Logic is Grounded in Self Referential Tautologies

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Logic is Grounded in Self Referential Tautologies

Post by Arising_uk »

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?
Well that depends upon what kind of existence we are talking about? IS there a 'consciousness' roaming about on it's lonesome out there? I doubt it but then that's because I think 'consciousness' only comes about due to certain types of bodies. What kind of thing do you think 'it' is?
Yeah, but the matter of whether consciousness exists (ontologically) is a separate concern as to whether we can agree on its proper definition. ...
Not sure what a 'proper' definition would entail? Could we agree that it is what certain bodies appear to exhibit in their behaviour?
And in so doing, you are talking about "inter-subjective consensus". Are "subjects" not phenomena too? Are agreements/disagreements not phenomena too? ...
Sure, but not sure what your point is, could you explain it another way?
But then you aren't interested in understanding the essence of a "phenomenon" - you are interested in the thing you are pointing to. ...
I thought we agreed that a thing is a phenomena? Not sure what the 'essence' of a phenomenon could be as to me you appear to be generalising from there being phenomena to reifying the class 'phenomenon'? Much like the idea that there is a thing or elan vital called 'life' rather than just living things.
Whatever it is. So how could we ever arrive at inter-subjective consensus on what a "phenomenon" in general, not in particular? ...
Not sure we could but how about its the word we apply to any and all phenomena considered as phenomena?
We are both using the word "phenomenon" in this conversation assuming that we agree on its meaning. Maybe we don't - who knows? But it was a useful assumption to get us this far. ...
For sure.
Well DUH. Everything is a phenomenon. And so it is true - by definition. ...
Yup, which is why they don't apply to the contingent world but are one of the limits on it with respect to language and reason.
What's the definition of "truth"? ...
It used to be that it was a fact about the world but now it appears to be inter-subjective consensus or maybe just highly probably true if you like.
What's the true definition of "definition"?
Can a single word have a truth value?
You are telling me how your children know - you taught them.
You aren't telling me how you know - how did you learn those labels. ...
I was taught them.
So in defending epistemic particularism (telling me what you know), you have left the epistemic methodists unsatisfied. ...
Well I'm not very religious about such matters.
You still aren't answering the "How do you know?" question. Which is really the same as asking "How does learning work?"
Pattern storage and retrieval is my best guess.
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.
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. ...[/quote]Except that it is a solution to an efficiency problem that arises from the form of the architecture.
You change your telephone number - it takes time to propagate the new information to all of your friends. You are the "source of truth" for what your mobile number is - the address books of your friends are cached copies of that data.

That's cache invalidation. Note I make no mention of technology at all - the above scenario has inherent difficulties with good ol pen&paper.
I get the idea just not sure what you are applying it to in this conversation?

Are you talking about how the propagation or timing of neuron activation may work? Not sure if there are any 'caches' in such a system but I could see that we could have groups of nets feeding into and out of each other for various functions so maybe. Personally I think the CNS pretty much doesn't 'forget' anything, apart from pain, but successful retrieval depends upon the methods used to active the neurons. Although again this is just personal opinion as its clear that we do 'forget' things and maybe inactivity means the 'paths' are gone but I don't think so.
Always found this guy fascinating -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-69AnA_To
Skepdick
Posts: 5031
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Logic is Grounded in Self Referential Tautologies

Post by Skepdick »

Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am Well that depends upon what kind of existence we are talking about? IS there a 'consciousness' roaming about on it's lonesome out there? I doubt it but then that's because I think 'consciousness' only comes about due to certain types of bodies. What kind of thing do you think 'it' is?
It matters to us (collectively) but it shouldn't matter to you (individually).

Your own ontology is boolean to you. In your own ontology either consciousness exists or it does't.

In your own ontology, if consciousness is not a phenomenon, then what is it?

Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am Not sure what a 'proper' definition would entail? Could we agree that it is what certain bodies appear to exhibit in their behaviour?
I am not sure we even need to agree OR disagree about it. We are already using the word even though we haven't properly defined it.
It's tacit agreement - that's good enough.

I am comfortable with the idea that I don't have to define all the terms in my vocabulary in order to use them.
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am Sure, but not sure what your point is, could you explain it another way?
My point is that you can't define what a "phenomenon" is by pointing at things.

The thing you end up pointing at probably has another, more particular label.
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am I thought we agreed that a thing is a phenomena?
Sure. But did we agree on what a "thing" is ? You can't define "thing" by pointing either.

"Thingness" and "Phenomenon-ness" are abstractions. Collective nouns.
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am Not sure we could but how about its the word we apply to any and all phenomena considered as phenomena?
Everything is a phenomenon. That's the premise and the ever-present tautology!

We can agree to it, we can use it but that's still not getting you any closer to defining it. It just sorta ... happened without either of us noticing or intending it. Synthesis.
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am Yup, which is why they don't apply to the contingent world but are one of the limits on it with respect to language and reason.
If there's only one existence, how many worlds are there?
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am It used to be that it was a fact about the world but now it appears to be inter-subjective consensus or maybe just highly probably true if you like.
Yeah - I am with the pragmatists on this one. I have no idea what truth is - I just know how to use the word in a bunch of appropriate ways.
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:01 am Can a single word have a truth value?
Sure. An exclamation/warning

Fire!
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am I get the idea just not sure what you are applying it to in this conversation?
The label for the thing you are pointing at "be it a cat" was not invented by you - you were merely taught it.
Your storage of the label and its relationship to the pattern it represents is a cached copy.

If you move to a country that speaks a different language, you'l have to invalidate your replica and replace it with the new word for "cat".

If you are talking about a scientific theory that you were taught, but was later falsified - you have outright junk the whole thing.

Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am Are you talking about how the propagation or timing of neuron activation may work?
No. just data-flow. Abstractly. How new ideas update/overthrow old ones in the social psyche.
Arising_uk wrote: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am Always found this guy fascinating -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-69AnA_To
I'll find the 19 minutes later today... NLP is infinitely amusing. Fun way to convince people they aren't always in control of their thoughts.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Logic is Grounded in Self Referential Tautologies

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:03 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:My point is that it ends in a regress, as I can ask "what is a phenomenon"? ...
And I can point.

And you point from one thing, then to another, then to another.

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. ...
Sure, as long as you forget the phenomena and keep fixating on the symbols that evolved to communicate our experience of them.

The phenomenon as repeating is in itself a context. A particle moving from point A to point B is the repetition of a phenomenon.
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.
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 senses are subject to the higher faculties of reason as illusions necessitate the senses as not only subject to deception but are subjects of belief as well. Reason, the ability to seperate and connect all phenomenon including the senses, exists as beyond the senses. Empiricality is not the grounding of phenomenon precisely because we use abstractions to argue it.
Post Reply