You tell me.
In the context of this conversation, you used the word:
I wouldn't know - you can't tell me how to test that.
You tell me.
I wouldn't know - you can't tell me how to test that.
Nothing new there then! LOLmickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:08 am I don't recognise any of those symbolic formulae as being the grounding of Logic.
You seem confused, Eodnhoj.
You have yet to state what logic is.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 12:49 pmNothing new there then! LOLmickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:08 am I don't recognise any of those symbolic formulae as being the grounding of Logic.
You seem confused, Eodnhoj.
So logic is based upon conditions, with these conditions being contexts?Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:29 pm Logic is what occurs if you have things or states of affairs.
And what is a "thing" or "state of affairs" (without using logic to address its own basic foundations)?
"What is...", are you saying you don't understand the meanings of "thing" or "state of affairs"? If so would it help you if you just think "phenomena"?Eodnhoj7 wrote:And what is a "thing" or "state of affairs" (without using logic to address its own basic foundations)?
It still ends up being recursive and triggers Russel's paradox (is the set of all sets a member of itself?)Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:21 am "What is...", are you saying you don't understand the meanings of "thing" or "state of affairs"? If so would it help you if you just think "phenomena"?
My point is that it ends in a regress, as I can ask "what is a phenomenon"? Eventually is breaks down to an assumed term as well as "contextuality" as a self referential loop. A context, P= P, is a circular definition.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:21 am"What is...", are you saying you don't understand the meanings of "thing" or "state of affairs"? If so would it help you if you just think "phenomena"?Eodnhoj7 wrote:And what is a "thing" or "state of affairs" (without using logic to address its own basic foundations)?
Agreed.Skepdick wrote:
A thing is a phenomenon. ...
I think slightly differently, experience is how you deal with a phenomenon, that it is also a phenomenon is a product of being conscious.Experience is a phenomenon. ...
See above.A thing (a phenomenon) appears within experience (another phenomenon). ...
Sure and if you don't have a base case then it's an infinite regress but if you point?Whether you use the language of phenomenology, or the language of ontology - it's still language and language is recursive. ...
Don't think I'm a dualist, best I get is that I'm a body with senses, memory and language in an external world.The moment you switch perspectives (from object language to the meta language) the inconsistency blows up like any dualism.
And I can point.Eodnhoj7 wrote:My point is that it ends in a regress, as I can ask "what is a phenomenon"? ...
Sure, as long as you forget the phenomena and keep fixating on the symbols that evolved to communicate our experience of them.Eventually is breaks down to an assumed term as well as "contextuality" as a self referential loop. A context, P= P, is a circular definition. ...
This is just your pet metaphysic as the ground is the being of a body with senses, memory and a language in an external world. You forget that we can point.The term would have to contain itself, thus a loop occurs and what we see as the groundings of logic is not only the paradox skepdick points out above, but an undefined term that is intrinsically empty. Its intrinsic emptiness of meaning would necessitate it as having to progress to further terms. But considering the term is an empty loop, all variations of that term would have to be empty loops as well.
Consciousness is a phenomenon too. To speak about consciousness from the view-point of the observer, then you also have to concede that observers/observation are phenomena too.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:53 am I think slightly differently, experience is how you deal with a phenomenon, that it is also a phenomenon is a product of being conscious.
Everything you point to is a phenomenon too.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:53 am
Sure and if you don't have a base case then it's an infinite regress but if you point?
I wouldn't know how to test whether you are a dualist or a monist. Is just words. In that language/system of thought - everything is a phenomenon.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:53 am Don't think I'm a dualist, best I get is that I'm a body with senses, memory and language in an external world.
Is it? Not sure about that as is it observable?Skepdick wrote: Consciousness is a phenomenon too. ...
See above. What I do by speaking about it is to try and find inter-subjective agreement between observers about what and what isn't a thing or state of affairs.To speak about consciousness from the view-point of the observer, then you also have to concede that observers/observation are phenomena too. ...
Sure and there are lots of them, so the point of pointing or touching is to narrow them down the one I wish us to consider.Everything you point to is a phenomenon too. ...
If I'm stuck in a tautology then it must be necessarily true.You are stuck in the tautology - you are stuck using the language of "phenomena" which axiomatically assumes that everything is a phenomenon. ...
See above.I wouldn't know how to test whether you are a dualist or a monist. Is just words. In that language/system of thought - everything is a phenomenon.
You can't actually point at anything that isn't a phenomenon, so the act of pointing is superfluous. ...
(Not sure which or what 'how' you are asking for here so will just respond and see how it goes.)And so there is a deeply embedded epistemic assumption. Pointing particular cases (cats, storms, oceans, planets, sunsets) of the general concept of "phenomena" is precisely epistemic particularism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemol ... ticularism
You know that thing you are pointing at is whatever label we have given it, but you can't tell me HOW you know that it's the label we have given it. ...
Not sure how this applies as we are not built upon a von Neumann architecture.Two hardest things when dealing with computers... naming things and cache invalidation e.g forgetting stale/incorrect/discredited memories.
You are talking about it. You recognise it as a thing e.g it exists in your ontology. If it's not a phenomenon, what kind of thing is consciousness?
Yeah, but the matter of whether consciousness exists (ontologically) is a separate concern as to whether we can agree on its proper definition.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am See above. What I do by speaking about it is to try and find inter-subjective agreement between observers about what and what isn't a thing or state of affairs.
But then you aren't interested in understanding the essence of a "phenomenon" - you are interested in the thing you are pointing to.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am Sure and there are lots of them, so the point of pointing or touching is to narrow them down the one I wish us to consider.
Well DUH. Everything is a phenomenon. And so it is true - by definition.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am If I'm stuck in a tautology then it must be necessarily true.
You are telling me how your children know - you taught them.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am How I know is in the response the other gives. When I taught my children the names of things I pointed at the thing and uttered a sound until the day that they consistently uttered the sound in the presence of the thing.
So in defending epistemic particularism (telling me what you know), you have left the epistemic methodists unsatisfied.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am If you meant how it is we can do this then I think the computational models of neuronal nets gives us a lot of clues in that neuronal nets can, upon stimulus can retrieve/activate/reactivate learnt/imprinted/... patterns. Given the CNS appears to be one great big neuronal net I think that's pretty much what we do.
Caching is not about von Neumann - it's about redundancy and locality of data and the inherent problems that arise when all copies of the same data need to be updated.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am Not sure how this applies as we are not built upon a von Neumann architecture.