On Mar 19, 11:46 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174327942.401704.172470@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 3:21 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That I believe that does not discredit my pointing out the rules of lo=
gic
and the fallacies that can be committed whne those rules are not
followed.
Whether 'logic' is a product purely of the human mind, or is a property
or
reality, is not relevant to what I was arguing,
I don't think you know what youare agruing.
I don't think you know what I am arguing. Maybe that is part of the
problem.
I beleive number exists as a property without an observer (assuming you
believe that reality even exists outside of the human mind .. that the=
re
is
anything physically 'out there'). However, the IDEA of number doesn't
exist
without someone to think it
Prove that number exists as a property of nature!
Prove it doesn't ! I don't think that is a matter that one can 'prove'
either way
BUt like atheism I do not insist on anything, you do. And once again
the burden of proof is on you.
If you have two objects then there are two objects. Twoness is a property
of that set of objects. It is independant of whether or not the objects =
are
observed. It is modelled by our subjective concept of 'two'.
If.. shoulda woulda coulda... Two ness is a property imposed by human
language and opinion. There is no "two" without an observer. no two
objects are identical so there intrinsic oneness is not equal. To
assign the number 2 to objects is an act of interpretation and is
subjective.
Really .. this is going COMPELTELY off topic now, as whether numbers exist
as a property of nature has nothing to do with the logical validity of
claims of proof for the existence or otherwise of God.
You are making claims for the validity of numbers - defend yourself!
Unless God IS a number :)
The idea of number is something we use to make sense of the reality of
number. When we perceive the reality, the human mind associates the i=
dea
of
number with what it perceives.
Numbers are an invention, a tool like any other.
The idea of number is an invention to explain the natural property of
number.
There are no natural numbers.
Logic is and idea and as such cannot be independant of those
that conceive of the idea.
Logic is like math and physics. One can argue whether these have some
meaning in the physical universe outside of human thought. I don't th=
ink
we'll agree on that.
We sure won't.
Well .. I'm happy with that. Are you?
But regardless of that, I assume you would not argue with the rules of
addition and multiplication, or that the force of gravity results in
things
falling.
That is a simple misconception. Things fall and we call it the force
of gravity. There is no idea that makes things fall. Falling is a
thing that happens it is not made to happen by another thing.
But it is the mathematics of physics that the falling object obeys .. it =
is
objectively following rules that one can observe and discover and
incorporate into ones subjective model of reality.
We observe phenomena and then attach our interpretations to them.
Things would fall and have fallen long before Newton assigned to
things the property of gravity. Gravity is of no consequence to
falling objects, it is just a useful device by which we conveniently
pretend to explain things, but gravity is not an explanation but a
description of how bodies behave. Science is all descrition.
In exactly the same applies to logic as for math and physics
(logic is just a type of math). Regardless of who (if anyone) is
thinking
of it, the rules apply.
I am saying that maths and logic are dependant on
humans to conceive them as ideas.
But then how is it that the same rules of math apply regardless of the
observer?
By convention and agreement. You should not be so arrogant as to
believe that these things exist in the mind of god.
I do not even say there is a god, let alone a god with a mind. So are you
saying that it is only by convention and agreement that if you get one
object and then another object that you end up with two objects? I would
agree that the word 'two' and the idea of 'two' are subjective .. but that
the twoness that one observes and that the idea of 'two' models is
objective.
There is no objectivity here. There might be a collective subjectivity
what some call intersubjectivity, whereby many people agree upon
statements about that which they perceive.
The universe would be little different without humans.
Got to agree with you there .. although the earth would probably be a much
better place
Better for whom? I know what you are saying but "better" is also a
value judgement that would not longer be relevant without a person to
appreciate it.
I would agree that the idea of math and logic are in our minds .. just
like
the idea of an apple or a marble. But that does not preclude there be=
ing
a
corresponding physical reality that our minds are modelling.
But whatever that might be, it is not the same as our conception of
it.
I didn't say it was.
I think you should read some Kant.
Reading is alwaysa good idea.
Then you will have to dismiss you "truth from authority" and account
for the independant existence of an idea. Please let me know where
ideas exists?
Ideas are in the mind .. I think we can agree on that. The physical
realities that (some) ideas model are not just in the mind.
I did not say that there is not physical reality outside of the mind.
But ideas can be used to model (imperfectly) the physical world.
Yes .. we agree
So if all life were to suddenly perish, there would be no universe? D=
oes
the mean that for the eons before life evolved, there was no universe =
..=2E
if
so, from where did it evolve?
If all life were to perish it would not matter that there were a
universe of not.
I didn't ask if it mattered .. I asked if it existed. I was not asking f=
or
a value judgement.
The point I was making is similar to the above (world without people).
The universe would abide the destruction of humans, yes.
You are continuing to misrepresent my viewpoint.
Perhaps.. that is why I am asking questions so I can better understand wh=
at
your viewpoint actually is.
I AM saying that our
impression of the physical universe IS dependant on our preception of
it.
I totally agree
Logic, maths, politics are all ideas that attempt to represent and
model our view of reality but cannot be said to map onto it exactly.
I'd agree with politics.
Now you will need to think why is it that you can include politics but
favour logic and maths with an exaulted position?
I disagree with you when it comes to math and logic .. I regard the rules=
of
logic and math as objective.
Tell me, where exactly can you stand to view this objective universe
devoid of bias and human interest?
.. and as such they are discovered, not
invented. As we discover them, we create corresponding ideas in our mind=
as
part of our subjective model of reality. if we didn't do that, we couldn=
't
use math and logic in our thinking
There are only tools to help us describe the universe. They are good
ones but nothing more than tools invented by humans to do a job. There
is no logic or maths without humans, though there is a universe out
there.
All reality relies on perception.
Our knowledge of reality relies on perception . .that does not mean the
existence of reality does.
Once again I am not saying that.
That's fine .. I'm just working out where you stand. We agree again.
This is unavoidable and
therefore whilst me may speak of objective knowldge
we cannot point to any thing which is beyond some bias.
We can point ot it .. phyiscal objective reality has no bias.
But our ideas of it do.
But we are unable to perceive "physical objective reality"
What is it we perceive then? Are we only ever perceiving someone or
something elses ideas?
No, you are think in black and white. What we see is an interpretation
of reality. It is based upon certain expectations we hold and coloured
by our previous experience and knowledge. If we could really see
"objective physical reality"(opr) then everyone on earth would be in
complete agreement with everything. The fact that we cannot see opr is
a perfect explanation as to why there is so much disagreement and
opinion in the world.
Maybe you are talking about the act of perception in out mind. rather than
the objective reality being perceived .. ie even though it is physical
objective reality that causes physical objective events within our anatomy
that end up 'creating' perception in our mind .. those perceptions
themselves are not objective reality (which is fair enough) .. they are o=
nly
our perceptions of it and so we can never directly perceive the reality we
can only perceive our perception of it (like thinking about thinking) ?
Maybe you can explain what you really mean by 'unable to perceive "physic=
al
objective reality"'
You are trapped inside your perceptions, we can observe things from
point of view doing things which seem to casue other things to action,
but we can never know the root casues. "If I ask you why you believe
any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some
reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it.
But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at
last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or
senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without
foundation." Hume.
it is another idea that we cannot exactly model.
That does not mean it isn't real, of course, just that our minds are limi=
ted
to what they can model. Objective reality cannot exist in our minds.
I did nto say it was not "real" - what do you mean by real? You are
nearly there in Kant land.
Once premises are defined, logical argument is independant of the
observer.
Just like one plus one is two.
No.
No what? and argument cannot be independant of the observer.
Sometimes quotes hit the spot but the full
significance of them is not always understood if they do not come from
the heart (as it were).
In that case, I will hope that means that you consider me a thinking pers=
on
.. even if you do not necessarily agree with what I think.
Of course - but we seem to be reaching a similar ground.
The human mind need no knowledge of logic to operate. Ask any chi=
ld
who has never heard of it.
But children *do* use logic all the time.
MY POINT EXACTLY!!! It is just like we all seem to grasp the rules of
grammar without knowing subject/object, accusative, genitive,
ablative, etc...
We may not know the words that describe them, but we implictly underst=
and
the concepts. I don't know how that point in any way invalidates what=
I
was
originally saying about logical proofs.
You should re-read the thread then.
I know what I was saying. Is there something that you read that indicates
otherwise, as just telling me to re-read it will not mean I find what you
find.
Ideas are formed in the human mind and can be expressed externally .. =
but
logic (like math) is more than just an idea. I do not accept the prem=
ise
that everthing is an idea.
But 100% of your viewpoint of the world is formed by ideas in your
brain.
Yes .. 100% of ideas are ideas. I've not said otherwise.
But that does not mean 100% of the world is ideas in my brain (despite how
capacious it may be :)).
But everything you can possibly know about the world; 100% of your
evidence for the world; is all contained within. And as this is the
case knowledge of the objectivness of the world is illusory.
In fact none of the objective world is ideas in my
brain .. the lump of matter and enregy that is my brain is part of the
objective world though.. But there is some correspondence between the id=
eas
in my mind and what they attempt to model .. if there weren't it would not
be in any way a useful model, and I could not function.
Indeed.
There is a slight problem here as you suggest that your brain is part
of the objective world. This is so but that which is significant about
it is not observable by another, and your perception is not the same
as your brain.
There might be a certain number
of "planets" inthe "solar system", but these are both ideas which are
distilled out of our experience and observation.
The ideas of 'planets' and 'solar system' are in our minds .. but the
planets still exist, and the solar system still exists and the
number-ness
of the planets exists. Unless of course, you think that they don't
exists,
and that somehow there is a shared idea between all human observers so
when
we look through a telescope we all magically see the same things?
DUH!
Ok .. so I guess that means "No, ...
We never see exactly the same thing - not until we have mastered
simultaneous co-location. As Thales said you can never step into the
same river twice, and however slightly we cannot see exactly the same
tea-cup.
read more =BB
.
