Author |
Topic: we think therefore we are? (Read 17084 times) |
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender: 
Posts: 13730
|
 |
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #50 on: Aug 12th, 2006, 5:00am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Aug 11th, 2006, 3:23pm, Icarus wrote:If you are honest with yourself, you will recognize that in fact you believe large numbers of of statements are absolutely true.
I am sure of this, because you would be unable to communicate, or even function, if you did not. |
|
I disagree. True, I use a lot of assumptions, but I don't believe they are absolutely true. In fact I know most almost certainly aren't.
e.g. I know I can't believe my eyes; I've seen plenty of optical illusions proving they just make things up.
However, even knowing that basicly everything I 'see' is an illusion, it doesn't bother my functioning. Because I also know that pragmatically speaking it's an illusion I can live with (you can live a life in the matrix).
Of course, in daily live I don't even question the truth, falsity or pragmatics of it. It wouldn't be practical to overthink everything. I don't assume the ground won't give way when I walk over it, I just walk. I'll start thinking it over if I sink through (and my initial instinct don't help me out) So do I really believe the ground is solid? I hadn't given it much thought. But in the illusion, or reality, whatever the case may be, it seems to be dependable enough. It's a good working assumption; but I wouldn't say I believe it's true. I believe believing otherwise would make life difficult (but you can disbelief one thing without believing the opposite).
|
|
 IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #51 on: Feb 11th, 2007, 10:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 12th, 2006, 5:00am, towr wrote:
I disagree. True, I use a lot of assumptions, but I don't believe they are absolutely true. In fact I know most almost certainly aren't.
e.g. I know I can't believe my eyes; I've seen plenty of optical illusions proving they just make things up.
However, even knowing that basicly everything I 'see' is an illusion, it doesn't bother my functioning. Because I also know that pragmatically speaking it's an illusion I can live with (you can live a life in the matrix).
Of course, in daily live I don't even question the truth, falsity or pragmatics of it. It wouldn't be practical to overthink everything. I don't assume the ground won't give way when I walk over it, I just walk. I'll start thinking it over if I sink through (and my initial instinct don't help me out) So do I really believe the ground is solid? I hadn't given it much thought. But in the illusion, or reality, whatever the case may be, it seems to be dependable enough. It's a good working assumption; but I wouldn't say I believe it's true. I believe believing otherwise would make life difficult (but you can disbelief one thing without believing the opposite). |
|
Few interesting ideas relevant to subject and to TRUTH!
1)Quantum Mechanics: the double slit experiment – when not observed there is a wave-like pattern of [square root of] probability. When observed there is a particle. [So it behave like a particle and a wave under the identical conditions.] The state of each thing that interacts with the probability splits up into probabilities also. Measurement "collapses the probabilities" and recovers the particle. The problem: The measurement apparatus – machine or human/machine – is also just more particles which ought to split up! How does measurement collapse the split? John Wheeler, David Mermin, David Albert: consciousness of the effect cuases the collapse – and that consciousness must not be physical! [Other "solutions": heat, gravity, many worlds….]
4. Philosophy of mathematics: knowledge and reference seem to require interaction with the object of knowledge. Mathematical objects are abstract – non-physical. How can there be interaction with them? Godel: we "perceive" mathematical objects in a non-physical way. [Math not a generalization from experience, not "true by definition". Wigner: the unreasonable applicability of mathematics.]
5. John Searle, Rationality in Action: The reasons for a decision are experienced as not a sufficient cause for the decision. We act on the reasons, we carry them out in action. [We do not just wait to see what happens.] There is a gap in the causation between the reasons and the action. The responsibility for the action is due to a continuing conscious self that makes the choice and experiences the results. If the underlying neuro-physiology is deterministic, then the experience of the gap is an illusion, then the conscious response to the gap has no real effect on the action – it is a systematic property of the brain as a whole that is an "epiphenomenon". Evolution would not have produced that. So the underlying neuro-physiology must be indeterministic. [So far Searle.] But given #2, since this self must be conscious, it cannot be reduced to the brain….
|
|
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #52 on: Feb 12th, 2007, 2:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 11th, 2007, 10:32pm, puzzlecracker wrote:| How does measurement collapse the split? John Wheeler, David Mermin, David Albert: consciousness of the effect cuases the collapse – and that consciousness must not be physical! [Other "solutions": heat, gravity, many worlds….] |
|
It's a very anthropocentric suggestion that consciousness is necessary for the collapse of a wavefunction, when it is a much more sensible suggestion that it's a matter of scale. Multiple particles simply have a much harder time to be in superposition. Or perhaps rather, adding many wavefunctions gives a very definite probability that the particles are in a particular configuration.
There's a real problem with people reifying interpretations of theories; also for example the many worlds ideas, it's a way of explaining, not an actual suggesting those many worlds exist. Likewise I would say the 'observing' does not depend on a sentience to do the observing, but that it's just a form of physical interaction that causes the collapse.
Quote:| 5. John Searle, Rationality in Action: The reasons for a decision are experienced as not a sufficient cause for the decision. We act on the reasons, we carry them out in action. [We do not just wait to see what happens.] There is a gap in the causation between the reasons and the action. The responsibility for the action is due to a continuing conscious self that makes the choice and experiences the results. |
|
There have been experiments suggesting that decisions are made in the brain before any consciousness of them occurs. So it might well be that conscious decisionmaking is an illusion in that sense. A pessimistic view of people might say they tend to decide first, and rationalize the decision later.
Quote:| If the underlying neuro-physiology is deterministic, then the experience of the gap is an illusion, then the conscious response to the gap has no real effect on the action – it is a systematic property of the brain as a whole that is an "epiphenomenon". Evolution would not have produced that. |
|
Why not, one might very reasonably ask. It's not as if we don't experience numerous illusions, optical, audible etc. They're all side effects of the functioning of a brain.
Of course, like usual it probably returns to the innate desire to place humans in a special category. Being ourselves does not suffice, apparantly.
Quote:| So the underlying neuro-physiology must be indeterministic. [So far Searle.] |
|
How that follows is anyone's guess. It just reinforces my antipathy for Searle, frankly.
Besides, to have a rational consciousness, the mental substance (if it exists in itself) has to be deterministic; otherwise reasons could not lead to action, it would all be random. Mental causation implies, at least a measure, of mental determinancy.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
CowsRUs
Full Member
Why is it that cats are better then cows? Why not?
Gender:
Posts: 175
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #53 on: Feb 12th, 2007, 9:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
I love off-topic comments ! 
|
|
IP Logged |
"It is very good to have a brother who has a cow. It is also good to have a brother who has two cows. In fact, a brother with a cow is great, except when he has exactly 135 cows and is one of thecow himself."-Unknown
|
|
|
ima1trkpny
Senior Riddler
"Double click on 'Yes'... Hey!"
Gender: 
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #54 on: May 23rd, 2007, 5:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Please comment more on this guys! I find this discussion most interesting! I would have to say that the "universal truth" is that there may well be no universal truth. People make their own definitions of themselves and everything around them and the singular perspective disallows for anyone to see the whole picture (if there is one) and so they cannot accurately define something whose limits they cannot comprehend. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things for one to have a "reason for living" or is that something we delude ourselves into creating in order to justify our lives as significant?
|
|
IP Logged |
"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." -Churchill
|
|
|
JP05
Guest
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #55 on: May 23rd, 2007, 6:12pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Surely universal truth requires universal acceptance? So, really isn't the problem at hand *acceptance* instead of truth? After all, if I can get you to accept my way of thinking I stand a pretty good chance of convincing of of tons of BS.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #56 on: May 23rd, 2007, 8:00pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Alright. I guess I should answer something said long ago:
on Aug 11th, 2006, 3:23pm, Icarus wrote:If you are honest with yourself, you will recognize that in fact you believe large numbers of statements are absolutely true.
I am sure of this, because you would be unable to communicate, or even function, if you did not. |
|
on Aug 12th, 2006, 5:00am, towr wrote:
I disagree. True, I use a lot of assumptions, but I don't believe they are absolutely true. In fact I know most almost certainly aren't. |
|
"I disagree" - I.e. you believe that my statement is false - or stated another way, that the negation of the statement is true.
"True," - caught red-handed here!
"I don't believe" - i.e. you believe the negation is true.
"In fact," - red-handed again.
"I know" and again!
Lots of statements about things you believe to be true here, and I've only covered the first three sentences of this one post.
I don't see how it would even be possible to think without the concept of some things being true and others false.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #57 on: May 23rd, 2007, 9:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Gather round ppl !! Battle of the admins !!
|
|
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #58 on: May 24th, 2007, 1:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 23rd, 2007, 6:12pm, JP05 wrote:| Surely universal truth requires universal acceptance? |
|
Whether something is true should not depend on whether it is accepted as truth.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #59 on: May 24th, 2007, 1:23am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 23rd, 2007, 8:00pm, Icarus wrote:| "I disagree" - I.e. you believe that my statement is false - or stated another way, that the negation of the statement is true. |
|
No, that does not follows. I could believe neither.
It simply means to say that I don't find your argument convincing.
Quote:| "True," - caught red-handed here! |
|
Just a turn of phrase, admitting merit, not truth, of part of your statement
Quote:| "I don't believe" - i.e. you believe the negation is true. |
|
Again, not believing A does not mean believing not-A.
That I don't know whether the Riemann hypothesis is true does not mean I know that it is not true. Belief works in the same way. You might go as far as to say you can't at the same time believe one thing and it's opposite (although people appear wonderfully inconsistent in these things), but to believe neither is a very consistent position.
[etc]
Quote:| Lots of statements about things you believe to be true here, and I've only covered the first three sentences of this one post. |
|
No, lots of statement I treat as true there. Believing them is another matter. I can also speak as Harry Potter as wizard in training, that does not mean I actually believe he exists, and thus not that I actually believe he is a wizard in training (that would presuppose his existence). It's just impractical not to treat things in a factual way when speaking of them.
Quote:| I don't see how it would even be possible to think without the concept of some things being true and others false. |
|
I thought you were a mathematician. Surely you know it's just a matter of "assuming for the moment that ..."
Although people do it much more implicitly. Whether my basic assumption or true or not doesn't even come to mind. When I walk the street I have no belief about gravity, I just walk. As long as move from A to B I needn't concern myself with the truth of some deep implicit assumption, I'll consider whether gravity is true or not when I find myself floating above the ground, or when some other event call for it.
(I really hate having to continue discussions months after they were left..)
|
| « Last Edit: May 24th, 2007, 1:28am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #60 on: May 24th, 2007, 7:12am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 23rd, 2007, 8:00pm, Icarus wrote:| "I don't believe" - i.e. you believe the negation is true. |
|
I've just tossed a coin.
Do you believe it came up heads?
If not, do you believe the negation is true?
Or do you believe you have insufficient evidence to decide?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #61 on: May 24th, 2007, 3:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 24th, 2007, 1:23am, towr wrote:
No, that does not follows. I could believe neither.
It simply means to say that I don't find your argument convincing.
Just a turn of phrase, admitting merit, not truth, of part of your statement
Again, not believing A does not mean believing not-A. |
|
on May 24th, 2007, 7:12am, rmsgrey wrote:
I've just tossed a coin.
Do you believe it came up heads?
If not, do you believe the negation is true?
Or do you believe you have insufficient evidence to decide? |
|
This is sophistry. "I don't believe" is a clear statement that you consider the statement in question to not be true. Whether this means you consider the statement false or undecidable or some other variation from true is immaterial: This still represents a statement of your belief of something being true. Namely, the lack of truth in the previous statement.
on May 24th, 2007, 1:23am, towr wrote:| I thought you were a mathematician. Surely you know it's just a matter of "assuming for the moment that ..." |
|
 This is entirely in line with my statements. It confirms what I said, not contradict! "Assume" means you are taking it to be true. That is, this entire idea requires a concept of things being true or false.
Quote:| Although people do it much more implicitly. Whether my basic assumption or true or not doesn't even come to mind. |
|
The value of true or false may be in question, but once again, the idea that the statement has some value of true or false (or undecidable or contradictory, or some other logical value) is required to think about it.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #62 on: May 24th, 2007, 5:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
On re-reading this reply, I don't seem to be directly disageeing with anyone; just adding my thoughts...
on May 24th, 2007, 3:36pm, Icarus wrote:
This is sophistry. "I don't believe" is a clear statement that you consider the statement in question to not be true. Whether this means you consider the statement false or undecidable or some other variation from true is immaterial: This still represents a statement of your belief of something being true. Namely, the lack of truth in the previous statement. |
|
'I don't believe' literally means you do not believe; it doesn't necessarily mean you believe in the negation (although in normal conversation this is usually implicit, when trying to converse accurately the distinction should be made).
In an environment such as this, where accurate statements are required to convey what you mean, I try to use statements such as 'I believe in no God' as a strong assertion. Statements such as 'I do not believe in God' are weaker, making no assertion about a particular belief.
I suppose I'm directly addressing a statement you made in a previous reply, Icarus:
Quote:| "I disagree" - I.e. you believe that my statement is false - or stated another way, that the negation of the statement is true. |
|
From the context it seems towr disagreed with your argument. This is clearly vital in his belief of your conclusion. So he lacks a belief one way or the other with respect to the issue -- he is not convinved. Apologies for putting words in your mouth, towr!
Statements in general can be taken either literally or using their colloquial meanings, making it easy to see how confusion can arise.
With respect to rmsgrey's questions:
I do not believe it came up heads, but I also do not believe that it didn't come up heads. In my opinion, the important distinction in this kind of example is what I've described above. Until some kind of evidence is presented beyond the (almost) 50/50 knowledge of coin flips, it makes no sense to form a belief regarding a destinct outcome.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #63 on: May 24th, 2007, 6:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Umm... Why did you post that first quote if you were going to entirely ignore what it said to argue against the misinterpretation of the second quote that I was trying to set straight in the first?
The one thing that is definite from towr's post is that he considers my previous statement to not be true. Whatever else he believes about those statements, this "lack of truth", however he wants to interpret it, is something he states a belief in, even if he does so using negative language.
Is gravity real? Sure, you don't think about it all the time, but you believe it non-the-less. Is the ground solid? You don't consider it as you walk, but the very fact that you try to walk and expect to get somewhere shows that you do indeed believe it to be true.
The point of my comments to which towr took exception was to say that evidence in the concept of "truth" is strong (follow the thread back, and you will see that anonymous requested such evidence). I have lived my entire life under the assumption that "true" and "false" are real concepts - that there are statements that are true and others that are false, and have never encountered anything that suggested otherwise.
Let me ask this instead: who out there doubts the existence of "true" and "false", and why do you?
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
alien2
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 6986
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #64 on: May 24th, 2007, 7:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think, therefore I am. When I sleep, I don't think, therefore I am not. When I die, I will not think, therefore I will not be. When I was a baby, I didn't think, I just sucked my thumb, therefore I was not.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #65 on: May 25th, 2007, 4:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 24th, 2007, 6:35pm, Icarus wrote:| Umm... Why did you post that first quote if you were going to entirely ignore what it said to argue against the misinterpretation of the second quote that I was trying to set straight in the first? |
|
'I don't believe X' doesn't mean 'I believe X is not true'. That's the point I'm trying to make. There is no belief relevant to first statement being asserted. (You could argue that not believing in X necessarily implies that you believe that you don't believe in X, but this is irrelevant.)
You say in the first quote I quoted of yours that what towr says implies a belief. I disagree. The reason I brought up the issue of speaking accurately or speaking colloquially changes this conclusion.
Quote:| Let me ask this instead: who out there doubts the existence of "true" and "false", and why do you? |
|
I don't doubt the existence of true or false. I've not said anything like that. 'I don't believe X' is simply not asserting a belief one way or the other; it does not follow that I doubt whether X has a truth value or not.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #66 on: May 25th, 2007, 6:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
Example time:
I calculate the motion of a satellite using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Do I believe that Newtonian gravity is the absolute truth? No, I just believe that it is close enough to the truth to be useful.
I walk, expecting not to fall through the floor. Does that mean I believe the floor is solid? Well, that depends a lot on how you define solid, but considering the floor is mostly "empty space", and the "surface" is bouncing around chaotically, I don't consider that to be absolute truth either.
I type a post in English, expecting people to understand it. Does that mean that I believe everyone understands the exact same things by the words I use? Not at all - again, I treat the words as a useful approximation to the meaning I intend to convey, and trust that other people's understandings will be close enough to my own.
Absolute truth is a very demanding standard, and pretty much the whole of the world we think we live in is made up of little stories that are close enough to absolute truth to be useful, but simple enough to be comprehensible...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ima1trkpny
Senior Riddler
"Double click on 'Yes'... Hey!"
Gender:
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #67 on: May 25th, 2007, 12:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
good point... 
|
|
IP Logged |
"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." -Churchill
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #68 on: May 25th, 2007, 3:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 25th, 2007, 4:43am, Ulkesh wrote:| 'I don't believe X' doesn't mean 'I believe X is not true'. That's the point I'm trying to make. There is no belief relevant to first statement being asserted. |
|
To the contrary, if it does not indicate a belief of towr's, then what does it mean? How can you assign any reasonable meaning to this phrase at all, with implying some sort of belief of towr's? I don't believe that towr is babbling meaninglessly here. Nor am I with that last sentence. It has a definite meaning, which is something I believe to be true. (By the way, since everything I am trying to say recently seems to subjected to the most extreme interpretations: that belief is not unshakable, I do not mean this is something I am thoroughly and completely convinced of - what I mean is that simply right now, this is what I think is true.)
on May 25th, 2007, 6:48am, rmsgrey wrote:I calculate the motion of a satellite using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Do I believe that Newtonian gravity is the absolute truth? No, I just believe that it is close enough to the truth to be useful.
<snip>
Absolute truth is a very demanding standard, and pretty much the whole of the world we think we live in is made up of little stories that are close enough to absolute truth to be useful, but simple enough to be comprehensible... |
|
An examination of the context of my "absolutely true" remark should make it clear that I meant "true without regard to the context of who is considering it", not "completely and utterly exact and irrefutable", as you are defining it.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Three Hands
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 715
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #69 on: May 26th, 2007, 9:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 25th, 2007, 3:36pm, Icarus wrote:
To the contrary, if it does not indicate a belief of towr's, then what does it mean? How can you assign any reasonable meaning to this phrase at all, with implying some sort of belief of towr's? I don't believe that towr is babbling meaninglessly here. Nor am I with that last sentence. It has a definite meaning, which is something I believe to be true. (By the way, since everything I am trying to say recently seems to subjected to the most extreme interpretations: that belief is not unshakable, I do not mean this is something I am thoroughly and completely convinced of - what I mean is that simply right now, this is what I think is true.) |
|
What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? Neither claims to believe in God, and so I guess by your claim, Icarus, there is no difference between the two...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #70 on: May 26th, 2007, 1:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
That is ENTIRELY against what I just said!!! PLEASE try to understand!
The atheist BELIEVES there is no god. The agnostic BELIEVES that (s)he does not have sufficient knowledge to decide.
To "not believe" something is to believe something else. YOU are the ones who keep insisting that obviously that this would always mean believing in the exact opposite of what is "not believed". I did not intend this idea at all.
Now I remember why I dropped this before. Everything I say keeps getting ridiculous interpretations put on it. And even when I explain that is not what I meant, people keep ignoring my explanations to put their ridiculous interpretations back in my mouth!
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #71 on: May 26th, 2007, 5:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 26th, 2007, 1:01pm, Icarus wrote:| To "not believe" something is to believe something else. YOU are the ones who keep insisting that obviously that this would always mean believing in the exact opposite of what is "not believed". I did not intend this idea at all. |
|
And yet you said:
""I don't believe" is a clear statement that you consider the statement in question to not be true."
which I translate as:
"~B(X)" implies B(~X)
(using quotes to denote saying something, and B(X) to be belief in the truth of X)
So when the agnostic says "I don't believe God exists" that implies he believes God does not exist...
["~B(G)" implies B(~G)]
Quote:| Now I remember why I dropped this before. Everything I say keeps getting ridiculous interpretations put on it. And even when I explain that is not what I meant, people keep ignoring my explanations to put their ridiculous interpretations back in my mouth! |
|
Maybe we believe the words you are using mean something different than what you believe them to mean?
I have, somewhere in the back of my mind a set of assumptions that I treat as "common assumptions" - ideas I assume are shared widely (like the meanings of English words, or the tendency of heavy objects to fall, or that 2+2=4). Some I treat as more universal than others, and there are some that would be painful to adjust because so much depends on them, but there's no sharp division between "the Joker counts as the 9 of Diamonds" (which is only a shared assumption within a fairly narrow context) and "the sun will rise within the next 4 or 5 hours" (which is as close to a universal truth as I get outside of logical constructions)
Mathematical truths have their own category because they're explicitly conditional - "2+2=4" holds because of the way the symbols are defined, and is valid as long as the symbols fit the assumptions used to define them.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #72 on: May 26th, 2007, 8:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 26th, 2007, 5:05pm, rmsgrey wrote:
And yet you said:
""I don't believe" is a clear statement that you consider the statement in question to not be true."
which I translate as:
"~B(X)" implies B(~X)
(using quotes to denote saying something, and B(X) to be belief in the truth of X) |
|
This isn't a well-defined mathematical theory in a strict two-valued logic system. This discussion is going on using natural english. Natural language allows statements that are neither true nor false. Natural language also allows a much broader interpretation of the phrase "not true" than "its logical negation is true".
towr has expressed this broader interpretation:
on May 24th, 2007, 1:23am, towr wrote:No, that does not follows. I could believe neither.
<snip>
Again, not believing A does not mean believing not-A. |
|
Ulkesh has expressed this broader interpretation:
on May 24th, 2007, 5:06pm, Ulkesh wrote:| 'I don't believe' literally means you do not believe; it doesn't necessarily mean you believe in the negation |
|
You yourself have expressed this broader interpretation:
on May 24th, 2007, 7:12am, rmsgrey wrote:
I've just tossed a coin.
Do you believe it came up heads?
If not, do you believe the negation is true?
Or do you believe you have insufficient evidence to decide? |
|
Furthermore, IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE in my post after the one which you are harping on, what did I say?
on May 24th, 2007, 3:36pm, Icarus wrote:| Whether this means you consider the statement false or undecidable or some other variation from true is immaterial: This still represents a statement of your belief of something being true. Namely, the lack of truth in the previous statement. |
|
Clearly stated that I did NOT mean he had to believe in the logical negation of my statement. Yet you chose to ignore this sentence, and demand an interpretation of the sentence before that contradicts it. Furthermore, you actually add this bit:
on May 26th, 2007, 5:05pm, rmsgrey wrote:| Maybe we believe the words you are using mean something different than what you believe them to mean? |
|
even though you KNOW better than that. You cannot tell me you were unaware that english allows other interpretations than strict 2-valued logic. Even if you were somehow unaware of this, YOUR OWN POST earlier and this atheist vs agnostic example should have made it abundantly clear to you that such interpretations exist and are quite natural.
Yes, I am mad.
I admit that my phrasing here was bad:
on May 23rd, 2007, 8:00pm, Icarus wrote:"I disagree" - I.e. you believe that my statement is false - or stated another way, that the negation of the statement is true.
"I don't believe" - i.e. you believe the negation is true. |
|
It does say something other than what I intended at the time. I was aware when I posted that it was strictly wrong, but I foolishly thought that people would consider the argument long enough to realize how it was true (or at least, why I believe it to be true) instead of stopping at the obvious false interpretation. If I had been less lazy, it would have avoided some of these problems. Thus, while I was frustrated by towr's and your replies, the failure there was on my part.
But everything beyond my reply quoted above that still demands this interpretation is unjustifiable. If you had simply missed the explanation, that would be one thing. But the fact that I have repeatedly pointed it out, only to have this repeatedly ignored is revolting.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #73 on: May 27th, 2007, 5:38am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 26th, 2007, 8:36pm, Icarus wrote:| But the fact that I have repeatedly pointed it out, only to have this repeatedly ignored is revolting. |
|
And what is so bad about revolting from time to time? 
|
| « Last Edit: May 27th, 2007, 9:16am by ThudnBlunder » |
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
ima1trkpny
Senior Riddler
"Double click on 'Yes'... Hey!"
Gender:
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #74 on: May 27th, 2007, 10:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
Calm down Icarus, I see your point. Don't let it frustrate you because it is enivitable that someone will always disagree with you no matter what, instead keep enlightening us because people were bringing up some very interesting points in regard to the nature of our existance. Keep up the good work!
|
|
IP Logged |
"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." -Churchill
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print