screaming :cry: )

Conclusion: Private languages will be incoherent. Inner/private experiences are language-apt if there are consistent public/external correlates (pain & :cry: for example).

Ramifications: How much of philosophy or anything else for that matter rests on not just the possibility of but the actuality of a private language? When I discuss, for example, public sanitation with, say, the Mayor, is it a requirement that I possess and use a private language? Basically, in any discourse, am I sharing, trying to at least, my private experiences?

$A = \{Alan \space Turing\}$

$W = \{Ludwig \space Wittgenstein\}$

$L = \{This \space Sentence \space Is \space False\}$

$A \cap W \cap L = Boot \space Strapping???$



:chin:

We could even elect to not seek meaning. — TiredThinker

Choice is meaningless without there being choices to choose from. There is no meaning to life. In what sense can I then claim that I chose a life without meaning?

I was merely pointing out the fact that Camus chose Sisyphus, an immortal being given a pointless task, as the epitome of our, human and life in general, own mortal and meaningless lives? In one sense, Camus attributes our meaninglessness to our mortality and in another sense no, Sisyphus is immortal. Camus is trying to eat the cake and have it too. Right?