What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:12 pm Surely, it must be to take out any subjective abstraction that we perceive and attempt to reduce that subjective perception of reality, all the way down to a finite binary conclusion..., or am I missing the mark?
What is critical is how do you define what is philosophy?
It is claimed there are many definitions of philosophy as the number of people who attempt to define it.

Regardless of whatever the definition of philosophy that is put forward, I believe ALL humans are programmed to philosophize down to the basic definition of philosophy, i.e.
  • "Philosophy is the impulse of striving to progress and maintain the well-being of the individuals and that of humanity relying on whatever available and possible tools via the impulse of continuous improvements."
Whatever tools will cover all knowledge, wisdom, logic, morality, science, critical thinking, efficient in the practical, etc.

Whatever, and all other sub-definitions of philosophy from whoever, they must align with the above main basic definition.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by attofishpi »

as per above - pretty much irrelevant to OP.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by attofishpi »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:14 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:12 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:09 pm
Very few decisions are binary. When deciding what to order from the menu, what color tie to wear today, what to have for breakfast, or which book to read next, and almost all other decisions, there is a host of alternatives to choose from, isn't there?
Perhaps, you should find a forum that does not deal with logic.

It is common these days, especially by those with a little experience in digital logic, to confuse the behavior of computers with human consciousness. Another problem is using computer language to describe philosophical concepts without carefully distinguishing those differences.

Human minds are not, "binary," systems like digital systems based on base-2 (0,1) logic. For example, when a human being makes a choice from a number of alternatives, however that choice is arrived at, there is a single choice. The menu may have forty different offerings, selecting one is a single decision out the entire forty alternatives, not forty separate, "binary" (not this one, not this one... etc.) through the entire forty offerings.
Actually, your statement that human minds are NOT "binary" is incorrect. Synapses within the brain ARE binary, they are either ON or OFF.


RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:14 pmA computer cannot make a choice that way, even if it could be programmed to make such a choice. For a computer to select anything from a menu of forty items, some value criteria for a choice would have to be programmed into memory somewhere, and each of the forty items would have to be assigned some value, then each item's value would have to be compared with the value criteria until the one with that value was discovered then selected. That process could require up to forty steps comparing the value criteria to the actual value of each item.
RC - I have worked in IT since over 24 years - I think I have a reasonable comprehension of what you appear to alluding to (a case or switch) depending on the language being used.

U R just too short-sighted to see the point I am making - indeed - have a million choices upon the menu - eventually you will say YES or NO to the ultimate decision of what to eat.

(er...I am pretty sure that that defines a BINARY decision).

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:14 pm Since the comparison at each step could be described as a, "decision," (yes it matches the criteria or no it does not match the criteria) such decisions are sometimes called, "binary," because each step is a, "yes/no," decision. Such operations are actually not binary, however, because the, "decision," is the outcome of the whole process (which is oftern referred to as a, "decision tree," in computer programs among other algorithms).
Pussy-cat - you are negating the point of the thread - as in a final ULTIMATE decision IS binary.

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 9:14 pm Even if the very first comparison resulted in a match between the value criteria and the actual value, that would still not be a, "binary," decision, because for there to be forty possible different values the criteria would have to be a minimum of six binary bits that would have to be compared. Most computers systems operate with eight bit groups (called a bytes), sixteen bits (hexidecimal systems) and 32-bit and 64-bit for floating point (math) operations (flops), for example.

Binary has a very specific meaning always implying, "one of two," but very few real decision are selections from only two alternatives. Even in computers, individual steps might be reduced to selections between two of all possible choices, reaching a decision by a process of elimination, but that is not what human decisions are. Choices like, "only those over 21 years old are allowed," and, "I'll take everyone on the left," are ubiquitous. If all that is intended by calling all decisions, "binary," is that every decision is a decision between what is chosen and what isn't, calling that, "binary," is a kind of equivocation.
I'm starting to wonder whether you have ever coded NE thing. Don't dictate to me about computer logic.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by attofishpi »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:36 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:50 pm It ain't rocket science. What decision do you make that is not binary? In this or that?
What does a non-binary decision that someone makes have to do with "reducing a perception"?

So, say for example, I'm choosing between having a tuna, a chicken, or a turkey sandwich. That's non-binary decision that I'd make. What does that have to do with "reducing a perception to a finite, binary conclusion"?
Er, did you ultimately choose YES or NO to a particular selection - see response to the spineless pussy cat above if you still need clarification.

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:36 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:50 pmWhat is a different "philosophy" - ....er, let me guess, the one that you accept from preconceived concepts, some sap that U can agree with?

ULTIMATELY the aim of LOGIC is binary. A final decision. This or That.
So, what I said was that different people--so, let's say, for example, maybe Socrates versus Wilfrid Sellars--those are two different philosophers--have different goals in doing philosophy. For example, we might say that Socrates' goal was to "examine one's life so as to reflect upon our everyday motivations and values and to subsequently inquire into what real worth, if any, they have," whereas Wilfrid Sellars might say that his goal was "to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term." Those are two different "points" of philosophy from two different philosophers. Different philosophers have different points in doing philosophy. So there's no one "ultimate point." It depends on who we ask.
Then you are clearly missing the point of my OP. Whether Socrat or some other dude were debating logically something, they would both be targetting a rational agreement, THAT IS BINARY. - they would either agree with each other OR continue arguing, perhaps ad infinitum.

Comprende?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by Terrapin Station »

attofishpi wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:45 pm Er, did you ultimately choose YES or NO to a particular selection -
Not really. It's not like you narrow it down to one thing and then contemplate yes or no for it. You choose between three things.
Then you are clearly missing the point of my OP. Whether Socrat or some other dude were debating logically something, they would both be targetting a rational agreement, THAT IS BINARY.
You're claiming that they might be doing something that isn't a conscious goal present in their minds?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:56 pm Not really. It's not like you narrow it down to one thing and then contemplate yes or no for it. You choose between three things.
Are you choosing between three things?

It's either a yes; or a no.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by attofishpi »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:01 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:56 pm Not really. It's not like you narrow it down to one thing and then contemplate yes or no for it. You choose between three things.
Are you choosing between three things?

It's either a yes; or a no.
Oi! Do u mind, sometimes I get a tiny bit of pleasure about pointing out such things!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by attofishpi »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:56 pm
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:45 pmThen you are clearly missing the point of my OP. Whether Socrat or some other dude were debating logically something, they would both be targetting a rational agreement, THAT IS BINARY.
You're claiming that they might be doing something that isn't a conscious goal present in their minds?
What? Not sure what you are implying?
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by simplicity »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:12 pm Surely, it must be to take out any subjective abstraction that we perceive and attempt to reduce that subjective perception of reality, all the way down to a finite binary conclusion..., or am I missing the mark?
Philosophy is a process of discovery whose primary goal is the realization of the limits of human intelligence.

Once understood, you can dispense with the over-thinking and get on with the doing.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:12 pm Surely, it must be to take out any subjective abstraction that we perceive and attempt to reduce that subjective perception of reality, all the way down to a finite binary conclusion..., or am I missing the mark?
Definition as the formation of concepts with these concepts being phenomena considering they are images which exist by "pointing to".
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by Terrapin Station »

attofishpi wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:06 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:56 pm
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:45 pmThen you are clearly missing the point of my OP. Whether Socrat or some other dude were debating logically something, they would both be targetting a rational agreement, THAT IS BINARY.
You're claiming that they might be doing something that isn't a conscious goal present in their minds?
What? Not sure what you are implying?
So for example, if they don't have a consciously present thought to the effect of "I'm targeting a rational agreement," is it the case that that's a goal they have?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by attofishpi »

simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:28 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:12 pm Surely, it must be to take out any subjective abstraction that we perceive and attempt to reduce that subjective perception of reality, all the way down to a finite binary conclusion..., or am I missing the mark?
Philosophy is a process of discovery whose primary goal is the realization of the limits of human intelligence.
..nah

simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:28 pm Once understood, you can dispense with the over-thinking and get on with the doing.
If you have reached this boundary - this 'limit of human intelligence', then how can you over-think something?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by attofishpi »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:04 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:06 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:56 pm

You're claiming that they might be doing something that isn't a conscious goal present in their minds?
What? Not sure what you are implying?
So for example, if they don't have a consciously present thought to the effect of "I'm targeting a rational agreement," is it the case that that's a goal they have?
I am not sure why two or more people having a debate would not all have the goal of reaching agreement via rational logical reason and deduction, such that if they were all of different opinions prior to the debate, surely their goal as individuals would be to convince the others to agree with their own?
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by simplicity »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:49 am
simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:28 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:12 pm Surely, it must be to take out any subjective abstraction that we perceive and attempt to reduce that subjective perception of reality, all the way down to a finite binary conclusion..., or am I missing the mark?
Philosophy is a process of discovery whose primary goal is the realization of the limits of human intelligence.
..nah

simplicity wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:28 pm Once understood, you can dispense with the over-thinking and get on with the doing.
If you have reached this boundary - this 'limit of human intelligence', then how can you over-think something?
Because that's the way people are. Even though they know something they are doing that will fail, they do it just the same because they cannot see the truth of the matter.

Almost everybody who seriously delves into philosophy eventually hits the wall, that is, the limits of their [our] ability to intellectualize reality. Unfortunately, extremely few take it beyond to discover the non-intellectual, instead opting to bang their heads against said wall for the rest of their lives.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is the ultimate point of "PHILOSOPHY"?

Post by Terrapin Station »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:51 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:04 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:06 pm

What? Not sure what you are implying?
So for example, if they don't have a consciously present thought to the effect of "I'm targeting a rational agreement," is it the case that that's a goal they have?
I am not sure why two or more people having a debate would not all have the goal of reaching agreement via rational logical reason and deduction, such that if they were all of different opinions prior to the debate, surely their goal as individuals would be to convince the others to agree with their own?
So, for example, someone might only have in mind to share their different point of view.

Or maybe they only have in mind for the other person to be able to understand something they don't clearly understand; but there's no thought of having the other person agree (agreement isn't the same thing as and isn't implied by understanding).

Those are just two example of the many things they might have in mind.

But that wasn't the question really. The question was whether you believe that people can have a goal that's not actually present-to-consciousness for them.
Post Reply