You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #146: UGH [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
cyborg_jim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-17-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #145
146. UGH
I think I myself would be inclined to try any technique, no matter how irrational, to restore what is missing there.


Are you going to continually ignore my points about heuristics and metalogic?

Or are you just going to assert, "well, ethics eh? Can't be logic cause if you formulated every variable precisely it would all be too hard to calculate but humans can do it!" As if how we arrive at ethical conclusions weren't a factor of what is essentially a heuristic mechanism derived evolutionarily for social behaviour.

But please, continue beating that strawman. Keep on banging on about logical formalisms that only deal with absolute and optimal solutions even though we've moved way beyond that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -What exactly is supposed to be "beyond" logic? Kerry4Kerry  Apr-11-07 11:44 PM   #0 
  - I agree.  kiahzero   Apr-11-07 11:51 PM   #1 
  - I don's see the logic?  Kiouni   Apr-12-07 02:39 AM   #2 
  - Yeah, its a pretty nonsense reply.  Evoman   Apr-12-07 03:15 AM   #4 
  - Sorry, can't tell you.  pnwmom   Apr-12-07 02:52 AM   #3 
  - Something "special"...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-12-07 12:01 PM   #6 
  - When someone uses "beyond logic"  Heaven and Earth   Apr-12-07 10:48 AM   #5 
  - Your point A is precisely why children "get" God, and thus Atheists cause such decay in America  Rabrrrrrr   Apr-12-07 03:21 PM   #16 
  - I think they are talking about the limits of logic ....  kwassa   Apr-12-07 12:43 PM   #7 
  - You aren't clear because clarity requires precision  cyborg_jim   Apr-12-07 12:50 PM   #8 
     - but the feeling of knowledge can be knowledge  kwassa   Apr-12-07 02:23 PM   #12 
        - Ah Jeezus, not intution again  cyborg_jim   Apr-12-07 02:28 PM   #13 
           - Don't hold back tell me how you really feel  kwassa   Apr-12-07 03:51 PM   #17 
              - No shit, but other people don't seem to have a problem with it  cyborg_jim   Apr-12-07 03:58 PM   #18 
                 - How is feeling something I know knowing something?  kwassa   Apr-13-07 08:08 AM   #28 
                    - The problem is a poorly developed epistemology...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 10:22 AM   #31 
                    - and the value of such epistomolgy is?  kwassa   Apr-13-07 12:14 PM   #34 
                       - *Sigh* The point is that without any confirmation IT IS a mere feeling  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 12:29 PM   #37 
                       - We often never receive confirmation about the most mundane knowledge  kwassa   Apr-13-07 02:58 PM   #46 
                          - Missing the point again.  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 03:11 PM   #48 
                             - What problem?  kwassa   Apr-13-07 11:00 PM   #61 
                       - Think about the words "know" and "knowledge" and how they're used...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 03:52 PM   #51 
                          - I disagree  kwassa   Apr-13-07 11:09 PM   #63 
                             - Q: X or Y? / A: I disagree.  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 12:11 PM   #77 
                                - Second order knowledge isn't necessary for first order knowledge.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 02:48 PM   #87 
                                   - I know epistemology can get pretty hairy...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 03:05 PM   #88 
                                      - The problem seems to be that either way "knowledge" isn't useful.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 03:09 PM   #89 
                                         - I'm not sure what you mean by "necessary truths".  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 03:27 PM   #91 
                                            - Knowledge must be true.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 04:43 PM   #95 
                                               - Mathematics is axiomatic  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 04:50 PM   #98 
                                               - You're merely changing symbols.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 05:01 PM   #100 
                                               - No, really not.  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 05:30 PM   #106 
                                               - Which is again a definitional issue.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 05:35 PM   #107 
                                               - Exactly - mathematics doesn't have to have anything to do with reality  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 05:55 PM   #108 
                                               - I could define "dinosaur" to mean "Nazi."  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 06:01 PM   #109 
                                               - It's not a necessary truth of mathematics - it's a necessary truth of *a* mathematics  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 06:19 PM   #111 
                                               - And is thus a necessary truth.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 06:23 PM   #112 
                                               - *Sigh* this is not about semantic games  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 06:34 PM   #114 
                                               - Who said anything about "profound significance?"  kiahzero   Apr-15-07 03:17 PM   #122 
                                               - Arithmetic is not axiomatic.  Jim__   Apr-16-07 09:23 AM   #139 
                                               - 2 + 2 = 1...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-17-07 11:43 PM   #155 
                                               - See post #100.  kiahzero   Apr-18-07 12:22 AM   #159 
                                               - While changing arithmetic bases or human languages is simply a trivial...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-18-07 01:23 AM   #161 
                                               - Fair enough. (n/t)  kiahzero   Apr-18-07 08:05 AM   #163 
                                               - That's a terminological issue.  Jim__   Apr-18-07 07:46 AM   #162 
                                               - You never can know whether or not...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 05:24 PM   #103 
                                                  - At that point, you're talking about false knowledge.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 05:30 PM   #105 
                                                  - I'd say "provisional" knowledge, not "false" knowledge.  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 06:25 PM   #113 
                    - Wow, thanks that clears it up  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 10:27 AM   #33 
                       - You see a problem where I see none.  kwassa   Apr-13-07 12:16 PM   #35 
                          - You don't think it's a problem that intuition can lead to mututally incompatable 'knowledge'?  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 12:23 PM   #36 
                             - Of course it can lead to mutually incompatible knowledge  kwassa   Apr-13-07 03:08 PM   #47 
                                - We can't do a thing about it  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 03:20 PM   #50 
                                   - What's even worse...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 04:02 PM   #52 
                                   - I am not particularly talking about the "beyond logic" OP  kwassa   Apr-13-07 11:19 PM   #64 
                                      - You're trying to fix a broken DVD player...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 04:59 PM   #99 
  - "Paralogical Studies"  Jokerman   Apr-12-07 01:36 PM   #9 
  - Ah but politics IS logical  cyborg_jim   Apr-12-07 01:41 PM   #10 
  - I'm going back to college  cosmik debris   Apr-12-07 01:44 PM   #11 
  - People actually PAYING to vote on American Idol?  Rabrrrrrr   Apr-12-07 02:51 PM   #14 
  - They get a sense of value from participation.  cyborg_jim   Apr-12-07 02:57 PM   #15 
  - All manner of matters are beyond mere logic.  struggle4progress   Apr-12-07 06:00 PM   #19 
  - Reply (lack of imagination)  cyborg_jim   Apr-12-07 06:42 PM   #20 
  - Your comments really miss the point.  struggle4progress   Apr-12-07 08:32 PM   #23 
  - Erm no shit  cyborg_jim   Apr-12-07 11:24 PM   #27 
     - You apparently don't realize that "polynomial time" really doesn't mean "feasible"  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 02:42 PM   #45 
        - Okay, I'm going to capitulate on that point because it really doesn't affect the main thrust  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 03:13 PM   #49 
  - I'd just like to reply to one thing here.  kiahzero   Apr-12-07 11:22 PM   #26 
     - RIght, I'm familiar with that  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 08:55 AM   #29 
        - Let me unpack this for you in more detail:  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 09:54 AM   #30 
           - Right...  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 10:22 AM   #32 
              - Strike three: here it is (A + S) that is contradictory, not necessarily A; hence it DOES depend on S  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 01:02 PM   #39 
                 - No  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 01:38 PM   #41 
                 - The point is that logic is a collection of linguistic conventions that mirror ...  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 04:18 PM   #53 
                    - Could you explain something for me?  kiahzero   Apr-13-07 07:58 PM   #56 
                    - In simple concrete cases, I expect the statements are equivalent.  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 09:50 PM   #57 
                       - What "not ((for all x) not P(x))" means  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 12:08 AM   #71 
                          - OK, you want to propose a simple operational meaning.  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 01:04 PM   #79 
                             - Not true.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 01:34 PM   #81 
                                - Actually, what I am arguing is that there are entirely different notions ..  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 02:03 PM   #83 
                                   - OK, then I'm completely failing to see what you're saying.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 02:10 PM   #84 
                                      - Here, I think, is the real difficulty: I am adopting a rather restrictive ...  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 03:25 PM   #90 
                                         - This seems to be mere semantic wordplay.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 04:50 PM   #97 
                                            - My objection to the definition is exactly that the standard definition is mere wordplay:  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 05:17 PM   #102 
                                            - Yes, but only in extremely rare cases.  kiahzero   Apr-14-07 05:28 PM   #104 
                                            - I don't know why you say "rare." There are plenty of existence arguments  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 06:44 PM   #115 
                                            - I thought you were talking about "real" things?  kiahzero   Apr-15-07 01:18 PM   #120 
                                            - I want a logic which gives sensible and useful results and which is in some sense "realistic."  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 04:18 PM   #124 
                                            - Metaphysics for the win.  kiahzero   Apr-15-07 04:28 PM   #125 
                                            - Giving old things new names for the win?  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 07:01 PM   #128 
                                            - You don't need to show an example if you can show that something MUST exist  kiahzero   Apr-15-07 07:53 PM   #129 
                                            - We'll just have to disagree about this. It seems clear enough to me  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 10:57 PM   #130 
                                            - The same problem exists in any sort of proof.  kiahzero   Apr-15-07 11:15 PM   #131 
                                            - "Proof" means different things to different people.  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 11:21 PM   #133 
                                            - True enough.  kiahzero   Apr-15-07 11:24 PM   #134 
                                            - If such objections interest you, look up "intuitionistic logic" or "constructivist logic"  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 11:48 PM   #135 
                                            - From the little I've just read, they seem profoundly silly.  kiahzero   Apr-16-07 12:02 AM   #136 
                                            - Then I will probably be unlikely to persuade you otherwise  struggle4progress   Apr-16-07 12:14 AM   #137 
                                            - Well, you could explain what it would mean for something to be true and false.  kiahzero   Apr-16-07 12:21 AM   #138 
                                            - Two different ideas are sometimes called "excluded middle." You fail to distinguish  struggle4progress   Apr-16-07 11:52 AM   #140 
                                            - Your true statement isn't meaningless garbage.  kiahzero   Apr-16-07 10:29 PM   #142 
                                            - If you are unwilling to insist that logic have a concrete operational meaning then  struggle4progress   Apr-17-07 02:16 PM   #144 
                                            - I was discussing the only way an implication can be falsified.  kiahzero   Apr-17-07 05:40 PM   #147 
                                            - I'm not sure to what purpose you wish to discuss "the only way for (stmt) could be false"  struggle4progress   Apr-17-07 09:11 PM   #149 
                                            - (p -> q) where P is true and Q is false is necessarily false.  kiahzero   Apr-17-07 10:59 PM   #152 
                                            - The conventional logic collapses a number of distinct ideas  struggle4progress   Apr-17-07 11:55 PM   #156 
                                            - Is there any sort of example of classical logic breaking?  kiahzero   Apr-18-07 12:14 AM   #157 
                                            - I don't know how to say much more on such matters than I've already said.  struggle4progress   Apr-18-07 11:18 AM   #165 
                    - Has anyone ever mediated over a crystal...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 10:30 PM   #59 
                       - Your silly response has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said:  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 11:06 PM   #62 
                          - My response had little to do with what you said...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 11:23 PM   #65 
                             - So if Ramanujan had attempted to meditate over a crystal  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 11:38 PM   #68 
                                - I'd certainly rather that Ramanujan had given himself...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 11:55 PM   #70 
                 - But obviously we need to decide if axiom A is reasonable.  WakingLife   Apr-13-07 01:50 PM   #42 
                    - I think he's trying to say that because you can prove anything with logic then that determination  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 01:55 PM   #43 
                    - Yeah. That's what I thought he was saying too.  WakingLife   Apr-13-07 02:06 PM   #44 
                    - Well, those are very nice sounding words but ...  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 06:40 PM   #54 
                       - (response moved to connect to correct parent) n/t  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 01:01 AM   #74 
                       - It is put up or shut up time s4p.  WakingLife   Apr-14-07 10:36 AM   #76 
                          - We are in a subthread discussing the question of how to proceed  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 01:39 PM   #82 
  - You could just as easily say...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-12-07 10:12 PM   #25 
     - From a pragmatic and materialistic perspective, we can say that a technique applies to ...  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 12:58 PM   #38 
        - Metalogic  cyborg_jim   Apr-13-07 01:22 PM   #40 
        - The old straw men of absolute knowledge and absolute certainty  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 07:48 PM   #55 
           - If you want to ask whether there is anything "beyond logic,"  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 10:07 PM   #58 
              - Why do you keep beating a dead horse that I deliberately shot down it my opening post?  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 10:52 PM   #60 
                 - How do YOU know those things are within their own heads???  kwassa   Apr-13-07 11:23 PM   #66 
                 - If you're happy with the meager world of...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 12:19 AM   #73 
                 - If you accept that logic has limits, then the question  struggle4progress   Apr-13-07 11:28 PM   #67 
                    - The difference is...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-13-07 11:39 PM   #69 
                       - That won't do. I'll revert to an example I gave before: consider the assertion  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 12:09 AM   #72 
                          - I'm not sure why you find the premise of this thread so hard to grasp.  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 01:08 AM   #75 
                             - At this point, your rhetorical technique is clear, and it suggests your purposes.  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 01:00 PM   #78 
                                - You miss the point:  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 01:11 PM   #80 
                                - As far as I can tell, it is your view that logic and computation  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 02:41 PM   #86 
                                   - Not quite  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 03:27 PM   #92 
                                      - That's dishonest: I never asked for "a complete moral framework covering all possibilities"  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 04:38 PM   #94 
                                         - Which, again, I'm going to have to ask you what that is.  cyborg_jim   Apr-14-07 04:48 PM   #96 
                                - It's not simply that I am told "there are matters beyond the reach of logic"...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 02:18 PM   #85 
                                   - ....  Heaven and Earth   Apr-14-07 03:33 PM   #93 
                                   - I can't see that the extended analogy clarifies much. Nowhere in the  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 05:09 PM   #101 
                                      - There was no attempt to "attribut(e to you) beliefs (you) do not have"...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 06:05 PM   #110 
                                         - Hmmm. You claim to believe in using logic as a tool but apparently  struggle4progress   Apr-14-07 07:19 PM   #116 
                                            - If only you were using logic "against" me...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-14-07 11:17 PM   #117 
                                               - Okie dokie:  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 12:22 AM   #118 
                                                  - UGH.  cyborg_jim   Apr-15-07 09:11 AM   #119 
                                                  - Fascinating  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-15-07 03:34 PM   #123 
                                                     - I suspect your difficulty stems largely from your inability to tolerate disagreement.  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 05:45 PM   #126 
                                                     - What "grandiose claims" have I made?  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-15-07 06:59 PM   #127 
                                                     - So we cannot even agree regarding the nature of our disagreement.  struggle4progress   Apr-15-07 11:17 PM   #132 
                                                     - Perhaps we can agree...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-16-07 08:22 PM   #141 
                                                     - If your intent is intellectually honest, you should be able to clarify certain points.  struggle4progress   Apr-17-07 02:55 PM   #145 
                                                     - UGH  cyborg_jim   Apr-17-07 03:08 PM   #146 
                                                     - But if he stops fretting and fussing...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-17-07 11:09 PM   #153 
                                                     - Okay, so what I am saying there is simply this:  struggle4progress   Apr-18-07 12:17 AM   #158 
                                                     - How can I be clear about the form answers take which don't make sense to me?  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-18-07 01:08 AM   #160 
  - Bush's foreign policy.  rug   Apr-12-07 07:21 PM   #21 
  - .  GreenJ   Apr-12-07 07:45 PM   #22 
  - It's how the Religionistas and New Agers protect thier nonsense from being falsifiable.  Odin2005   Apr-12-07 10:03 PM   #24 
  - A refrain here and elsewhere in theological discussions is  varkam   Apr-15-07 01:49 PM   #121 
  - Logic is a gift  MistressOverdone   Apr-17-07 08:22 AM   #143 
  - "Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't." Indeed. But here's the problem:  Zhade   Apr-17-07 08:42 PM   #148 
  - The epitaph of the supernatural: "Wishful thinking doesn't make it true."  Heaven and Earth   Apr-17-07 09:14 PM   #150 
  - Is it wrong to say I love you more each day?  Zhade   Apr-17-07 10:12 PM   #151 
  - I couldn't agree more, Zhade  MistressOverdone   Apr-18-07 08:20 AM   #164 
  - I'm a Trek fan, but the ST idea of what it means to be "logical"...  Kerry4Kerry   Apr-17-07 11:31 PM   #154 
  - "Beyond logic" is a loaded phrase used to insulate religion from criticism.  WritingIsMyReligion   Apr-19-07 09:08 PM   #166 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC