User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: LOL

  1. #51
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    Finally, someone else. What I was getting at is that there isn't any reason for nature to equip certain kinds of animals the way it does. There can be explanations about why such and such has this or that, but those are ad hoc from a trancendent point of view (be it 'evolution' or 'God'), and need a certain hypostasis of certain theories, to work in an explanatory fashion. Biology provides explanations (like biological armsraces or, as hilbertspace said, genetical significance etc), not reasons why such and such is necessarily the case (beyond 'biological diversity', but that's stretching it). Nature, from our immanent point of view could have provided those creatures with different defense mechanisms.
    I am not going to pretend I understand what you have said here clearly.

    However, I will point out that evolution by natural selection is a process where genotypes have consequences, which may tentatively survive or be eliminated. In other words, nature presupposes a critical environment, one in which a failure to correspond to selective pressures results in extinction. The very axioms of logic, such as noncontradiction and deduction, are presupposed by the universe, and the process from which biological forms arise.

    That is not to say logical axioms can be justified, or I can, or intend, to provide a "reason" for them. That challenge is an impossible one to meet, thus itself is inconsistent. This point, is one which I feel like a broken record for repeating, but is sadly unrecognised by most, as evidenced by your linked thread on Fallibilism. The equivalence between scepticism and fallibilism drawn in that thread, only arises within the context of justificationism i.e. the presupposition that knowledge is only really knowledge if is is justified knowledge.

    If we drop these selfdefeating justificationist presuppositions, then none of the standard sceptical arguments have any force, because the problems they are prompted from simply do not arise.

    I was talking about the difference between trancendent synthetic propositional reasons (trancendent reason for why a synthetic proposition is the way it is) and immanent synthetic propositional reasons (immanent reasons for the same), to put it in general terms, but I figured no-one would understand what I was talking about where I to put it like that.
    I at least, do not understand what you are talking about. I recognise all of those words, but fail to understand what you mean by them. Please explain more clearly.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Bushranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    Finally, someone else.
    At an early point I may have desired to participate in this thread. Hitchens' comments on our own innate capacity for fear and self deception deserved some discussion. Instead I am forced to wade though ~50 posts worth of pseudo-philosophical wanking on the nature of truth and reality. If you had employed some self constraint on your rhetorical meanderings then it may have yielded something useful.

    I don't care how many philosophers you have read or can quote, all you've done is diverted the discussion and wasted space (this is a tired topic, although that may only be my opinion).

    On the nature of philosophy and reality: If an armchair philosopher is running away and you fire an arrow at him, will it ever hit him?
    I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!

  3. #53
    Member Beyonder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    I am not going to pretend I understand what you have said here clearly.
    OK. Let's say a certain tree has a brown bark. Why is that? There is no logical connection between the color brown and a treebark having it; it's a synthetic connection. This also holds true for a lot of other natural phenomena... Nature could have done it otherwise. There would, in theory, be a valid reason why such and such is the case, but we are human, and not creators of the universe (be it 'evolution' or 'God'. Both are outside of the scope of inquiry, and can only be investigated from a distance, so to speak. They are trancendent causes.). So, any reason we can come up with would be ad hoc, in it's widest sense, meaning, running after the facts (To wich we don't have access; they are trancendent); we can come up with an explanation, not a reason, for why such things are the case, though (an immanent reason, meaning, from our own perspective, living inside of the universe, after it's creation).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushranger View Post
    At an early point I may have desired to participate in this thread. Hitchens' comments on our own innate capacity for fear and self deception deserved some discussion. Instead I am forced to wade though ~50 posts worth of pseudo-philosophical wanking on the nature of truth and reality. If you had employed some self constraint on your rhetorical meanderings then it may have yielded something useful.

    I don't care how many philosophers you have read or can quote, all you've done is diverted the discussion and wasted space (this is a tired topic, although that may only be my opinion).
    At least reread posts #4 and #5... The red herrings started there already, wich weren't my posts at all. I could have restrained myself from responding to them, yes, but who says I wanted something useful out of what they themselves called "an Fe outburst"?
    My first response, wich was indeed directed at that guy blabbering his mouth off, was quitte on topic. Why the rest bothered to object to my objection, I don't know. Besides, when we got to post #42, I was the one trying to get back to the discussion, so why are you pointing at me for derailing it? You're right though. Apparently my presense isn't wanted here, so I'll move my ass.
    I'm getting rather sick of defending myself from bs accusations anyway.
    "I determined nothing."
    -Sceptical expression

  4. #54
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    How did you get from "is an axiomatic system" to "can never perfectly model reality"?
    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    That's because the logical strength of the conclusion always exceeds the logical strength of the premises, so inductive arguments are never truth-preserving, they're never valid.
    You really answered yourself here. Complete bullshit aside, deductions are only as good as their axioms. Axioms derive from induction, and inductions are never perfect.

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    Besides, how do you imagine that could be possible, since inductive "logic" (I place in scare quotes, because I believe their is no such logic), is itself an axiomatic system. In fact, inductive "logic" draws upon many of the same axioms as deductive logic.
    You believe there is no such logic yet you call it an axiomatic system and claim that it draws on the same axioms as deductive logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beyonder View Post
    I'm getting rather sick
    You're almost as bad as seawolfy/solitarywalker. I hear he's now terminal. Leave before it's too late!

  5. #55
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ferunandesu View Post
    You really answered yourself here. Complete bullshit aside, deductions are only as good as their axioms. Axioms derive from induction, and inductions are never perfect.
    What exactly do you think an "induction" is?

    You believe there is no such logic yet you call it an axiomatic system and claim that it draws on the same axioms as deductive logic?
    There are proposed systems of inductive logic, which share many of the same xioms as deductive logic. That doesn't mean that those proposed systems are logical i.e. truth-preserving.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #56
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    What exactly do you think an "induction" is?
    They're attempts to formulate rules of thumb about the "inner workings" of reality, as if there were hidden hardware under the layer of what we see, or as if 'God' is teasing the megalomaniacs and scientists among us by leaving a tip here and there.

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    There are proposed systems of inductive logic, which share many of the same xioms as deductive logic. That doesn't mean that those proposed systems are logical i.e. truth-preserving.
    A formalized system of inductive logic is garbage. There is no such thing as truth outside of our minds. Any proposed system is the product of a fool. Perhaps I'll be eating my words when I'm dead and buried and see the face of God, but I doubt it.

Similar Threads

  1. LOL.
    By rainfall in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 09:55 PM
  2. Now you can "lol" anything with lolcat builder!
    By Tigerlily in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 02:05 PM
  3. I'm a total n00b lol
    By machintruc in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Monkeys sexually harassing women? (no, not dating lol)
    By Sahara in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 12:19 PM
  5. Ninja Warrior! It's Like A Real Live Ninja Camp,lol.
    By ladypinkington in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 01:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO