Is A Universal Language Possible?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:02 am

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
Well, your stance is ridiculous, defining a word is the act of making it clear what that word means when you say it.
I know you think that's true, but your theoretical grounding is so non-existent that I don't think I can convince you to think any other way.

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
Your idea is pure IDEALISM, there's not a single benefit to throwing out the dictionary and the alternative you're presenting is unworkable - as you've shown already.
So how come my "idealism" allows me to establish conversational rapport and communicate with professionals in ANY discipline and in minutes?

Except philosophy.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
You made your own idea seem unworkable through your actions and as you keep saying, actions speak louder than words. The goal of language is to communicate, that's what you keep saying. This is quite a claim from both your perspective and mine but realising that you are a pathological liar, let's just ignore the hypocrisy here of you deciding such things without offering criterion or justification for this assertion and just accept it as true.
I am not a liar. I speak truth. You have concluded that I am a liar because you can't make sense of what I am saying.
But that's just your lack of theoretical background. My criterion for "justification" is utility. I subscribe to instrumentalism and social constructionism - I don't know how many times to say this?

Everything I say is backed by science/physics/mathematics.

Your accusations are just your inability to process that I may be a tad more competent in this field than you are.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
We couldn't communicate any more as soon as you started using a word differently than its standard meaning.
And that is what I mean that you have surrendered your faculties to think to the Oxford dictionary.
You borrow language. I use and repurpose it for my needs.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
You couldn't compromise, you couldn't use another word, you couldn't explain how you were using the word
I told you I have no use for the word "objective". I was merely demonstrating how the "standard definition" (the one in the dictionary) is incoherent and incompatible with the latest scientific, mathematical and logical understanding.

And I have said it on more than one occasion: objectivity is inter-subjective consensus. You may as well accuse me of incoherence at this point, because I understand that subjective objectivity is an oxymoron. In your way of thinking.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
, you couldn't offer definitions, you couldn't offer examples to help me understand and you instead just carried the conversation on as though I was using your definition, even though it's obvious that I wasn't given that I communicated that fact multiple times.
I offered you links to the theoretical grounding which you are missing SO that you can understand.
You expected it to be trivial to comprehend. Triviality is relative.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
What a failure of epic proportions for someone who thinks they have all the answers!
I have all the answers? What a conclusion to jump to. How can I have the answers when I have no fucking idea what questions you are asking?

I know how to think for myself. So that I can get the answers I seek.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
In the end, you just blame me for your shortcomings and the shortcomings of your positions. The only parts of our discussion which have functioned conformed to dictionary definitions for words, the reason for the breakdown in communication, is because of you and your behaviour. I haven't seen any real evidence that you don't use dictionary definitions except out of ignorance, as with objectivity. You read my paragraphs and I read yours - as I've pointed out many times you don't actually believe your own shit.

You don't tell me "your" meaning for the words you use and when I give mine, it doesn't appear to help you whatsoever to understand what I'm saying.

There are subjective aspects to words beyond definitions which all stem from things like interpretation, cultural usage as well as social, scientific, religious and moral implications and so on. You are free to attempt to negotiate these aspects of the word if you can, you can even make amendments to definitions as long as you communicate it.
You have read a lot about how it all works. It's a damn shame you can't apply all this "knowledge" in practice.

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
You demand that I establish and state my rules for my criterion but as usual, you have never done the same. You don't practice what you preach in any regard, which makes it easy to understand for anyone that all you CAN do is preach. It would be too absurd for you to actually try to practice your ridiculous recommendations.
I have stated my criterion. Over and over. Utility.
I have stated my framework. Result-driven/goal driven. Without criteria for "success" and "failure" it's all a circle jerk.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
We talk a bit, I make some points that you ignore, you make some points which you can't imagine being wrong,you call my arguments (you can't remember which one) sophistry and false, you decide what kind of person I am without any evidence or even point of reference and then you call me a mental invalid without ever having made sense yourself or showing any holes in my argumentation. Enjoyable once, the second time a bit absurd and there won't be a third.
Naturally. You didn't make any arguments. You waffled a bit, it had some structure - it produced nothing useful.
I call you a sophist because you are playing the "philosophy" game. All philosophers are sophists in my world-view.
Until they establish their criteria for success/failure.

You expect short inferential distances ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances ).
You expect that by me giving you a definition it will immediately enable you to get to my position.

It's not how it works. You have to do the work.

The work of groking logic.
The work of groking information theory.
The work of groking systems theory.
The work of groking probability theory.
The work of groking recursion theory.
The work of groking decision theory.

Knowledge isn't tea. I can't pour it into your head.

For as long as you expect learning new things to be comfortable and packaged in English, for as long as you don't even bother to challenge the very foundations of your own thought and that which you think is "true" you will forever remain an intellectual invalid.

Beyond that, I shall exercise tolerance. As your mental disability does not cause harm.

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:33 am

To make my point succinctly

From the article "Expecting short inferential distances" ( https://eu0.proxysite.com/process.php?d ... kuQ%3D&b=1 )
In the ancestral environment there were no abstract disciplines with vast bodies of carefully gathered evidence generalized into elegant theories transmitted by written books whose conclusions are a hundred inferential steps removed from universally shared background premises.

In the ancestral environment, anyone who says something with no obvious support, is a liar or an idiot. You're not likely to think, "Hey, maybe this guy has well-supported background knowledge that no one in my band has even heard of," because it was a reliable invariant of the ancestral environment that this didn't happen.
Judaka accused me of lying, yet I cite all my sources/references for all relevant background knowledge required to understand my position.

Figure out who the idiot is...

For as long as rely on your inadequate heuristic that "smart and humble go together" I will continue to make a circus of making a fool out of you...
To the benefit of the spectators.

I am neither humble nor a "nice guy".
But I speak truth.

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:35 am

I never asked you for humility Logik, you don't understand, this is a philosophy forum. From my perspective, you are a fool to even think that there are "winners" and "losers" here. "Judaka accused me of lying... figure out who the idiot is" who the fuck are you talking to dude? This forum has like 40 people on it max and none of them know you or care about you.

You don't actually use your own ideas, you use mine. That's obvious, 99% of your words are being used in conformity with the dictionary. There's no way you could negotiate your own word meanings in "mere minutes". You don't actually apply your own ideas, hence liar, hence hypocrite and in my view, you lost this argument the moment it started because of what happened in the "Limits of Morality" thread. I've never seen you established your own criterion, I've never seen you explain your own meaning for a word. Despite reading thousands of words from you. It's always just demanding for me to do it and insulting me if I don't.

You say actions speak louder than words but all you care about are your words?

The question for me talking to you has now become, indeed, why am I still talking to you? Is there something I can learn from this interaction? Haven't I just made a mistake in responding to you here?

I still think we have many similar views on things, if you were reasonable and could handle disagreement with some maturity then talking with you may have been interesting. You are clearly a pretty smart guy who's put a lot of effort into understanding the topics you want to talk about - whether fruitful or not. This isn't about ego for me, I can acknowledge you even though we don't agree, this is what speaking the truth looks like.

The same cannot be said for you, it's not about humility. It's about intention. You are a liar and a narcissist, there is not much point discussing this further, I know you won't read my words and I don't know what you expect me to think of someone who averages 600 posts a month here yet isn't actually interested in discussion or listening to others but I can only be so generous with my opinions.

Consider it though Logik, we argue and both of us are convinced we're right, nobody on the forum cares, there's no benefit to having the argument and nobody gained anything.

But you keep waving to your adoring fans on the forum, I will leave you to it.

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:47 am

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:35 am
I never asked you for humility Logik, you don't understand, this is a philosophy forum. From my perspective, you are a fool to even think that there are "winners" and "losers" here. "Judaka accused me of lying... figure out who the idiot is" who the fuck are you talking to dude? This forum has like 40 people on it max and none of them know you or care about you.
And why do you think I care whether they care about me?

All I need is for them to care about knowledge, I imagine people on a philosophy forum do?

Steel sharpens steel and all that...
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:35 am
You don't actually use your own ideas, you use mine. That's obvious, 99% of your words are being used in conformity with the dictionary. There's no way you could negotiate your own word meanings in "mere minutes". You don't actually apply your own ideas, hence liar, hence hypocrite and in my view, you lost this argument the moment it started because of what happened in the "Limits of Morality" thread. I've never seen you established your own criterion, I've never seen you explain your own meaning for a word. Despite reading thousands of words from you. It's always just demanding for me to do it and insulting me if I don't.
This is the error of adductive reasoning. You think that because I can't negotiate the meaning of words with YOU, that I can't actually do it.
Your dataset is skewed. I guess the concept of information asymmetry is foreign to you also? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

Have you tried to disprove your own hypothesis about me? No? That's called confirmation bias.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:35 am
You say actions speak louder than words but all you care about are your words?
My words guide my decision-making (logic is decision theory). My decisions guide my actions.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:35 am
The question for me talking to you has now become, indeed, why am I still talking to you? Is there something I can learn from this interaction? Haven't I just made a mistake in responding to you here?
Only you know the answer to that.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:35 am
But you keep waving to your adoring fans on the forum, I will leave you to it.
The eternal cynic, right? You and Atla think I am after fandom. I am an introvert. I like peace and quiet and my own space.

But, of course - in your eternal ad-hominem attempts to undermine me you will keep coming up with hypotheses as to why I am doing what I am doing. Too bad you don't understand probability theory, so you keep ending up with false positives.

To correct the error in your hypothesis-testing methodology I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712

TL;DR Your set of plausible hypothesis is incomplete. It's in Chapter 4 or 5 (I think).
You can read it for free here: https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm

LMAO, FANDOM? Logik... you kill me...

Ad-hominem to undermine you... have you forgotten the things you've said to me instead of arguments? If you tried to disprove your own hypothesis about me you did a terrible job. You've been wrong about near everything I suppose, at least that which I am an authority to answer whether they were right or not. You have some nerve to lecture me on proper manner for constructing a hypothesis.

You just keep quoting me saying stuff and then replying in ways that don't compute. I didn't say that you can't do it... I said that I've never seen you do it. Well, it's true that saying you can negotiate your own word meanings in "mere minutes" is a laughable and utterly absurd claim that makes me question whether we're still talking about the same thing but whatever.

That you actually have the nerve to remind me that I don't know you and that I don't have enough evidence to make the claims I'm making is shocking to me. You are self-aware? Logik... Just how do you think you've been dealing with me all this time?

I know what a human is, Logik, he isn't a perfect being who acts solely in accordance with science, physics and mathematics. He doesn't make decisions solely based on utility and he makes mistakes, many mistakes. He must tend to his ego in some way, he must answer the question of who he is and he must contend with the forces of his mind that compel him towards his psychological proclivities which make him do things against his wishes.

A man who knows no fault and a man who acts only in accordance with truth, this is the image you present for yourself. perhaps you say It isn't your intention? It's my own idea? Perhaps but I know what a man is and I'm not fooled by your bullshit. You may not wish to contend with the human condition in front of me, you may not want to acknowledge it in front of me but you will contend with it.

Conversations, where both parties speak the truth, aren't characterised by attempts to dominate, demonise and misrepresent.

I don't know you well but I do know people and I can tell apart attempts to dominate from attempts to share knowledge or discuss or debate. To pretend as nothing has happened that doesn't fit into a conversation for those things is sad Logik. I call you a pathological liar because you are one.

I am clearly a stubborn person, to still be posting in this thread because I have things I want to say to you even though you've said you don't care to listen. I really am done now though, I think we could reach some understanding if you were capable of honesty but I don't wish to wait for honesty from a dishonest man.

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:00 pm

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
LMAO, FANDOM? Logik... you kill me...

Ad-hominem to undermine you... have you forgotten the things you've said to me instead of arguments? If you tried to disprove your own hypothesis about me you did a terrible job. You've been wrong about near everything I suppose, at least that which I am an authority to answer whether they were right or not. You have some nerve to lecture me on proper manner for constructing a hypothesis.
Yes and? Being wrong is how I acquire information. Being right is how you do - I dunno what.

Not being wrong is not a desirable quality for somebody pursuing knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
Well, it's true that saying you can negotiate your own word meanings in "mere minutes" is a laughable and utterly absurd claim that makes me question whether we're still talking about the same thing but whatever.
Naturally. To the uninitiated it sounds absurd.

I am talking about communication. The Mathematical version. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
What are you talking about?
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
That you actually have the nerve to remind me that I don't know you and that I don't have enough evidence to make the claims I'm making is shocking to me. You are self-aware? Logik... Just how do you think you've been dealing with me all this time?
Like an intellectual child. Until I determine (to my satisfaction) that you actually have a clue what you are talking about.

Is it hypocritical? Yes. Don't care. So far it seems apparent to me is that I am a tad smarter than you.
All your objections so far is as to the way I am treating you, rather as to the content of my arguments.

Thick skin - you don't have it.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
I know what a human is, Logik, he isn't a perfect being who acts solely in accordance with science, physics and mathematics. He doesn't make decisions solely based on utility and he makes mistakes, many mistakes. He must tend to his ego in some way, he must answer the question of who he is and he must contend with the forces of his mind that compel him towards his psychological proclivities which make him do things against his wishes.
OK. Then I am not human. What label would you care to give me?

Does my non-humanity mean I have been stripped of human-rights?

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
A man who knows no fault and a man who acts only in accordance with truth, this is the image you present for yourself. perhaps you say It isn't your intention? It's my own idea? Perhaps but I know what a man is and I'm not fooled by your bullshit. You may not wish to contend with the human condition in front of me, you may not want to acknowledge it in front of me but you will contend with it.
You know what a man is? Gnostics :) Your religion fools nobody!

Too bad you have reached a faulty conclusion again. I am a man who knows fault.
I am a man who minimizes faults.

Because I am in the "NO HARM" game... Skin in the game and all that shit.

I even put my money where my mouth is. Too bad that nobody else on this forum wants to...
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
Conversations, where both parties speak the truth, aren't characterised by attempts to dominate, demonise and misrepresent.
Actually, they do. Science strives towards completeness.

If my theory is more complete than yours, then your theory is a subset of mine.

And so - it's not that anybody is trying to dominate anybody - it's my world-view is more complete than yours.

Mathematical completeness does not discriminate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
I don't know you well but I do know people and I can tell apart attempts to dominate from attempts to share knowledge or discuss or debate. To pretend as nothing has happened that doesn't fit into a conversation for those things is sad Logik. I call you a pathological liar because you are one.
Park your insecurities elsewhere. A more complete explanation is not domination.

It's a more complete explanation. You don't like it? Shame.
Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 12:51 pm
I am clearly a stubborn person, to still be posting in this thread because I have things I want to say to you even though you've said you don't care to listen. I really am done now though, I think we could reach some understanding if you were capable of honesty but I don't wish to wait for honesty from a dishonest man.
Stubbornness is a great quality. I trust you are as stubborn as I am.

The difference is that your ego can't cash the cheques you are signing. Because your knowledge has gaps.

Nick_A
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:15 pm

A person has to decide if they want communication or self justification. I think those preferring communication will be open to what is necessary to enable it. Those preferring self justification will be closed to the potential for communication. Jesus provides an description of the actions of those who prefer self justification to communication.
Matthew 7:3-5 New International Version (NIV)

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Obviously in this day and age of educated people the idea is too old fashioned to be taken seriously.

Then there is the ability of some to put themselves into the position of another for the sake of developing understanding. Yes I know; why should the educated put themselves in the place of idiots? There is nothing worth understanding.

Jacob Needleman tried an experiment with two of his students. They had opposing opinions about abortion. They had to argue abortion from their opponents understanding. Here's what happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0

Is a universal language much less human understanding possible if we are unable to listen to another and put ourselves into their position? If we only listen to our own thoughts we only speak our emotional language and justify ourselves.

A philosophy site is unique since we cannot put ourselves into the position of someone we don't know but must either be open or closed to ideas which serve to awaken our objective conscience. I've noticed that many prefer to condemn what they don't know but have been conditioned to condemn. No universal language is possible when we are governed by such negative attitudes since the desire isn't to communicate but to judge for the sake of our self justification.

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:24 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:15 pm
A person has to decide if they want communication or self justification. I think those preferring communication will be open to what is necessary to enable it. Those preferring self justification will be closed to the potential for communication. Jesus provides an description of the actions of those who prefer self justification to communication.
Matthew 7:3-5 New International Version (NIV)

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Obviously in this day and age of educated people the idea is too old fashioned to be taken seriously.

Then there is the ability of some to put themselves into the position of another for the sake of developing understanding. Yes I know; why should the educated put themselves in the place of idiots? There is nothing worth understanding.

Jacob Needleman tried an experiment with two of his students. They had opposing opinions about abortion. They had to argue abortion from their opponents understanding. Here's what happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0

Is a universal language much less human understanding possible if we are unable to listen to another and put ourselves into their position? If we only listen to our own thoughts we only speak our emotional language and justify ourselves.

A philosophy site is unique since we cannot put ourselves into the position of someone we don't know but must either be open or closed to ideas which serve to awaken our objective conscience. I've noticed that many prefer to condemn what they don't know but have been conditioned to condemn. No universal language is possible when we are governed by such negative attitudes since the desire isn't to communicate but to judge for the sake of our self justification.
Once you've figured out how logic works, once you recognise that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged.
Once you recognise the implications of the Munchhausen trillema you begin to question what an "argument" really is...

It is just another name for "elaborate justification". If you know how logic works you can argue for or against any position.

Without criteria for "right" and "wrong" anything goes...

Lawyers do this for a living. It's a skill like any other.

So it really begs the question: Why argue?

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:16 am

Nick_A

Great video Nick, cause for self-reflection indeed...

Perhaps the greater problem for communication than the inadequacies of our language is our intent.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:23 am

Judaka wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:16 am
Perhaps the greater problem for communication than the inadequacies of our language is our intent.
I agree! I try to draw attention to this, as I think some people don't even realize how twisted their intent actually is. 8) And I find that fascinating... as well as kind of fun to play with.
Last edited by Lacewing on Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nick_A
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:13 am

Logik
Once you've figured out how logic works, once you recognise that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged.
Once you recognise the implications of the Munchhausen trillema you begin to question what an "argument" really is...

It is just another name for "elaborate justification". If you know how logic works you can argue for or against any position.

Without criteria for "right" and "wrong" anything goes...

Lawyers do this for a living. It's a skill like any other.

So it really begs the question: Why argue?
One of the great mistakes I see atheists make who are caught up in emotional denial is not appreciating the limits of a valid argument.
A valid argument must have a true conclusion only if all of the premises are true. So it is possible for a valid argument to have a false conclusion as long as at least one premise is false.
This IMO is a basic problem for both blind believers and blind deniers. People avoid the importance of a true premise for logical arguments to have any objective meaning when we cannot agree on the truth of a premise. This problem reveals the limitations of logic but in modern times the limitation is celebrated and defended by language.

Socrates of course understood it when he said “I know nothing” Where experts in whatever around him were limited to both valid arguments and emotional languge furthering their limitations, Socrates understood that acquiring wisdom first requires the willingness to surrender the limitations of valid arguments and emotional self justification in the form of pride in imagination to experience the quality of truth the human essence is drawn to. Of course a certain quality of language is essential to communicate it to another. But when we deny its potential in order to defend our self deception we deny the purpose of philosophy which is to open the mind in pursuit of the love of wisdom.

You ask “why argue?” It furthers the joys of self deception. It is natural until we experience the benefits of discussions as in a Socratic dialogue where the intent isn’t to win but to become aware of our contradictions which can only be reconciled from a higher more conscious perspective.

We lack a universal language making human communication possible as well as the awareness of how much we are governed by imagination yet are proud of our intelligence. What’s wrong with this picture?

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:42 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:13 am
One of the great mistakes I see atheists make who are caught up in emotional denial is not appreciating the limits of a valid argument.
I am going to get a tad technical because of the context of the thread. The meaning of 'valid' in formal logic and as is commonly used by philosophers are slightly different. Enough to make it ironic and on-topic.

The very notion of validity itself is impossible without a universal language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidabil ... cal_system
Each logical system comes with both a syntactic component, which among other things determines the notion of provability, and a semantic component, which determines the notion of logical validity.
From this the "validity" of a logical argument is determined from the semantics of the system.

We have no universal semantics so we have no universal criterion for validity.

A valid argument must have a true conclusion only if all of the premises are true. So it is possible for a valid argument to have a false conclusion as long as at least one premise is false.
This IMO is a basic problem for both blind believers and blind deniers. People avoid the importance of a true premise for logical arguments to have any objective meaning when we cannot agree on the truth of a premise. This problem reveals the limitations of logic but in modern times the limitation is celebrated and defended by language.

A problem well understood by scientists :)

ETJaynes, Probability theory: logic of science, page 8:
Note carefully that in ordinary language one would take “A implies B” to
mean that B is logically deducible from A. But in formal logic, “A implies B” means only that the
propositions A and AB have the same truth value. In general, whether B is logically deducible from
A does not depend only on the propositions A and B; it depends on the totality of propositions
that we accept as true and which are therefore available to use in the deduction.
Devinatz (1968, p. 3) and Hamilton (1988, p. 5) give the truth table for the implication as a binary
operation, illustrating that A ⇒ B is false only if A is true and B is false; in all other cases A ⇒ B
is true!

This may seem startling at first glance; but note that indeed, if A and B are both true, then
A = AB and so A ⇒ B is true; in formal logic every true statement implies every other true
statement. On the other hand, if A is false, then AQ is also false for all Q, thus A = AB and
A = A¬B are both true, so A ⇒ B and A ⇒ B are both true; a false proposition implies all
propositions. If we tried to interpret this as logical deducibility, (i.e. both B and ¬B are deducible
from A), it would follow that every false proposition is logically contradictory. Yet the proposition:
“Beethoven outlived Berlioz” is false but hardly logically contradictory (for Beethoven did outlive
many people who were the same age as Berlioz).
Obviously, merely knowing that propositions A and B are both true does not provide enough
information to decide whether either is logically deducible from the other, plus some unspecified
“toolbox” of other propositions.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:13 am
We lack a universal language making human communication possible as well as the awareness of how much we are governed by imagination yet are proud of our intelligence. What’s wrong with this picture?
We lack universal meaning. No universal meaning -> no universal semantics -> no universal language.

Absolutely nothing. It's basically an unpolished argument for model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ).

Logic/mathematics is the study of structures. Not truth.

Which is fundamentally why I reject logocentrist's insistance on defining things. Lets interact - meaning will emerge.
As will new words, metaphors, and eventually - consensus. This objective/subjective distinction is already a spanner in the works.

Leave your taxonomy at the door.

As if empiricists didn't already know that deductive methods are a dead end 300 years ago, Alan Turing put the last nail in the coffin of deduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Among the most important proofs of impossibility of the 20th century, were those related to undecidability, which showed that there are problems that cannot be solved in general by any algorithm at all. The most famous is the halting problem.
Is argument X valid? Yes, you say?

What algorithm did you use to determine that?

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:41 am

If you REALLY want to be technical/pedantic Universal languages do exist.

As per the Chomsky hierarchy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy ) a Type 0 grammar is "universal".

Which corresponds to Lambda calculus in Mathematics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus ).

So technically Lambda calculus is a universal language. But I imagine that's not what you had in mind? :)

The reason why this contradiction follows is because language is a subset of communication.
There is more to it than stringing symbols together. Communication is information-flow.

And you don't even have to go very far to see why that's true: a picture is worth a thousand words.

Is Universal COMMUNICATION possible? I don't think so... Telepathy maybe.

Logik
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:58 am

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:49 am
What a failure of epic proportions for someone who thinks they have all the answers!
I think I have a succinct point to address here.

That you think I have 'All the answers' is precisely the failure of plausible reasoning I am speaking about!
The lack of intuitive comprehension of the decidability criterion in logic.

I don't have all the answers. Far from it. In fact, some times I wonder whether I have any answers at all, or whether I have only questions.

What I do have is hundreds of effective strategies for figuring out which questions can and can't be answered.
Since we have limited time to ask questions, I imagine knowing which questions are a waste of time is rather useful, don't you think?

What I do have is the know-how to design an experiment to get the answer to questions I might have.

Applied science. To every aspect of inquiry.

What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? 42!

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:27 pm

For you to talk about any possible failure of plausible reasoning is just annoying. If you were asked to as in Nick_A's video, summarise my views on things (anything), I am sure you'd fail miserably. MISERABLY. That's the bottom line. All of your insults, all of your criticism. You think nihilism should lead to suicide, you understand me so little it's comical considering all the things you've said.

You DO contend with the human condition and your bullshit isn't at all convincing. Now, I know that you have me entirely wrong on so many levels its comical. I wonder if you can challenge your assumptions about me? You haven't been able to yet but I really wanted to make this final attempt because it's annoyed me; the way you keep treating me.

This post is going to be exploring some of the misunderstandings, showing at least to some extent that you absolutely contend with the human condition and that my main argument of utility over ideals and interpretation being dominant over everything has been consistent and not really contended with at any point.
Logik
All positions are contradictory because all language is recursive. Humans are contradictions.
By what criteria do you evaluate a position as being "flawed" or "sound" and why?

In the paragraph above you failed to disclose your subjective values for "flawed" and "good" arguments. This suggests to me that you don't understand the problems of criterion and justification.

So you should probably follow your own advice and try to learn something.
This is you where you don't contend with your ego?

Here's the first thing you said to me, literally the first thing. Now as we already know, you don't disclose your subjective values for pretty much anything except the occasional "utility" somehow without understanding that "utility" is subjective itself.

This argument went on, I gave you a non-recursive position.
Judaka
"Cheese is a fantastic, delightful, amazing, cherished, delicious, beautiful, lovely, superb, endearing, soft, tasty, wonderous, excellent, gorgeous, splendid, magnificent option for breakfast."
Logik
I have no idea how to assert or verify the truth-value of this claim. So congratulations on your meaningless non-contradictory position.
There's a lot I could pick on in this debate but this post will already be long with quotes so let's keep it to a minimum.
Logik
So you claim that you have shown a non-contradictory position. Lets put aside the contradiction or non-contradiction aspect for now and focus on the claim that you have "shown a position".

Have you? Maybe you have - maybe you have not.

How about you allow us to decide for ourselves by being transparent with what you deem to be valid inclusionary AND exclusionary criteria for what entails a "position".

Is this statement a position: Urgen shmurgen burgen wurgen?
How about this one: Waggedy shmoog poof.
This is you as a pragmatist who only cares about utility? You have taken a problem I was aware of throughout this thread, the problem of interpretation. The difference between you and I is that I have accepted some imperfect things because I believe in their utility. Utility is subjective, filled with interpretation and you don't really acknowledge this.

It's really hard for you to argue that you don't recognise the utility of definitions at all, you even talk about how you convert your thoughts into English so that they can be understood and you clearly for the most part, use standard definitions for words, at least when speaking to me.
Logik
Since the crux of the matter is that we have no objective standards, there seems to be this unsolvable problem at hand. Who decides?
I didn't respond here but this topic came up later anyway
Logik
I'll put it to you as simply as I can.

1. The is-ought gap cannot be conquered (so say philosophers).
2. Arguments convince people to cross the is-ought gap.

So arguments are these magical things which fly over the gap that which is impossible to cross?

*yawn* :)

Explain this magic trick to me.
Judaka
We cannot provide objectively correct reasons for why someone "ought" to do something but we can provide subjectively valid reasons and possibly even objectively valid reasons given their axioms. That's the magic trick I suppose.
Interpretation is absolutely not a problem that science has conquered, not even close, not a tiny bit close. You can't act in accordance with "science, mathematics and physics". Your goals of "moral progress" and "utility" are complete prisoners of interpretation, mutual co-operation in these things is locked behind a thousand gates.

You don't need to deal with the question of who you are?

You act like a hardcore pragmatist who acts as though you've almost transcended the problems of interpretation but pragmatism itself is utterly beholden to interpretation. Is it a problem for you that you can't draw absolute truths from your pragmatic ideals? Throughout these threads you have not acted in accordance with mathematics, physics, science nor for moral progress or utility. Is it your will? Or is it merely that you are a capricious and conflicting being tormented by the human condition as we all are?
Judaka
I recognised the problems that you speak of, I don't deny their existence. From categorisation to words and both interpretations and characterisations. The problem is deeper than you've described.

Yet you have no further insight, you've only offered unrealistic, impractical solutions which you yourself don't even try to apply. After all you've said, you shouldn't dare tell me my arguments are "poorly reasoned" without offering your criteria for what that means. You shouldn't dare tell me that you want to live with smarter people without explaining your categorisation. Yet you do, because you don't believe in the shit you spout.

You're a hypocrite and your whole post here, just like most of what you write, is ridiculous.

You came here to dismantle my poorly-reasoned arguments but it's not for your ego, you're doing it for my sake? Who here is going to believe that given the context of what you're saying? Behaving like a parent lecturing a child and telling me it's not for your ego.
Logik, sadly, you don't actually have many answers, I do agree with you on this. I pretty much got this right in our first meeting, you talk about utility but you don't talk in terms of utility. This is the fundamental problem behind this debate. You argue in favour of ideals and truths while I argue in favour of pragmatism, yet you claim you're the pragmatist.

I don't think it's super necessary to go into how you clearly do contend with the human condition, it is important to note though that pragmatism, utility and morality have near infinite variants due to interpretation, you can't argue against these other interpretations without axioms and making validity arguments which is exactly what I've already argued. I don't really think that's been an important issue for us becasue the discussions never reach that point but there you have it.

The real problem is the constant hypocrisy, misunderstanding, incorrect accusations and the reality that most of your arguments towards me are damning me for believing in things which I am adamantly not a believer in.
Logik
I come to philosophy forums to dismantle your poorly-reasoned arguments.

So that one day, you may work your way up to epistemology and it’s two fundamental problems: justification and criterion. Which are unsolved and unsolvable. So bad news for you - objective knowledge is impossible.
All I did was ignore your annoying questions which insinuated that I needed to define a plethora of things in order for you to be satisfied I was being coherent, which I rejected as useful and called you out on the hypocrisy of you thinking I needed to do that while never seeking to do it yourself. Apparently, this was your argument against objective knowledge? You had no confirmation that I believed in anything of the sort, now it should be clear to you that I never did though perhaps it isn't but more on that later.

The end result of that conversation was you likened me to a toddler compared to your intellect and understanding, you happily agreed that I was a sacrificial goat and well you threw in more than a few insults that I won't repeat.

Let's review what happened in the pragmatism vs principles thread.

Here's me trying to define what I mean by objective and later objectivity.
Judaka
Whereas something being objectively true essentially just means it's true MIND-INDEPENDENT. Objective morality means mind-independent truths about morality with unquestionable validity.
Logik
You lost me. I told you a few pages back that any speak of mind-independence is a religion.
This is already a red flag, you talk as though a nihilist/moral relativist who rejects objective morality is being guilty of believing in mind-independent knowledge. I am defining a term I disagree with. Sadly, this was the seed that leads to the argument's cessation and not in a friendly way. It continued.
Judaka
It's easier if rather than talking about nihilism by itself, we talk about it in conjunction with pragmatism. Once again, you ask for objective standards but you don't appear to be listening. You tell me I'm using value judgements but although this is imprecise, I've got no issue with this concept. There are no objective standards for validity, consistency and whatever else you throw at me in my framework. I reject objective standards, objective categorisations, objective arguments, objective rationales and all the things you've just assumed that I agree with.
Logik
And you are still using the word "objective" as "mind-independent". It's a religion - I tell you.

For any judgment/claim/assertion about reaility one but has to ask:

Is this claim objective?
Is this claim mind-independent?

Both of the above are yes/no questions. Only an Oracle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine ) can answer them...
Theoretical decision theory aside, the only Oracle machine known to us is the human mind.
Again, I'm telling you and agreeing with you that mind-independent knowledge is an impossibility, that I reject it and you continue to "correct" me and lecture me on the very thing that I previously stated, at least twice. This isn't me cherrypicking or making any misleading quotes. Most of the quotes of me saying things have been directly quoted by you in the statements of yours which are quoted.
Judaka
What I do recognise is the practical utility of ideas, actions, systems and argumentation - even when it's all subjective. That also extends to morality and meaning. If you argue that validity is useless because it's a human concept, why call yourself a pragmatist? You are not concerned with the utility of the concept of validity but rather whether it's true or not. I don't care about anything in this world except causation and my subjective framework.
Logik
All I am doing is holding you accountable to "pragmatism". Concepts are tools.
The concept of "objectivity" is a tool. What is its utility?

You seem to have subjected yourself to it as some sort of authority, merely than recognising it for what it is: a rubber stamp of certification.

When a handful of observers agree to a particular statement we label the statement as "objectively true".
Objective truth == certainty or thereabout.
I'd like to say at some point this misunderstanding is cleared but it wasn't, but not for my lack of trying.
Judaka
Oh, I remember Logik, I'm remarking the confusing stance you have as someone who believes in objective morality but rejects mind-independent knowledge. Clarify if you want.
Logik
Spot the recursion:
1. Objectivity is a concept.
2. All concepts exist in minds
3. Objectivity is a concept which refers to things independent of the mind

Oops!
Logik
Turing's halting problem is demolishes any and all "mind-independent" theories.

Is there mind-independent knowledge?

If you answer "yes" - that's a performative contradiction.
Only an Oracle machine can answer "Yes" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine ).

To claim such a machine exists is to invent a God.

The only answer You (as a human) can give is either "No" or "I don't know".
Logik, do you understand my nightmare in talking to you? This is the point I'm trying to get across. This is just one example. There are actually multiple things throughout our conversations which have gone through exactly the same process.
Logik
At this point I will pause you and insist that you draw a distinction between 'right' and 'wrong' use of the word 'objective'.

Are you saying that I am not using the word like the dictionary defines it? So much for not prescribing universal definitions...
Your "thick skin" is concentrated mostly around your skull, do you see how this argument of yours has already been lost multiple times already? If you had listened to me at any point or if you simply used words by their standard definition until you've stipulated changes you want to make then we could have had some productive discussions. Instead, look at this fucking nightmare, are you capable of acknowledging fault? It's a weakness that you can't not the other way around.
impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality
Logik
I impartially assert that you are still hungry and therefore - you have failed to achieve your goal.
In a completely unbiased and unprejudiced manner I assert that 3 days after setting out to make pancakes you have made none. Unless you have eaten something other than the pancakes you failed to make, I am reasonably concluding that you are still hungry. So with an even head and a fair consideration of the plausible scenarios I neutrally predict that you have failed to achieve what you set out to do.

It all boils down to one damn question: Are you still hungry? Yes or no.

Talk about synonymous use of 'objectivity'...
Judaka
There are also certain words where the definition really doesn't need to be challenged. I don't see any problems with the word objectivity lol.
Logik
You don't see the problem with the concept of objectivity/mind-independence when it has been proven impossible?

"Objectivity" is a 1-word oxymoron!

Is there anything more to say then, except that you have deluded yourself to think you are a pragmatist?
From where I am looking you are a dogmatist/idealist.
This is where you start to get agitated, just as you did in the first debate and it's all because you can't take a damn second to read what I'm saying. All of your insults mean nothing because you have no fucking idea what's going on.
Judaka
Here's my scepticism Logik, I've defined objectivity at minimum twice now, I've given you a list of synonyms explaining what I think the word means. Putting aside whether it's correct for me to use the generally accepted definition or your own personal definition, I'm here trying my best to tell you what I am referring to when I use the word objectivity but you still, after all this time, don't read my usage of the word to be saying what I've told you I think it says.
Logik
We negotiate its meaning/definition. Allow it to emerge rather than prescribe it
Logik
Because you have incoherent (self-contradictory) concepts to which you aspire to.

Like the concept of "impartiality" and "absence of bias" etc.

At the mechanical level of decision making there is no material distinction between "bias" and "values".
An unbiased agent has NO prreferences.
An unbiased agent makes NO choices.
An unbiased agent makes NO decisions.
I've never talked about my opinions about any of these things throughout the thread, it's just more of the same really. I knew that miscommunication was occurring but I didn't realise it was this bad until you made that above post.
Including your strategy for navigating around the vagueness, ambiguity and duplicity of language WHILE communicating.

Your strategy is to throw around definitions.
Logik
I am not capable of having an actual debate with you any more than you are able to have an actual debate with a 3 year old.

I have no problem interacting with people who understand game theory, strategising and problem-solving in general, and who are less dogmatic about communication/dialectic protocol.
Logik
How do you endeavour to determine if you/me/us are becoming more or less objective? For all you know all this talk of objectivity is doing the exact opposite. How do you know we are headed in the right direction?
Logik
You are dealing with a reasonable person. More than most.

If I was dealing with a competent pragmatist we would figure out a way forward.
Logik
So you want me to manage you like a 3 year old instead?

Ok. I can do that.

So lets get back to "objectivity". I have scanned over the definition/synonyms you have given me:
Logik
I can find no common pattern in there. And the image that emerges in my mind is self-contradictory and incoherent.
Fairness (an entirely subjective notion) used as a synonym of objectivity.

open-mindedness/neutrality/disinterest is the opposite of my conception of pragmatism.
open-mindedness is indifference is indecision the same as detachment and disinterest.

Pragmatism is all about making decisions. Which requires bias and subjective initiative and total attachment/immersion in problem-solving.

I have no fucking idea what to make of the fact that you call yourself a pragmatist while giving the definition of "objectivity" above!

As best as I can tell "objectivity" is a concept in your head, but you seem to be having a hard time communicating it.

If you can't measure it - you can't manage it!
Doing this is only necessary because I'm dealing with you, the hardest person to talk to I've ever met. You are still going on about how I hold up objectivity as important in some way. The only reason I'm talking about objectivity at all starts at what I've quoted earlier in this post - yes! Your comments towards me about it!
Logik
The concept of "objectivity" is a tool. What is its utility?
You won't find me talking about objectivity before this point and you'll only find me condemning objective morality and meaning as "mind-independent knowledge" and therefore false concepts. Things I thought you would agree with.
Logik
So lets try my way: What is the value and utility you perceive in objectivity? What problem do you expect "objectivity" is going to solve?
Judaka
You can be unbelievably stupid, is it mere willful ignorance? I've told you idk, at least twice that I am not aiming to be impartial or neutral in my stances. I've told you many things that completely contradict this perspective you've adorned me with such as insisting that I see things through my subjective framework, that I don't care about what's true and only causation and a plethora of other things. Here you are cursing and spouting off about how absurd I'm being - are you serious? I never even brought up objectivity except to disagree with the manner you're using the word.

There's no way, absolutely no way - that you've understood anything about me if you're still saying these things. Since the very start of talking to you, it's like there's an imaginary poster here, you mistake his posts for mine and you can't read mine. Endless incorrect and baseless accusations, endless assumptions about me that aren't just baseless or wrong - you've literally read that I think contrary to your assumptions about me! You argue with caricatures, ghosts, phantoms - I have never seen anything like it.
Needless to say, the whole thing continued in this thread, with you deciding I'm a believer in mind-independent knowledge and that mind-independent knowledge is critical for my understanding of pragmatism when I've said the exact opposite and only the exact opposite, literally exact opposite.

It's not like this was the only problem though, it's just the one with the most material. I'd be hard pressed to find the opposite though. Where you actually understood what I was saying and responded correctly, I don't think that EVER happened Logik. Can you believe that? How insane is it that such a thing could be considered?! Thousands of words of correspondence and you understood NOTHING? It's actually close to the truth though.

Even in this thread, you have taken almost everything I've said in ways which either don't make sense, aren't accurate or are even being contradicted by what I'm saying.

It has left me unsure of how to handle your harsh words to me, clearly, I know that they mean nothing because you think I am someone I'm not and you don't have any idea of who I really am but at the same time, you are calling me a mental invalid who can't debate you all while being possibly the worst debater in history. You then talk to me about your possible fandom... It's a struggle for me.

I'll forgive you if you can acknowledge your fault, I hope you will be able to do it but my expectations are very low.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest