How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2017, 05:19 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(16-06-2017 07:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-06-2017 07:02 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Axioms are at the base of any system of logical analysis. We know from Gödel that any logical system at or beyond a certain level of complexity is necessarily either inconsistent or incomplete. If inconsistent, then there is reason to suspect the validity of one or more axioms. If incomplete, then it is possible to postulate a metasystem in which the original system is embedded, and in which one or more axiom(s) of the original system may be either invalidated, or found to no longer be irreducible. It is not clear that the axiom of consciousness should or would be immune to this.

But I admit that you did answer my question. Yes

I think you're making a big mistake here. Mathematical axioms are a very different thing from philosophical axioms and Godel himself by making his statement must assume my starting point.
The basis of symbolic logic is mathematical.

Quote:Just by referencing his theory he affirms the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity. His theory exists according to him and by identifying his theory as opposed to a ham sandwich, he makes use of the axiom of identity and theorizing is a type of conscious activity. No matter how complex a system of analysis is it must implicitly affirm these axioms. Now you are welcomed and invited to try to show how any one of these axioms are invalid or untrue.
No matter how complex the system, one can always postulate a metasystem more complex, in which the earlier system is embedded.

Quote:For clarity let me state them formally:

The axiom of existence: existence exists
Heh. That's pretty much saying "1=1". I think you need more than just a self-referent identity; at least a tautology? Yes

Quote:The axiom of consciousness: consciousness is consciousness of something, an object.
Again. Defining a term with the same term you're defining isn't good form, even for an axiom. It's a form of circular reasoning.

Quote:the axiom of Identity: to exist is to be something specific.
That one's better.
As soon as you deal with the meaning of "to be".

Quote:Go ahead and show how any of these axioms is false, but be very careful that you do not affirm them in the attempt. That means you can not use the concepts of existence, identity,or consciousness in your argument.
I think you need a better statement of the axioms, first.
Even Descartes at least tied existence to rationalism with "cogito ergo sum".
He didn't simply assert "sum ergo sum," although Yahweh is alleged to have said something of the sort to Moses. Ohmy

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2017, 07:20 AM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(19-06-2017 05:19 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(16-06-2017 07:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I think you're making a big mistake here. Mathematical axioms are a very different thing from philosophical axioms and Godel himself by making his statement must assume my starting point.
The basis of symbolic logic is mathematical.

Well yes logic is closely related to math because it is conceptual in nature and conceptualization is in some ways a mathematical process. The basis of all knowledge is the axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness. Try to make one statement that does not assume them. As soon as you say "it is" the axioms are affirmed.

Quote:Just by referencing his theory he affirms the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity. His theory exists according to him and by identifying his theory as opposed to a ham sandwich, he makes use of the axiom of identity and theorizing is a type of conscious activity. No matter how complex a system of analysis is it must implicitly affirm these axioms. Now you are welcomed and invited to try to show how any one of these axioms are invalid or untrue.
No matter how complex the system, one can always postulate a metasystem more complex, in which the earlier system is embedded.[/quote]

Existence is the widest of all concepts. It subsumes everything that exists. So whatever metasystem you could dream up, it would have to exist and would be subsumed by the axiom of existence. the only alternative to existence is non-existence. The axiom of existence is inescapable.

Quote:For clarity let me state them formally:

The axiom of existence: existence exists
Heh. That's pretty much saying "1=1". I think you need more than just a self-referent identity; at least a tautology? Yes[/quote]

It is a tautology yes. Of course it has to be. At the level of the axioms we don't know anything else. Axiomatic concepts must be defined ostensively, because there is no antecedent concepts with which to define them. You define existence by simply pointing to it. That tree over there, that's existence. That rock, that river, that sky, that computer on your desk, they are all existence. Remember we are talking about the very base of knowledge here. This is the starting point of knowledge. All truths reduce to tautologies. All true statements are of the form A is some aspect of what A is, and all falsehoods reduce to A is some aspect of what A isn't. Later, when we've done some more identifying and conceptualizing, we can start defining things in terms of more fundamental concepts, but not at the most fundamental level. To what would those definitions refer if not something that exists, that we are aware of and that is something specific?

Logic is universally applicable because it treats the terms of an argument as variables, just like a math equation does. That is because logic is conceptual in nature and a key part of concept formation is measurement omission. And logic has it's basis in the axiom of existence/identity or A is A.

Quote:The axiom of consciousness: consciousness is consciousness of something, an object.
Again. Defining a term with the same term you're defining isn't good form, even for an axiom. It's a form of circular reasoning.[/quote] Circular? How so? A definition is not a deductive argument, so it can't fall prey to circularity. Again axiomatic concepts can not be defined in terms of more fundamental concepts. That's what makes them axioms. They are conceptually irreducible, therefore they must be defined ostensively. Name one concept we might define consciousness with that does not already have the concept consciousness already in it, implicitly. This is why when theists tell me that they start with the axiom that God exists or the Bible is the word of God, I have to educate them on what an axiom is. They must assume my starting point in order to state their "axioms". But in the content of their god belief they deny all of the axioms, making their statements self-contradictory. The statement "God exists" is itself, self-contradictory because it makes use of my starting point while at the same time denying it.

Quote:the axiom of Identity: to exist is to be something specific.
That one's better.
As soon as you deal with the meaning of "to be".[/quote]

To be means to exist. To exist is to exist as something specific. To exist is to have identity and to have identity is to exist. A is A. Not hard.

Quote:Go ahead and show how any of these axioms is false, but be very careful that you do not affirm them in the attempt. That means you can not use the concepts of existence, identity,or consciousness in your argument.
I think you need a better statement of the axioms, first.
Even Descartes at least tied existence to rationalism with "cogito ergo sum".
He didn't simply assert "sum ergo sum," although Yahweh is alleged to have said something of the sort to Moses. Ohmy
[/quote]

I see. You aren't going to try, are you? You want to change the subject. That's wise. Just what is wrong with saying that existence exists, hmm? I guess I could say there is a reality. The meaning would be the same. We don't need to tie the recognition that there is a reality to anything else in order for it to have meaning. That's why it is the only viable starting point. It is self-sufficient. It is the first fact we could be aware of. It needs nothing to support it. It is.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2017, 07:26 AM (This post was last modified: 20-06-2017 07:43 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(16-06-2017 07:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  By self consciously I mean with awareness, not implicitly. That means that the whole philosophy is integrated with its starting point. As to consciousness being axiomatic, it is. The axiom of consciousness identifies the fact that we are conscious of something. It is self evident, it is conceptually irreducible, it is fundamental, it is implicit in all knowledge, therefore it satisfies all the requirements of a philosophical axiom. It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it. The concept is axiomatic. To deny it would cause one to contradict one's self, since denial is a kind of conscious activity.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  We don't assume it since we percieve that we are conscious directly.

I'll have to think on that. It doesn't seem prima facie to me.

And how would you think on it if you could not be aware of your own conscious activity. Blank out.

(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It does not need to be proved. The validation is by means of sense perception.

Not a wholly reliable means of validation in my experience. In fact I can intentionally cause faults.[/quote] On what basis did you form the concepts "rliable", "wholly", "validation", "not", "means", "my", and "experience". Blank out.

(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You either accept it or deny it but denying it would be absurd.

Bah, I can do both. I can accept it on pragmatic grounds but, not so much deny as suspect any ontological basis.

This is not to say I'm not absurd.
[/quote]

And accepting and suspecting are what type of activity? Blank out.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2017, 02:42 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(20-06-2017 07:20 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 05:19 PM)Dr H Wrote:  The basis of symbolic logic is mathematical.
TS: Well yes logic is closely related to math because it is conceptual in nature and conceptualization is in some ways a mathematical process.
Good, we agree that far. You seemed to be saying something else, before.

Quote:Dr H: No matter how complex the system, one can always postulate a metasystem more complex, in which the earlier system is embedded.
Quote:TS: Existence is the widest of all concepts. It subsumes everything that exists. So whatever metasystem you could dream up, it would have to exist and would be subsumed by the axiom of existence. the only alternative to existence is non-existence. The axiom of existence is inescapable.
So, you assert that there is a fundamental meta-axiom underlying all possible systems?
Sounds like you've just invoked the ontological argument.


Quote:TS: For clarity let me state them formally:
The axiom of existence: existence exists
Quote:Dr H: Heh. That's pretty much saying "1=1". I think you need more than just a self-referent identity; at least a tautology? Yes
Quote:TS: It is a tautology yes. Of course it has to be.
No, what you stated isn't a tautology; that was my point.
As you put it, it's even more fundamental than a tautology; it's merely an identity.

A tautology expresses the same thing in different ways, and can be an axiom because it provides at least a definition upon which to build. An identity simply says the same thing twice in the same way. It is not axiomatic, because it proceeds from another point that has been either logically established, or is itself an axiom -- the axiom of identity.

For example, if I want to base a system on the axiom of parallelism, I might state "Assume that parallel lines are lines which never intersect."

By contrast you essentially asserted "Parallel lines are lines that are parallel."

For all the useful information that conveys, one might as well assert, "Garsnarkles are garsnarkles."

Quote:TS: At the level of the axioms we don't know anything else. Axiomatic concepts must be defined ostensively, because there is no antecedent concepts with which to define them. You define existence by simply pointing to it.
That definition of 'existence' is not axiomatic; it proceeds from the axiom "You", which one could argue is, among other things, consciousness.

Quote:TS: Logic is universally applicable because it treats the terms of an argument as variables, just like a math equation does. That is because logic is conceptual in nature and a key part of concept formation is measurement omission. And logic has it's basis in the axiom of existence/identity or A is A.
Again, I would argue that's not itself axiomatic, because it proceeds from the axiom of equality. "A=A" says nothing, until and unless you have already defined "=", at least axiomatically.

Quote:TS: The axiom of consciousness: consciousness is consciousness of something, an object.
Quote:Dr H: Again. Defining a term with the same term you're defining isn't good form, even for an axiom. It's a form of circular reasoning.

Quote:TS: Circular? How so?
See above, re identity versus tautology.

Quote:TS: Name one concept we might define consciousness with that does not already have the concept consciousness already in it, implicitly.
I think we have wandered from my original point.
Let me refresh the steps, and perhaps you can show me if, or where I've misunderstood:

-----
:: GirlyMan offered: "The problem I see with that is I don't see how it is possible to deny the primacy of consciousness."

In what appeared to be an argument against the primacy of consciousness, part of what you said was:

:: TS: "It self consciously and consistently affirms the primacy of existence."

To which I replied:

:: Dr H: "Is it possible to 'self consciously' do anything, without axiomatically assuming consciousness?"
-----

In other words, your argument, which I assumed to be against the primacy of consciousness, seemed to me to affirm GM's observation: viz., you had to invoke consciousness ("self conscious") to argue against the primacy of consciousness.

Or did I misinterpret your meaning?


Quote:TS: the axiom of Identity: to exist is to be something specific.
Quote:Dr H: That one's better. As soon as you deal with the meaning of "to be".
Quote:TS: To be means to exist. To exist is to exist as something specific. To exist is to have identity and to have identity is to exist. A is A. Not hard.
Not as simple, perhaps, as you think.
"To exist is to exist" tells me nothing useful; you at least need to provide an operative definition for further discussion.

Quote:TS: Go ahead and show how any of these axioms is false, but be very careful that you do not affirm them in the attempt. That means you can not use the concepts of existence, identity, or consciousness in your argument.
Quote:Dr H: I think you need a better statement of the axioms, first.
Even Descartes at least tied existence to rationalism with "cogito ergo sum".
He didn't simply assert "sum ergo sum," although Yahweh is alleged to have said something of the sort to Moses. Ohmy
Quote:TS: I see. You aren't going to try, are you? You want to change the subject.
Not at all. First we need to establish what the subject is; I don't see that we've done that yet.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2017, 07:15 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2017 07:53 AM by GenesisNemesis.)
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
Reality has a way of kicking you when you're down. Although I suppose you could have delusions that you're being kicked down.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2017, 08:17 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
What I mean to say is reality is indifferent, delusions tend to have some kind of bias associated with them.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GenesisNemesis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: