Is A Universal Language Possible?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:37 pm

Remember when I told you that:
1. Your dataset is incomplete.
2. You are using abductive reasonig ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning )
3. Abductive reasoning is subject to errors due to inability to validate your conclusions.
4. Abductive reasoning requires the self-discipline to consider that you MAY be wrong.
5. Abductive reasoning mandates that you try and disconfirm your conclusions.

Here is what I mean:
Judaka wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:27 pm
Utility is subjective, filled with interpretation and you don't really acknowledge this.
Had you used the search function you would've found me saying this:
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:22 pm
All utility is subjective, moron.
Look! No definitions, yet you understand the problems with abdicative reasoning!

Furthermore there is absolutely no interpretation in utility. You may misinterpret what I find useful, and I may misinterpret what you find useful but you know exactly what is and is not useful to you.

There is absolutely no need to interpret your own meaning.

And, from this you may already draw some conclusions that I am a coherentist.
As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:30 pm

Did you just take a 3k word post that took about one hour to make, quote 12 words which you thought you could easily refute and ignored the rest?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:44 pm

Judaka wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:30 pm
Did you just take a 3k word post that took about one hour to make, quote 12 words which you thought you could easily refute and ignored the rest?
Did you just jump to another conclusion? I am dismantling your post piecemeal. I'll get to the rest on my own time.

But now that you feel "disrespected' because it took you so long to write a post - maybe I will just ignore you.

All while you claim that I am being "egotistical" I have no idea why you are trying to justify yourself to me.

Nick_A
Posts: 3962
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Nick_A » Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:14 pm

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.
As I understand it science reveals truths but it is through the essence of religion and the awakening ideas of philosophy that we begin to “feel” higher values as an experience of our objective conscience as opposed to indoctrinated morality. Simone Weil explains it here

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html
There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.

That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.

Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men.
From her perspective the value of science is in the way it reveals the good. So there are two complimentary directions for our intelligence to pursue: the truth of science and the source of the “good” (objective values.
Objective values cannot be the result of mechanical evolution since they serve no animal purpose. There is no reason for a horse as a product of the earth to “feel” beauty.” If awareness of higher human values comes from above then it is outside of the domain of dualistic science and becomes a result of intuition. Einstein understood the limits of science, Are you open to the idea that deductive reason could be the source of the remembrance and our awareness of higher human values originating in the ineffable Good?
1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:28 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:44 pm
Judaka wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:30 pm
Did you just take a 3k word post that took about one hour to make, quote 12 words which you thought you could easily refute and ignored the rest?
Did you just jump to another conclusion? I am dismantling your post piecemeal. I'll get to the rest on my own time.

But now that you feel "disrespected' because it took you so long to write a post - maybe I will just ignore you.

All while you claim that I am being "egotistical" I have no idea why you are trying to justify yourself to me.
Disrespected? Did you just jump to another conclusion?

My post shows that you jump to conclusions like it's going out of fashion and your only response is to try to make it seem as though you're in a position to lecture me about my reasoning abilities and not jumping to conclusions? My post shows the hypocrisy I keep talking about that you call ad-hominem but you just repeat the same hypocrisy?

It's not uncommon in my experience for you to do what you did and it's not uncommon for you to now act like you're just not going to contend with what's uncomfortable for you. If you really are a reasonable person, you would likely apologise or explain yourself - not try to go back on the attack.

I'm glad that you found something you thought you could refute, we can maybe go back to this point of whether you ACT like utility is subjective or not after you've acknowledged some fault. As it stands now, you have a history of misrepresenting my views to the extreme, you don't appear to feel any guilt about what you've said after misrepresenting my views and you're apparently, just back to being interested in dominating me.

Prove you're reasonable to me, it isn't hard. My patience already ran out a long time ago, I don't have anymore.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:35 am

Judaka wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:28 am
I'm glad that you found something you thought you could refute, we can maybe go back to this point of whether you ACT like utility is subjective or not after you've acknowledged some fault.
I am acting like utility is subjective. But our tools (logic) are the same. And you are abusing them.

Judaka wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:28 am
Prove you're reasonable to me, it isn't hard. My patience already ran out a long time ago, I don't have anymore.
I have no idea what your standard for "reasonableness" is.

You expect me to behave in some way that you deem "appropriate". Probably not going to happen...

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:52 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:35 am
I am acting like utility is subjective. But our tools (logic) are the same. And you are abusing them.
Umm, why discuss this with you? You continually call me a mental invalid who has no idea what he's talking about while I just gave you a detailed post about how you were never arguing against a position I had and how you constantly misrepresented my views, why continue to give you my opinions? So you can misconstrue them? You aren't even fazed by it, I asked you to challenge your assumptions about me but instead you're just looking at my post with the intention of dismantling it.

There is no dismantling it, the post mostly merely shows quotes that show me saying one thing and you acting like I said something completely different or quotes of you saying things that clearly involved your human side. There is not much more to say.

I don't think it is reasonable to call someone a "mental invalid who has no argument, just waffles on" while you clearly aren't reading what they have to say. I don't think it's reasonable to upon recognising that you made a mistake, not feel the need to apologise for it. Or maybe just admit you did wrong?

I'm not really trying to leverage the word reasonable against you. If my long post is ignored, that just meant that it didn't work out the way I hoped, I don't regret writing it and I'll continue on in my life as though nothing happened. It was ambitious to even try to reach you in the first place, I knew that.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:25 am

Judaka wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:52 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:35 am
I am acting like utility is subjective. But our tools (logic) are the same. And you are abusing them.
Umm, why discuss this with you?
You are asking me questions to which only you know the answer.

Judaka wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:52 am
You continually call me a mental invalid who has no idea what he's talking about while I just gave you a detailed post about how you were never arguing against a position I had and how you constantly misrepresented my views, why continue to give you my opinions? So you can misconstrue them? You aren't even fazed by it, I asked you to challenge your assumptions about me but instead you're just looking at my post with the intention of dismantling it.

There is no dismantling it, the post mostly merely shows quotes that show me saying one thing and you acting like I said something completely different or quotes of you saying things that clearly involved your human side. There is not much more to say.

I don't think it is reasonable to call someone a "mental invalid who has no argument, just waffles on" while you clearly aren't reading what they have to say. I don't think it's reasonable to upon recognising that you made a mistake, not feel the need to apologise for it. Or maybe just admit you did wrong?

I'm not really trying to leverage the word reasonable against you. If my long post is ignored, that just meant that it didn't work out the way I hoped, I don't regret writing it and I'll continue on in my life as though nothing happened. It was ambitious to even try to reach you in the first place, I knew that.
Your long post will be addressed when I have a chunk of time to give it the attention it deserves. If it took you an hour to write it - it will take me at least an hour to unpack it. I don't have an 1-hour window anywhere in my timetable this week.

So as to not keep you in suspense, my meaning of the word 'sophistry' can be summed up as follows:

Philosophy without technical input is sophistry, technical developments without philosophy end up answering questions of no interest.
And you can't discuss philosophy and science in a vacuum - they complement each other.

It is not meant as an insult. It is meant as a statement of fact. You lack technical know-how and so you do philosophy without technical input.

Utility may be subjective, but whether you can achieve the goals you set out to achieve is objective.

What I mean by 'objective" Is that it's trivial for anybody to determine whether you have succeeded or failed (in your pancake-making endeavor).

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:12 am

Logik
The question was supposed to be rhetorical.

I can't pretend that which I am not aware of will be incorporated into my understanding, whether this has actually caused any problems or not we'll see but only when I can think that you will actually make the effort to understand what I am saying before trying to prove it is wrong, then a conversation could be useful or not. If I focused on philosophy in my post, it was a mistake. The post is there to show that we've never had a real debate and that you don't understand my views on anything and never did while perhaps also showing you are being dishonest about your motivations and circumstances. Nick_A's video inspired me to approach things from that angle.

I would appreciate it if you could read the post as my effort to establish what is and isn't true, with the end result perhaps being, putting the past in the past and starting a new with an actual discussion where truth is the goal and honesty and thoughtfulness are practiced. Until I'm convinced this will be attempted with some acknowledgement of what happened in the past, there is not much point in a discussion. There is no point in you replying to this, you can read the post when you have time and respond how you see fit and what happens happens.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:25 am

Judaka wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:12 am
The question was supposed to be rhetorical.
Was it?

Have you ever bothered to ask "What is the purpose of rhetorical questions?"
Why ask a question that you don't expect an answer to?

You are USING a rhetorical tool. You are signaling that you have asked the question. And we are back to the question of goals/intentions.

Why?

So here is a hypothesis:

Either you have a clear goal and you used the tool intentionally.
Or you don't have a clear goal and used it intuitively.

Unless I am missing a plausible hypothesis I am about to conclude that you are playing the 'persuasion game' OR you lack basic control over the words you utter.

Which is to say. You are either a very competent OR very incompetent at rhetoric.

User avatar
planetlonely23
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:32 am

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by planetlonely23 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:15 am

In my opinion universal language is something achievable in the way our minds links with the idea which is recognized in that instant moment , for example if you are looking a picture right now and you want to express your ideas about the picture, this is possible with body language, gestures or drawings. Regardless we can focus in one thing is that we don't need a common language in voice, with the needs and requirements in order to express our feeling about that thing or action might be enough.
If we want to express our ideas about something in the past that is not visible, that thing requires datas that you much be able to represent with numbers and accurate description.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:48 pm

Logik
While I admire your desire to turn everything into an argument until you admit the problems of the past and show desire to ensure they don't happen again then I can't really think anything other than the past repeating itself will occur. Which is to say, my words will be ignored or misconstrued and you will spend time arguing against positions I don't have - wasting both of our time. Plus, I'm at least a little annoyed about the fact that you try to teach me about reasoning and how to make a hypothesis or understand others while you have failed in all such things pretty egregiously, we need to work on that hypocrisy.

Once you show some acknowledgement or self-awareness and deal with the issues in my post, we can argue about whatever you want. I said in that post that you don't have many answers but what I should have said is that you have so far not shown that you have many answers. I want to believe that we could have a good argument/debate/discussion if you understood what I was saying, maybe I could even learn some things but I need something to put my faith in.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:19 pm

Judaka wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:48 pm
Logik
While I admire your desire to turn everything into an argument until you admit the problems of the past and show desire to ensure they don't happen again then I can't really think anything other than the past repeating itself will occur. Which is to say, my words will be ignored or misconstrued and you will spend time arguing against positions I don't have - wasting both of our time. Plus, I'm at least a little annoyed about the fact that you try to teach me about reasoning and how to make a hypothesis or understand others while you have failed in all such things pretty egregiously, we need to work on that hypocrisy.

Once you show some acknowledgement or self-awareness and deal with the issues in my post, we can argue about whatever you want. I said in that post that you don't have many answers but what I should have said is that you have so far not shown that you have many answers. I want to believe that we could have a good argument/debate/discussion if you understood what I was saying, maybe I could even learn some things but I need something to put my faith in.
*yawn*

You keep telling me THAT I mis-interpret things, but you provide absolutely zero corrective feedback. Instead you are getting triggered because you think it's all personal. I told you to park your insecurities elsewhere.

Communication is about transfer of information!

I demonstrated to you WHY abductive reasoning breaks down through no fault of our own! The human condition is all about Information asymmetry!

I was transparent in the exact steps in my reasoning which led to my plausible conclusions. From observation to synthesizing a hypothesis to the conclusions that I've reached based on the information at my disposal.

If my conclusion was erroneous - correct it! Provide the missing information SO that I can update my erroneous beliefs.

Is that self-aware enough for you? That I understand my brain operates based on Bayesian principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

If you find something to put your faith in, then it isn’t really faith, is it?

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Judaka » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:09 am

Logik
Read the long post, acknowledge the mistakes of the past, show intent to see them not happen again or don't talk to me again. I won't play any more games with you.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Is A Universal Language Possible?

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:43 am

Judaka wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:09 am
Logik
Read the long post, acknowledge the mistakes of the past, show intent to see them not happen again or don't talk to me again. I won't play any more games with you.
You are an idiot.

Retroactively acknowledging mistakes without any practical plan to prevent recurrence is precisely ego-stroking. Shit happens - nobody died. Move the fuck on.

Demonstrating intent to "see those errors not happen again" is virtue signaling when the laws of physics literally prohibit you, me and everyone from avoiding errors in adductive reasoning.

We are not mind-readers so we cannot attain perfect information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information

Stop paying lip service to the "human condition" and focus on the fucking root cause! Physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

What you are asking is me to do is to promise you that I will not make another error in abductive reasoning. OK, sunshine. I will overcome the laws of physics just for you. Because you are so special! You are literally insisting that I lie to you.

You are stuck in a game the rules of which you don't understand. The game is called reality.

If you see me make an error - correct me. Like I am educating your ignorant ass right now about information asymmetry and how it affects us directly.

When you learn to recognise information asymmetry and actively strive towards achieving symmetry, you might just learn a thing or 10 about communication.

Communication is hard enough as it is, so stop getting triggered and making it about your feelings.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Skepdick and 2 guests