Poll on the validity of two arguments

[Logik]

You also said that all metaphysical claims are bullshit which makes these statements contradictory
Because if metaphysics is logic and metaphysical claims are bullshit that means logic is bullshit too
Since logic is the foundation of mathematics and mathematics is deductive then this cannot be true

It's only contradictory if you don't recognise the distinction between the two conceptions of Metaphysics.

Metaphysics treated as a separate/isolated field from logic is bullshit. Metaphysics as the "first principles" of things is bullshit.
This is how most people understand/conceptualise Metaphysics.

In my claim I am saying that Metaphysics as isomorphic to logic. I am removing the need for the Logic/Metaphysics distinction. I am saying they are the exact same thing and anybody who draws a distinction between Logic and Metaphysics is mistaken.

One less dualism.

When I say "Metaphysics is bullshit" I mean the dualistic conception.

[surreptitious57]

Metaphysics literally means beyond physics so I equate it more to ontology than to something like logic
Because logic can be demonstrated and it is also useful which is more than can be said for metaphysics

Metaphysics is a woo word and I try to avoid them since they deal with everything that cannot be observed
I would never in a million years think logic was its synonym and it is still too much a woo word for me now

[Age]

If you can not or will not clarify some thing that you, yourself, wrote, then that is NOT blaming you, that is just a FACT.

The only relevant fact here is that you are arguing about what the word "we" may mean.

Now that depends on how you are defining the word 'arguing' here.

But by the way I NEVER disagreed with what the word 'we' may mean because you NEVER explained what you meant when you used the word 'we'. Nor have I even contemplated what the word 'we' may mean. I have only asked you who/what are you referring to when you used the 'we' word in the phrase "As far as 'we' know.

If you do NOT know because you have NEVER thought about it before and just used that word and phrase unconsciously or sub-consciously, then so be it. But going off on completely irrelevant tangents is not helping you at all.

If you don't know, look it up in a dictionary, because that's how I use it myself.
EB

No matter what dictionary I look in they will NEVER explain to me who/what speakpigeon was referring to when the 'we' word was used in the following sentence that they them self wrote; "As far as 'we' know".

Again, if you want to accurately know the validity or not of YOUR argument, from another's perspective, then you NEED to be able to clarify the words and the terms that YOU, your self, uses.

Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?

[Logik]

Metaphysics literally means beyond physics so I equate it more to ontology than to something like logic
Because logic can be demonstrated and it is also useful which is more than can be said for metaphysics
Metaphysics is a woo word and I try to avoid them since they deal with everything that cannot be observed
I would never in a million years think logic was its synonym and it is still too much a woo word for me now

Observe that you are using language to speak about metaphysics.
To say what metaphysics is and what it isn't.
To describe its utility or lack thereof.
To reason about it.

It seems pertinently obvious that whatever you think about Metaphysics is describable in some set of semantics/grammar/syntax e.g a language.

The only question that remains is how to navigate around Tarski's undefinability theorem.

Truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

You need a meta-metaphysical language to speak about your metaphysical language. Recursion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive ... e_language

[Speakpigeon]

I voted that they were both valid.

Good. Thanks.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I meant: the material and mental are one and the same.

OK, but historically, the default view was initially to ignore the mind altogether. We only learned latter about the mind, and still later to separate mind and matter. Children recapitulate this process within a few years.

It's akin to a sort of cognitive optical illusion that we percieve the same world twice.

Possibly but we don't actually know that it is an illusion. We know our mind but we can only believe there's a material world. It's an epistemological dualism we can't apparently reduce. We may tell ourselves metaphysical stories but the divide remains. And this is precisely what explains both the position of materialist and of spiritualists. Each chooses the one side he prefers.
Still, if you can prove somehow but in a rational way, i.e. facts and logic, that the material and the spiritual are one and the same, please explain!

This position is outside Western philosophy alltogether and is at odds with materialism. For materialism we have to go crazy twice. First we need to divide the individsible reality into a made-up material and a made-up mental realm, and then we need to throw out the mental. It takes some time to start to see the double twist.

You don't really need to be crazy. Being dogmatic is enough!
EB

[Speakpigeon]

If you can not or will not clarify some thing that you, yourself, wrote, then that is NOT blaming you, that is just a FACT.

The only relevant fact here is that you are arguing about what the word "we" may mean.

Now that depends on how you are defining the word 'arguing' here.

But by the way I NEVER disagreed with what the word 'we' may mean because you NEVER explained what you meant when you used the word 'we'. Nor have I even contemplated what the word 'we' may mean. I have only asked you who/what are you referring to when you used the 'we' word in the phrase "As far as 'we' know.

If you do NOT know because you have NEVER thought about it before and just used that word and phrase unconsciously or sub-consciously, then so be it. But going off on completely irrelevant tangents is not helping you at all.

If you don't know, look it up in a dictionary, because that's how I use it myself.
EB

No matter what dictionary I look in they will NEVER explain to me who/what speakpigeon was referring to when the 'we' word was used in the following sentence that they them self wrote; "As far as 'we' know".

Again, if you want to accurately know the validity or not of YOUR argument, from another's perspective, then you NEED to be able to clarify the words and the terms that YOU, your self, uses.

Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?

Sorry, I won't repeat myself.
I'm sure we all understand what we means.
EB

[Atla]

I meant: the material and mental are one and the same.

OK, but historically, the default view was initially to ignore the mind altogether. We only learned latter about the mind, and still later to separate mind and matter. Children recapitulate this process within a few years.

It's akin to a sort of cognitive optical illusion that we percieve the same world twice.

Possibly but we don't actually know that it is an illusion. We know our mind but we can only believe there's a material world. It's an epistemological dualism we can't apparently reduce. We may tell ourselves metaphysical stories but the divide remains. And this is precisely what explains both the position of materialist and of spiritualists. Each chooses the one side he prefers.
Still, if you can prove somehow but in a rational way, i.e. facts and logic, that the material and the spiritual are one and the same, please explain!

This position is outside Western philosophy alltogether and is at odds with materialism. For materialism we have to go crazy twice. First we need to divide the individsible reality into a made-up material and a made-up mental realm, and then we need to throw out the mental. It takes some time to start to see the double twist.

You don't really need to be crazy. Being dogmatic is enough!
EB

Depends on what you mean by "historically". Going back further, before dualistic thinking was invented, and human cognition wasn't yet split, "mind" couldn't have been ignored.
You have it backwards of course, the burden of proof is on the dualistic thinker: to justify their extra claim, they should somehow prove in a rational way that there are two realms/substances/aspects/whatever instead these two being the same said twice. And that's a difficult task as it is a claim unsupported by any scientific finding.

[Logik]

You don't really need to be crazy. Being dogmatic is enough!
EB

You don’t think you are dogmatic by blindly accepting the axioms of classical logic?

[Age]

The only relevant fact here is that you are arguing about what the word "we" may mean.

Now that depends on how you are defining the word 'arguing' here.

But by the way I NEVER disagreed with what the word 'we' may mean because you NEVER explained what you meant when you used the word 'we'. Nor have I even contemplated what the word 'we' may mean. I have only asked you who/what are you referring to when you used the 'we' word in the phrase "As far as 'we' know.

If you do NOT know because you have NEVER thought about it before and just used that word and phrase unconsciously or sub-consciously, then so be it. But going off on completely irrelevant tangents is not helping you at all.

If you don't know, look it up in a dictionary, because that's how I use it myself.
EB

No matter what dictionary I look in they will NEVER explain to me who/what speakpigeon was referring to when the 'we' word was used in the following sentence that they them self wrote; "As far as 'we' know".

Again, if you want to accurately know the validity or not of YOUR argument, from another's perspective, then you NEED to be able to clarify the words and the terms that YOU, your self, uses.

Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?

Sorry, I won't repeat myself.




I'm sure we all understand what we means.
EB

Thank you for providing another great example of what I actually have been saying here. Without you first clarifying who/what you are referring to then the correct answer, of which you are seeking, can NOT be given.

In your sentence here does the first 'we' refer to the exact same people as the second 'we' does?

[Speakpigeon]

Depends on what you mean by "historically".

You're right. I meant since the dawn of mankind and even before.

Going back further, before dualistic thinking was invented, and human cognition wasn't yet split, "mind" couldn't have been ignored.

Just imagine Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. I don't think they would have even noticed they had a mind.
And there's a very good reason for that, Our mind was never meant to be possibly eclipsing our awareness of the material world where the dangers were immediately present. Our first glimpse of our inner world would have to have been insanity and all mental disorders. But at the time, most of those afflicted would have died soon enough. Only a few mentally deranged people would have survived the harshness of the times. And these would have been ones who invented for themselves the social role of shaman, to save their own life. Those would have been the people who started the mind business.

You have it backwards of course, the burden of proof is on the dualistic thinker: to justify their extra claim, they should somehow prove in a rational way that there are two realms/substances/aspects/whatever instead these two being the same said twice.

Me, I don't care either way because as I already explained, it's likely we won't be able to prove anything. It's a fact we know our mind but we can only believe in the reality of material world. I don't need to prove anything. We're all like that. Listen to people, whatever they say can be understood through this duality.

And that's a difficult task as it is a claim unsupported by any scientific finding.

Sure, I agree, but on the other hand, science is belief. And the reverse is true. There is also nothing in our own mind that proves the existence of the material world. All we know are our impression that we are perceiving the material world.
Unless you could prove otherwise.
EB

[Atla]

Depends on what you mean by "historically".

You're right. I meant since the dawn of mankind and even before.

Going back further, before dualistic thinking was invented, and human cognition wasn't yet split, "mind" couldn't have been ignored.

Just imagine Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. I don't think they would have even noticed they had a mind.
And there's a very good reason for that, Our mind was never meant to be possibly eclipsing our awareness of the material world where the dangers were immediately present. Our first glimpse of our inner world would have to have been insanity and all mental disorders. But at the time, most of those afflicted would have died soon enough. Only a few mentally deranged people would have survived the harshness of the times. And these would have been ones who invented for themselves the social role of shaman, to save their own life. Those would have been the people who started the mind business.

As I see is it you take the split-minded cognition and project it onto the dawn of mankind and before, arriving at the wrong picture. The Neanderthal didn't notice that there is a mind realm because there wasn't anything to notice. There was just existence. Later humans developed a strong sense of self-awareness, and then they could turn to an "inner world", and then they arrived at the split cognition of inner world/mind vs outer world/material world.

The same happens even today in young children, they develop the self-awareness around 2-3 years of age and before that no dualistic differentiation is made, they simply are as if one with (continuous with) the universe.

You have it backwards of course, the burden of proof is on the dualistic thinker: to justify their extra claim, they should somehow prove in a rational way that there are two realms/substances/aspects/whatever instead these two being the same said twice.

Me, I don't care either way because as I already explained, it's likely we won't be able to prove anything. It's a fact we know our mind but we can only believe in the reality of material world. I don't need to prove anything. We're all like that. Listen to people, whatever they say can be understood through this duality.

And that's a difficult task as it is a claim unsupported by any scientific finding.

Sure, I agree, but on the other hand, science is belief. And the reverse is true. There is also nothing in our own mind that proves the existence of the material world. All we know are our impression that we are perceiving the material world.
Unless you could prove otherwise.
EB

The view with the least assumptions is usually correct, and dualism is an extra assumption compared to lack of dualism. And ultimately nothing is provable, but if we aren't trying to find the best guess then there is absolutely no point in any kind of philosophical debate. It's also not a fact that we know our mind, for that matter, that's just a rather suspect belief. Strictly speaking there is no "we", "know" or "mind", all we can say that there is something rather than absolutely nothing. Well let's agree to disagree then.

[Speakpigeon]

You don't really need to be crazy. Being dogmatic is enough!
EB

You don’t think you are dogmatic by blindly accepting the axioms of classical logic?

You are definitely brain-dead.
Where is it I said I blindingly accepted the axioms of classical logic?
And what are they, by the way?
Ah, yes:

The Law of Identity
Metaphysically, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

Interesting, no?

The Law of the Excluded Middle
Metaphysically, this law asserts "anything is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies"

Still very interesting, no?!

The Law of Non-contradiction
Metaphysically, this law asserts: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false."

Good?
OK, me, I have my eyes wide open and I hereby solemnly swear I accept those three laws as the laws of logic, where logic is conceived as a natural capability of the human mind.
That is, I don't think anyone can argue anything cogent without abiding by these laws. This means that while possibly people might be able to think outside of these laws, they can't possibly cooperate with other debaters in a rational debate unless they abide by these laws.

Retorsion
Retorsion is the philosophical procedure whereby one attempts to establish a thesis by uncovering a performative inconsistency in anyone who denies it.

Still, here again is your chance to prove you're not a moronic idiot. Give a convincing example of a rational debate where people start from some interesting thesis, or set of premises, and get through debating alone to some interesting conclusion that somehow follow from the thesis or premises.
Oh, Jeez, what am I doing here?! Is it Alzheimer?
EB

[Logik]

You don't really need to be crazy. Being dogmatic is enough!
EB

You don’t think you are dogmatic by blindly accepting the axioms of classical logic?

You are definitely brain-dead.
Where is it I said I blindingly accepted the axioms of classical logic?
And what are they, by the way?
Ah, yes:

The Law of Identity
Metaphysically, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

Interesting, no?

The Law of the Excluded Middle
Metaphysically, this law asserts "anything is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies"

Still very interesting, no?!

The Law of Non-contradiction
Metaphysically, this law asserts: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false."

Good?
OK, me, I have my eyes wide open and I hereby solemnly swear I accept those three laws as the laws of logic, where logic is conceived as a natural capability of the human mind.
That is, I don't think anyone can argue anything cogent without abiding by these laws. This means that while possibly people might be able to think outside of these laws, they can't possibly cooperate with other debaters in a rational debate unless they abide by these laws.

Retorsion
Retorsion is the philosophical procedure whereby one attempts to establish a thesis by uncovering a performative inconsistency in anyone who denies it.

Still, here again is your chance to prove you're not a moronic idiot. Give a convincing example of a rational debate where people start from some interesting thesis, or set of premises, and get through debating alone to some interesting conclusion that somehow follow from the thesis or premises.
Oh, Jeez, what am I doing here?! Is it Alzheimer?
EB

I will provide a “rational proof” that I am not a “moronic idiot” when you define the criteria for rationality in Lambda calculus.

Till then - you can’t frame the debate because you are dogmatic.

You are yet to figure out that you can think for yourself.

[Speakpigeon]

As I see is it you take the split-minded cognition and project it onto the dawn of mankind and before, arriving at the wrong picture. The Neanderthal didn't notice that there is a mind realm because there wasn't anything to notice. There was just existence. Later humans developed a strong sense of self-awareness, and then they could turn to an "inner world", and then they arrived at the split cognition of inner world/mind vs outer world/material world.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.
Except that people had a mind already even before developing self-awareness.

The same happens even today in young children, they develop the self-awareness around 2-3 years of age and before that no dualistic differentiation is made, they simply are as if one with (continuous with) the universe.

Yes, it's exactly what I said.
But young children are not normally self-absorbed. They are essentially paying attention to what seems to be going on around them at least as soon as they can have some kind of thought process.

The view with the least assumptions is usually correct,

You mean, like science is wrong because of all those theoretical complications? Let's do God. So much more simple.

and dualism is an extra assumption compared to lack of dualism.

My own kind of dualism isn't an assumption.

And ultimately nothing is provable, but if we aren't trying to find the best guess then there is absolutely no point in any kind of philosophical debate. It's also not a fact that we know our mind, for that matter, that's just a rather suspect belief. Strictly speaking there is no "we", "know" or "mind", all we can say that there is something rather than absolutely nothing. Well let's agree to disagree then.

So, you don't know pain and what is pain whenever you are in pain?!
Whoa.
EB