# Thread: The nature of certainty...

1. Originally Posted by Kiddo
What many of them don't realize is that logic is, in and of itself, a personal value and a limitation on perception.
i think it's the other way around. you have to choose to limit your perception before you can use logic. if you define a frame with terms and formulas for relationships between laws, then logic is absolutely true IN THAT FRAME. logic doesn't mean anything without a predefined frame, though.

2. Originally Posted by dissonance
i think it's the other way around. you have to choose to limit your perception before you can use logic. if you define a frame with terms and formulas for relationships between laws, then logic is absolutely true IN THAT FRAME. logic doesn't mean anything without a predefined frame, though.

3. Originally Posted by Kiddo
i just did. what did you think i would see?

and i stick by what i said. like in the base 10 human defined number system, 1+2 = 3. it just does, by definition. it's absolutely true in that frame.

now, most frames are broader and less defined, or maybe defined differently by different people. and that's where uncertainty comes in. i'm often uncertain about which frame i'm in, or which frame others are in. i'm also uncertain that i know all the logical rules of the frame. or maybe the frame i define is based on faulty premises. or maybe i apply logic incorrectly to the rules i've defined. etc. or maybe the frame is so complicated that it's impossible for the brain to process it all at the same time.

the thing is, human perception can only work in frames. it can never see outside. so i can never be certain about what's objective and what's not, because humans are subjective by definition.

in conclusion, i agree that certainty is limiting in many circumstances, because of all the possible misapplications i listed above. if you're sure you never get anything wrong, you're probably wrong, and you're certainly closed-minded. but that doesn't mean certainty is bad in all cases. i am certain that 1+2=3 in our number system, and i'm totally fine with that -- i don't think anyone will ever convince me otherwise.

4. One thing to consider is that certaintly in another person can be somewhat misleading. INxJ's tend to be less certain than they first appear to other people, while IxxP's tend to be more certain than they appear. One thing you can't be certain of is another person's level of certainty.

5. Originally Posted by dissonance
i just did. what did you think i would see?

and i stick by what i said. like in the base 10 human defined number system, 1+2 = 3. it just does, by definition. it's absolutely true in that frame.

now, most frames are broader and less defined, or maybe defined differently by different people. and that's where uncertainty comes in. i'm often uncertain about which frame i'm in, or which frame others are in. i'm also uncertain that i know all the logical rules of the frame. or maybe the frame i define is based on faulty premises. or maybe i apply logic incorrectly to the rules i've defined. etc. or maybe the frame is so complicated that it's impossible for the brain to process it all at the same time.

the thing is, human perception can only work in frames. it can never see outside. so i can never be certain about what's objective and what's not, because humans are subjective by definition.

in conclusion, i agree that certainty is limiting in many circumstances, because of all the possible misapplications i listed above. if you're sure you never get anything wrong, you're probably wrong, and you're certainly closed-minded. but that doesn't mean certainty is bad in all cases. i am certain that 1+2=3 in our number system, and i'm totally fine with that -- i don't think anyone will ever convince me otherwise.
I'm not disagreeing with you bud. I said in my first post that we need the perfect amount of certainty...not too much...not too little. I'm also not disagreeing with your perspective on logic.

However, my argument still stands.

1. Values, the ideas which we have accepted from experience, are our fundamental limitations on perception.
2. Logic is a value.
3. Therefore logic is a limitation on perception.

The fact that logic is also limited by perception doesn't disprove that it is also a limiter on perception.

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser
One thing to consider is that certaintly in another person can be somewhat misleading. INxJ's tend to be less certain than they first appear to other people, while IxxP's tend to be more certain than they appear. One thing you can't be certain of is another person's level of certainty.
True, it's difficult to tell exactly how certain someone is. That being said, usually when they start telling you that you are irrational or ignorant because you don't accept their beliefs, you get a pretty good idea.

6. Originally Posted by Kiddo
However, my argument still stands.

1. Values, the ideas which we have accepted from experience, are our fundamental limitations on perception.
2. Logic is a value.
3. Therefore logic is a limitation on perception.
i can see how logic would limit your perception, as you assume everything makes logical sense. but it could also just be that you're using an old frame's logic and falsely applying it to a new frame.

i believe (faith) that logic always applies if you set the frame correctly. setting the frame correctly is the real problem.

i disagree with your first premise, therefore i disagree with your conclusion.

7. Originally Posted by dissonance
i disagree with your first premise, therefore i disagree with your conclusion.
Well I disagree with your disagreement of my first premise and thus with your disagreement of my conclusion.

Would you care to tell me why you disagree with my first premise, so I know why I'm disagreeing with you?

8. Originally Posted by Kiddo
Well I disagree with your disagreement of my first premise and thus with your disagreement of my conclusion.

Would you care to tell me why you disagree with my first premise, so I know why I'm disagreeing with you?
eh, no. you're right. i wrote that post in a hurry, and i didn't want to believe your conclusion for some reason.

logic would limit your perception if you are 100% sure that everything is logical. since i'm pretty much 100% sure that everything is logical, i DO have a limited perception. it just makes so much sense to me...

but yeah, your argument is fine.

9. Originally Posted by dissonance
eh, no. you're right. i wrote that post in a hurry, and i didn't want to believe your conclusion for some reason.

logic would limit your perception if you are 100% sure that everything is logical. since i'm pretty much 100% sure that everything is logical, i DO have a limited perception. it just makes so much sense to me...

but yeah, your argument is fine.
Oh dear god, an INFJ philosophical realist. I rue the day.

My arguments against pure reason are apparently those found in Kant's transcendental idealism.

After arguing with INTJs for weeks about objectivism, I feel nothing but pity for those who suffer from being logically limited.

10. philosophical realist, eh?

now i have to read the definition, blah.

the only philosophy terms i know are determinism, reductionism, and functionalism...all of which i align myself with. are those compatible with philosophical realism?

p.s. are you a philosophy major or something?

#### 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