Author |
Topic: we think therefore we are? (Read 17088 times) |
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
 |
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #75 on: May 27th, 2007, 11:59am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Edit: It's clear from towr's replies below that I'm using his name to argue a point to which he does not necessarily subscribe. Apologies again for this. Consider it a part of wu::forums celebrity!
Also, my definition of 'belief' is different from his. I hope the differences in intended meaning are clear in the context.
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.) |
|
towr does not believe in X. That's what it asserts. This (in my opinion) does not imply that towr believes X is false.
I'll try (and have been trying!) to be as clear is possible:
Let's say X is either true or false (forget undecidable for the time being).
Now, does towr have to have a belief about whether X is true or false? Let's say towr has never heard of the experiment for which X is one of two outcomes. The answer is clearly 'no' (I don't need to ask him a question to know this). Now imagine I've told towr of the experiment's existence, and that there are two possible outcomes. Does towr believe in one particular outcome over the other? With no knowledge of the probability distribution, how could he justify one belief over the other? Therefore towr is justified in saying 'I do not believe in X'. He is also justified in saying 'I do not believe in Y' (the other outcome).
Correct me if I'm wrong, Icarus, but are you saying that towr can't honestly and consistently hold to those two statements at the same time?
Once towr knows something about the experiment, perhaps he feels he can predict the outcome, and can form a belief about it. 'I believe in X.' He then cannot honestly say 'I do not believe in X', or, indeed, 'I believe in Y'.
I'd like to make clear that this experiment has two possibly outcomes, but towr has three possible mind-states regarding it: belief in neither, X or Y. As such, 'I do not believe in X' does not necessarily mean 'I believe in no X'. the first falls into the believing in neither category or the belief in Y category, the second falls only into the belief in Y category.
|
| « Last Edit: May 27th, 2007, 2:12pm by Ulkesh » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender: 
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #76 on: May 27th, 2007, 1:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
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. |
|
Firstly, I disagreed with a statement of yours, because I saw fault in the argumentation and conclusion.
The thing I stated of that I did not believe it, was that my many assumptions in life are all absolutely true.
Quote: 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. |
|
That hasn't been what I've been disputing, what I dispute is that you need to believe your assumptions to work with them.
Quote:| 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. |
|
Yes, but what that value is, is not required to think about it. You can consider both case, or pick whichever you consider likeliest if you need to choose.
...
Look, take it as you will. But the way I see it, having real beliefs of something implies that you believe the opposite is not possible (otherwise you would have some doubt, and thus not really believe). Since I consider many things ( (very) remotely) possible, despite how I may experience the world (or think I do), I thus don't have real believe in them. Granted, it might surprise me if things turn out to be different, because I do attach different probabilities to how things are/could be.
If I even stand still to consider things, I reason based on what I think is most likely; but many day-to-day things are automatic.
Therefore I see no reason why one should attribute sh*tloads of absolute beliefs to people which they supposedly must have to get on in life.
|
| « Last Edit: May 27th, 2007, 1:53pm by towr » |
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 #77 on: May 27th, 2007, 1:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 24th, 2007, 6:35pm, Icarus wrote:| 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. |
|
That isn't something I disagreed with. I agreed truth exists. However I disagreed that you can really know it (other than definitional truths)
Going way back --
on Jul 31st, 2006, 1:15am, towr wrote:It's true that the truth must be out there, but it's also in the strictest sense unattainable. We know our mind plays tricks on us; so at best we can find emperical truth under the assumption our senses aren't generally misleading us (and that we're not, say, just brainy things floating in some tank dreaming everything up).
We only have a small window on the truth, and no idea how it distorts it.
1 = 2 (mod 1) |
|
And I continued not to disagree with that.
on Aug 1st, 2006, 4:30am, towr wrote:| And rather than trying to counter that point, which I agree with, I added to it, to argue truth can hardly be found at all. Not beyond ones of the form "if <assumptions> then <dependent truth>" and that (independent) truth (i.e. the state of reality) must exist. |
|
What I did, and still do, disagree with is something else, namely:
on Aug 11th, 2006, 3:23pm, Icarus wrote:Try opening your eyes. It is all around you. Or don't open your eyes: just examine what you really believe about knowledge. 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. |
|
There is very little I believe, and less still that I believe absolutely. Much, however, that I take as working assumption because I consider (if I consider anything at all) alternatives unlikely. Considering alternatives impossible, though, goes too far for me in almost every case.
Note that, yes, you can grasp at this straw and point out that I don't believe it's impossible I am wrong on this point; but in my defense I do consider it qualitatively unlikely (having some experience being me). And my working assumption in everyday life is that I'm right. Except when circumstances show I'm not.
|
| « Last Edit: May 27th, 2007, 1:46pm by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #78 on: May 28th, 2007, 5:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 26th, 2007, 8:36pm, Icarus wrote:| 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". |
|
OK, we appear to be using different interpretations of the ~ operator, which may well be my fault. I was intending ~X to mean simply "X is not true", rather than "X is false" - in a 2-valued logic, the two are equivalent, while in fuzzier situations, there's a difference.
However, you still seem to be talking about deducing a belief that X is not true from an expression of a lack of belief that X is true. And it is this with which I take exception.
For example, currently:
I do not believe it is sunny outside (with perfect timing, the sun came out while I was typing, but I'll continue based on the state of the weather when I started...) and I believe it is not sunny outside (I can see that through my window)
I also do not believe it is raining outside, however before deciding to go out without an umbrella, I would go outside to check because I also do not believe it is not raining outside. I do believe it is not raining heavily outside (I can detect heavy rain through my window) but I have sufficient experience of how light rain is hard to detect to not form a belief either way on the question.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #79 on: May 28th, 2007, 6:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
[theoretical interlude]
With regard to a logical interpretation of statements of belief and knowledge, I tend towards modal logics, rather than propositional logic. They reflect many aspects of it better (even though they still remain in other ways unsatisfactory in accurately modelling their natural counterparts).
For knowledge the typical axioms are
K x -> x : if you know something it must be true
Kx -> K K x : if you know something, then you know that you know it
~ K x -> K ~ Kx : if you don't know something you know that you don't know it.
These axioms are take together with the basic axioms of modal logic
If x then K x : you know all propositional tautologies
K(x -> y) -> (Kx -> Ky) : if you know x implies y, then knowing x means you know y.
And for inference we have modus ponens, and anything else from propositional logic.
(Note that modal logic is still strictly two-valued)
In the case of belief (taking B instead of K as modal operator), we substitute the first axiom with
~ B false : what you believe is consistent
When considering humans I tend to argue against the validity of this axiom, in part because most people don't necessarily believe the consequences of what they believe. It really needs a smidgen of temporal logic thrown in.. and a dash of dynamic logic.. a tablespoon of probabilistic logic.. maybe a sprinkling of default logic.
And before long we have a recipe for disaster. (Or at least a near incomprehensible logic with too many modal operators to shake a stick at.)
You can do some sensible things with it though. Like solve puzzles 
[/interlude]
|
| « Last Edit: May 28th, 2007, 6:55am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Three Hands
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 715
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #80 on: May 28th, 2007, 9:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
OK, on closer re-reading I can see where I mis-interpreted your argument Icarus - the main thing that was getting me a bit confused and hence why I asked (albeit in a rather roundabout and easy-to-take-as-an-attack way) for clarification. Hence I apologise for not picking up on it sooner, and causing unnecessary stress/anger through a lack of observation on my part.
I guess this is part of the reason I'm generally a little reticent to chime in much on online debates - it tends to be far too easy (at least for me) to miss some of the finer points of what someone is saying, and so get the wrong end of the stick. A lack of other cues to pick up on makes the communication of ideas a lot harder to manage, and I'm not always concentrating as hard as I should on these boards when trying to follow what's going on.
|
|
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 #81 on: Jun 3rd, 2007, 12:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I decided after that last post of mine that if I was getting upset about this, I had clearly lost all perspective on the matter. This is the reason you haven't heard from me in a week. I decided to simply stay away for awhile until I could approach matters rationally again.
I apologize for losing my temper. I still stand by the basic content of my post, but its delivery leaves much to be desired. I have not read through your replies yet, but I thought that I should apologize now and let you know that I'm not intentionally ignoring 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
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #82 on: Jun 3rd, 2007, 3:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 3rd, 2007, 12:36pm, Icarus wrote:
I apologize for losing my temper. I still stand by the basic content of my post, but its delivery leaves much to be desired. I have not read through your replies yet, but I thought that I should apologize now and let you know that I'm not intentionally ignoring you. |
|
Glad you have not been sulking in your tent. 
on Jun 3rd, 2007, 12:36pm, Icarus wrote:I decided after that last post of mine that if I was getting upset about this, I had clearly lost all perspective on the matter. This is the reason you haven't heard from me in a week. I decided to simply stay away for awhile until I could approach matters rationally again.
|
|
Better to have you are on the inside peeing out than on the outside peeing in. 
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 3rd, 2007, 4:18pm by ThudnBlunder » |
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #83 on: Jun 5th, 2007, 3:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
At least I have the ability to recognize when I've behaved badly, and take steps to correct it.
The world would be a better place if more people could do that.
|
|
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
|
|
|
ima1trkpny
Senior Riddler
"Double click on 'Yes'... Hey!"
Gender: 
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #84 on: Jun 5th, 2007, 3:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Sorry you got upset Icarus  we didn't mean to make you flustered. Feeling better after your vacation from us?
ThudanBlunder... that was more than a little rude. 
|
|
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 #85 on: Jun 5th, 2007, 4:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 5th, 2007, 3:55pm, ima1trkpny wrote:| Sorry you got upset Icarus we didn't mean to make you flustered. |
|
Getting upset was my own fault. It was not caused by anyone else. It wasn't a vacation from you I needed, but a break from my own focus so that I could put things in perspective.
|
|
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
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #86 on: Jun 5th, 2007, 5:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 27th, 2007, 1:11pm, towr wrote:| Firstly, I disagreed with a statement of yours, because I saw fault in the argumentation and conclusion. |
|
Which was my point. You rejected my argument because you believe it to be faulty.
Quote:| The thing I stated of that I did not believe it, was that my many assumptions in life are all absolutely true. |
|
3 points:
First I never said they were absolutely true - only that you believe them to be.
Second, I didn't say all of them, just that there are many things that you do believe in.
Thirdly, I really should have said "universally", rather than "absolutely", since if you look at the context, that was what we were discussing. My point was that everyone has things that they consider to be true, and not just "true for them", but true for everyone, even if others don't believe it.
However, I also think that there are a number of things that you believe to be absolutely true by the meaning you are using. Or perhaps you reserve some doubts about whether 1 = 1?
(Please don't give more examples of how with other interpretations, this could be considered false. You know what interpretation is meant here. That a different false idea can be expressed with the same symbols does not refute the statement 1 = 1.)
Quote:| That hasn't been what I've been disputing, what I dispute is that you need to believe your assumptions to work with them. |
|
Again, I never said you have to believe in assumptions to work with them. What I said is simply that there are things you believe. No more, no less.
Quote:| Yes, but what that value is, is not required to think about it. You can consider both case, or pick whichever you consider likeliest if you need to choose. |
|
Recall, please, that I was offering evidence for the existence of truth:
on Jul 31st, 2006, 5:42pm, Icarus wrote:| Similarly, the evidence of for the existence of "truth" is overwhelming in my estimation. |
|
on Aug 11th, 2006, 11:53am, anonymous wrote:| Care to share some of the evidence? |
|
I never claimed you needed to assign a truth value to a statement to think about it. I did not even imply that all statements must be true or false. That idea is easily demonstrated to be false. My point was that you think about statements with the idea that they can be true or false. This is evidence towards the existence of "truth".
Quote:Look, take it as you will. But the way I see it, having real beliefs of something implies that you believe the opposite is not possible (otherwise you would have some doubt, and thus not really believe). Since I consider many things ( (very) remotely) possible, despite how I may experience the world (or think I do), I thus don't have real believe in them. Granted, it might surprise me if things turn out to be different, because I do attach different probabilities to how things are/could be.
If I even stand still to consider things, I reason based on what I think is most likely; but many day-to-day things are automatic. |
|
I'm not sure how you get this. Perhaps your native language works differently from English. In English when someone asks me something, and I reply "I believe that is so", I am not making an absolute authoritative statement of it's truth. By saying "I believe", I am actually hedging my bets - acknowledging that I could be wrong. "Believe" just means that you think it is true, not that you are completely and totally convinced of it.
Quote:| Therefore I see no reason why one should attribute sh*tloads of absolute beliefs to people which they supposedly must have to get on in life. |
|
Who's attributing any beliefs to anyone? I just said people have beliefs. I never said anything about what those beliefs are, and certainly not about what they must be!
on May 27th, 2007, 1:26pm, towr wrote:That isn't something I disagreed with. I agreed truth exists. However I disagreed that you can really know it (other than definitional truths)
Going way back --
And I continued not to disagree with that. |
|
And all of this was something that I agree with as well, and never spoke against.
Quote:| There is very little I believe, and less still that I believe absolutely. |
|
Which still admits that there may be things you do believe absolutely, which is all I claimed (and more, since I had intended "absolutely" with a much weaker interpretation than you are giving it).
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 5th, 2007, 5:20pm by Icarus » |
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
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #87 on: Jun 5th, 2007, 5:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 27th, 2007, 11:59am, Ulkesh wrote:| towr does not believe in X. That's what it asserts. This (in my opinion) does not imply that towr believes X is false. |
|
But it does imply that he believes my argument in favor of X is faulty. This too is a belief.
Quote:| Correct me if I'm wrong, Icarus, but are you saying that towr can't honestly and consistently hold to those two statements at the same time? |
|
You are wrong. I did not say that, and did not mean in any sense to imply that. This is what I have been trying to make clear.
What I am saying is that he rejected my argument for reasons of his own. Those reasons, not truth or falsity of my statement, are the things he believes.
|
|
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 #88 on: Jun 5th, 2007, 5:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 5th, 2007, 5:10pm, Icarus wrote:
But it does imply that he believes my argument in favor of X is faulty. This too is a belief.
...
What I am saying is that he rejected my argument for reasons of his own. Those reasons, not truth or falsity of my statement, are the things he believes. |
|
Fair enough. When disagreeing with you, this does indeed imply that he believes your argument is faulty.
I suppose it can be separated from my point like this:
- Icarus proposes X is true
- If towr replies, 'I do not believe X to be true' then the point in my previous post holds. This is not a strong a statement as 'I disagree'.
- If towr replies 'I disagree' then assuming the common usage of this expression, then he is asserting a belief that X is false. It'd be very strange to say 'I disagree' and then to claim not to have formed a belief one way or the other about X. I suppose 'I disagree that X is true' could also mean you believe it is neither true nor false, but I don't think anyone meant that.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 5th, 2007, 5:50pm by Ulkesh » |
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 #89 on: Jun 5th, 2007, 8:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 28th, 2007, 5:44am, rmsgrey wrote:| However, you still seem to be talking about deducing a belief that X is not true from an expression of a lack of belief that X is true. And it is this with which I take exception. |
|
I'm re-iterating what I've said in my previous two posts, but again, this misinterprets what I was saying. He doesn't find my argument convincing. This does not come out of nowhere. He has reasons for rejecting the argument (and rejecting the argument does not mean he accepts the opposite or anything else - just that he does not find it convincing). Those reasons are something he does believe in. So by saying he does not believe my statement, he is still indicating a belief in something. In fact the very statement that he does not find my argument convincing is a statement of his belief.
on Jun 5th, 2007, 5:47pm, Ulkesh wrote:| - If towr replies, 'I do not believe X to be true' then the point in my previous post holds. This is not a strong a statement as 'I disagree'. |
|
As I've just explained to rmsgrey, though, this still indicates a belief on towr's part. The only difference is the exact nature of what he does believe.
on May 28th, 2007, 9:20am, Three Hands wrote:| OK, on closer re-reading I can see where I mis-interpreted your argument Icarus - the main thing that was getting me a bit confused and hence why I asked (albeit in a rather roundabout and easy-to-take-as-an-attack way) for clarification. Hence I apologise for not picking up on it sooner, and causing unnecessary stress/anger through a lack of observation on my part. |
|
Thank you, but the real fault was my own, and not due to you. So it is I who owe an apology.
Quote:| I guess this is part of the reason I'm generally a little reticent to chime in much on online debates - it tends to be far too easy (at least for me) to miss some of the finer points of what someone is saying, and so get the wrong end of the stick. A lack of other cues to pick up on makes the communication of ideas a lot harder to manage, and I'm not always concentrating as hard as I should on these boards when trying to follow what's going on. |
|
Communication is always fraught with pitfalls and given to errors, but if people are patient and keep their cool  , and willing to listen and understand, they can be overcome. In my opinion, the worst thing one can do is stop sharing ideas and participating positively in conversations. If you are willing to share your ideas, they get challenged. If you are honestly trying to listen as well as talk, then one of two things will happen: either you will discover that your idea is erroneous, or else in defending your idea, your own thinking and conception of it will be sharpened, and you will find yourself with a better understanding after.
If you don't share, decide to keep your "knowledge" to yourself, then your ideas never get challenged, so you never discover the weak points, never correct them, possibly never learn that the idea is false. Instead, you just sit back and feel smug over "knowing something" others don't, when the truth is, you don't really know it at all.
|
|
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
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #90 on: Jun 6th, 2007, 12:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 5th, 2007, 5:04pm, Icarus wrote:| However, I also think that there are a number of things that you believe to be absolutely true by the meaning you are using. Or perhaps you reserve some doubts about whether 1 = 1? |
|
I already, several times, stated my position with regards to "truths by definition". The only thing I've argued against is that I absolutely believe loads of things besides those kinds of truth and that truth exists.
Quote:| Again, I never said you have to believe in assumptions to work with them. What I said is simply that there are things you believe. No more, no less. |
|
You said a little more than that. If it's not something you stand behind anymore, that's fine by me; god knows I've said enough things in all the time I've been on this board I wouldn't want to admit to now.
What I agitate against is this post:
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. |
|
If we start at the end, it very strongly suggests I have to believe things abolutely to function. I disagree with that because you can function well enough on pure asusmptions without believing those assumptions.
The other two tie in with the next part
Quote:| Which still admits that there may be things you do believe absolutely, which is all I claimed (and more, since I had intended "absolutely" with a much weaker interpretation than you are giving it). |
|
You also claimed there were a large number of them. Which unless you have been including "truths by definition" the whole time, while I've been excluding them the whole time, is just something I patently disagree with.
|
|
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 #91 on: Jun 6th, 2007, 12:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 5th, 2007, 5:10pm, Icarus wrote:| But it does imply that he believes my argument in favor of X is faulty. This too is a belief. |
|
It implies I believe it likely to be faulty, not that I believe it absolutely; it's the absoluteness I set out to argue against. So let's not gloss over important qualifiers.
on Jun 5th, 2007, 8:30pm, Icarus wrote:| As I've just explained to rmsgrey, though, this still indicates a belief on towr's part. The only difference is the exact nature of what he does believe. |
|
The important difference is the quality; is it a real belief or some estimation of likelihood.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 6th, 2007, 12:30am by towr » |
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 #92 on: Jun 6th, 2007, 2:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
Having lost all faith in this discussion, I might as well throw something else in.
Now, without sneakily calculating it.
Who here believes 1113 mod 17 is prime?
Who here believes 1317 mod 19 is prime?
Who here believes 1719 mod 23 is prime?
Who here believes 1923 mod 29 is prime?
Now, I'm sure most of you believe the basics of number theory that would allow you to find out the answer; and once you've found out what the answer is, you'll probably believe it. But isn't it safe to say you don't actually believe everything that follows from what you believe? Not untill you actually deduce it?
So how much do we believe, really? I'd posit you don't believe any statements you haven't considered. e.g Before I asked, did you believe it would be odd to have a penguin running across your desk? You probably do now, though.
Added to that, one can wonder how long a belief can hold. I did calculate the answer to those 4 mathematical questions a few minutes ago; but frankly I already forgot which result goes with which. I briefly held beliefs to their veracity, and already lost those beliefs (and by golly, they were absolute beliefs too). I still have some beliefs with regards to them, I'm pretty sure two were true and two weren't.
But how much can I believe at any one time, really? Do I really have beliefs with regards to things I'm not considering at the moment? I suppose perhaps to things that might come immediately to mind, but all in all not much.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 6th, 2007, 2:23am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #93 on: Jun 6th, 2007, 4:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 5th, 2007, 8:30pm, Icarus wrote:| As I've just explained to rmsgrey, though, this still indicates a belief on towr's part. The only difference is the exact nature of what he does believe. |
|
Hmm... In the context of the discussion, if you state 'I believe X is true' and towr replies 'I do not believe X is true' I suppose it's fair to assume he has looked at your argument for X being true and therefore has to have formed a belief about it. This belief could either be that your argument is erroneous or simply unconvincing.
Taking the wording of the reply strictly, though, it's not necessary that he has analysed your argument; he may be just giving his position on X. I do agree, though, that if he has analysed your argument, a belief must be formed.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 6th, 2007, 4:30am by Ulkesh » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ulkesh
Junior Member
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #94 on: Jun 6th, 2007, 4:51am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 6th, 2007, 2:11am, towr wrote:| But how much can I believe at any one time, really? Do I really have beliefs with regards to things I'm not considering at the moment? I suppose perhaps to things that might come immediately to mind, but all in all not much. |
|
I suppose this depends on your defintion of 'belief'. It's clear to me right now that I believe a penguin running across my desk would be odd. But as soon as this thought leaves my (conscious) mind do I still believe it? Do I believe it's odd before I even initially consider it?
I think it's fair to say that the answer to my second question is that the belief is encoded in some form in the brain, even before it is considered (In a similar way to how a sculpture exists in a lump of stone). I wouldn't call this a belief in itself, though, or this allows for all sorts of definitions.
Once it is considered and forgotten, the memory of your thought process during consideration is easy to recall. The belief in this instance doesn't need to be formed as such as it already exists; your conscious mind just needs to access the correct part of your brain.
I think this is where the definition of holding a belief is unclear: do you have to hold it in your conscious mind to believe it or does it simply have to sit in an easily accessible box in your mind?
With the maths questions above, it's not easy to form distinct boxes regarding the properties of a lot of similar-looking numbers. So the beliefs are formed by the conscious mind and then kind of slip away.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 6th, 2007, 4:52am by Ulkesh » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
puzzlecracker
Senior Riddler
Men have become the tools of their tools
Gender:
Posts: 319
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #95 on: Jul 17th, 2007, 7:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
adopted from Dovid Gottlieb:
The Torah presents itself as a system with a variety of virtues: It is beautiful, inspiring, challenging, moral, profound, sensitizing, et cetera; and it is also true. Here I am going to deal only with truth. All the rest is correct, but I'm not going to deal with that. The responsibility to investigate truth is one by which we are bound. Here I am going to try to fulfill that responsibility.
First of all, when I talk about the Torah being true, I am limiting myself to the descriptive parts of the Torah, that is to say, the portion of the Torah which describes facts: This is how the world came into being; these historical events took place including perhaps miraculous historical events, prophecy, revelation, wars, famines, migrations; this is the nature of the human being; this is the nature of the soul; these are the predictions for the future, e.g. the coming of the Messiah, what happens after death; these are the forces that affect human history; this is the way in which G-d interacts with man and so on. These are all statements which are presented as descriptions of facts. Our question will be: What reasons are there to accept them as being true?
However, experience has taught me that to start an investigation into the truth of a religion is fruitless without agreeing first on our standards for evaluating such reasons. If I present considerations, evidence, arguments, and justifications, and we don't agree upon the standards by which those arguments should be evaluated, we end up arguing at cross purposes to one another.
What standards should we have for evaluating the evidence? There is a standard due to Descartes that is subject to much discussion, a standard for knowing anything. Descartes said that to know something means to be able to refute absolutely any conceivable alternative. If I claim that I know A, to substantiate my claim to know A I have to be able to defeat any alternative absolutely. So that if I claim to know A, you can defeat my claim to know A if you can propose another alternative B. B needs only to be possible. If I can't eliminate B, and eliminate it absolutely, then I should withdraw my claim to know A. That is the Cartesian standard.
Now, I am going to reject that standard and I'm going to reject it on two grounds. This will be very important because all of us have to a certain extent absorbed the Cartesian standard almost as a matter of instinct. When someone claims to know something and offers an argument to support his claim, the natural response is to try to defeat it based on the Cartesian standard. ("But isn't it still possible that something else is true?") So, it is important for us to agree at the outset that we are rejecting the Cartesian standard.
The first reason for rejecting the Cartesian standard is that if you really live by that standard, you don't know anything! Any claim to knowledge can be defeated by using the strict Cartesian standard. Descartes himself worried about this. How do you know that you are not dreaming at the present moment? What could you do to prove to yourself, absolutely, that you are not dreaming right now? Pinch yourself? Couldn't you pinch yourself in a dream? Could you prove to yourself that in three minutes you won't wake up and find yourself in the twenty-first century saying to yourself: "Ah, that's what I get for reading historical books. I dreamt myself back one hundred years to some crazy place with inadequate air conditioning," and so on. Now according to the Cartesian standard you don't know that you are awake because here is an alternative, a conceivable alternative, that you are really sleeping. You cannot eliminate it absolutely and therefore you do not know that you are awake.
[Of course, Descartes thought he could prove that (most of the time) we are really not sleeping. But today no one credits his proof - we cannot prove that we are not sleeping.]
Bertrand Russell's example was to ask whether you know that the Universe is really more than five minutes old. Five minutes old. So you say, well of course I remember what happened to me yesterday. But, the suggestion is that you came into existence five minutes ago with those memories programmed into your brain. So you say: "Well look, I have a tape of the concert of the Grateful Dead, and this is a forty-five minute tape, so there must have been at least a forty-five minute concert from which it was taped." The answer is that the world came into existence five minutes ago with the tape and its magnetic impressions already on it. "But look, there are partially decayed deposits of Uranium, and next to the Uranium itself are the standard decay products in the normal proportions." Again, the suggestion is that this happened five minutes ago with the decay products placed next to the Uranium with the correct proportions. So, here is a conceivable alternative. You think the universe is millions, or billions of years old. The conceivable alternative that the universe is only five minutes old, having come into existence with all those features which you think are evidence of greater age. You can't eliminate it absolutely. So, according to Descartes then, you don't know that the universe is more than five minutes old!
You can go on with just about everything that you believe, and if you have a good enough imagination, you can think up some alternative which you can't eliminate absolutely, and you can defeat every claim to knowledge. So, the Cartesian standard to knowledge is fruitless. It is hopeless. It deprives us of everything that we think we know. Since Descartes started this game, for the last 350 years people have been trying to think up a different standard, a different criterion for knowledge. There is no accepted answer to Descartes except the judgment that he is surely wrong, and that we will someday find an acceptable standard. That is one reason for rejecting the Cartesian standard of knowledge.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 17th, 2007, 12:13pm by puzzlecracker » |
IP Logged |
While we are postponing, life speeds by
|
|
|
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Uberpuzzler
Sorry Goose, it's time to buzz a tower.
Gender:
Posts: 1672
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #96 on: Jul 17th, 2007, 8:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
As a precursor to what I'm about to write, let me say that I find what puzzlecracker has done here very upsetting.
Puzzlecracker:
First, you have blatantly copied a passage of someone else's writing without mentioning their name, their intention, or any way in which it relates to the current conversation.
Second, you have changed the fundamental basis for his argument, the Torah, to an entirely different text, again without mention.
Third, you have presented this passage, adapted for your own usage, as your own idea. Plagiarism is one thing. Deliberate plagiarism while subtly changing the original author's thoughts is... to avoid saying anything harsh... something else.
This post comes on the heels of a similarly unsettling post in another topic detailing some of your actions with your girlfriend. If you really feel the need to continue this, I suggest you seek some kind of counseling to cope with this compulsion.
|
|
IP Logged |
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #97 on: Jul 17th, 2007, 8:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
You should stick to trash-talking your sexual partners, puzzlecracker.
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2051
Edit: Ah, I see I wasn't first in the queue.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 17th, 2007, 8:12am 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 #98 on: Jul 17th, 2007, 10:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
Amen... and I might add that all his trash-talk, seduction posts reek of romance and seduction novels... and seeing as he has now proved it doesn't bother him to steal the work of others, I have a feeling those other disturbing posts are just things he has read about and has no actual experience with.
|
|
IP Logged |
"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." -Churchill
|
|
|
shasta
Newbie
Posts: 29
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #99 on: Jan 21st, 2008, 10:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I'm going to ignore everything about this thread, (which I haven't read), except it's title. Hopefully you all won't hate me for doing so. 
In response to the question in the title I will ask another question. I reason circularly, therefore I reason?
I absolutely despise, (beyond what it reasonable I admit), the IMO completely moronic DesCartes saying "I think therefore I am". Substitute any other verb and the circular reasoning becomes obvious. "I run therefore I am". "I run" assumes I exist, just like "I think" does. When your conclusion is a necessary part of your premises you are using circular reasoning. I've always felt that "I think therefore I am" should have been heralded through the ages as an example of how not to be logical, not as the words of a "great" philosopher.
This is not the only example of ridiculously obvious circular reasoning in DesCartes "proofs", his proof of the existence of God also contains one, (which starts with the assumption that God is good), and I believe I've seen another one although I can't recall it at the moment. That he is heralded as a great philosopher is nothing but an indictment of the mental abilities of the masses. Yes, he was a good mathematician, perhaps even a great mathematician. But come on, "I think therefore I am"? Is there anyone here who can defend this ludicrous proof of one's existence?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print