Absolute Truth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2012, 04:40 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 04:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 04:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Almost correct. In the context of Gödel, "completeness" has a specific, well-defined meaning, that of being able to prove all the truths of a formal system that is isomorphic to arithmetic or logic.

How are we using 'completeness' here?

In the sense of putting the cookies on the lower shelves where everyone can reach them. Wink

That works. We getz cookiez.Drooling

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-08-2012, 04:40 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 01:56 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Fst.

<wipes mouth> you bastard </wipes mouth>

Erxomai.

I will find you! (Is it just me or does he look like the bastard love child of Morden from Babylon 5 and one of those troll dolls?

[Image: morden.jpg][Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuvuwxGc-6y4K5HexsCRP...gat5CJE21A]

Hey, Bucky.

Thanks, brother.

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing. I'm comfortable sticking with perceive, sense would probably be more accurate, but what's actually happening is called signal transduction. Signal transduction is the mechanism, the cellular process, that all organisms use that allows them to react to signals, stimuli, by converting that signal into another signal.

Scientific American wrote a great article a few years back that touches on the difference you're alluding to.
Quote:When we speak of "symbolic processes" in the brain or in the mind, we are referring to our ability to abstract elements of our experience and to represent them with discrete mental symbols. Other species certainly possess consciousness in some sense, but as far as we know, they live in the world simply as it presents itself to them. Presumably, for them the environment seems very much like a continuum, rather than a place, like ours, that is divided into the huge number of separate elements to which we humans give individual names. By separating out its elements in this way, human beings are able constantly to re-create the world, and individual aspects of it, in their minds. And what makes this possible is the ability to form and to manipulate mental symbols that correspond to elements we perceive in the world within and beyond ourselves. Members of other species often display high levels of intuitive reasoning, reacting to stimuli from the environment in quite complex ways, by only human beings are able arbitrarily to combine and recombine mental symbols and to ask themselves questions such as "What if?"
-Scientific American

As for the rest, well, yeah, pretty much Smile

ON EDIT:

Hey, Chas.

I disagree for a couple of reasons.

Cultural understandings can overlap. There's nothing preventing ubiquity. So yeah, the math is the same, but not because it just is, but because people use the same system. For example, both French and English cultures adopted Arabic numerals, thus math is written using the same symbols. So both French and English cultures agree that 2+2=4. But English cultures think that "two plus two equals four", while French cultures think <<deux plus deux égale quatre>>. A very simple example of a larger reality, that even when cultures agree in principle, they can still see things differently.

The most important point is that 2 and 4 are not objective truths, they're culturally relative. You could just as well use II and IV. You could say eighty three, or you could say quatre vignt treize (which translates literally as 'four twenty thirteen').

A neutron is not a neutron. Neutron is a word we use to symbolically represent an abstracted concept of something. It is the sculpture, not the nude model, no matter how many people agree.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I disagree because....

SAM HARRIS
SAM HARRIS
SAM HARRIS
SAM HARRIS
SAM HARRIS
SAM HARRIS
SAM HARRIS
[Image: pl_print_harris_f.jpg]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
27-08-2012, 05:13 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
(27-08-2012 03:54 PM)elemts Wrote:  One egg + one sperm may = one baby (or more, or maybe none). What the numbers represent are more important than the numbers themselves in some instances--especially if they aren't the same thing and need converted.

You could also argue that it is 1/2+1/2 in that problem. Smartass Drooling

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 06:22 PM
RE: Absolute Truth
Hey, Chas.

We're not quite talking past each other. We're saying different things. You're saying that 2+2=4 is objectively true in the absence of us. I'm saying that 2+2=4 does not exist without us. If there is something out there then we'll never grok its fullness. All we have is what we've constructed. It's that construct that tells us 2+2=4. Thinking otherwise is confusing the model for the thing it represents. Post modern what!

Hey, Girlyman.

I said something like that earlier.

Where we disagree is where you suggest that models can be complete. They cannot ever be. A 100% accurate model of a cat, is a cat. Models always leave things out.

As Box says, all models are wrong. Robert Fulford discusses this in terms of the master narrative model (story being one of the single most important models we use to understand the world and our place in it).

Quote:The story of jazz also taught me something about master narratives themselves: that they are often wrong in significant ways. The master narrative of jazz overgeneralized. It telescoped events in ways that distorted facts, and left out crucial elements, including whole cities where jazz developed. It undervalued certain musicians because they didn’t fit into what quickly became the accepted framework. The history of jazz demonstrated both the uses and the misuses of master narrative: it explained, to me at least, the need for structured understanding, but at the same time it vividly illustrated the unavoidable drawbacks in that kind of thinking.
-Robert Fulford, “The Triumph of Narrative”, p. 31.

The reality is that all ideologies contain contradictions. But hegemony sutures those contradictions and naturalises the ideology. It's like a self-repair kit.

According to the decimal system, it is impossible to divide 1 by 3. The fraction system does not have this problem. How does hegemony suture this contradiction? Irrational numbers.

We can ignore a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions.





But when those whopper contradictions show up, those inconsistencies too big to ignore, that's when we say, "Wait a fucking second, this don't make no sense." Models that become internally inconsistent are like a fart in a car, we notice it in a second and abandon them the following second; or go through the pain of cognitive dissonance for a while first.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: