Subjective Deduction Part 1

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:30 pm

Arising_uk wrote:Just so far,
I think this is wrong, "Descartes claimed he had unshakable certainty in the Cogito because the existence of a good and active God would not deceive him.". The 'God' bit was to allow him to return to the external world and others with certainty, not for his Cogito as that appears to be one of your 'deductive justifications' as denying it leads to a logical contradiction.

This is a bad analogy,
"The totality of the sensory input is like a basic camera taking a picture. A basic camera’s shutter merely experiences the input; the camera cannot identify. The picture takes on no identity without the ability to part and parcel this picture into things. This “picture” is the totality of undefined experience. ..." . The senses don't work like this, perception is more complicated, it's a hard read but try Mearleu-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception.

" Because I do not know if other people even exist, their opinions and language are not considered." But you do know, as if you are using a language to think or write with then there must be an other. This was my take on how Descartes could have reconnected without needing a 'God'.

Thanks for some feedback! You are correct in your assessment of Descartes. A reason Descartes' gives for the cogito is that is a clear and distinct idea in his mind. However, when it is no longer clear and distinct, or a memory, how does one know what they remember as clear and distinct is not a lie by a deciever? This is where God comes in. We can clearly and distinctly perceive that God exists, therefore God would not allow our memories of clear and distinct experiences to be deceived. Therefore we can believe that our memories of clear distinct perceptions are in fact, correct. I THINK that's the gist of it. Regardless, I pass over this point too easily and if I plan to do anything with this paper, I will rewrite it to reflect a more accurate portrayal.

As for the "bad analogy", you may be correct if it is not accurately portraying what I am trying to convey. At this time, I am building up deductive justifications. I am trying to state that the simplest way of viewing sensory input is the brain interpreting the light as undefined sensation. The ability to discretely experience that light into separate identities is the next step I make. The separation of "sensation" and "interpretation of sensation", pointss out I observe a separation between the input, and my interpretation of that input. In a way, it could be argued that a non-interpretation of input, is an interpretation of input. However, I tried to create clear and separate identities for clarity. I see a difference that is pertinent for communication, and I think makes digesting the ideas easier. I am trying to state that the simplest way of viewing sensory input is the brain interpreting the light as undefined sensation. If my analogy does a poor job of imparting this, I'll take suggestions, or try cracking my brain at a better analogy.

If you think my identification of these two parts of sensation is incorrect, feel free to point out why within the logic of the paper. Because I conclude that I discretely experience, and realize I can identify what I experience as I see fit, can I, with knowledge only of the self-subjective, be incorrect in my conclusion?

My comment on "not knowing other people exist" is an attempt, like Descartes, to conclude only what I can know immediately from what I have concluded as prior knowledge. At this point in the paper, I have no way of knowing other people exist, so cannot address that. I will eventually arrive at a point I can know other people exist, but that can only happen after other building blocks are established.

Thank again!
Last edited by wirius on Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:43 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Pedestrian is spending 300 words on something everyone knows is obvious.
So does the essay have any academic purpose?
Hm, IS it obvious though? Maybe I didn't need to go into detail. However, I believe a clear definition of reality, belief, and will as I define it are important to understanding the later concepts of the paper. People could argueably define those definitions differently. How other people define those definitions is important later on, but for the first portion, how I decide to define things is what is most important.

As for academic purposes, I'm going to see what the feedback is. If good arguments are made for it being trash, well to the bin it goes! If perhaps some people see merit in it, then I will take the considerable effort needed to polish this and convert it into some type of publishible format. I am not in academia, so it would not be an easy feat.

Impenitent
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:27 am

Wittgenstein thought he could do it through definitions as well...

he couldn't

-Imp

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:35 am

Impenitent wrote:Wittgenstein thought he could do it through definitions as well...

he couldn't

-Imp
I don't define knowledge as definitions. The theory of knowledge I am demonstrating does not even require language.
Definitions are an expression of the identities we create. What I attempt to show is there are identities which can be deductively justified when applied to reality, and identities which cannot. How we handle those we can, and more importantly, inductive identities, are the core of the paper.
Regardless, you'll have to read the paper to understand.

As far as I know, which is admitedly limited, it is an original methodology of knowledge. You could show me to be wrong, but you'll have to point out in the paper why.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:22 pm

wirius wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Pedestrian is spending 300 words on something everyone knows is obvious.
So does the essay have any academic purpose?
Hm, IS it obvious though? Maybe I didn't need to go into detail. However, I believe a clear definition of reality, belief, and will as I define it are important to understanding the later concepts of the paper. People could argueably define those definitions differently. How other people define those definitions is important later on, but for the first portion, how I decide to define things is what is most important.

As for academic purposes, I'm going to see what the feedback is. If good arguments are made for it being trash, well to the bin it goes! If perhaps some people see merit in it, then I will take the considerable effort needed to polish this and convert it into some type of publishible format. I am not in academia, so it would not be an easy feat.
I'm simply suggesting, that you could get so much more in by being aware of your audience, and not using wasting words on the bloody obviuous

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:01 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm simply suggesting, that you could get so much more in by being aware of your audience, and not using wasting words on the bloody obviuous
Duly noted, and thank you. I promise it doesn't stay at that basic level for long do don't be turned off in reading the rest!

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:03 pm

wirius wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm simply suggesting, that you could get so much more in by being aware of your audience, and not using wasting words on the bloody obviuous
Duly noted, and thank you. I promise it doesn't stay at that basic level for long do don't be turned off in reading the rest!
I'll give it another try. But I might make more criticisms if you are up to it.

Impenitent
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:58 pm

wirius wrote:
Impenitent wrote:Wittgenstein thought he could do it through definitions as well...

he couldn't

-Imp
I don't define knowledge as definitions. The theory of knowledge I am demonstrating does not even require language.
Definitions are an expression of the identities we create. What I attempt to show is there are identities which can be deductively justified when applied to reality, and identities which cannot. How we handle those we can, and more importantly, inductive identities, are the core of the paper.
Regardless, you'll have to read the paper to understand.

As far as I know, which is admitedly limited, it is an original methodology of knowledge. You could show me to be wrong, but you'll have to point out in the paper why.
I read it. (a rose by any other name...)

it's as original as Locke...

(agreement is not truth)

-Imp

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Sat Jun 18, 2016 2:59 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'll give it another try. But I might make more criticisms if you are up to it.
I'm very up for it. I'm here for honesty and a good dissection.

----

I have never read Locke's theory of knowledge. I will check it out.

As for truth, you'll notice in the paper I never use this theory of knowledge as a means of ascertaining "truth", as classically defined. I note that knowledge is a rational tool humanity uses to check whether their beliefs are rationally consistent with reality. Under the theory, you must be careful in your clarification of "truth". There is cognitive truth, and applicable truth.

What one discretely experiences, is cognitive truth. What one discretely experiences is known as truth because to deny one discretely experiences, requires one to discretely experience. Truth is what cannot be contradicted by reality, what one discretely experiences is reality, so discrete experiences are cognitive truth.

Applicable truth depends on context. Recall that for one to have applicable knowledge, one must be able to demonstrate their cognitive knowledge (in this case a definition of truth) meets all of the required steps of deductive justification when applying this definition to reality. So then how do you define applicable truth? If you define applicable truth as something which cannot be applicably known, then your definition of applicable truth is only inductively justified in its application. I clarify that it is also the type of induction called an "inapplicable plausibility", one of the lowest inductions within the heirarchy of induction.

So, if you define applicable truth as something which cannot be applicably known, such a definition is outside deducitve justification. If you cannot deductively justify your definition of applicable truth as something which can be applicably known, then it is not anything you need to rationally consider in relation to the other things you do applicably know, or in relation to higher hierarchies of induction.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:14 pm

Impenitent, I just read a synopsis of Locke's theory of knowledge, and WOW, on the surface its INCREDIBLY similar. I'll be reading him more in depth, as while our initial premises are eerily similar, I doubt he came to the same type of conclusions I did. My methodology of knowledge follows clear rules, and can ascertain exactly when something is deductive, when something is inductive, and demonstrates which type of induction is more cogent than another. If you didn't read beyond my premises, please continue.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:31 pm

So I decided to read John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” to see the similarities and differences between us. I will assume you understood the terms I was using in my paper, and will reference them here.

Book 1: I agree with everything.
Book 2:

I largely agree up until Chapter 7:

Paragraph 7:

“Existence and unity are two other ideas that are suggested to the understanding by every object outside us and every idea within. When ideas are in our minds, we consider them as being actually there, i.e. as existing ; and whatever we can consider as one thing, whether a real being or an idea, suggests to the understanding the idea of unity, ·i.e.oneness.”

Here I diverge, and its an important one. Discretely experiencing is the act of creating oneness within our minds. There is no understanding of unity besides the ability to innately discretely experience. Things or ideas do not cause us to create oneness, we create oneness out of sensation and thoughts. Further, ideas can be perceived as existing within the mind, but that does not mean we can logically claim they exist outside of the mind.
This is the same with Locke’s reference to “power” and “succession”. He states these things are implied by our sensations, but I argue nothing is implied by our sensations. Our minds are the interpreters of sensations. Sensations are the canvas upon which we paint our interpretations, and in no way alone cause interpretations.

Chapter 8: Again I’m seeing Locke say things like:

“Thus the ideas of heat and cold, light and darkness, white and black, motion and rest, are equally clear and positive ideas in the mind;”

I would state Locke has HIS ideas of discrete experiences within his mind, and these are no different from any other discrete experiences within his mind. I argue these discrete experiences are an individual’s cognitive knowledge. They are known because they are deductively justified by being unable to be contradicted by reality. Notice I am NOT saying that these bits of cognitive knowledge are statements that these discrete experiences are statements about reality apart from the inner mind.

“Whatever the mind perceives in itself—whatever is the immediate object of perception, thought, or understanding—I call an idea ; and the power to produce an idea in our mind I call a quality of the thing that has that power.” (Paragraph 8)

Here again I disagree. Locke states a thing has the power to produce an idea. It is the opposite. The mind has the power to discretely experience a “thing” and divide that thing into “qualities” or as I call them, “properties”. I state properties are entirely created by us. When we define something, properties which are necessary to the identity we created are called “essential properties”. Things we decide as not necessary to the identity of the discretely experienced identity are “non-essential properties”.

Locke states that “color” is “secondary” to primary qualities. I fundamentally disagree. Qualities, or what I similarly call properties have no difference in import besides what we attribute to the identity. Thus society states all trees must have roots as an essential property, but the type of leaf doesn’t matter. Society could identify a particular subtree as having needle leaves as an essential property if we wanted. Or not. Its our choice. The quality or description of the property is irrelevant to whether it is essential or non-essential in cognitive identities. All of that is up to us.

Locke is still thinking in terms of some type of “essence” although he is clearly trying to divorce himself from this. For example he states when referring to primary qualities “From this we can easily infer that the ideas of the primary qualities of bodies resemble them, and their patterns really do exist in the bodies themselves;… ‘ (Paragraph 15)

Locke is creating something underlying which we cannot sense that creates what we do sense. But that is inventing something apart from sensation, and contradicts Locke’s previous arguments. Personally, I argue Locke’s claim referenced here cannot be deductively justified and applicably known. As such Locke’s conclusion of primary properties being unsensible innate qualities of a thing is not deductive, but inductive.

Chapter 9: Perception

Locke states when sound hits our ears but we do not take note, that we do not perceive. (Paragraph 4) I disagree. We do not discretely experience that particular noise, but mechanically, the sound is hitting our ears, and the sound is registering in our brains.

Chapter 10: Just an observation of memory, no disagreements besides semantics.

Chapter 11: Wow, though the semantics differ, this is essentially, (with only minor quibbles), my description of cognitive knowledge. Where I clearly differ is that discrete experience is separate from applying that discrete experience rationally to reality. So far Locke does not show a distinction between these two types of knowledge.

12, 13, 14…: Goes into space and lots of definitions, but does not address anything like my use of “applicable knowledge”. Starts using “substance” as a term, but does not show any rational link in application to reality.

I would state at this point that yes, what I define as “cognitive knowledge” is very similar to Locke’s knowledge as written here. However, I differ from Locke by stating that’s only one part of the equation of knowledge. One must then show a rational way to apply one’s cognitive knowledge to reality without contradiction. For example, I may cognitively know the identity of a sheep as in my mind, but how do I applicably know the thing I see in the field rationally matches to the identity in my head. Unless I am missing something, Locke does not answer this question. As such, I do believe my idea, while similar in inception to Locke, goes beyond what Locke attempted and results in very different conclusions.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by Harbal » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:47 pm

wirius wrote: For example, I may cognitively know the identity of a sheep as in my mind, but how do I applicably know the thing I see in the field rationally matches to the identity in my head.
What would you say are the consequences of it not doing? Or the consequences of us not being able to know, for that matter.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:34 pm

Harbal wrote:
wirius wrote: For example, I may cognitively know the identity of a sheep as in my mind, but how do I applicably know the thing I see in the field rationally matches to the identity in my head.
What would you say are the consequences of it not doing? Or the consequences of us not being able to know, for that matter.
This may be difficult to answer if you haven't read the paper. I'll try though!

As human beings, we're trying to make sense of our world. We have ideas in our head, and we're trying to state those ideas will not be contradicted by reality. Being contradicted by reality can be as bad as death, or as harmless as a whisper on the wind. Depending on the consequences of being contradicted by reality, it is important that there is a logical methodology that one can follow to conclude that one's identities are being rationally matched to reality.

The paper sets up a rational methodology based on deductive justification within the self-subjective. However, it goes even further. It demonstrates how we can rationally come to logical conclusions between contradictory contexts, and demonstrate how we can logically evaluate 4 types of inductions within a hierarchy of cogency.

As for the specifics, its better if you read then ask questions, as the specifics are well, the paper. =P

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 1

Post by wirius » Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:40 am

In case people misunderstood, the first third of my paper comes to similar conclusions as Locke, BUT, the other 2/3'rds are very different from Locke. I show a second form of knowledge, address context, and induction. I hope to hear more criticism! This has been wonderful for me to have gotten a few more view points.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests