Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2014, 04:34 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 02:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 02:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No, not everything is two-valued, but existence is common to all reality and existence is two-valued. If it wasn't, it would be humanly incomprehensible, thus not a part of our reality. We could not even think of it, define it with reason or science, and I think we can't. We can string together words like "partial existence", but they have no meaning.
Invisible Elephants partially exist; because while we do have elephants, as far as we know we don't have invisible ones. It also exists as a concept, much like god is a concept. If you really think "partial existence" is a meaningless phrase, then everything Chas and cjlr said is true; you genuinely lack the ability to comprehend. Your black and white, binary thinking is serving you very poorly.
Holy crap, that's the worst argument I've heard in a long time. You don't know what is a concept, only concepts can be real, so you literally don't know what is or isn't real.
A concept must refer to some instance or aspect of reality, otherwise it's just a buzzword. Borrowing the word "elephant" and stringing it together with "invisible" and imagining some translucent elephant in your head is still no basis for reality.

For the others: in the realm of mind we determine existence with black and white dichotomy of exists / doesn't exist. Regardless of what advanced logical languages can be built on top of that, they do not share common properties with all the other existing things, only the existence is a common property of everything.
In the realm of biology and other sciences, we determine existence through the empirical methods such as observing elephants, analyzing their DNA and classifying them taxonomically, with field-specific methods.
Anything else than that is madness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 06:13 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 02:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 10:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And you literally despise every last one of us.
Nope, only those who called me names and I declared them as failing the Turing test.

(02-09-2014 05:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That's right, you guys who failed the Turing test. I don't mind that you know or don't know something, I despise you for moral reasons of your dishonesty and insultfest. I have never started calling names anyone who didn't start first. People who do that are douchebags. Name calling is a deal breaker in any kind of relationship, including philosophical debate.

(02-09-2014 06:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is not just one geometry as there is not just one system of logic.
For starters, there are geometries as defined by changing Euclid's 5th axiom - The Parallel Postulate. Lobachevsky developed hyperbolic geometry by changing it one way, Riemann created elliptic geometry by changing it another.

There is tri-valued logic as developed by S.C. Kleene and others.
Do you really think everything is two-valued? Do you not understand that most things are on a continuum?

You don't see the extent of your ignorance.
No, not everything is two-valued, but existence is common to all reality and existence is two-valued. If it wasn't, it would be humanly incomprehensible, thus not a part of our reality. We could not even think of it, define it with reason or science, and I think we can't. We can string together words like "partial existence", but they have no meaning.

I don't see how any developed logics disprove the on and off basic logic of existence and non-existence, truth and falsehood.

I never said they did. You simply didn't consider them.

Quote:These are all built on top of the axioms, with language. They are not the basics of thinking and language, they are products, subject to the two-valued existence and non-existence of the concept itself.

No, they are exactly as basic as two-valued logic and plane geometry. They are isomorphic.

Quote: Yes, we can build all sorts of fancy logics, mental instruments and empirical measurable attributes. But first these concepts either exist, or they don't. That's how basic this stuff is!

Whoop-de-fucking-doo. You declare two-valued logic is basic, so that is the most important consideration?

Quote:A top floor of a building does not disprove the foundations.

Not an apt metaphor. At all. I have not set out to disprove anything.
Three-valued logic is not built on top of two-valued logic and hyperbolic geometry is not built on top of plane geometry. The geometries I mentioned are isomorphic.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-09-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 02:01 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 10:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And you literally despise every last one of us.
Nope, only those who called me names and I declared them as failing the Turing test.

All this sentence does is prove to me that you have no idea what the Turing test is.

So, thanks for that, I guess.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
03-09-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 04:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 02:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Invisible Elephants partially exist; because while we do have elephants, as far as we know we don't have invisible ones. It also exists as a concept, much like god is a concept. If you really think "partial existence" is a meaningless phrase, then everything Chas and cjlr said is true; you genuinely lack the ability to comprehend. Your black and white, binary thinking is serving you very poorly.
Holy crap, that's the worst argument I've heard in a long time. You don't know what is a concept, only concepts can be real, so you literally don't know what is or isn't real.
A concept must refer to some instance or aspect of reality, otherwise it's just a buzzword. Borrowing the word "elephant" and stringing it together with "invisible" and imagining some translucent elephant in your head is still no basis for reality.

For the others: in the realm of mind we determine existence with black and white dichotomy of exists / doesn't exist. Regardless of what advanced logical languages can be built on top of that, they do not share common properties with all the other existing things, only the existence is a common property of everything.
In the realm of biology and other sciences, we determine existence through the empirical methods such as observing elephants, analyzing their DNA and classifying them taxonomically, with field-specific methods.
Anything else than that is madness.

The fuck are you smoking?

"A concept must refer to some instance or aspect of reality, otherwise it's just a buzzword."

So concepts of things that don't exist don't count? Tell that to every story teller and writer of creative fiction ever. The Death Star partially exists. It exists as a concept, a prop, a storytelling element, a plot device, a rendered polygon object within game engine, an image on a piece of 35mm film; even if an actual planet destroying space station hasn't been built by the Galactic Empire.


[Image: Death_star1.png]


Fucking dumbass...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2014 01:04 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 10:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The fuck are you smoking?

"A concept must refer to some instance or aspect of reality, otherwise it's just a buzzword."

So concepts of things that don't exist don't count? Tell that to every story teller and writer of creative fiction ever. The Death Star partially exists. It exists as a concept, a prop, a storytelling element, a plot device, a rendered polygon object within game engine, an image on a piece of 35mm film; even if an actual planet destroying space station hasn't been built by the Galactic Empire.


[Image: Death_star1.png]


Fucking dumbass...
Well, you basically understand it, you understand that physics is not the same kind of real as Star Wars, that's what I call unreal. They do not exist as such, but there are lots of books and films with that theme. Theme and CGI isn't the actual thing.
Of course they don't count, not as objective knowledge which you must accept if you want to call yourself rational, or objective rules to which you must obey if you want to call yourself moral.
There is a plenty of fiction that's just in your head or on paper or any other medium and it's even enjoyable, but it's madness to think there is some moral/rational obligation in it. It's all enjoy or ignore at will, it's the great realm of daily life that is completely up to your choice, neither moral nor immoral, thankfully. What is not universal and existing as a thing in itself, has little philosophical significance (rationality, morality), unless some idiot re-classifies it on par with actual knowledge or morality.

So, there is a lot of literature about God, does that mean that God partially exists? Sure, as a storytelling element, a plot device. But not as an actual entity that can give you moral commandments and punish you if you disobey.

So there is a lot of literature about the law and state, does that mean that the state partially exists? Sure, as a storytelling element, a plot device. But not as an actual entity that can give you moral commandments and punish you if you disobey.

This is the satyr that gets my goat. Highly esteemed public "intellectuals" say the darnedest things.
http://www.truthovercomfort.net/blog/201...ctuals-say
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 06:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not an apt metaphor. At all. I have not set out to disprove anything.
Three-valued logic is not built on top of two-valued logic and hyperbolic geometry is not built on top of plane geometry. The geometries I mentioned are isomorphic.
Can you show me a three-valued logic in natural language, i.e. can it be a first perception of reality? What other applications does this logic have?
Which least-valued logic is universal, axiomatic to existence of all things? Two-valued or three-valued?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 02:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 06:37 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Put it another way: it's like saying, if you're not for us, you are against us. That is usually not true and is a false dilemma to manipulate the person who is not agreeing with a groups stance to join them. For example, your constant strawman of political stances to 'supporting violent statism' and support of anarchism as 'no-wing' is trying to pigeon-hole everyone you disagree with into this fantasy of yours, Luminon. The Law of Excluded Middle does not apply here.

Excluded middle does not apply to everything and is debated about in epistemology. It works for circuits with ones and zeros, true and false; but in reality as a whole, it's not clear cut. Something that is not provably true does not mean it is false. There isn't always two positions. Everything isn't just black or white. You get the picture. This is where we get the need for something to be falsifiable. A claim of a supernatural agent is not falsifiable -- it cannot be proven true but doesn't mean it's false either. Skeptics ask for evidence of such, otherwise, we remain skeptical of such an agent.

To sum up: your twisted reasoning presented as 'logical' by yourself is a farce for black-or-white thinking with no evidence behind it besides magical thinking.

Stop trying to pretend as if you know everything and everyone else who brings up valid points are wrong.

Or not. More entertainment for a lot of people if you keep showing your ignorance.

I don't need to know everything, this is all Philosophy 101, a few basic properties commonly shared by everything.


Yet you consistently get major concepts in philosophy wrong. Exhibit A: Turing test.

Quote:
Either unchosen positive obligations exist, in which case they exist for everyone, or they don't. If you can think of any nuances, you need to prove them with reason (you can't, reason applies to everyone) or scientific evidence (good luck with the is-ought dichotomy).


So there can't be more than two sides on an issue without a reason that you accept. Gotcha.

In reality, it's not that simple.

Quote:
Evidence, such as in empiricism can not be proven reliable without its basis in first principles, principle of contradiction, rational method and the epistemological proof with methodological circle. Evidence is in top floors of a building, but proposals first must make sense in the foundations, first the concept must exist at all (zero one logic) ! Otherwise it's just a buzzword.


Evidence is evidence: if it supports your argument, it doesn't need a 'principle'. You're spouting gibberish here, Lumi.

Quote:
I don't apply the principle of excluded middle to everything, I apply it to existence of concepts. Yes, it's that dead-simple and trivial, sorry if you expected something more, but this is where everyone cheats the most, because nobody has any principles except a few of the philosophers. If people want to move the goalposts of truth and morality, they don't need to move the top floor with science and iPads, they only need to move the principles in foundations, which nobody notices because nobody can imagine and comprehend that something so simple might be true and obligatory.

So all concepts, especially those involving governance, is black or white in your reality. Good to know.

It's not as simple as you are for totalitarianism or for libertarian anarchy. There are places in between. The fact you deny those positions based on 'evidence' or 'principles' or whatever brings out your ignorance of reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
03-09-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 01:23 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 02:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't need to know everything, this is all Philosophy 101, a few basic properties commonly shared by everything.


Yet you consistently get major concepts in philosophy wrong. Exhibit A: Turing test.

Quote:
Either unchosen positive obligations exist, in which case they exist for everyone, or they don't. If you can think of any nuances, you need to prove them with reason (you can't, reason applies to everyone) or scientific evidence (good luck with the is-ought dichotomy).


So there can't be more than two sides on an issue without a reason that you accept. Gotcha.

In reality, it's not that simple.

Quote:
Evidence, such as in empiricism can not be proven reliable without its basis in first principles, principle of contradiction, rational method and the epistemological proof with methodological circle. Evidence is in top floors of a building, but proposals first must make sense in the foundations, first the concept must exist at all (zero one logic) ! Otherwise it's just a buzzword.


Evidence is evidence: if it supports your argument, it doesn't need a 'principle'. You're spouting gibberish here, Lumi.

Quote:
I don't apply the principle of excluded middle to everything, I apply it to existence of concepts. Yes, it's that dead-simple and trivial, sorry if you expected something more, but this is where everyone cheats the most, because nobody has any principles except a few of the philosophers. If people want to move the goalposts of truth and morality, they don't need to move the top floor with science and iPads, they only need to move the principles in foundations, which nobody notices because nobody can imagine and comprehend that something so simple might be true and obligatory.

So all concepts, especially those involving governance, is black or white in your reality. Good to know.

It's not as simple as you are for totalitarianism or for libertarian anarchy. There are places in between. The fact you deny those positions based on 'evidence' or 'principles' or whatever brings out your ignorance of reality.

Uh-oh, KG. Looks like ol' Lumi's going to have to add another name to his list of enemies.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-09-2014, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2014 01:58 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh-oh, KG. Looks like ol' Lumi's going to have to add another name to his list of enemies.

Not by my fault, I don't call anyone names. I don't initiate aggression. If other people verbally attack me for peaceful activities (such as debating philosophy), well, that's a dealbreaker and I'm glad to have them identified.

(03-09-2014 01:23 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Yet you consistently get major concepts in philosophy wrong. Exhibit A: Turing test.
Yes, I know of that. A private joke. People as culture robots.

(03-09-2014 01:23 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  So there can't be more than two sides on an issue without a reason that you accept. Gotcha.

In reality, it's not that simple.
On the issues of truth/existence claims and moral (behavioral) obligations, yes.
For your information, this isn't a checking box quiz. Unless you actually say *what* is not that simple, you don't get any points. Besides, not that simple compared to what?
See, I don't accept that either. If a statement has no whats or compared to whats, it's your colon bacteria who do the thinking.

(03-09-2014 01:23 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Evidence is evidence: if it supports your argument, it doesn't need a 'principle'. You're spouting gibberish here, Lumi.
Very few things need principles, such as truth/existence claims and moral arguments. But that would require you to know what is a principle.
Btw, "Evidence is evidence" is a tautology, which is a logical error, not an actual definition.
(yes, I know it's anal and nitpicky, but it's a revenge for the Turing test)

(03-09-2014 01:23 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  So all concepts, especially those involving governance, is black or white in your reality. Good to know.

It's not as simple as you are for totalitarianism or for libertarian anarchy. There are places in between. The fact you deny those positions based on 'evidence' or 'principles' or whatever brings out your ignorance of reality.

Places in between? Which places? Gotham City or Metropolis? Please, name them and prove their existence objectively. With scientific evidence, if possible.
For example, I accept that there are grey areas in the case of morality (behavior) and kids, because kids are an empirical, biological fact. There is a plenty of science on brain and endocrine development and so on. I'm happy to take that as a correction. That's the degree of evidence that I require. Anything less than that... sorry, I might submit to a threat, or go along on a whim or if you ask me nicely, but I won't take it as a moral or rational obligation.

Again I ask, which places and what positions? Are we talking some metaphorical geography here? Narnia or Middle Earth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-09-2014 01:15 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-09-2014 06:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not an apt metaphor. At all. I have not set out to disprove anything.
Three-valued logic is not built on top of two-valued logic and hyperbolic geometry is not built on top of plane geometry. The geometries I mentioned are isomorphic.
Can you show me a three-valued logic in natural language, i.e. can it be a first perception of reality? What other applications does this logic have?

There are statements that are neither true nor false. They may be lacking information, they may be undecidable, they may be badly formed, they may be opinion.

Quote:Which least-valued logic is universal, axiomatic to existence of all things? Two-valued or three-valued?

Neither.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: