Actually there was no point and I meant what I said. I'm increasingly focusing on writing at home rather than online interactions. I find I receive far more agreement that way :)Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:33 pmI know you have a point Greta, I am just failing to see it.Greta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:24 amSure. I'm too lazy to start a new thread about it but if you are keen to lift any of that post for an OP, by all means :)commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:18 am
Greta, your post is rich with acumen and insight. Couldn’t we have a separate thread in its own right on this?
The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
I just do both...writing at home has not been common as of late due to a variety of factors, but I am looking at getting back to it.

 Posts: 2866
 Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
How do you address tackle the symbolgrounding problem and problems of reduction when it comes to asserting the truthfulness of your presuppositions?
 SirSisterofSuck
 Posts: 875
 Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
So, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently...And you know, a reoccurring concept in this show is in fact something called the 'prime directive'; This is the only other time that I have ever heard this term ever being used  and Google tends to agree, as that is the only thing which comes up; Some might consider this 'patchwork plagiarism.'
On an off note...Frankly, I've discovered that you talk like a 'star trek' character, in general; Since the star trek universe doesn't rely on much actual science, the conversations often involve a bunch of madeup lingo and joining a bunch of vaguely intelligiblesounding mumbles together to create the illusion that something is actually being said, in a way that at least makes sense to the context of the fictional character. Of course, when we, the viewer, think about what's being said  it just doesn't make any sense.
Now, I'm not suggesting you're ripping off all of your ideas from star trek  but it has lead me down this sort of rabbit hole. The way that you describe ideas, is like that of a fictional character in a show describing a junk science created for that show. This would be a good single example of what I'm talking about.
On an off note...Frankly, I've discovered that you talk like a 'star trek' character, in general; Since the star trek universe doesn't rely on much actual science, the conversations often involve a bunch of madeup lingo and joining a bunch of vaguely intelligiblesounding mumbles together to create the illusion that something is actually being said, in a way that at least makes sense to the context of the fictional character. Of course, when we, the viewer, think about what's being said  it just doesn't make any sense.
Now, I'm not suggesting you're ripping off all of your ideas from star trek  but it has lead me down this sort of rabbit hole. The way that you describe ideas, is like that of a fictional character in a show describing a junk science created for that show. This would be a good single example of what I'm talking about.

 Posts: 2866
 Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
Have you considered that your own expectations are flawed? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... distancesSirSisterofSuck wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:43 pmSo, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently...And you know, a reoccurring concept in this show is in fact something called the 'prime directive'; This is the only other time that I have ever heard this term ever being used  and Google tends to agree, as that is the only thing which comes up; Some might consider this 'patchwork plagiarism.'
On an off note...Frankly, I've discovered that you talk like a 'star trek' character, in general; Since the star trek universe doesn't rely on much actual science, the conversations often involve a bunch of madeup lingo and joining a bunch of vaguely intelligiblesounding mumbles together to create the illusion that something is actually being said, in a way that at least makes sense to the context of the fictional character. Of course, when we, the viewer, think about what's being said  it just doesn't make any sense.
Now, I'm not suggesting you're ripping off all of your ideas from star trek  but it has lead me down this sort of rabbit hole. The way that you describe ideas, is like that of a fictional character in a show describing a junk science created for that show. This would be a good single example of what I'm talking about.
 RCSaunders
 Posts: 54
 Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
 Contact:
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
You have made the common mistake of confusing metaphysical existence and psychological existence. No concept, abstraction, or principle exists metaphysically. Rules of logic, like rules of mathematics, to not exist, as physical existents do, independently of the human minds that think them.
Randy

 Posts: 2866
 Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
The ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.
The CurryHoward isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!
http://www.informatik.unimarburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf
The CurryHoward isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!
http://www.informatik.unimarburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
Considering all abstract and physical phenomenon stem from "limit" with the universal limits defining all phenomena through the line, point and circle as the base triad we cannot argue mind and matter are seperate because of there foundations.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:46 pmYou have made the common mistake of confusing metaphysical existence and psychological existence. No concept, abstraction, or principle exists metaphysically. Rules of logic, like rules of mathematics, to not exist, as physical existents do, independently of the human minds that think them.
Randy
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
It appears we are on the same page then... are you arguing, in loose terms, proof is the argument?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:52 pmThe ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.
The CurryHoward isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!
http://www.informatik.unimarburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf

 Posts: 2866
 Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
Yes. And not just looselyEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:37 pmIt appears we are on the same page then... are you arguing, in loose terms, proof is the argument?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:52 pmThe ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.
The CurryHoward isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!
http://www.informatik.unimarburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf
The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).
Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms. ‘Living’ proof.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
lol...welcome brother!TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:43 pmYes. And not just looselyEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:37 pmIt appears we are on the same page then... are you arguing, in loose terms, proof is the argument?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:52 pmThe ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.
The CurryHoward isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!
http://www.informatik.unimarburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf
The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).
Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms.

 Posts: 2866
 Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
I can’t claim take any credit. My grandmother always said “The proof is in the pudding!”.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:45 pmlol...welcome brother!TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:43 pmYes. And not just loosely
The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).
Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms.
Turns out she was right.
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
The question of proof, as having a foundation of logic, effectively requires a symmetry between the subjective state of the observer and the proof itself, hence proof is merely a connection between objectivity and subjectivity and provides a foundation for consciousness.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:48 pmI can’t claim take any credit. My grandmother always said “The proof is in the pudding!”.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:45 pmlol...welcome brother!TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:43 pm
Yes. And not just loosely
The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).
Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms.
Turns out she was right.
In these respects we are left with a circulation between the subjective and objective that has an objective element to reason stemming from the foundations of the limit of the circle.
 RCSaunders
 Posts: 54
 Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
 Contact:
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
A "limit" is a math concept and only pertains to some physical phenomena. For example, they have no meaning for phenomena described by fractals. Mathematics itself, like language is only a method invented by the human mind, and also has no existence (or meaning) independent of human consciousness.
Until you understand the difference between the "manmade" and the metaphysical I do not think you can make much progress in philosophy.
Randy

 Posts: 2866
 Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)
Broadly  yes. But the framework of logic itself tells us nothing except that the theory is internally consistent (with the axioms).Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:50 pmThe question of proof, as having a foundation of logic, effectively requires a symmetry between the subjective state of the observer and the proof itself, hence proof is merely a connection between objectivity and subjectivity and provides a foundation for consciousness.
In these respects we are left with a circulation between the subjective and objective that has an objective element to reason stemming from the foundations of the limit of the circle.
Logic/mathematics just calculates consequences. It says nothing of whether the internal structure of logic itself corresponds to reality in any way.
So IF one is to turn the theory into a real, physical machine (ignoring manufacturing imperfections for the moment) then it's reasonable to believe that the machine will behave in approximately the same manner as the logic/mathematics does in theory.
This is the notion of "Realization" in systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)
This is true in the context of Constructivist epistemology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology )
Either way  Mathematics allows us to create models. Their ability to predict realworld events is a separate matter.
Mathematics is just another language. It is very easy to begin describing things in Mathematics which don't correspond to reality in any meaningful or useful way.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests