Logic and Reason

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you use the word logic in relation to such string manipulation rules? Would you then agree with me that logic is independent of the actual world we live in?

[b]To recap, the truth-values within each system do not depend on real objects, but the choice of a system does. So 2+2=4 is true within the chosen model (regardless of the world) but the cho ...[text shortened]... le for choosing also dependent on the world? Or is it only your choice that is so dependent?[/b]

First paragraph: Yes to the first, no to the second. I repeat: the truth values are dependent only on the system, but the choice of the system is not independent. So that we agree on what system "logic" is cannot be independent of the world.

When you say "dependent of the world", you merge both parts, the truth-values determined within the system and the choice of the system.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I cant make out what you are saying. "not inherently existent" and "their causes and conditions of existence" seems to be contradictory.

No, not contradictory. Methinks you believe that the relative is absolute and the conditioned, unconditioned. If your “just is” exist inherently, there must be an absolute division between that which is “just is” and that which is “not just is”, and therefore we would have to assume that there is no dependence of one upon the other due to the premise that they are both independent and self-existent. However, if we accept that there is no such a thing as a mutual dependence, it is impossible to establish their relation and their inherent existence -BTW this is exactly the problem with the concept of the Christian (Triune or not Triune) God.


So "2", logic etc have not inherent existence -they are just products of our mind in a specific context as we collapse the wavefunction😵

Originally posted by Palynka
😕 How many are there in your imagination?

I am still counting. They may not even be a finite number, but they are at least countable. 🙂

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what you are doing is defining your own vocabulary. words should not have diferent meaning for different people otherwise language fails its purpose: understanding each other.

There is no harm in defining your own vocabulary. It is however important to note when you do so, to avoid confusion. Once noted, communication is possible.

get a neutral source to define "abstract" for you, then you apply it in reasoning.
I think my usage is within the range of the dictionary definition, but then so might Bosse de Nage's. There is a variety of meanings listed and there may be subtleties to the meaning that we are including that is not covered in the dictionary.

you cannot say that carpet the word is abstract and carpet the carpet is concrete(hope the spelling is right) and then go around to say that love the word is abstract and love the love is abstract. there are different kinds of abstract: why use the same word?
I did not make any such claim. I said both 'carpet' the word and 'carpet' the concept are abstract.
From chambers:
Abstract:
1. referring to something which exists only as an idea or quality.
I believe my usage is within definition. Neither the word, nor the concept physically exist.

words are simply tools to name certain objects. they are useless without mapping them to those objects. sure you can say that carpet is abstract until you attach it to the thing you wipe your feet on but then again, i can say that until you do that it is just a string of letters and meaningless: what is its point?
How about 'Angel'. Which object is that dependent on?

Originally posted by black beetle
So "2", logic etc have not inherent existence -they are just products of our mind in a specific context as we collapse the wavefunction😵

Yet a machine could know and use the number "2" even if human minds never existed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet a machine could know and use the number "2" even if human minds never existed.

Could it do it without being programmed? Silly question, but ...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet a machine could know and use the number "2" even if human minds never existed.

Nope -and Bosse de Nage just asked you the obvious question🙂

Anyway, maybe it would be clearer if we were arguing regarding our very concept of “self”, about “I” and “not I”. If I assume that I exist inherently I end up isolated and divided from the physical world, unable to taste experiences and unable to affect it -and obviously this is false due to the fact that I interact with the physical world. Therefore I assume that everything, the abstract ideas and even my own self are empty (they are relative and not absolute, that is) of inherent existence -and I consider this idea neither an “absolute truth” nor an absolute, because if I assert inherent non-existence I would turn relativity into an absolute and in that case I would end up again in front of an absolute division between the relative and the absolute. Therefore I keep in mind that the absolute is not truly absolute because it cannot be independent of the relative, so I discard the hypothesis that the conditionedness of the conditioned is itself absolute and I assume that the self is empty even of its conditionedness and its relativity.

Now, since I accept that the conditionedness of the conditioned is ultimately conditioned and that the distinction between the conditioned and the unconditioned is itself conditioned, the conditioned is ultimately identical to the unconditioned reality. This means that I do not determine “I” neither as an absolute -and therefore totally different from the observer universe-, nor as an eternal independent substance. Now it’s obvious that “I” is merely a synthesis, an event/ fact, a link between the Worlds 1, 2 and 3, therefore “I” is solely a reality that lacks of inherent existence and it ‘s not divided from the relative.

The above ancient string of thought was offered by Nagarjuna. Sunyata/ Emptiness/ Relativity/ Void, Sunyata-Sunyata and Karma were concepts almost incomprehensible until the early 20th century and the arising of the theories of the relativity, of Quantum Mechanics and of Quantum Darvinism (Karma reloaded!)
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Could it do it without being programmed? Silly question, but ...

Computers do arise in nature without 'programming'. But that is really irrelevant, as even if computers need to be programmed the dependency on a human brain or even a brain at all, is not proven.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Computers do arise in nature without 'programming'. But that is really irrelevant, as even if computers need to be programmed the dependency on a human brain or even a brain at all, is not proven.

Oh! Kindly please elaborate whenever is possible regarding your notion "computers do arise in nature without programming". Also, "dependency of the computers on a human brain" means to me that the computers are designed and manufactured by human beings, however methinks you say something else that I fail to understand it;

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am still counting. They may not even be a finite number, but they are at least countable. 🙂

You can "imagine" anything, so it's not countable. For example, I can think of a set of angels with continuous transformations in a large number of characteristics (e.g. nose length and width) and therefore the cardinality of that set is larger than the set of natural numbers and it is an uncountable set.

But we digress in this little example of yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is no harm in defining your own vocabulary. It is however important to note when you do so, to avoid confusion. Once noted, communication is possible.

[b]get a neutral source to define "abstract" for you, then you apply it in reasoning.
I think my usage is within the range of the dictionary definition, but then so might Bosse de Nage's. The ...[text shortened]... ningless: what is its point?[/b]
How about 'Angel'. Which object is that dependent on?[/b]

yes, but when debating, if you supply a different definition for a concept you kind of defeat the purpose of the debate. how can you have a debate when the two sides each support a view about different objects. there is no pro and counter sides.

it is kind of like 2 people debating the spicyness of chilli versus the funny factor of jar jar binks:
"Chilli is very spicy"
"Jar jar is not funny and ruins starwars"
Debate over.

"I said both 'carpet' the word and 'carpet' the concept are abstract."
what carpet are you referring to? not the persian, "on the floor" type? what abstract carpet can you think of?

"How about 'Angel'. Which object is that dependent on?"
the winged humanoid that serves god? the vampire from buffy (yucky show)? adjective representing goodness and fluffyness?
you would have to use it in a context for it to have any meaning.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Computers do arise in nature without 'programming'. But that is really irrelevant, as even if computers need to be programmed the dependency on a human brain or even a brain at all, is not proven.

As a working hypothesis, all calculating devices known to people thus far have been manufactured; absent contrary evidence, it's reasonable to assume that they depend on human minds for their existence.

But I'm more interested in hearing you qualify your statement that computers could know the concept of 2 with or without human minds. Specifically, what do you mean by 'know'?

I assume you're a strong AI believer.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As a working hypothesis, all calculating devices known to people thus far have been manufactured; absent contrary evidence, it's reasonable to assume that they depend on human minds for their existence.

But I'm more interested in hearing you qualify your statement that computers could know the concept of 2 with or without human minds. Specifically, what do you mean by 'know'?

I assume you're a strong AI believer.

Hey is that a Conway/Game of Life animation?

Oops just spotted the German, so it is.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Hey is that a Conway/Game of Life animation?

Oops just spotted the German, so it is.

I have twhitehead to thank for steering my thoughts in a direction that wound up in Conway territory, a truly exhilarating space.

I'm listening to Kraftwerk's imaginary album 'Spiel des Lebens' right now.

It would be fun to discuss the universe-as-cellular-automaton theory.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, but when debating, if you supply a different definition for a concept you kind of defeat the purpose of the debate. how can you have a debate when the two sides each support a view about different objects. there is no pro and counter sides.

I fully understand what you are talking about and have already tried to take steps to avoid confusion.


what carpet are you referring to? not the persian, "on the floor" type? what abstract carpet can you think of?
Yes the Persian "on the floor" type. And yes, until we specify which Persian "on the floor" type, it remains abstract.

the winged humanoid that serves god? the vampire from buffy (yucky show)? adjective representing goodness and fluffyness?
you would have to use it in a context for it to have any meaning.
Oh? You seem to have got quite a lot of meaning from it even though it is not very specific. I notice that none of the meanings you specify are existent objects, yet you claimed that words are tools to name objects. Do you agree that a lot more than objects can be named?