Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
I see.
So logical arguments will never impress you.
Why do you always reduce everything to black-and-white? Never/always. Where is your "sometimes"? Where is the nuance in your thought?
It's not that logical arguments "never" impress me. It's that ALL logical arguments are equal. I am equally impressed, or equally unimpressed - because they are logical, and therefore - the same.
By what objective mechanism or quality would I prefer/choose (value?) one logical argument over another? It's
Buridan's ass applied to arguments, with the mild difference that I can choose not to choose (an argument) without dying.
What would impress me more than logical arguments is a non-contingent philosophy.
But that's impossible since its all Philosophy is contingent on humans inventing it
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
No, the methods aren't: but the input is. The rules of logic are actually quite well defined.
Defined BY HUMANS and therefore contingent.
The methods are a consequence of the rules.
When you re-defined the rules - the methods change.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Yes, but the fault there is in the axioms, not the method.
Is that so? How do you decide which axioms are 'better' without objective pragma?
What objective method did you use to determine objective pragma?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Logic has its own rules. They're not defined by individuals in an
ad hoc way.
Yes they are. That is why we have more than one logic.
Because different rules (logics!) were defined by different humans in ad hoc ways.
A "logic" is a consequence of its rules.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Yes, that would be the problem. If you don't recognize that logic is better than illogic or
ad hoc rationalizing, then
False dichotomy.
It's not logic or illogic. It's "Which logic? There are so many Logics to
choose from! Like Truths". Like Religions.
Here's a short list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Much like the favourite Atheist question is "How do you know that your Religion is the correct one?"
My favourite question is "How do you know that your Logic is the correct one?"
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
it would be impossible to persuade of you of anything. Fair enough.
t is impossible for YOU to persuade me of anything - you aren't selling anything I am buying.
It is not impossible for me to persuade myself.
But it only begs the questions:
1. Why do you want to persuade me of anything?
2. What would persuade you that it's in your own, best interest to not try and persuade me of anything?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Then perhaps you're not quite clear on the difference between "logic" and "narrative." That seems evident now.
There is no difference! You are the one insisting on the distinction between logic and language. Presumably because you think one is prescriptive and one isn't.
In the absence of prescriptive rules, the only difference between logic and language is that formal systems of logic force more rigour, rigidity, reduced vocabularies etc.
It's just formalisms. Platonic forms.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
That's the function logic would serve for us in this discussion...if you believed in it. But since you say you don't, I think it's not "shared pragma" we lack, but shared confidence in logic.
Q.E.D you are subservient to logic.
Appeal to authority.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Same problem: "not work" for what purpose? What establishes that that purpose is legitimate, or even in your real interest, whatever you happen to think?
I establish it. To the best of my self-knowledge, other-people-knowledge and understanding of individual and collective interests.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Oh. You mean "free will" is "choose your own purpose"?
It's at least one aspect of it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Well, since you didn't make yourself exist, you can't say for what purpose you exist.
Now that I am autonomous - I get to decide.
I get to continue with the original purpose proposed for me, or rebel against it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
You might have some idea of a contingent "purpose" you are choosing to pursue, but that won't automatically connect you to any ultimate purpose at all.
I don't believe in Ultimate anything. Because all "Ultimates" are contingent. Even God.
God is contingent on me inventing hm.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
How so? "Anomie" just means "lawlessness," or better, "the absence of any rule or guideline in a given situation." The is-ought gap has to do with morality, not teleology.
Morality (values) is the narrow interpretation of the is-ought gap.
The broad interpretation is the present-future gap.
You can't arrive at a future "ought" from a present "is". It boils down to two question: What should we change? What can we change?
Paris is the capital of France, but we ought to change that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
To "invent" a purpose for your existence, where no such thing actually exists, is simply to self-deceive. One can do that.
You can interpret it that way - sure. It can't possibly be deception when I am fully aware of the choice.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
I did not say you were. I said that Postmodernists are. Do you regard yourself among them?
Whether I regard myself as a Postmodernist is immaterial - I regard myself as a hypocrite.
Not by choice, mind you. It's for the lack of a better alternative (having found no Philosophy which fails to live up to any of its principles).
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
It's not so easy as that.
Nobody says it is, but If you have better mechanisms - share them with us.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
For example, I would say that subjecting children to Postmodern indoctrination is "harm."
I would say that subjecting children to any indoctrination is harm.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
You might say it's "teaching them how it is.". You might say that teaching about God is harm. I might say that failure to teach them about God is harm.
I might say - it's giving them perspectives. If my children want to be Christians - I'll join them in church.
It's how tolerance works.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
A racist would say that miscegenation is harm. A multiculturalist would say that being a racist is harm. A eugenicist would argue that letting certain people procreate is harm, and sane people would say that practicing eugenics is harm...
It's not so clear a concept as you suggest. Not nearly.
I never suggested it's clear or trivial - you are the one who wants it to be that way. It's ludicrously hard, non-trivial and not always perfect.
It's the least worst option of all the alternatives.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Then I'm afraid you would simply be intolerant, full stop.
To somebody who only knows how to think in black-and-white - that would be true. And yet I tolerate Christians
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Because nobody ever "tolerates" things they like.
Ohhh, how cute! You are trying to appropriate the excluded middle to make your argument
You are going to turn the like-indifferent-dislike continuum into a like-dislike false dichotomy.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Oh, so when you said you had knowledge of this through "objective, scientific recognition of reality" you were kidding.
I found no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have evidence - produce it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
Please...go ahead. I'd like to know.
You can't know. You are just going to have to accept to deal with this uncertainty
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm
I have to wonder why you're here, then. You seem to spend a great deal of time on something you say "sucks."
I am empirically testing my hypothesis THAT all philosophies suck.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm
Computer languages aren't "languages." They're mathematical and symbolic sequences used to prompt mere machines to produce outcomes.
You mean like you use English symbols to prompt
people to change their
minds?
No, because there's no "mind" in a computer. That's the point. It's capable, if sophisticated enough, in replicating the appearance of those operations, but never in genuinely doing the operations. Computers, as you know, are just machines. So they have no mind to change.
[/quote]
But there is mind in the humans whose minds you are trying to change.
You can use language to alter people's behaviour.
You can use language to alter a computer's behaviour.
For all practical purpose - we can say that the computer has a 'mind' - even if it's a primitive mind.