@TonesInDeepFreeze This discussiom between you and me has reached an end. Sorry, things devolved into mud-slinging. Have a good day.

Because it's worth pointing out the reason you can't understand the most basic things. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Give me a basic thing you can understand and we'll see how well you fare.

Now you are reaching your true level: emoticons. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Just what the doctor ordered for people like you I guess!

Yes — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then why did you say "You're utterly obtuse" as if it mattered to you? :chin: — TheMadFool

Not in logic. And probably not in anything. So what? — TonesInDeepFreeze

:chin:

Not in logic. And probably not in anything. So what? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then why did you say "You're utterly obtuse" as if it mattered to you? :chin:

There's no reason for me to do that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Back up your claim!

Then I don't need your exercise. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Why do you object then?

You are utterly obtuse — TonesInDeepFreeze

Are you a genius then? :roll:

Then all you've done is highlight what we already know — TonesInDeepFreeze

Show me a reference that claims that "not all statements can be negated" and that "either this statement can't be negated or this statement can't be negated can't be negated".

Then all you've done is highlight what we already know: English pronouns and demonstrative pronounds are contextual. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, contextual but that's exactly the point!

You are utterly obtuse. I miss the point of the numbering because your use of it is not grammatical. Make it grammatical if you would like me to understand whatever point you have. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm done here! You raised some good objections and I responded to them adequately.

Yes, but that fails with 'this statement' in the mix because 'this' is contextual. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I've tried explaining to you that "this" is, as you said, is ambiguous but the point is precisely that.

answered your post about the liar. Now you're just flat out ignoring that answer.

And, still you are not facing that putting '(1)' between 'this' and 'statement' makes no sense. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You've missed the point of the numbering.

Again, you miss that: — TonesInDeepFreeze

Refer to my post about the liar statement.

The liar statement = This sentence is false

The logic, I'm told, proceeds as follows:

1. IF this statement is false is true THEN this statement is false is false.

2. IF this statement is false is false THEN this statement is flase is true.

The "this" refers to "this statement is false" and not the statements 1 and 2


Also,

Suppose we consider the statement "god exists". What is its negation? "god doesn't exist. In other words, the negation of "god exists" is "god doesn't exist".


Now, look at "this statement can be negated". If it can be negated, the negation is "this statement can't be negated". Put simply, "this statement can't be negated" is implied by "this statement can be negated" and this logical relationship is expressed as:

IF this statement can be negated THEN this statement can't be negated.

Nothing to fix, the negation of "this statement can be negated" is "this statement can't be negates".

So,

If this statement can be negated then this statement can't be negated [premise] — TheMadFool

If you like, think of it as, if "this statement can be negated" then (its negation is) "this statement can't be negated"

In a Darwinian sense English must have what it takes to keep it ahead of the pack. Some features that make English the alpha are:

1. Military muscle: the Empire is no more but its effects still linger on. A gun in one's face is very persuasive I hear.

2. Parasitic: many loan words, especially those that have a critical role in life, politics, religion, etc. and so other languages lose their edge: what would've made it important to learn another language is anglicized (is that the right word?)

3. Discoveries & Inventions (science): Science is another big player on the world stage and most of what happens in it is reported in English making English an indispensable tool if one wants to stay in the race so to speak.

Therefore, is it impossible to create a perfect circle?
A circle made with 3.14159 is better than one made with 3.1 — Benj96

We don't draw circles using pi, we fix a point as the center, choose a radius and use a compass to draw a circle.

Yes!

1. Either "this statement can't be negated" can be negated or "this statement can't be negated" can't be negated [premise] — TheMadFool

Tak the liar sentence, this sentence is false

The logic proceeds as follows:

1. IF this sentence is false is true THEN this sentence is false is false.

2. IF this sentence is false is false THEN this sentence is false is true

The "this" refers not to the entire statements in line 1 and 2 but to the liar sentence.

Putting '(1)' between 'this' and 'statement' is not coherent. And putting '(2)' between 'this' and 'statement' is not coherent. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Why?

"This statement can be negated" is a statement in itself. So is the statement, "this statement can't be negated". Why should that fact suddenly and without reason cease to be in the statement; "if this statement can be negated then this statement can't be negated"?

How would you express the fact that IF "this statement can be negated" THEN (the negation is) "this statement can't be negated? Exactly the way I did of course.

Also, "this statement" in that premise denotes "If this statement can be negated then this statement can't be negated", but "this statement" in line 2 denotes "If all statements can be negated then this statement can be negated". So "this statement" is used ambiguously in the argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Not necessarily. Do you accept that, "this statement can be negated" refers to itself? Yes, of course.

If so, if I say "IF this (1) statement can be negated THEN this (2) statement can't be negated", this (1) refers to "this (1) statement can be negated and this (2) refers to "this statement can't be negated"

Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon

@180 Proof

Mind-No Mind Equivalency

I'm not clear on what you mean and I'd like to better understand you. Care to elaborate? — javra

Personhood is assumed in intersubjectivity given only persons can have worldviews.

intersubjectivity takes the personhood out of the intended concept and replaces it with the more generalized notion of subjectivity — javra

If you want to split hairs, yes, but those who thought up the concept of intersubjectivity seem to have done so with personhood as a waypoint that's already been crossed. Just saying.

That's a major re-edit of the OP after several edits. Before I reply, is that your final edit? — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's the best I can do.

@TonesInDeepFreeze Please take a look at the OP.

Evolution could just has easily ended with blue-green algae if survival was the sole criteria. Conversely, if survival is the only aim, then man’s ability to question its meaning is utterly superfluous. — Wayfarer

Survival of the luckiest --> Survival of the brainiest.

It may be a hard pill to swallow for some, but it's equally hard to deny that brainier life-forms don't have an edge over the less intellectually endowed.

Initially, I was quite worried about what your statement meant because it seems to be saying that science is about how things are and religion is about how things should/ought to be and the first impression I got from that was that religions were doomed right from the get go. After all, religion seems to be, in a sense, rejecting facts, denying reality as it were.

However, religion seems to be fully aware of how it should deal with science i.e. its aim is not to break free from scientific facts whatever they may be but to, in a manner of speaking, work within the system as evidenced perhaps by the maxim, ought implies possible: religion prescribes an ought only if that which it prescribes is scientifically possible. So, even if on the face of it, the two seem to diverge, they're in fact a happy couple.

How it is and how we want it to be (Science and religion).

Made a kill, Anna893! All by yourself! Very proud of you, if it matters that is.

What is the correct antonym for nothing?

Something OR Everything OR <insert other alternatives>? — TheMadFool

Imagine a set, {dog, 9, $, F}.

If I remove 9, I have removed something but what I'm left with is {dog, $, F} which is still something and definitely not nothing.

If now I remove everything, I'm left with { }, the empty set aka nothing.

So, shouldn't the opposite of nothing be everything instead of something? :chin:

Now imagine that there's nothing, { }. Suppose {dog, 9, $, F} is everything. Now, I take 9 which is a something and add it nothing, it becomes {9} and nothing is no longer nothing. Shouldn't the opposite of nothing be something instead of everything? :chin:

Paradox alert!

I haven't read Phaedo and it doesn't appeal to me as much as it should probably but one of Plato's arguments, The Affinity Argument for the immortality of the soul seems to have similarities with An Argument From Boredom/Frustration For Physicalism/Dualism.

The thread I provided a link to suggests that our frustrations with what we are (immaterial souls/physical bodies) will automatically lead us to desire/wish to become that we are not. So, if we really are incorporeal souls, we would yearn to be physical bodies and if we're infact physical beings, we would be desperate to be nonphysical souls. Thus, the argument is, since we're all, in a sense, "dying" to be nonphysical souls, it follows, doesn't it?, that we're in fact physical beings.

Some may respond that we could've been souls before birth in physical form and were greatly dissatified to be so and opted for life on a physical plane. The problem is, why don't we have memories of making such a decision?

Persons of such a constitution [those who favor the body] will be dragged back into corporeal life, according to Socrates...they [those who favor the body] will be unable to enjoy the singular existence of the soul in death because of their constant craving for the body. These souls are finally imprisoned in another body — Wikipedia

there is great beauty in ugliness — Tom Storm

:up: These are the kinds of statements that I find electrifying!

A thing and its opposite are not necessarily symmetrical. — Adam Hilstad

There is reflection symmetry between a thing and its opposite. Suppose you reflect the point (+x, +y) across the y-axis. What happens? The new point, the image, is (-x, +4). Likewise, the reflection of good is not good aka bad. Symmetry!

What confuses me to no end is the word combination, inter and subjectivity. I immediately think of oxymorons like bitter-sweet and the movie True Lies. :smile:

The word "inter" suggests a group of people and the word "subjectivity" is usually associated with one person.

The idea behind subjectivity-objectivity in science at least seems to be that of more the merrier i.e. if only a few scientists report an observation, it's usually ignored but if many report the observation in question, the credibility ratings rise. One reason for this rule of thumb seems to be that one/few person/people can make a boo-boo but it's improbable for everyone to goof up.

Compare the above scientific principle (more likely that something is true if many observe it as such) with intersubjectivity, defined as basically shared worldviews. Intersubjectivity seems to be claiming that even if many people converge on the same weltanschauung, that particular worldview remains subjective in nature which contradicts the scientific principle alluded vide supra.

How do we make sense of what appears as a frank inconsistency?

The key point that matters, aids in resolving this apparent inconsistency, is the fact that there are a large number of worldviews and none have been proven as the worldview that can make sense of it all. Thus, even if a particular worldview has a huge following, it remains subjective for not all people accept it as the one that explains reality as we know it.

In the case of scientific observations, the observations are identical, same, in all cases leaving no room for the slightest doubt that there's something amiss with the observations.


In summary, intersubjectivity is simply a name for shared philosophies about life that takes into account the uncertainty regarding the truth of each and every worldview that is on offer for consumption to philosophers and laypeople alike.

This in itself is not symmetry, it’s the opposite. — Adam Hilstad

Symmetry vs Asymmetry = Symmetry (a thing and its opposite)

They are all over this forum—I think there are a lot of people on here with interesting views about what reality fundamentally is about. — Adam Hilstad

Name one that's better than yin-yang. Even science seems to be about symmetry, look at electricity (electrons vs positrons) and the particle zoo is, I believe populated by particles vs antiparticles. In math we have positive reals and negative reals.

You lookin' for trouble? Came to the right place... — bongo fury

:rofl: One day, I'm going to need to say this, and hopefully, if my memory won't fail me, I'll simply quote you!

This is an interesting idea, but I think there are many other equally interesting ways of framing reality — Adam Hilstad

And they are...?

There are many things in reality that are symmetrical, but I would argue asymmetry is actually more fundamental. — Adam Hilstad

You're correct of course but what is asymmetry without symmetry? This what I've been trying to convey - for every thing that is, there's something that is not.

There are two levels of symmetry/asymmetry as I attempted to outline in my first post in your thread.

1. Symmetry/asymmetry at, what can be best described as, a qualitative e.g. good vs evil, hot vs cold, light vs dark, etc.

2. Symmetry/asymmetry at a quantitative level e.g. hot vs cold but how hot, how cold? You get the picture.

Qualitative symmetry can't be broken i.e. there are no entities - physical or mental (have I left anything out?) - that don't have an anti-entity. That you mentioned ugliness in response to my claim that reality's all about beauty is a case in point. Nothing may exist sans its opposite.

Quantitative symmetry can be broken e.g. there can be more evil than good, there can be more heat energy in a thing than in another thing, light and dark make dusk/dawn and it's this "numerical" inequality that we perceive as ugliness (asymmetry) and what always happens is it tends towards an equilibrium, a state of balance between the two antipodal forces at play and that is again a symmetry. This is where proportio divina enters the picture.

Thus, you were right about ugliness being something we have to take into account and I did but it appears this ugliness can't disfigure qualitative symmetry for even if there's asymmetry we have to deal with, it pairs up neatly with symmetry to restore the symmetry as it were. It's like 9 + 0 = 9 where 9 is symmetry, 0 is asymmetry, the result 9 is again a symmetry. So what is ugliness then? Answer, quantitative asymmetry!

I don’t see it as a cosmic duel between beauty and ugliness—it just pertains to art. — Adam Hilstad

But it is, no? Look around you, what do you see? Asymmetry and symmetry trying to get one up on each other, sometimes succeeding, other times failing, with success and failure equally distributed between the two. Name one thing and I can name the opposite, as you, yourself have - you brought up ugliness when I talked about beauty.

Also, a balance between good and evil should not be the goal—the goal is for good to handily win. — Adam Hilstad

This, if symmetry is the underlying principle of reality, isn't possible and as I mentioned earlier, or if I didn't I'm doing it now, the seed of beauty is to be found in ugliness and the converse is true as well. Ergo, as good reaches its zenith, the potential for evil also peaks and no prizes will be awarded for guessing what happens next. Likewise, when evil is maximized, the probability of good is greatest and again, predictably, the system will tend towards symmetry - an equilibrium.

I certainly don’t believe that beauty is the be all end all of reality. — Adam Hilstad

If symmetry = beauty and reality is about symmetry, beauty is the last word on reality.

TheMadFool, I suspect that what you perceive as a balance between beauty and ugliness is in fact beauty winning out over ugliness (see my previous post for an example). — Adam Hilstad

Indeed, it's quite accurate to describe reality as also including a duel between beauty and ugliness and that, it would seem, weakens and even perhaps destroys the view/belief that an overarching theme of beauty is the be all and the end all as regards what reality should be like or, more accurately, is how it's to be understood, appreciated, and managed.

However, when we bring the two sides - beauty & ugliness - together, another symmetry results, and once again, beauty. Yet, by my logic, this symmetry won't last, is not meant to, and a new asymmetry will spontaneously arise but then that would be another symmetry, and so on ad infinitum. My suspicions are thus confirmed - YIN YANG is not some kind of static equilibrium of opposing forces which if it were ugliness would be left without a pair; it's rather a dynamic struggle between them: one moment the yin has the upper hand, another moment the yang rules the roost. Thus, though the battle between ugliness (asymmetry) and beauty (symmetry) is a continuous affair with the motif being win some, lose some, there's, on the whole, some kind of a super-symmetry to it that we may regard as beauty.