## Poll on the validity of two arguments

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

## Are these two arguments valid?

1st argument - Valid
4
25%
1st argument - Not valid
3
19%
1st argument - I don't know
1
6%
1st argument - The argument doesn't make sense
1
6%
2nd argument - Valid
4
25%
2nd argument - Not valid
3
19%
2nd argument - I don't know
0
2nd argument - The argument doesn't make sense
0

Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:22 pm I will provide a “rational proof” that I am not a “moronic idiot” when you define the criteria for rationality in Lambda calculus.
Till then - you can’t frame the debate because you are dogmatic.
You are yet to figure out that you can think for yourself.
You're proving my many points. Thanks to oblige.
EB
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:28 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:09 pm As I see is it you take the split-minded cognition and project it onto the dawn of mankind and before, arriving at the wrong picture. The Neanderthal didn't notice that there is a mind realm because there wasn't anything to notice. There was just existence. Later humans developed a strong sense of self-awareness, and then they could turn to an "inner world", and then they arrived at the split cognition of inner world/mind vs outer world/material world.
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:09 pm The same happens even today in young children, they develop the self-awareness around 2-3 years of age and before that no dualistic differentiation is made, they simply are as if one with (continuous with) the universe.
Yes, it's exactly what I said.
But young children are not normally self-absorbed. They are essentially paying attention to what seems to be going on around them at least as soon as they can have some kind of thought process.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:09 pm The view with the least assumptions is usually correct,
You mean, like science is wrong because of all those theoretical complications? Let's do God. So much more simple.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:09 pm and dualism is an extra assumption compared to lack of dualism.

My own kind of dualism isn't an assumption.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:09 pm And ultimately nothing is provable, but if we aren't trying to find the best guess then there is absolutely no point in any kind of philosophical debate. It's also not a fact that we know our mind, for that matter, that's just a rather suspect belief. Strictly speaking there is no "we", "know" or "mind", all we can say that there is something rather than absolutely nothing. Well let's agree to disagree then.
So, you don't know pain and what is pain whenever you are in pain?!
Whoa.
EB
You totally misunderstood my last 4-5 comments, but that's normal. The whole point of my position is that it lacks dualistic thinking, which is pretty much inherent to all of Western philosophy.
You also don't see through the illusory nature of the "I" and you seem to believe that your kind of dualism isn't an assumption, even though it is, and a baseless one.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:29 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:22 pm I will provide a “rational proof” that I am not a “moronic idiot” when you define the criteria for rationality in Lambda calculus.
Till then - you can’t frame the debate because you are dogmatic.
You are yet to figure out that you can think for yourself.
You're proving my many points. Thanks to oblige.
EB
That is not how Bayesian inference works.

But I am happy to oblige your confirmation bias.

Freedom of religion is a human right after all.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:38 pmYou totally misunderstood my last 4-5 comments,

I don't think I did. I certainly understood what you wrote.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:38 pmbut that's normal. The whole point of my position is that it lacks dualistic thinking

I think I did understand that.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:38 pmwhich is pretty much inherent to all of Western philosophy.
Sure, it's the natural position to evolve as you develop self-consciousness. We don't know how to explain the material world in terms of our subjective experience and we don't know how to explain our subjective experience in terms of the material world. The two at least seem very different. Subjective experience is only what we experience when we experience something. We think of the material world as existing independently of our perception of it. We suppose the Moon to exist even when we're not looking at it. We don't think our mind exists if we're not thinking or dreaming. I'm not sure that's anything peculiar to Western thought.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:38 pmYou also don't see through the illusory nature of the "I"
How would you know?!
What exactly did I say that motivated your claim here?
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:38 pmand you seem to believe that your kind of dualism isn't an assumption, even though it is, and a baseless one.
How could you possibly know it's baseless? You're not inside my mind.
We could meet somewhere in the physical world and have a coffee or something.
But as far as I know, there's no way our minds could meet.
Unless you could argue convincingly otherwise.
EB
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:28 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:38 pmYou totally misunderstood my last 4-5 comments,

I don't think I did. I certainly understood what you wrote.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:38 pmbut that's normal. The whole point of my position is that it lacks dualistic thinking

I think I did understand that.
Clearly you didn't
Sure, it's the natural position to evolve as you develop self-consciousness. We don't know how to explain the material world in terms of our subjective experience and we don't know how to explain our subjective experience in terms of the material world. The two at least seem very different. Subjective experience is only what we experience when we experience something. We think of the material world as existing independently of our perception of it. We suppose the Moon to exist even when we're not looking at it.
What makes you think it's the natural position when the ideas of material world and subjective experience are unnatural? What is there to explain, when the two are the same thing said twice? What seems different when we don't deliberately talk about two different things? They are just the same period. So many baseless assumptions.
How you conceptualize material structure seems different from various experiences like color. But your concept of material structure is also an experience, just different.
We don't think our mind exists if we're not thinking or dreaming. I'm not sure that's anything peculiar to Western thought.
That's the most baseless claim I've heard lately. Who is crazy enough to think that their mind doesn't exist when not thinking or dreaming?
How would you know?!
What exactly did I say that motivated your claim here?
You don't know how little you understand and how obvious that is to someone who was already there like 10-20+ years ago.
How could you possibly know it's baseless? You're not inside my mind.
You don't even have a mind separate from the rest of the world. That too is a baseless assumption, and we share the same world.
We could meet somewhere in the physical world and have a coffee or something.
What physical world. Totally baseless assumption, there's just the world. You don't even know what "we" means.
But as far as I know, there's no way our minds could meet.
What minds couldn't meet? What are you talking about? We can meet and we bring our heads with us, with our "minds" inside, why is that not a meeting?
Unless you could argue convincingly otherwise.
What "unless"? You are making a long list of Cartesian nonsense claims and I'm supposed to argue otherwise? I'm out.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pm What makes you think it's the natural position when the ideas of material world and subjective experience are unnatural?
How any idea could possibly be unnatural if there's no difference between mind and nature as you claim?
Me I think we get to develop the two distinct notions of material world and subjective experience because there is a difference to begin with. So, it's natural.
I don't mean that the material world and subjective experience would be two distinct substances à la Descartes, only that they are distinct, for example like a model is necessarily distinct from what it represents.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pm What is there to explain, when the two are the same thing said twice? What seems different when we don't deliberately talk about two different things? They are just the same period. So many baseless assumptions.
There is no assumption. There is a natural belief human beings are most likely to develop given enough time.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pm How you conceptualize material structure seems different from various experiences like color.

Nobody gets to conceptualise the notion of a material world. It's already intuitively worked out by our brain well before we could even think in the rational way necessary to conceptualise anything. It's a natural belief.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pmBut your concept of material structure is also an experience, just different.
Sure, I already said so. Everything we know is subjective experience and we know nothing else.
The distinction between subjective experience and material world is an epistemological one: we know our subjective experience, we only believe in the material world. There's nothing we can do about this distinction. That's just the way the brain works and how any cognitive system would have to work. It's the natural distinction between what the model is onto-logically and what the model represents epistemo-logically.

And by the way, you haven't answered my question yet: don't you know pain and what is pain whenever you are in pain?
EB
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:13 pm
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pm What makes you think it's the natural position when the ideas of material world and subjective experience are unnatural?
How any idea could possibly be unnatural if there's no difference between mind and nature as you claim?
Me I think we get to develop the two distinct notions of material world and subjective experience because there is a difference to begin with. So, it's natural.
I don't mean that the material world and subjective experience would be two distinct substances à la Descartes, only that they are distinct, for example like a model is necessarily distinct from what it represents.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pm What is there to explain, when the two are the same thing said twice? What seems different when we don't deliberately talk about two different things? They are just the same period. So many baseless assumptions.
There is no assumption. There is a natural belief human beings are most likely to develop given enough time.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pm How you conceptualize material structure seems different from various experiences like color.

Nobody gets to conceptualise the notion of a material world. It's already intuitively worked out by our brain well before we could even think in the rational way necessary to conceptualise anything. It's a natural belief.
Atla wrote: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pmBut your concept of material structure is also an experience, just different.
Sure, I already said so. Everything we know is subjective experience and we know nothing else.
The distinction between subjective experience and material world is an epistemological one: we know our subjective experience, we only believe in the material world. There's nothing we can do about this distinction. That's just the way the brain works and how any cognitive system would have to work. It's the natural distinction between what the model is onto-logically and what the model represents epistemo-logically.

And by the way, you haven't answered my question yet: don't you know pain and what is pain whenever you are in pain?
EB
Again: your cognitive system works like this now, mine doesn't work like this now, and even for you it wasn't always like that. The rest is a trap of projection and circular reasoning, and you don't understand your own question, the one I should answer. I'm out, to me when we get rid of the standard Cartesian confusion, is when philosophy begins at all.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote: Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:13 pm Again: your cognitive system works like this now, mine doesn't work like this now, and even for you it wasn't always like that. The rest is a trap of projection and circular reasoning, and you don't understand your own question, the one I should answer. I'm out, to me when we get rid of the standard Cartesian confusion, is when philosophy begins at all.
At least it's as if you could explain yourself.
EB