creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
It does not follow from the fact that what I've argued is true(and you cannot find an actual counterexample) that my argument is true by virtue of definitional fiat. The notion of thought/belief I'm putting forth is true as a result of it's being an accurate description of what all thought/belief have in common that makes them what they are. It's true by virtue of the method I used to arrive at it.
Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.
I don't understand your argument or your goal posts to give you a counter examples and it seems that since you are the only one who does there is nothing stopping you from claiming that any counter-example I give you fits your model.
So I guess even in a way of reproducibility your hypothesis fails. You can't even teach me how to use it in practice...
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.
You must be the first person I know who celebrates the non-falsifiability of their hypothesis
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:35 pm
It's also verifiable, testable, and thus falsifiable... It's based upon neither pure induction nor logical possibility alone. I've no idea why you cannot seem to grasp this.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:32 pm
It does not follow from the fact that what I've argued is true(and you cannot find an actual counterexample) that my argument is true by virtue of definitional fiat. The notion of thought/belief I'm putting forth is true as a result of it's being an accurate description of what all thought/belief have in common that makes them what they are. It's true by virtue of the method I used to arrive at it.
Still waiting on you to come up with a single example to the contrary.
I don't understand your argument or your goal posts to give you a counter examples and it seems that since you are the only one who does there is nothing stopping you from claiming that any counter-example I give you fits your model.
That could be true. I'm not certain of your sincerity. Either you are and do not understand or you are not and do. I've found that many so-called 'professionals' do but will do everything they can to minimize the impact of what I bring to bear for it's either that or admitting to having something wrong at a fundamental level. Rhetoric is easier than revisiting the scope of logical consequence.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:35 pm
It's also verifiable, testable, and thus falsifiable... It's based upon neither pure induction nor logical possibility alone. I've no idea why you cannot seem to grasp this.
Then define what a falsifier would look like...
How many fucking times do you need to see the criterion? A falsifier would be an example of the attribution of meaning that does not include something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:39 pm
How many fucking times do you need to see the criterion? A falsifier would be an example of the attribution of meaning that does not include something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things.
Well, lets see - you have no testable/bounded definition for 'meaning' and so I don't know what you mean by ATTRIBUTION of meaning.
You have no testable/bounded definition for 'significance'.
And so it's unclear what consequences you are predicting.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm
If you do not know how to falsify a universal claim about each and every example of the attribution of meaning it's not my problem.
Well yeah, that's probably because nobody knows what 'meaning' is. The best definition I have is Shannon information.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 8:45 pm
If you do not know how to falsify a universal claim about each and every example of the attribution of meaning it's not my problem.
Well yeah, that's probably because nobody knows what 'meaning' is. The best definition I have is Shannon information.
You mentioned that article earlier. It's not a problem for my position. I'm not claiming to have 'solved' anything. That 'problem', like so so many others, is a consequence of working from an utterly inadequate framework based upon gross misunderstanding of what thought/belief is.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:02 pm
You mentioned that article earlier. It's not a problem for my position. I'm not claiming to have 'solved' anything. That 'problem', like so so many others, is a consequence of working from an utterly inadequate framework based upon gross misunderstanding of what thought/belief is.
Well. I have my framework. Thought is computation. Belief is software. Knowledge is memory.
It's an adequate framework for me - because it works in practice.
Beyond that I don't care about ontological claims about thought/belief. All models are wrong - some are useful.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:02 pm
You mentioned that article earlier. It's not a problem for my position. I'm not claiming to have 'solved' anything. That 'problem', like so so many others, is a consequence of working from an utterly inadequate framework based upon gross misunderstanding of what thought/belief is.
Well. I have my framework. Thought is computation. Belief is software. Knowledge is memory.
It's an adequate framework for me - because it works in practice.
Beyond that I don't care about ontological claims about thought/belief. All models are wrong - some are useful.
That would explain your aversion to truth and love of self-contradiction.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:02 pm
You mentioned that article earlier. It's not a problem for my position. I'm not claiming to have 'solved' anything. That 'problem', like so so many others, is a consequence of working from an utterly inadequate framework based upon gross misunderstanding of what thought/belief is.
Well. I have my framework. Thought is computation. Belief is software. Knowledge is memory.
It's an adequate framework for me - because it works in practice.
Beyond that I don't care about ontological claims about thought/belief...
And yet you've spent considerable time attempting to refute the position I'm arguing for, which could be called "ontological" although I wouldn't call it such...
creativesoul wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:02 pm
You mentioned that article earlier. It's not a problem for my position. I'm not claiming to have 'solved' anything. That 'problem', like so so many others, is a consequence of working from an utterly inadequate framework based upon gross misunderstanding of what thought/belief is.
Well. I have my framework. Thought is computation. Belief is software. Knowledge is memory.
It's an adequate framework for me - because it works in practice.
Beyond that I don't care about ontological claims about thought/belief...
And yet you've spent considerable time attempting to refute the position I'm arguing for, which could be called "ontological" although I wouldn't call it such...
Ever heard of a performative contradiction?
It isn't a performative contradiction because I accept the adage that all models are wrong. Even mine.
The difference is that "you know you got it right", whereas I know I merely got it less wrong.
I know why my model is incomplete and so I know how to falsify it. You don't.
creativesoul wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:49 am
That would explain your aversion to truth and love of self-contradiction.
It would also explain your delight for equivocation and false-positive classification of valid arguments as contradictions. In the language of statistics you are guilty of a Type I error.
Proofs (arguments!) compute. Algorithms contain no contradictions. Only bugs.
If you had spent your time getting a PhD in physics, mathematics or computer science instead of philosophy you might have learned why that's true
Instead you've ended up as another adherent to the Correspondence theory religion.