Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:08 pm

Here it is. The final part which finishes the entire thing. THIS section is what puts the icing on the cake. A rational means to evaluate induction. I will be posting sections describing how this theory solves several epistemological problems.

Part 4 link-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q84 ... sp=sharing (4 pages total)

Part 4-End
14. Not everything can be deduced, is there a way to use the understanding of deductive justification to establish a cogent method of induction?
15. I demonstrate a hierarchy of induction based on its distinct level of separation from deductively justified cognitive and applicable knowledge.
16. Conclusion: The hierarchy can be used as a rational dismissal of "counter arguments" from a lower level of the hierarchy. This solves the brain in a vat argument.

For after you read it:

So one thing my theory solves is epistemological skepticism. The "Evil Demon" and "Brain in a Vat" arguments become rationally irrelevant in epistemological discussion. This is because they are easily identified as inapplicable plausibilities, and can be dismissed when confronted by either a deductive argument, a probable argument, or a possible argument. Essentially there is a way for us to rationally identify "Gandolfian Philosophies." Gandolf is a wizard who exists in The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings series. He is a character that makes sense and people argue how he should act if presented in a particular situation. Yet at its core, such discussion is irrelevant as Gandalf isn't real. Thus, "Gandolfian philosophy".

The second thing my theory solves is "Irrational Relativism". Within many aspects of epistemology there is the argument of, "Its all relative", therefore there is no knowledge. While my theory embraces relativism, it is rational relativism. While cognitive knowledge can be purely relative, the process of applicable knowledge is NOT relative. When conflicts arrive between relative cognitive knowledge, the process of applying that cognitive knowledge may reveal weaknesses in one's cognitive knowledge being useful. Further, if there is no resolution within a deductive application of said cognitive knowledge, the heirarchy of induction can be used to demonstrate which relative set of knowledge is more rationally inductive.

This rational relativism allows people to create a higher standard of applicable knowledge when needed, but also allows a lower standard when the outcome is relatively unimportant to the energy needed to achieve that standard. I'm eager to see what people who understand the theory think.
Last edited by wirius on Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:25 pm

Oh, and now that the theory is complete, throw any epistemological problem you want out there. I will answer it in terms of the theory presented here. So far, there has not been an epistemological problem I have not been able to solve with this theory. That's where YOU come in. I need more challenges. The theory is only as strong as its usefulness to answer problems. If you rationally crush the theory, I shall happily move on and thank you for freeing me of this obsession.

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:16 pm

.




...............................................................
Who are you?





.

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:21 pm

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

...............................................................
Who are you?
.
Nobody of importance I can assure you. Honestly, who I am is irrelevant. The logic of what I state should be able to be abstractly applied regardless of who holds the words. That to me, is the essence of great philosophical discussion.

However, for fun, I can also interpret your question as "Can you solve the epistemological problem of self-identity?" Yes! Within the theory, at its most basic an "I" is a "discrete experiencer". From this base we can cognitively add as much or as little as we want. It is only in applying ourselves to reality that we can determine whether the cognitive knowledge of our self-idenity can be deductively applied to reality.

First, the context of our cognitive self-identity must be established. Am I using my self-identity within my group of friends? Within larger society? My identity when I'm by myself? Whatever context I choose, it is only by applying myself to the context at hand that I can determine whether what I believe about myself is something I can then applicably know about myself.

Thus in the context of the self, I might applicably know myself as a person who is always exploring new things to find and dabble in. However, in the context of my friends, I can applicably know myself as a person who habitually does the same activities, and does not enjoy a new setting. In the context of these forums, I am still trying to applicably know who I am. I want to believe that I am a fair and open minded person that communicates effectively and engenders enjoyable discussion, but that can only be applicably known by the responses I receive.

As for how you cognitively and applicably know me through the context of the forums, that is of course through my words and your own background. While you may have many ideas, the only way you can applicably know me is through here within this context. Thus the theory I have is not just armchair philosophy, but embodied in my actions.

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:36 pm

.




I know nothing, I know I know nothing, I have nothing to learn, but to discover the truths I have within me.

Without this work on yourself, life is worthless.



All knowledge is remembering. To interact with my soul.



...The End.







.

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:51 pm

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

I know nothing, I know I know nothing, I have nothing to learn, but to discover the truths I have within me.

Without this work on yourself, life is worthless.

All knowledge is remembering. To interact with my soul.

...The End.


.
Well, how do you know you know nothing? At that point, what is your definition of knowledge? If you have no true definition of knowledge, then it is merely air words that convey an emotional sentiment. While poetic, emotional sentiment is not the back breaking sweat pooring logic of establishing a rational foundation for knowledge everyone can agree upon.

Lets not use my theory. Your argument, if taken to its rational conclusion, implies that the only thing we can know is "nothing". At which point, your claim to knowledge is merely the ascertation of nothing based on emotional confidence in yourself. At which point I can say, "I know something based on the truths I have within me," an ascertation of something based on emotional confidence in myself. If we then have contradictory statements with the same justification, the logical conclusion is both of our conclusions cannot be necessarily drawn, or deduced, from our "justification". Therefore you can believe you know nothing, but you have no rational claim to "Know you know nothing".

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by Necromancer » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:18 pm

I have an example for you, wirius. How do your system relate to the Bible? What is knowledge and what is rubbish if any? How does the Bible relate to history and so on...?

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:48 pm

Necromancer wrote:I have an example for you, wirius. How do your system relate to the Bible? What is knowledge and what is rubbish if any? How does the Bible relate to history and so on...?
Good question Necromancer. The Bible is a book of claims about reality. Conceptually, we can view the bible as a ton of cognitive knowledge. I can have the ideas of the bible in my head, but to say their claims about reality are applicable knowledge, they must be tested with deductive justification. Some claims, like claims of actual locations and people, are applicably known or in all probability, as things that existed due to there being no contradiction when these claims are applied to all that we applicably know about history.

Claims of divinity or miracles cannot be applicably known, as there is an indirect contradiction by reality in the fact no miracle has ever been applicably known. Therefore such claims can only be inductively justified. Looking at the hierarchy of justification, rationally a claim to miracles or God cannot be a probability or a possibility, as both of those require their claim has been applicably known at least once. As such, we are left with such claims being either plausible or irrational. I would claim the belief in miracles or a God is most likely inapplicably plausible. This means the belief is constructed in such a way as to never be able to applicably test these claims.

For example, God is invisible, can't be touched, and speaks to us through our "spirit". All of these things are cognitive knowledges which cannot be applied to reality. Something invisible can never be seen, something which cannot be touched can never be felt, and a spirit is something which also has no meaningful testable qualities. As such, it is fairly low on the ladder of inductive rationality. If I were to say, "I know no miracles or God exists because there is no contradiction in reality to my claim," this statement can be deductively justified, and is far more rational than the inapplicable plausibility claim.

By the way, this is in no way an insult toward religion, or an accusation that those that believe are "dumb". Considering apart from the theory I've proposed, there has been no rational evaluation of induction, one induction was rationally as viable as another. Further, I believe the reason most people follow religion is for a sense of unity within family and community, and a desire for morality. These can all be very nice reasons. I do believe now that if one is to insist on the applicable knowledge of God, they must use deductive justification, and not inductive justification. As there is a way to be deductively justified that there a God or miracles do not exist, and only an inductive justification that God and miracles exist, the more rational person will always conclude a God and miracles (as defined here) can be fun to think about, but cannot be something within applicable knowledge.

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5451
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:56 pm

.



Self-consciousness is the term that I use when applying how do I know that I know nothing.


BTW, my earlier post:

I know nothing, I know I know nothing, I have nothing to learn, but to discover the truths I have within me.

Without this work on yourself, life is worthless.

All knowledge is remembering. To interact with my soul.




- Is straight Socratic reasoning...the father of epistemology.

So, I appreciate your need of argumentation but you are attempting to form an argument against the same principles that you attempting to develop.


FYI






.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4257
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:31 am

That 'Socratic' reasoning doesn't begin with a firm basis, because the premise of knowing nothing is clearly wrong. And you can't base good reasoning on a bad premise.... Well, you can, but the conclusion then is wrong as well.

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:58 am

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

Self-consciousness is the term that I use when applying how do I know that I know nothing.

[....]
- Is straight Socratic reasoning...the father of epistemology.

So, I appreciate your need of argumentation but you are attempting to form an argument against the same principles that you attempting to develop.

FYI

.
Hm, I would argue I am not attempting to develop Socratic reasoning. First, I can be self-conscious and doubt that I know, and be self-conscious and doubt that I do NOT know. I could just as easily state, I do not know if I know things. Maybe I DO know things and I am unaware of them. Maybe I don't. Self-consciousness can allow us to question, but it does not necessarily bring us answers. And if knowledge is defined as a "rational analysis to conclude the validity of our beliefs," then we can also irrationally analyze to conclude the "validity" of our beliefs.
Believing in something, no matter how strongly, is not an argument for obtaining knowledge.

If you would like to attack the premises of the paper or propose a current epistemological challenge feel free. Socrates most basic theories have been debunked for a long time now, so I do not think they warrant any further exploration. Thanks for the conversation starter though!

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:35 pm

For more conversation starting. One of the things I like about the complete theory is not only is its claims to knowledge consistent and can be applied to this theory of knowledge itself ( I can know that I know) but this application of knowledge does not require an "I" to be human. This theory applies to animals, potentially aliens, and even AI. Especially for AI, one of the most difficult things to program is "induction". A hierarchy of induction however can give allow an AI a logical deductive way to approach induction, which is necessary for the continuation of evolved intelligence.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by A_Seagull » Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:07 am

Hi Wirius...

In part 1 you wrote : " If one's logic about justifying beliefs is itself inductive, such a knowledge system is merely a belief verification system which relies on other unverified beliefs. Logically, all knowledge theories based on induction will reduce to, “I believe, because I believe.” Without a deductive way to measure which beliefs are better than another, no inductive theory of knowledge is rationally better than any other. "

It seems to me that you are using a variety of arguments to try to demonstrate that this is not the case. But no arguments, outside a logically concise deductive system, constitute a proof or a necessary justification. What if it actually is the case that all knowledge is based upon induction? Then your arguments amount to little more than hot air.

I think perhaps that you are making presumptions that are deductively unjustified, yet you seem to presume that they are indubitable. An example of this is (again from part 1) where you say : " I open my eyes and ears and realize........ " ; how do you know that they are your eyes and ears? I suggest that you only know this through a process of induction.

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:34 pm

A_Seagull wrote:Hi Wirius...

In part 1 you wrote : " If one's logic about justifying beliefs is itself inductive, such a knowledge system is merely a belief verification system which relies on other unverified beliefs. Logically, all knowledge theories based on induction will reduce to, “I believe, because I believe.” Without a deductive way to measure which beliefs are better than another, no inductive theory of knowledge is rationally better than any other. "

It seems to me that you are using a variety of arguments to try to demonstrate that this is not the case. But no arguments, outside a logically concise deductive system, constitute a proof or a necessary justification. What if it actually is the case that all knowledge is based upon induction? Then your arguments amount to little more than hot air.

I think perhaps that you are making presumptions that are deductively unjustified, yet you seem to presume that they are indubitable. An example of this is (again from part 1) where you say : " I open my eyes and ears and realize........ " ; how do you know that they are your eyes and ears? I suggest that you only know this through a process of induction.
Thank you A Seagul, this is an outstanding question. I will try my best to completely answer this before I head to work, but will write more tonight if I am unable to finish.

Honestly, "I see because of my eyes," is poor writing on my part. What I should be stating at that point is, "I see, and I hear". You are 100% correct in your criticism. That sentence is part of an old way of writing in which I tried "fanciful" language. It didn't work out, and that's an artifact of my past writing. Simply change that sentence and the rest of the argument should still hold.

Or does it? I tried to be incredibly careful in creating deductive steps in the argument, but, like my miswrite above, I am human and could have made a mistake. Can you see any point in part one in which my point devolves? I would be very greatful.

As for a larger discussion viewing the theory as a whole, the theory avoids some of the common deductive/inductive problems in philosophy by deductively concluding that our cognitive knowledge can be whatever we desire. Cognitive knowledge is that part of ourselves that establishes definitions, logic, math, and imagination. Deductively, I conclude this can be whatever we want, as long as it is not an active claim to knowledge of reality outside of ourselves.

But, once I actively claim, "My belief in reality is a rational, deductively concluded argument, one must use further deduction. This deduction relies on whether reality contradicts the belief indirectly or directly. Deduction at its core requires we set up premises, and the rules of the premises. We can do this with cognitive knowledge. Yet once that is established, only through deductive justification can we look at that cognitive knowledge and state it is a rational application to reality. Anything else is just an inductive belief.

Deduction, in other words, is not a natural state of being. Only a rational creature can deduce. That is why I view knowledge as a tool of rationality, and not something innate within us. Holding purely deductive views through your day is also largely impossible and exhausting. If you get to the induction section in part four, you'll see how I handle that. Basically, deductively justifying, or applicably knowing something is very time consuming and/or mentally exhausting. If we had to applicably know everything, once I applicably know "that is a door", every time I would encounter that door I would have to go through the deductive process again. Fortunately, I note the discover of deductive justification as a base allows us to rationally categorize inductions. Probability and possibility are both inductions that allow us to use previously deduced knowledge to function at a less intensive, but relatively rational level of thought and action.

So to conclude, deductive justification is necessary as a base entry into knowledge. Obtaining applicable knowledge is a difficult and time-consuming task, especially as one gains more competing cognitive knowledge. Fortunately, we do not need to rationally always hold to this standard. It is a choice. No one forces you to use a tool, but it is there when you need it. Further, that tool allows a rational inductive analysis, showing us that a full theory of knowledge must not only analyze its deductive aspect, but its inductive aspect too. I hope this answered your question. Feel free to ask any follow ups or questions!
Last edited by wirius on Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 4 and End

Post by wirius » Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:52 pm

Another quick point. There may be some assumptions which are necessary for communication to occur in the initial setup. For example, we're using English, and assuming that is a known and useful language. Those assumptions DO need answers. The question is, do I answer them later in the paper to where those assumptions are not assumptions anymore?

Contrast this with Gandalfian philosophy. "Let us assume Gandolf exists..." Well no matter what logical argument we construct after this statement, it will never show that Gandalf exists. So on the same note, can my theory of knowledge, once completed, demonstrate all of the little assumptions I made earlier in communicating can be applicably known once the full theory is understood? To my mind, the theory should, but this is definitely a point where another person's fresh eyes are needed to point out things I've likely long overlooked.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests