![[us]](/mwf/flags/us.png "United States")
1:No direct insulting... such as cuss words or calling some one stupid, ect...2. No one will try to be offensive. Such as saying someone's belief is stupid or foolish.
Note: Just because someone says the opposite of someone else or does not agree with that person or his/her beliefs does not mean he/she is offensive.
3.We will conduct or selves respectably and respecting of one another and their beliefs so as not to offend.
4.If you don't have a good reason for posting something on here please don't.
5.Questions are encouraged.
6.This is for growth mentally and in any other way if at all possible.
7. Show respect even when you think someone does not deserve it.
8.Have fun! But not at the expense of others.
9.You can't be afraid of criticism.
10.If you don't like it then you don't have to look at it. :)
True it should have been called something like "philosophy."
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
Would you, to clarify an axiom, describe the concept of "information" you would like the participants in this discussion to use? Or to narrow the question: How much information do you think "there is" in this universe? Do you base your concept of "information" on binary oppositions?
Also: Do you believe that the things we seem to know can never be verified but just falisified by repeatedly trying to do so? Or do you think that our perception of the world can be verified as an objective truth?
I think those are a few questions we should ask before starting a discussion about wether evolution can be considered a usefull theory or not. Just so all of us are able to understand beforehand from which kind of axioms the others logic is working.
I believe that information is an infinite sum of binary oppositions which is "sorted" by humans to create - for example - a lingual system or a vertain system of physics, or religions. Basically: Informations are infinite and we produce signification through narrowing this infinite and giving it structure and -of course- finding a basic form of structure beforehand or formed by us (f.e. languages).
-> This is also how all human parctice is formed. It is a consequence of (if you could call our mind that) self-conciousness.
We can never describe these structures, that we constructed ourselves, completely.
Which is my second believe. We can never verify a structure, we can just prove it for a certain amount of time - until it has been falsified.
I would like anyone to ask questions if there are ambiguitys. Or, even better, to sum up what he/she thinks I were saying before concluding from it. I am not a native in this language.
Also: Do you believe that the things we seem to know can never be verified but just falisified by repeatedly trying to do so? Or do you think that our perception of the world can be verified as an objective truth?
I think those are a few questions we should ask before starting a discussion about wether evolution can be considered a usefull theory or not. Just so all of us are able to understand beforehand from which kind of axioms the others logic is working.
I believe that information is an infinite sum of binary oppositions which is "sorted" by humans to create - for example - a lingual system or a vertain system of physics, or religions. Basically: Informations are infinite and we produce signification through narrowing this infinite and giving it structure and -of course- finding a basic form of structure beforehand or formed by us (f.e. languages).
-> This is also how all human parctice is formed. It is a consequence of (if you could call our mind that) self-conciousness.
We can never describe these structures, that we constructed ourselves, completely.
Which is my second believe. We can never verify a structure, we can just prove it for a certain amount of time - until it has been falsified.
I would like anyone to ask questions if there are ambiguitys. Or, even better, to sum up what he/she thinks I were saying before concluding from it. I am not a native in this language.
are you an advanced markov model generating text? :D
I believe that for me knowledge is very closely related to information.Information to me would be something that could be interpreted by an intelligent mind.
>Do you believe that the things we seem to know can never be verified but just falisified by repeatedly trying to do so?
I believe in absolute truth if that is what you are asking. And in that sense yes I do believe in vitrifaction. I believe that assumptions that are falsified are false and that assumptions that can not be falsified are true.
> Information to me would be something that could be interpreted by an intelligent mind.
so basically everything is information to you?
as anything could be interpreted even by my dog, his interpretation might be wrong, but he still interpreted it.
not to be nitpickery, but isn't "could" very vague?
i mean "i could fly to the moon if i had a rocket" vs "i can fly to the moon because i have a rocket".
to have a meaningful conversation, it would require unambiguous statements.
Your right I did word that improperly.Hmm... Information to me is a kind of hard to define. I know information is like a language it can be read it can be stored in the mind it is iconic in nature it means something more. For example say we have a piece of paper and on that paper there are in print the words "I am information" the ink ink in the words is not information ,but the formation of the ink is decipherable as words. The information can only be interpreted by someone that knows how to read English text.
but what if you pour water on it, and the ink flows into a mess?a human might not be able to read it anymore, but you can still know that someone wrote something on a piece of paper.
if you can know that, isn't that an information in itself?
Information to you would be something that can be interpreted by an intelligent mind. Is that correct?
There is a problem with that. The process of "being informed" about an aspect of the world is the interpretion itself.
You are dividing What already is one and the same.
The infinite number of possible Informations (which is when unstructured a "non-information" because it contains everything. Much more that which can be described by a lingual system) is structured through the human mind, it is what we know about our surroundings and the world we are experiencing from our perception of it. -> The term "interpretation" does not fit how we experience the world, we are not interpreting what is already there. We are GIVING it a meaning (by associating it with itself) and are structuring it to our of perception of what is usefull to us for now in terms of interaction.
Verification is a logical fallacy, i suggest you to read "Karl Popper" on the matter. We can not continue to argue until you do, since you can not understand the Axiom my arguments are based upon. If you read and properly critiziced his literature, we can continue the discussion. Because we can then argue about the actual subject that can change each others views.
Rather than just repeating pityful non-informational theorys and logical fallacys all the time.
But even if we came to discuss about the fundamentals, we would never be able to disprove the perspective of the opposite. Simply because there is nothing but that. Perspectives. If one feels like putting it that simple. And in this event. When we come to the inevitable conclusion that our hypotheses about "the world" are based on ridiculous axioms. That it is futile to further discuss such matters and that we can never come to a conclusion at all. Because the human mind simply can't. Language can't. Logic can't. Reality (Or what we think it is) can't. I will have won the argument.
Edit: The argument on wether what Is can be verified or not.
There is a problem with that. The process of "being informed" about an aspect of the world is the interpretion itself.
You are dividing What already is one and the same.
The infinite number of possible Informations (which is when unstructured a "non-information" because it contains everything. Much more that which can be described by a lingual system) is structured through the human mind, it is what we know about our surroundings and the world we are experiencing from our perception of it. -> The term "interpretation" does not fit how we experience the world, we are not interpreting what is already there. We are GIVING it a meaning (by associating it with itself) and are structuring it to our of perception of what is usefull to us for now in terms of interaction.
Verification is a logical fallacy, i suggest you to read "Karl Popper" on the matter. We can not continue to argue until you do, since you can not understand the Axiom my arguments are based upon. If you read and properly critiziced his literature, we can continue the discussion. Because we can then argue about the actual subject that can change each others views.
Rather than just repeating pityful non-informational theorys and logical fallacys all the time.
But even if we came to discuss about the fundamentals, we would never be able to disprove the perspective of the opposite. Simply because there is nothing but that. Perspectives. If one feels like putting it that simple. And in this event. When we come to the inevitable conclusion that our hypotheses about "the world" are based on ridiculous axioms. That it is futile to further discuss such matters and that we can never come to a conclusion at all. Because the human mind simply can't. Language can't. Logic can't. Reality (Or what we think it is) can't. I will have won the argument.
Edit: The argument on wether what Is can be verified or not.
In short are you saying that you do not believe in absolute truth?
Of course there is an absolute truth. The moment a human mind that can think of a concept like "absolute truth" it is a part of the world.
What is bothering me is: Why would you reply to my post after one day? Have you read Karl Popper already? That would be impressive.
What is bothering me is: Why would you reply to my post after one day? Have you read Karl Popper already? That would be impressive.
![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Trying to force somebody to go read a book is poor discussion etiquette - why can't you convince him without him having read the book? If there's an argument in there that's convincing, why don't you make it yourself? Or cite the relevant parts? Calling somebody's contributions "pitiful" is even worse.
Maybe try restating your argument more clearly? Because quite frankly, so far I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
Maybe try restating your argument more clearly? Because quite frankly, so far I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
On top of that! I wasn't calling his contributions pityful. This is one of the ambiguitys I was talking about. I am sorry for causing them by not knowing how to use the english language properly. I intended to call each others - I wrote it in the sentence before, as you can read in the above post - contributions full of fallacys. I think that they are, not because they are illogical in within themselves, but in the context of what we are writing. Because we don't understand the others axioms.
For one is Karl Popper a book and if you really want me to even think about reading it then I would need to know where to get it for free in pdf. form.And like PeterW said I have no idea what you are getting at or what your even debating... if you are debating?
I am not debating. And it is not poor discussion etiquette. It is a poor discussion if both sides don't know each others axioms. How can we understand the points of each other if we don't know them? I don't want to convince him. I want him to understand the way I am experiencing the world, so we can discuss matters.
Karl Popper was a person. His essential books are to me: (1994)Wissen und das Leib-Seele-Problem, (1973)Objektive Erkenntnis, (1934)Logik der Forschung and (1977)Das Ich und sein Gehirn.
I don't know if all of these works are translated, I found "Logik der Forschung" so far. This is the link:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
Karl Popper was a person. His essential books are to me: (1994)Wissen und das Leib-Seele-Problem, (1973)Objektive Erkenntnis, (1934)Logik der Forschung and (1977)Das Ich und sein Gehirn.
I don't know if all of these works are translated, I found "Logik der Forschung" so far. This is the link:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
The book is just massive I don't know if I will read it and IF I do then it would take me a long time. Do I really have to read that whole book just before I can have a discussion with you?
Uhm, I dunno. I suppose so. Do you have a Book about Induction and Positivism that I could get through in the meantime?
>Uhm, I dunno. I suppose so.
Well... ok. Maybe just maybe I will read the book for you.
>Do you have a Book about Induction and Positivism that I could get through in the meantime?
If you are not offended by the notion... yes I do the Bible. Preferably King James version ,but I am not a King James only person so I would use a few different versions and cross check them.
I tried reading the Bible. If you don't know what to read and what to skip (hey, second ~half of Moses 2, the laws of my country are written in a more fascinating manner) it is pointless and you will give up. I don't think I will pick it up again, I don't even have time for OC, why would I have time for books, but a guide to the interesting places would really be helpful.
Edit: Please don't tell me you found reading the law section of Exodus/Leviticus helpful.
Edit: Please don't tell me you found reading the law section of Exodus/Leviticus helpful.
I agree that some of the heritage timeline stuff can be boring to some people ,but "Is it helpful?" yes it is ,but I would start by finding a chronological guide to the Bible there are some on the internet so I would try that first. And I have to admit that it takes a lot of motivation to read it all.Well... For a beginner I would start in Genesis then read Mark if you are just starting.
To start things up I will ask what is logic?
... baby don't spock medon't spock me, no moooore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Basically, how to derive new statements from assumptions. Just in case that's what you want to get at - yes, I'd say "Belief is not based on logic" is just plain wrong. It just has different assumptions and - more importantly - different ways of assessing these assumptions. While religion base them off scriptures, scientific theories try to test them using experiments, discarding the ones that either turn out wrong or can't be tested meaningfully.
From that point onwards, it's actually not that different: The bible isn't very specific in certain things either - say, how exactly a mass is supposed to look like. As far as I know, it just documents that there should be gatherings praising god, and might document a few precursors, but little specifics. Hence different branches of religion filling in the details appropriately. There's a whole science to this too - Theology.
Basically, how to derive new statements from assumptions. Just in case that's what you want to get at - yes, I'd say "Belief is not based on logic" is just plain wrong. It just has different assumptions and - more importantly - different ways of assessing these assumptions. While religion base them off scriptures, scientific theories try to test them using experiments, discarding the ones that either turn out wrong or can't be tested meaningfully.
From that point onwards, it's actually not that different: The bible isn't very specific in certain things either - say, how exactly a mass is supposed to look like. As far as I know, it just documents that there should be gatherings praising god, and might document a few precursors, but little specifics. Hence different branches of religion filling in the details appropriately. There's a whole science to this too - Theology.
In short are you saying that logic is sensible thinking or perhaps rather thinking derived from a believed truth?>I'd say "Belief is not based on logic"
Hmm... I would say "logic is based on belief."
>There's a whole science to this too - Theology.
I agree.
Let me tell you what I personally believe about science there are two divisions of science observational science and historical science.
Observational science is anything that can be observed.
Historical science is a persons assumptions (beliefs) about the past.
Logic is about methods, just like maths. You can apply it to things - beliefs, scientific theories, whatever. But it isn't "based" on them in the same way that hammers aren't based on nails. They would just be pretty useless without them.
Well in my opinion that is not altogether true for example math is a belief in a certain method or system to be true.
so 1+1=2 is a belief, not a fact (for the school taught definition of =, + and real numbers)? if we are going down this road i'm either out or going to break rule number 8.
>(for the school taught definition of =, + and real numbers)
That's the "certain [...] system" then.
Only because 1+1=2 seems so natural to you? If I told you that ((λm n f x. m f (n f x)) (λf.λx. f x) (λf.λx. f x)) and (λf.λx. f (f x)) represent the same number in a different system, would you instantly believe me?
Not taking an sides here - but both parties should have a proper look at what the things they say mean to the other party :)
Not sure I agree. Maths doesn't actually claim "1" or a "λ" to exist in any shape or form. It is saying that if we assume some properties for these entities, then we can derive a bunch of new properties for them.
Unless you make a logical mistake along the way, the result of these derivations is true in the most absolute sense: You have to assume nothing, therefore what you believe to be real is irrelevant. Only once you apply it to the world around you you run into your own assumptions: Does one pudding and another pudding truly make two puddings?
Unless you make a logical mistake along the way, the result of these derivations is true in the most absolute sense: You have to assume nothing, therefore what you believe to be real is irrelevant. Only once you apply it to the world around you you run into your own assumptions: Does one pudding and another pudding truly make two puddings?
i fully agree with you.that's why i specified the system.
like PeterW said, you assume some properties, then you derive sth.
all i'm saying is once you setup some properties, you don't need to believe any conclusions, you can prove them within that system.
Right! 1+1=2 is a belief ,but it is a belief in a system that has been confirmed over the ages there for it is also a fact.
>that has been confirmed over the ages there for it is also a fact.
we are not talking about whether it has been accepted as a fact, you're steering off topic again.
i'm saying, that within the rules of simple school math, 1+1=2 is true. noone has to believe it. within the system ANYONE can prove it.
no leap of faith required.
That is what I was trying to say it is true within the known universe that 1+1 will indeed be 2. No leap of faith required.
Sorry, wrong. It is not a belief, it is provable from what we assume "1" to be (an abstract entity). On the other hand, it has never been confirmed, because nobody has actually seen a pure "1" in the wild yet.
What happens is that reality sometimes mimics mathematics, but not the other way around. If we see two hamsters making 10 hamsters that doesn't mean anything for number theory. Phsics is different here: If somebody had (say) formulated a theory of hamster preservation, this observation would cast some significant doubts on that theory.
This is why logic and maths deals in laws and truths, whereas physics only has theories. This is a really important distinction to make.
What happens is that reality sometimes mimics mathematics, but not the other way around. If we see two hamsters making 10 hamsters that doesn't mean anything for number theory. Phsics is different here: If somebody had (say) formulated a theory of hamster preservation, this observation would cast some significant doubts on that theory.
This is why logic and maths deals in laws and truths, whereas physics only has theories. This is a really important distinction to make.
That is not entirely true, for example special relativity is a law which has been derived from two assumptions (axioms in mathematics). So there is no way that if these two assumptions hold, and Einstein did cover all corner cases, that special relativity is false.
Unless of course Italians try to connect cables :D
Unless of course Italians try to connect cables :D
The key difference is that special relativity proposes that these assumptions are actually true in the real world. Axioms, on the other hand, never do this - they are almost entirely arbitrary, and resemblance in the real world is pure coincidence.
No special relativity never did that, that's why Einstein always said that he stood on the shoulders of two giants, on the one side Newton telling us something about reference frames and on the other side Maxwell telling us something about the speed of light. Einstein then just answered the question: What happens if both are right? He never assumed nature behaved this way, it were others before him who did. In this sense special relativity is just mathematics. For many other physical theories this of course does not hold.
> He never assumed nature behaved this way, it were others before him who did.
Huh? He wasn't the first to assume nature behaved this way, yes. Einstein's contribution was mostly mathematical in nature, yes. But this doesn't change the fact that his work wouldn't actually form a physical theory until it actually makes these assumptions.
>What happens is that reality sometimes mimics mathematics, but not the other way around.
??? are you saying that mathematics is not reality? I don't get what you are trying to get across here.
>Sorry, wrong. It is not a belief, it is provable from what we assume "1" to be (an abstract entity). On the other hand, it has never been confirmed, because nobody has actually seen a pure "1" in the wild yet.
Your right math itself is not a belief just as the Bible itself is not a belief, math is a system and the Bible is a book (that claims to be God's Word).
They are not beliefs they are things that we can't chose to believe or not to believe.
Methods can't be "true", just as much as a cake recipe can't be "true". We can make statements about the method, which might be true or not - such as that given good ingredients our recipe might produce a good cake. Logic is simply saying really, really basic things like "if you believe A and that A means B, then you should believe B" (modus ponens). It's not really a belief, it's the way we do reasoning.
So are you saying that logic is a method of reasoning that is biased on the beliefs of that person using logic?
the method of reasoning is not biased on the belief.the conclusion is biased on the belief.
like he said. "if you believe A, and A means B, then you should believe B"
which also means, "if you do not believe A, and not believing A means believing C, then you should believe C"
only the conclusion changed, not the method of reasoning.
What I mean is that you would not have logic without belief there would be nothing to apply it to. So logic is derived from belief.
no, not at all.even if you need a nail to use a hammer, the hammer is not derived from the nail. you just happen to be able to use a hammer to smash a nail into a wall.
same applies to logic and belief.
even if logic can be applied to beliefs (and should be), logic can be used on things like math, which do not require belief or faith as you admitted in the other branch of this thread
Well ker you have a convincing argument there. I think you are right. >which do not require belief or faith as you admitted in the other branch of this thread
Math is true for us under the normal universe ,but that does not mean that it doesn't take faith or belief just as you have put faith in the fact that you exist, it does not take much faith to believe it, and even if you didn't believe it, it does not make it any less true.
When logic says "if you know that from A comes B and that A is true, you also know that B is true", you can apply it to everything.A common example is the following:
You know that when it rains, the road will be wet.
You look out of your window, maybe even put the hand out and you see and thus know that it rains.
You now know that the road is wet, without having checked explicitly.
If you call that having checked and being certain that it rains a "belief", then - of course - you would be right. However, then everything would be a belief. From math to the weather to the nail that is stuck in my foot and hurts really bad.
I just was wondering if any of you have heard of Paul Pimsleur, and if his pimsleur method for learning new languages really works?
I looked it up quickly. I may have missunderstood the concept of it. It is very limited.
If the schooled persons are little children, it might work very well.
For a grown up person - or a still growing 12 years old - it is not an efficient method, because his whole concept of reality is heavily influenced by his native language and he will have difficultys to understand the implicit structure within a foreign language without having explicitly learned it or at least heard from it.
But I don't know if Pimsleurs concept is build around learning a language the "naive" way of a child or is just using the concept as a metaphor for learning a language without ever writing it down.
If the schooled persons are little children, it might work very well.
For a grown up person - or a still growing 12 years old - it is not an efficient method, because his whole concept of reality is heavily influenced by his native language and he will have difficultys to understand the implicit structure within a foreign language without having explicitly learned it or at least heard from it.
But I don't know if Pimsleurs concept is build around learning a language the "naive" way of a child or is just using the concept as a metaphor for learning a language without ever writing it down.
I understood that it was supposed to be for adults and that they thought that adults can learn a language faster then babies can, but I don't know if it is a fake or if it is real.
![[py]](/mwf/flags/py.png "Paraguay")
What would you think of when you see the word respect?
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
