|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 28, 2022 7:04:29 GMT
The problem 9x always makes is to imply that all ideas require logical definition. Many ideas exist purely as a matter of pragmatical empiricism.
aka common observation
Defining the term 'boundary' is the perfect example, because to define it, you imply that there already is a boundary between what it is, and what it is not. The very acting of defining thus assumes you know what a boundary already is in order to even begin defining anything. Like defining what is a definition. What often gets labeled 'a circular argument' is not an argument, but a simple common observation.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC DIRECTLY
The psychological issue going on here is actually obsessive-compulsive analysis. The analytical mind needs something substantial to chew on, or else it goes in its own circles.
solipsis
Kinda like Marvin the paranoid android.
I was rehearsing my 100x tables when i realized that i had better get stuck into writing serious computer algorithms to keep that analytical beast occupied.
Or else it acquires a subconscious ego of its own. As we see all around us here.
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 30, 2022 19:36:16 GMT
The problem 9x always makes is to imply that all ideas require logical definition. Many ideas exist purely as a matter of pragmatical empiricism.
aka common observation
Defining the term 'boundary' is the perfect example, because to define it, you imply that there already is a boundary between what it is, and what it is not. The very acting of defining thus assumes you know what a boundary already is in order to even begin defining anything. Like defining what is a definition. What often gets labeled 'a circular argument'is not an argument, but a simple common observation.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC DIRECTLY
The psychological issue going on here is actually obsessive-compulsive analysis. The analytical mind needs something substantial to chew on, or else it goes in its own circles.
solipsis
Kinda like Marvin the paranoid android.
I was rehearsing my 100x tables when i realized that i had better get stuck into writing serious computer algorithms to keep that analytical beast occupied.
Or else it acquires a subconscious ego of its own. As we see all around us here.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 31, 2022 16:30:22 GMT
The problem 9x always makes is to imply that all ideas require logical definition. Many ideas exist purely as a matter of pragmatical empiricism.
aka common observation
Defining the term 'boundary' is the perfect example, because to define it, you imply that there already is a boundary between what it is, and what it is not. The very acting of defining thus assumes you know what a boundary already is in order to even begin defining anything. Like defining what is a definition. What often gets labeled 'a circular argument'is not an argument, but a simple common observation.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC DIRECTLY
The psychological issue going on here is actually obsessive-compulsive analysis. The analytical mind needs something substantial to chew on, or else it goes in its own circles.
solipsis
Kinda like Marvin the paranoid android.
I was rehearsing my 100x tables when i realized that i had better get stuck into writing serious computer algorithms to keep that analytical beast occupied.
Or else it acquires a subconscious ego of its own. As we see all around us here.
Not all circular arguments lead to contradiction. 1+1=2 is a circular argument because 2=1+1
the point i make is precisely that circular arguments can be correct, but not as a matter of logic
1+1=2 is ultimately a true observation
all such pure math proofs, no matter how complex require such circularity
but not all applied math is circular either
(like statistics)
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Oct 31, 2022 19:49:40 GMT
Circular Arguments Expose Themselves Through Contradiction, Circulatory Arguments Always Lead To Contradiction, The Same Way A Liar Eventually Exposes Themselves By Forgetting What They Lied About. I Know Exactly When It Is Circulatory. Not all circular arguments lead to contradiction. 1+1=2 is a circular argument because 2=1+1
the point i make is precisely that circular arguments can be correct, but not as a matter of logic
1+1=2 is ultimately a true observation
all such pure math proofs, no matter how complex require such circularity
but not all applied math is circular either
(like statistics)
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 3, 2022 22:03:47 GMT
The problem 9x always makes is to imply that all ideas require logical definition. Many ideas exist purely as a matter of pragmatical empiricism.
aka common observation
Defining the term 'boundary' is the perfect example, because to define it, you imply that there already is a boundary between what it is, and what it is not. The very acting of defining thus assumes you know what a boundary already is in order to even begin defining anything. Like defining what is a definition. What often gets labeled 'a circular argument' is not an argument, but a simple common observation.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC DIRECTLY
The psychological issue going on here is actually obsessive-compulsive analysis. The analytical mind needs something substantial to chew on, or else it goes in its own circles.
solipsis
Kinda like Marvin the paranoid android.
I was rehearsing my 100x tables when i realized that i had better get stuck into writing serious computer algorithms to keep that analytical beast occupied.
Or else it acquires a subconscious ego of its own. As we see all around us here.
Pragmatic empiricism requires logic in the respect that both logic is an observation of relations between assertions and pragmatic empiricism is an observation of relations between subject and object. Considering relations are the foundation of both logic and pragmatic empiricism both are connected. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Nov 4, 2022 7:15:57 GMT
The problem 9x always makes is to imply that all ideas require logical definition. Many ideas exist purely as a matter of pragmatical empiricism.
aka common observation
Defining the term 'boundary' is the perfect example, because to define it, you imply that there already is a boundary between what it is, and what it is not. The very acting of defining thus assumes you know what a boundary already is in order to even begin defining anything. Like defining what is a definition. What often gets labeled 'a circular argument' is not an argument, but a simple common observation.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOGIC DIRECTLY
The psychological issue going on here is actually obsessive-compulsive analysis. The analytical mind needs something substantial to chew on, or else it goes in its own circles.
solipsis
Kinda like Marvin the paranoid android.
I was rehearsing my 100x tables when i realized that i had better get stuck into writing serious computer algorithms to keep that analytical beast occupied.
Or else it acquires a subconscious ego of its own. As we see all around us here.
Pragmatic empiricism requires logic in the respect that both logic is an observation of relations between assertions and pragmatic empiricism is an observation of relations between subject and object. Considering relations are the foundation of both logic and pragmatic empiricism both are connected. right
and how and were do they connect? inside a lump of soggy grey matter consisting of little more than salt water, or is it a phenomenon that is fundamentally conscious at its core
and seeing as though i certainly espouse the latter, what is the former other than the shadow?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 10, 2022 21:56:42 GMT
Pragmatic empiricism requires logic in the respect that both logic is an observation of relations between assertions and pragmatic empiricism is an observation of relations between subject and object. Considering relations are the foundation of both logic and pragmatic empiricism both are connected. right
and how and were do they connect? inside a lump of soggy grey matter consisting of little more than salt water, or is it a phenomenon that is fundamentally conscious at its core
and seeing as though i certainly espouse the latter, what is the former other than the shadow?
The looping of neurons and the looping of ideas both share the same looping form. Form is the connector between abstraction and empiricality. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 11, 2022 21:22:51 GMT
right
and how and were do they connect? inside a lump of soggy grey matter consisting of little more than salt water, or is it a phenomenon that is fundamentally conscious at its core
and seeing as though i certainly espouse the latter, what is the former other than the shadow?
The looping of neurons and the looping of ideas both share the same looping form. Form is the connector between abstraction and empiricality. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 16, 2022 21:36:24 GMT
The looping of neurons and the looping of ideas both share the same looping form. Form is the connector between abstraction and empiricality. Impulses of cellular information is the repeating of said information from point A to point B, as repetitive they are loops. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 2:23:44 GMT
Except They Don't. Neurons Are Electrical Generating Impulses Of Cellular Information To Conduct A Response / Reaction To Matter Animation Through An Incomprehensible Environment Of Data, While Ideas Are Echos Of The Universe Where People Often Say A Word And Then Hear That Word On TV Or The Radio, Showing Semblance Is Involved In The Atmosphere Of Thought, Which Is Not The Same For Neurons; Neurons Have Links And A System, But Ideas Are Merely Sentiments Of The Universe Which Is Not Based On Data Feedback, But Rather Already Pre-Existing Data, Whereas Neurons Are Buildng On Data, Meaning It's Pre-Cognitive And Cognitive. Impulses of cellular information is the repeating of said information from point A to point B, as repetitive they are loops. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 17, 2022 22:19:24 GMT
Impulses of cellular information is the repeating of said information from point A to point B, as repetitive they are loops. Looping is a universal pattern through the manifestation of similarities that result from repetition. |
|
