|
Post by jonbain on Feb 19, 2023 15:45:30 GMT
This could mean a psychological state of knowing, but more vitally to this society is what the alleged academic institutions, take to be this foundation.
And if this cannot be agreed upon, then chaos and war degenerate the process further.
Be it a moral or logical answer, or both entwined...
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 12, 2023 22:20:39 GMT
The fact that we cannot predict everything necessitates logic as not universal. It can be argued however, from the other perspective, that we are not using logic to its fullest extent as we are not entirely logical beings, hence the absence of predicting everything, however this is a fallacy as well considering logic is grounded in illogical beings...it is dependent upon its opposite state. Dually we cannot predict when logic will not be used thus logic cannot predict its own limits, it cannot predict itself. Logic is a form. We believe this form is universal exactly because it allows us to predict things. We think that it allows us to predict, because it follows the thinking strategy of anyone → if logic doesn't work, nothing works either. Seems this is the end, but this is not. It means our brains work in this way. If we were half-persons/half-androids with extra memory and extra abilities we might count on our thinking abilities in other way, let's say we were not needed in simplicity. We couldn't predict if we couldn't think. To think is to arrange things within a mind, not in reality. And if such an arrangement is successful, then our thinking was correct. Was it logical? It depends on whether the laws of logic were applied. My personal thought is that it is unnecessary. There might be other ways. If a cat tastes like I banana and I tasted a cat then I tasted a banana. This is logical but untrue. Logic does not predict all things.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2023 5:04:58 GMT
Logic is a form. We believe this form is universal exactly because it allows us to predict things. We think that it allows us to predict, because it follows the thinking strategy of anyone → if logic doesn't work, nothing works either. Seems this is the end, but this is not. It means our brains work in this way. If we were half-persons/half-androids with extra memory and extra abilities we might count on our thinking abilities in other way, let's say we were not needed in simplicity. We couldn't predict if we couldn't think. To think is to arrange things within a mind, not in reality. And if such an arrangement is successful, then our thinking was correct. Was it logical? It depends on whether the laws of logic were applied. My personal thought is that it is unnecessary. There might be other ways. If a cat tastes like I banana and I tasted a cat then I tasted a banana. This is logical but untrue. Logic does not predict all things. It is logical, because you follow a certain form. Following forms doesn't guarantee anything. Let's me interpreting your words: 'a cat' = carnivores 'tastes' = eat 'I' = herbivores 'banana' = grass Then 'carnivores eat herbivores', 'herbivores eat grass', therefore 'carnivores eat grass' Another interpretation: 'a cat' = set A 'tastes' = belongs to 'I' = set B 'banana' = set C 'set A belongs to set B', 'set B belongs to set C', then 'set A belongs to set C' Actually there are no necessity for A→B B→C A→C You can follow whatever you like to, let's say: A→B B→C C→A or A→B B→C B→(C→(A→A)) Whatever you want, whatever you go
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 13, 2023 8:35:00 GMT
The fact that we cannot predict everything necessitates logic as not universal. It can be argued however, from the other perspective, that we are not using logic to its fullest extent as we are not entirely logical beings, hence the absence of predicting everything, however this is a fallacy as well considering logic is grounded in illogical beings...it is dependent upon its opposite state. Dually we cannot predict when logic will not be used thus logic cannot predict its own limits, it cannot predict itself. Logic is a form. We believe this form is universal exactly because it allows us to predict things. We think that it allows us to predict, because it follows the thinking strategy of anyone → if logic doesn't work, nothing works either. Seems this is the end, but this is not. It means our brains work in this way. If we were half-persons/half-androids with extra memory and extra abilities we might count on our thinking abilities in other way, let's say we were not needed in simplicity. We couldn't predict if we couldn't think. To think is to arrange things within a mind, not in reality. And if such an arrangement is successful, then our thinking was correct. Was it logical? It depends on whether the laws of logic were applied. My personal thought is that it is unnecessary. There might be other ways. there are other ways
Intuition is the other side of the coin. Logic is only half of it. When we decide which logic to attempt to apply, we cannot be using logic, because we are undecided as is implied.
Because when we do not know which logic to attempt to apply, we begin without logic, then all we have is intuition.
Here intuition is like faith or even superstition, it is superficial, a wild guess, and mostly unreliable.
But its all we CAN start with.
We judge which book we read by its cover, we have little alternative. (Not the same as judging its quality, but its potential).
Why are some intuitions sharper than others? Its about inner psychological dissonance. People are full of their own traumas and hypocrisies.
When we clear these out of the mind, we can more easily focus our imagination.
Imagination is thus an actual sense.
(Originally an observation of Aquinas).
But by clearing out the inner dissonance, one comes to comprehend through inference, the dissonance in others, and this aids the intuition in deciding,
which logic to attempt to apply.
But imagination is fundamentally geometrical.
When I am trying to design a 3D figure, I am suddenly intimately involved with every aspect of what the human body is, and how it works - in space and time.
And a 3D n-body system is the same.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 14, 2023 17:49:04 GMT
If a cat tastes like I banana and I tasted a cat then I tasted a banana. This is logical but untrue. Logic does not predict all things. It is logical, because you follow a certain form. Following forms doesn't guarantee anything. Let's me interpreting your words: 'a cat' = carnivores 'tastes' = eat 'I' = herbivores 'banana' = grass Then 'carnivores eat herbivores', 'herbivores eat grass', therefore 'carnivores eat grass' Another interpretation: 'a cat' = set A 'tastes' = belongs to 'I' = set B 'banana' = set C 'set A belongs to set B', 'set B belongs to set C', then 'set A belongs to set C' Actually there are no necessity for A→B B→C A→C You can follow whatever you like to, let's say: A→B B→C C→A or A→B B→C B→(C→(A→A)) Whatever you want, whatever you go Following a form means you followed a form, it does not mean more it does not mean less. Logic can be untrue.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 14, 2023 17:50:57 GMT
Logic is a form. We believe this form is universal exactly because it allows us to predict things. We think that it allows us to predict, because it follows the thinking strategy of anyone → if logic doesn't work, nothing works either. Seems this is the end, but this is not. It means our brains work in this way. If we were half-persons/half-androids with extra memory and extra abilities we might count on our thinking abilities in other way, let's say we were not needed in simplicity. We couldn't predict if we couldn't think. To think is to arrange things within a mind, not in reality. And if such an arrangement is successful, then our thinking was correct. Was it logical? It depends on whether the laws of logic were applied. My personal thought is that it is unnecessary. There might be other ways. there are other ways
Intuition is the other side of the coin. Logic is only half of it. When we decide which logic to attempt to apply, we cannot be using logic, because we are undecided as is implied.
Because when we do not know which logic to attempt to apply, we begin without logic, then all we have is intuition.
Here intuition is like faith or even superstition, it is superficial, a wild guess, and mostly unreliable.
But its all we CAN start with.
We judge which book we read by its cover, we have little alternative. (Not the same as judging its quality, but its potential).
Why are some intuitions sharper than others? Its about inner psychological dissonance. People are full of their own traumas and hypocrisies.
When we clear these out of the mind, we can more easily focus our imagination.
Imagination is thus an actual sense.
(Originally an observation of Aquinas).
But by clearing out the inner dissonance, one comes to comprehend through inference, the dissonance in others, and this aids the intuition in deciding,
which logic to attempt to apply.
But imagination is fundamentally geometrical.
When I am trying to design a 3D figure, I am suddenly intimately involved with every aspect of what the human body is, and how it works - in space and time.
And a 3D n-body system is the same.
If intuition was universally true then there would be no disagreement over 'self-evident' truths. The fact that intuition has its issues, and we must start with it as a foundation for logic, then logic has its issues as well because of its grounding.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 14, 2023 20:54:43 GMT
Logic is grounded in its inherent own structure. We come to intuition before we are aware of the logic. But the logic exists on its own terms beyond the intuition.
The majority of the time people reject 'self-evident' truths, is a matter of blackmail.
What becomes self-evident of people, is that some seek truth at any cost, and some seek costs at the price of truth.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 19, 2023 21:35:01 GMT
Logic is grounded in its inherent own structure. We come to intuition before we are aware of the logic. But the logic exists on its own terms beyond the intuition. The majority of the time people reject 'self-evident' truths, is a matter of blackmail. What becomes self-evident of people, is that some seek truth at any cost, and some seek costs at the price of truth. If logic is grounded in its own inherent structure then this must be self-evident...however it is not. It is not for several reasons: 1. Logic is not universally self-evident to all otherwise it would not have to be taught and people would not disagree with it. 2. If logic is self-sufficient then it is self-referential thus meaning only itself. In meaning only itself it results in an absence of contrast thus meaning just about anything. However if it does contrast against something, such as irrationality or intuition, then it is dependent upon something beyond it, something that is not logical, thus paradoxically is not fully rational.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 20, 2023 21:05:26 GMT
Logic is grounded in its inherent own structure. We come to intuition before we are aware of the logic. But the logic exists on its own terms beyond the intuition. The majority of the time people reject 'self-evident' truths, is a matter of blackmail. What becomes self-evident of people, is that some seek truth at any cost, and some seek costs at the price of truth. If logic is grounded in its own inherent structure then this must be self-evident...however it is not. It is not for several reasons: 1. Logic is not universally self-evident to all otherwise it would not have to be taught and people would not disagree with it. 2. If logic is self-sufficient then it is self-referential thus meaning only itself. In meaning only itself it results in an absence of contrast thus meaning just about anything. However if it does contrast against something, such as irrationality or intuition, then it is dependent upon something beyond it, something that is not logical, thus paradoxically is not fully rational. Logic is self-evident to those who carefully observe and measure the physical world. To those who do not observe such, it is evident of a lack of logic in their mind.
The physical world is always logical/rational. Mind has something beyond the rational as well,
showing the multiverse to consist of
fundamentally two separate ontologies.
This duality is the mind-body paradox, which should yield to proof of the soul upon authentic inspection.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 21, 2023 19:06:58 GMT
If logic is grounded in its own inherent structure then this must be self-evident...however it is not. It is not for several reasons: 1. Logic is not universally self-evident to all otherwise it would not have to be taught and people would not disagree with it. 2. If logic is self-sufficient then it is self-referential thus meaning only itself. In meaning only itself it results in an absence of contrast thus meaning just about anything. However if it does contrast against something, such as irrationality or intuition, then it is dependent upon something beyond it, something that is not logical, thus paradoxically is not fully rational. Logic is self-evident to those who carefully observe and measure the physical world. To those who do not observe such, it is evident of a lack of logic in their mind.
The physical world is always logical/rational. Mind has something beyond the rational as well,
showing the multiverse to consist of
fundamentally two separate ontologies.
This duality is the mind-body paradox, which should yield to proof of the soul upon authentic inspection.
The laws of logic negate themselves when self applied, this can be viewed empirically as all formulas are empirical: Either the law of identity (equality) or the law of non-contradiction (non-equality) exists when the law of excluded middle is applied to them. If the law of identity is true, and law of non-contradiction is false, then A=A and A=-A (the actual is equal to the non-actual). If non-contradiction is true, and the law of identity is false, then A=/=-A but A=/=A (A does not equal anything; if A were to equal B or C it could not because B or C would be the equivalent of saying, at the meta level A=B is the same as saying A=A as B is A).
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 22, 2023 7:39:18 GMT
xxxxxxxxx the formula for a perfect circle exists independent of perfect empirical circles because there are NO perfect empirical circles, and yet the formula works perfectly predicativelywhere is this perfect circle then? its not in the 'brain' we can stretch the word 'empirical' to include perfect circles, but by doing so we are forced to acknowledge a realm beyond the physical world as we commonly know it the Platonic realm is not of substance, though we could generously describe it as 'substantial', by stretching the meaning of what is substance? we are still left with a fundamental difference between form and energy albeit somewhat united in the term 'matter' but what CAUSES form itself? what makes form become manifest? that
is neither form nor substance, but mind which is closer to form than to substance though it is more 'substantial' when it exists at its most sublime
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 26, 2023 17:26:38 GMT
xxxxxxxxx the formula for a perfect circle exists independent of perfect empirical circles because there are NO perfect empirical circles, and yet the formula works perfectly predicativelywhere is this perfect circle then? its not in the 'brain' we can stretch the word 'empirical' to include perfect circles, but by doing so we are forced to acknowledge a realm beyond the physical world as we commonly know it the Platonic realm is not of substance, though we could generously describe it as 'substantial', by stretching the meaning of what is substance? we are still left with a fundamental difference between form and energy albeit somewhat united in the term 'matter' but what CAUSES form itself? what makes form become manifest? that
is neither form nor substance, but mind which is closer to form than to substance though it is more 'substantial' when it exists at its most sublime 1. You are misreading what I am saying. I think of the formula. I write the formula out. Others read the formula and check what it is saying. In expressing the formula I have to do it through empirical means. This necessitates formulas as empirical. 2. I see no dichotomy between mind and matter as both require form to occur and this grounding to form is space. The space of an abstract circle and the space of an empirical circle is fundamentally the same even if both are expressed differently. If I have no empirical senses I still sense space. If I have empirical senses I still sense space. Space eliminates the dichotomy between mind and matter.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 26, 2023 19:16:10 GMT
There are no empirically observed perfect circles, there are none calculated from formula, even though the abstraction of the formula exists as a perfect circle
the empirical and the abstract
are NOT identical
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2023 17:55:57 GMT
There are no empirically observed perfect circles, there are none calculated from formula, even though the abstraction of the formula exists as a perfect circle
the empirical and the abstract
are NOT identical
False in regards to identity, both the empirical and abstract are composed of space. In these respects both are equal. It may also be argued that a perfect circle is not viewed abstractly either as the viewing of the circle is subject to the observer thus is subjective. It other terms we may not know what a perfect circle looks like. As to "calculated from formula", the circle is a set of points in all directions equal from the center point. This is a formula and the expression of the formula requires the empirical.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2023 19:26:35 GMT
There are no empirically observed perfect circles, there are none calculated from formula, even though the abstraction of the formula exists as a perfect circle
the empirical and the abstract
are NOT identical
False in regards to identity, both the empirical and abstract are composed of space. In these respects both are equal. It may also be argued that a perfect circle is not viewed abstractly either as the viewing of the circle is subject to the observer thus is subjective. It other terms we may not know what a perfect circle looks like. As to "calculated from formula", the circle is a set of points in all directions equal from the center point. This is a formula and the expression of the formula requires the empirical.
There are numerous ways to describe a perfect circle, r^2=X^2+y^2
or using pi, and some loops, can also be done with sin and cos
so there are virtually an infinite number of ways to describe It. When they open your skull one day (to insert some wires in your brain) they will not see any of those forms in the space which is your brain.
It appears to exist in astrophysical shapes beyond measure, even the pebbles in a stream.
And yet not any of those things are It,
for those are imperfect, mere shadows of the Perfect Circle.
Wherefore is that which can exist in 4 or 5 or 47 dimensions unseen except by the inner-eye of the geometer?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2023 19:40:39 GMT
False in regards to identity, both the empirical and abstract are composed of space. In these respects both are equal. It may also be argued that a perfect circle is not viewed abstractly either as the viewing of the circle is subject to the observer thus is subjective. It other terms we may not know what a perfect circle looks like. As to "calculated from formula", the circle is a set of points in all directions equal from the center point. This is a formula and the expression of the formula requires the empirical.
There are numerous ways to describe a perfect circle, r^2=X^2+y^2
or using pi, and some loops, can also be done with sin and cos
so there are virtually an infinite number of ways to describe It. When they open your skull one day (to insert some wires in your brain) they will not see any of those forms in the space which is your brain.
It appears to exist in astrophysical shapes beyond measure, even the pebbles in a stream.
And yet not any of those things are It,
for those are imperfect, mere shadows of the Perfect Circle.
Wherefore is that which can exist in 4 or 5 or 47 dimensions unseen except by the inner-eye of the geometer?
1. In opening my skull to insert wires they are interrupting the activity within the brain that results in said formulas and visualizations. I have empirically seen this with my neighbor and her brain cancer. 2. You are ignoring: "It may also be argued that a perfect circle is not viewed abstractly either as the viewing of the circle is subject to the observer thus is subjective. It other terms we may not know what a perfect circle looks like." In other terms you have no empirical proof of a perfect circle and your abstractions, which are not empirical and cannot be shared as they are within your perspective, are subject to your point of view.
|
|