Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[Mole]

Do we know this? How do you define consciousness? Most people's definitions will be a little bit different.

There are many signs of consciousness but those without a prefrontal cortex show none of these signs.

The fact is you want to imagine a tree is conscious. Well, that's fine.

 

[Pseudo]

Do you believe in gray areas? Binary logic doesn't do them. Something is either entirely true as defined by the premises, or entirely false as defined by the premises.

Can you always express a given truth in a binary fashion given sufficient complexity? I don't even know, but if you cant, binary logic simply would not allow things which exceed this to exist.

Consider the continuum fallacy. Or the Sorites paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

How are these things addressed? By MVL, and Hysteresis among other things. Yes, many of these problems can somehow be handled in binary logic, but complexity increases dramatically for anything non-trivial. There is no 'kinda true' there - all bits in a given problem are either completely true or completely false, without even an 'unknown' anywhere.

I believe in gray areas in regards to our knowledge of reality but not in reality itself.

I think you could with sufficient complexity describe all things as either true or untrue. I'm not arguing that the truth of anything is simple or even knowable by us. What I'm arguing is that there is an objective reality which exists and that the "truth" of the world is this reality rather than any of our subjective perceptions of reality.

So in regards to the Sorites paradox I would argue that the absolute truth of a "heap" is that it is a vague term that does not signify a defined quantity but a subjective evaluation of a quantity in relation to other quantities. I think that is true in regards to how the word "heap" is used.

 

[Pseudo]

What about things which are true some of the time and not others?

Like, if I was observing the behavior of subatomic particles, and I declared "This electron exists in this location," and then as soon as I said it it changed location. Or in the process of me saying it it changed location. What I said was true at the time that I said it, but if I were to make the statement a few seconds later it would not be true. Of course you could talk about creating equations describing their paths as a function of time, and using them to make predictions. Or what about something entirely subjective like love: Love is both pleasant and unpleasant. Being in love is easy some of the time and hard other times. So are the statements "love is easy" and "love is difficult" contradictory?

I know, I'm not using hard logic here. Just throwing things out. I'm really just asking questions, not pretending I have answers.

We already addressed this before. With the women and the apples. The statements "women love apples" and "women hate apples" cannot both be true, but the statement "women have differing feelings on apples" can be true.

The absolute truth in that case is that electrons are not fixed in space. The statement of an electrons location at a certain time is still true even if it occupies a different location at a different time. Even if it occupied two different locations at the same time there would still be the objective truth that "electrons can exist in multiple locations at a time".

The truth of love would be that it can be both pleasant and unpleasant depending on the circumstances of ones love.

 

[Pseudo]

All of those behaviors are still objectively true.

I think I haven't made myself clear to you guys.

I'm not saying that something can't be two things at once. That is possible. What I'm saying is that there are not multiple truths.

It is true that all of the above mentioned phenomena occur. it is not true that they don't occur.

 

[Pseudo]

Can you translate anything spiritual into thinking and logical terms? This thread is about philosophy and spirituality. Logic is not the point of the thread. Of course it looks NF. It's a feeling subject.

How does spirituality escape the scope of logic? I don't see spirituality as the realm where things no longer have to make sense. If you assume there are supernatural/metaphysical forces those forces will have a nature and a way of functioning. There will have there own inherent logic based on their way of functioning.

 

[Pseudo]

I thought I was pretty good at it, but I guess not. I'm only good at applying logic to mystical symbolic terms which people dismiss because they are vague and mystical.

People aren't dismissing it because it's mystical.

 

[digesthisickness]

People aren't dismissing it because it's mystical.

Honestly, I dismissed it because it's just one more overly simplistic meme that can't begin to encompass the complexities of human relationships, but acts like it's solved the 'big riddle'.

Also, so many of these things purport to be attributed to some older culture as if it gives it more credence when no proof that it was ever seen that way by them at all is ever given.

 

[sprinkles]

I believe in gray areas in regards to our knowledge of reality but not in reality itself.

I think you could with sufficient complexity describe all things as either true or untrue. I'm not arguing that the truth of anything is simple or even knowable by us. What I'm arguing is that there is an objective reality which exists and that the "truth" of the world is this reality rather than any of our subjective perceptions of reality.

So in regards to the Sorites paradox I would argue that the absolute truth of a "heap" is that it is a vague term that does not signify a defined quantity but a subjective evaluation of a quantity in relation to other quantities. I think that is true in regards to how the word "heap" is used.

Yeah that falls under epistemology.

I accept that there's one reality pretty much, and that we can reason things out through various methods, which is why I'm willing to use logic when appropriate, and also go outside its boundaries when appropriate.

In regards to the heap, in a bivalent system it is either exactly a heap, or it isn't. Calling it a vague term is something else than that, which is why this paradox came about to begin with. It's a problem when the principle of bivalence is strictly maintained and is more a shortcoming of rigid syntax than a problem with being vague.

So yes it is a vague term. A vague term which is meaningful in natural language yet paradoxically breaks all sense and reason when applied to logical rules. So we end up with philosophical disputes on when logic should be applied rigorously and when some form of outside reason should be considered, because if we were purely in the realm of logic and couldn't operate by any other rules, we'd be forced to say that heaps don't exist. Not that they are subjective or vague since such things aren't allowed. Either heap or not heap.

 

[Pseudo]

Yeah that falls under epistemology.

I accept that there's one reality pretty much, and that we can reason things out through various methods, which is why I'm willing to use logic when appropriate, and also go outside its boundaries when appropriate.

In regards to the heap, in a bivalent system it is either exactly a heap, or it isn't. Calling it a vague term is something else than that, which is why this paradox came about to begin with. It's a problem when the principle of bivalence is strictly maintained and is more a shortcoming of rigid syntax than a problem with being vague.

So yes it is a vague term. A vague term which is meaningful in natural language yet paradoxically breaks all sense and reason when applied to logical rules. So we end up with philosophical disputes on when logic should be applied rigorously and when some form of outside reason should be considered, because if we were purely in the realm of logic and couldn't operate by any other rules, we'd be forced to say that heaps don't exist. Not that they are subjective or vague since such things aren't allowed. Either heap or not heap.

No you could argue that it is true that human language has developed a vague and subjective term know as the "heap" in a binary logical system. It would be false to say that heap as a specific quantity exists but it would be true to say that heap as a concept exists. And it would be true to say that that concept, as a result of being developed by human beings with a tendency towards generalization in casual conversation, is vauge. So it would be the case of a complex truth we mentioned before. That still is objectively and absolutely true.

 

[sprinkles]

No you could argue that it is true that human language has developed a vague and subjective term know as the "heap" in a binary logical system. It would be false to say that heap as a specific quantity exists but it would be true to say that heap as a concept exists. And it would be true to say that that concept is vauge. So it would be the case of a complex truth we mentioned before.

Yes we can say that it's true that heap exists as a concept since it obviously does. That doesn't necessarily let you say that it's true that a given x is a heap, because if you do you are saying it definitely is that thing, which is not being vague. This is actually what causes the paradox to work - the fact that a heap can't be treated as a specific quantity means that if you acknowledge anything as being a heap, such as hairs on your head, and you diminish it by one and it is still a heap, you end up with a boundary problem. When does it stop being a heap?

Edit: on that note, Hysteresis allows you to define a heap in a meaningful way that gets around the problem of quantities. The 'heap' in this case doesn't have to actually be an objective quantity and you can actually work with the heap in a meaningful and predictable way. Practical solution that doesn't have to argue about what is true in order to actually let you do something functional.

It goes beyond trivial academics and makes the concept of 'heap' something that one can actually use.

 

[Pseudo]

Yes we can say that it's true that heap exists as a concept since it obviously does. That doesn't necessarily let you say that it's true that a given x is a heap, because if you do you are saying it definitely is that thing, which is not being vague. This is actually what causes the paradox to work - the fact that a heap can't be treated as a specific quantity means that if you acknowledge anything as being a heap, such as hairs on your head, and you diminish it by one and it is still a heap, you end up with a boundary problem. When does it stop being a heap?

If we've already established that the term "heap" is subjective, can't we then also understand that the point at which something not longer exists as a heap is subjective. Since "heapness" is really only determined by the user of the vague term. It seems like less of a boundary problem and more of a problem of not recognizing that our language is more generalized than our reality.

 

[sprinkles]

If we've already established that the term "heap" is subjective, can't we then also understand that the point at which something not longer exists as a heap is subjective. Since "heapness" is really only determined by the user of the vague term. It seems like less of a boundary problem and more of a problem of not recognizing that our language is more generalized than our reality.

Yes. That's kind of what I'm talking about actually.

We need to have metacognition and be able to recognize these problems when they come up, and realize when we need to switch to a different 'language' or just accept limitations of our systems.

You seem to be readily doing this as it is and maybe don't see it as an issue, but this is a pitfall for many - accepting what their given language of choice tells them based on their constructed rules, rather than noticing that it just might have some kind of limitation that means it isn't the end-all-be-all of deciding all things.

 

[greenfairy]

There are many signs of consciousness but those without a prefrontal cortex show none of these signs.

The fact is you want to imagine a tree is conscious. Well, that's fine.

By the scientific definition of consciousness, yes. Spirituality conceives of consciousness as a sort of awareness composed of collected energy, which transcends physical boundaries (which are illusions anyway).

 

[greenfairy]

We already addressed this before. With the women and the apples. The statements "women love apples" and "women hate apples" cannot both be true, but the statement "women have differing feelings on apples" can be true.

The absolute truth in that case is that electrons are not fixed in space. The statement of an electrons location at a certain time is still true even if it occupies a different location at a different time. Even if it occupied two different locations at the same time there would still be the objective truth that "electrons can exist in multiple locations at a time".

The truth of love would be that it can be both pleasant and unpleasant depending on the circumstances of ones love.

True.

 

[greenfairy]

How does spirituality escape the scope of logic? I don't see spirituality as the realm where things no longer have to make sense. If you assume there are supernatural/metaphysical forces those forces will have a nature and a way of functioning. There will have there own inherent logic based on their way of functioning.

Valid way of looking at things. I guess I'm looking at things from an Ni perspective, collecting information from intuition and then recognizing patterns and conclusions within it without full conscious examination. Maybe that's not the best description of Ni, but it's my condensed version.

And emotion and personal experience can be evaluated this way too, along with everything, into an intuitive understanding of things which is independent of logic because it's not a conscious analytical process. It could be, but logic doesn't give the entire picture because it is limited by words and concepts.

 

[greenfairy]

People aren't dismissing it because it's mystical.

Some people definitely are. Also I guess my communication style either sucks or doesn't match with theirs or both.

 

[greenfairy]

Honestly, I dismissed it because it's just one more overly simplistic meme that can't begin to encompass the complexities of human relationships, but acts like it's solved the 'big riddle'.

Also, so many of these things purport to be attributed to some older culture as if it gives it more credence when no proof that it was ever seen that way by them at all is ever given.

Valid perspective. I don't have proof of how they saw things, but I have studied Native American spirituality and culture. So I could find information about it if I wanted to. Which would be an interesting thread.

 

[greenfairy]

Ok, just to clear this up: I have no value judgments in this thread whatsoever. I like some things a lot, but they in no way need to translate to anyone else. I debate the possible benefits of certain ways of thinking for some people, or the relevance of things, but I have no personal or emotional attachment to my opinions or the outcomes other than I like them when I use them. (<--Which is true for most people. Right?)

 

[WALMART]

People are dismissing this because in modern society men and women are equals, and discerning any difference between the two can be near sacrilege =X

 

[greenfairy]

People are dismissing this because in modern society men and women are equals, and discerning any difference between the two can be near sacrilege =X

Thanks for the clarification. I have noticed this.