Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(05-06-2014 11:02 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  "Heterological" is a word that describes itself, therefore it is autological, but if "heterological" is autological that means it's heterological and is therefore a word that describes itself and therefore is autological ... ad infinitum.

Conclusion: Logic is an artificial system that is a useful tool but is not a universal truth.

Yes, but what we're all really wondering is who shaves the barber.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2014, 11:17 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(05-06-2014 11:13 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 11:02 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  "Heterological" is a word that describes itself, therefore it is autological, but if "heterological" is autological that means it's heterological and is therefore a word that describes itself and therefore is autological ... ad infinitum.

Conclusion: Logic is an artificial system that is a useful tool but is not a universal truth.

Yes, but what we're all really wondering is who shaves the barber.

We need to hire a philosopher to spend 20 years of his life figuring that one out. And when he does it will have many applications such as ...

Consider

Dodgy

Confused

Unsure

Sad

Smokin

... giving stoners something to talk about!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
05-06-2014, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2014 12:59 PM by Chas.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(05-06-2014 11:17 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(05-06-2014 11:13 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, but what we're all really wondering is who shaves the barber.

We need to hire a philosopher to spend 20 years of his life figuring that one out. And when he does it will have many applications such as ...

Consider

Dodgy

Confused

Unsure

Sad

Smokin

... giving stoners something to talk about!


One satisfactory answer is 無 (mu or wu). It implies that the question should be unasked.


A monk asked Master Chao-chou, "Has a dog the Buddha Nature or not?"
Chao-chou said, "Mu!"

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
06-06-2014, 06:42 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 06:52 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(04-06-2014 11:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  As many of you already know (if you had read all of my nearly 10,000 posts here Big Grin ) I left school in my teens over 30 years ago... never studied... I was away the day the other children were taught how to study. The only tests I passed were the ones where only innate ability was required (6th in the school in the National Maths Competition (the top guy in our school who went on to the national finals (came second IIRC) was 4 years my senior) and usually second in the annual poetry competition and pool champion (the one with the stick and balls - I never learned to swim) every year).

The main thing I learned ... was not to overuse (brackets and) ellipses Laughat
The way government education is, it is no shame to skip it and learn on your own. Quite opposite, it's terrifying and status-damaging, but probably the best choice. I'm an education whore because students get a cheap rent, but the most useful thing I ever learned was a one-semester course on Philosophy 101 where I learned that all knowledge (including any statements of denial) is rooted in "first principles" which are universal properties of reality and are true, necessary, certain and objective. That is impossible to deny, who tries to deny that, he asserts true knowledge.

I consider it a point of pride that I recognized the gems in the heap of dung that is a (mostly) government education. I'm not a genius, but I know when I see the works of a genius or thought instruments that are necessary for a genius.
When right people learn the principles of philosophy, it's like a bomb of light going off in the head. Like the brain was a dry pyre of delusion prepared to be lighted.
Life in awareness of the first principles and universal truths is a constantly amazing quest trying to put them into practical formulations for the task at hand. It's not just seeking truth anymore, but seeking how to express it.

It involves acknowledging that the world is based on principles and that all real things are potentially knowable to us, because we are naturally in touch with the principles.

(04-06-2014 11:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I think I have learned more from the people on this forum over the last 2+ years than I ever learned in official education and knowing more now than I did then about high functioning autism, the reasons for that are now (fairly) clear to me.

And, by "people on this forum", I include Luminon near the top of the list.

What have been passing comments for the authors have been hours of delving, reading and bepuzzlement for me.

I am very grateful to you all (except Hughsie, of course).
Woah. I didn't know that. If I knew I might do some custom-tailoring and be more specific for you. Where are you now, you don't have to be there. You can always go faster, do better.... I mean, natural science gives us cheat codes to do awesome works with nature and philosophy gives us cheat codes to do awesome works with society. We see secrets of nature guarded by nobody and excavated by scientists as a whole industry. But secrets of the society and human being are protected by literally everyone, everyone attacks us when we look for them, including yourself.

This is why I am so suspicious of perpetual seekers. The truth about society is everywhere, in everything, we could find it in a moment and we found it when we were children. The seeking could take just a minute.
I have mistaken you for one of the vague, relativistic politically correct folks mortally scared of an absolute statement or a moral obligation.

I'm so sorry I was rather crude. I have a dark side, so big, that I couldn't even acknowledge its existence consciously. Now the situation is different, all that I did before was gathering strength for what I do now. There is a lot of skeleton-raising, demon-facing and abyss-gazing. And I'm very mean at people, very irritable and at times, I want to growl at people and bite Cjlr if he gets too close.

(04-06-2014 11:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  "Vague"?... Perhaps. I come from a position of ignorance so OK maybe that's it but I was only asking a question to help remove vagueness.

"putting on a good front"... I'll take that as a compliment as my front is one of my better qualities but I think you, Lumi, have assumed too much.

And this is the bit that has confused me:
"He said he's really fond of truth"... I don't think I did.
I think I said, or at least I meant, that we/humanity are/is on a quest for universal values. I didn't mention 'truth'. But call it a quest for truth if you like.

I should qualify that by saying that I think that many theists are on a quest from truth as they take their version of Truth (note the cap) as their starting point.

You, Lumi, say
Quote:I was suspicious if that's for real, because he also doubted he ever reached the truth.

This is why I asked for definition because I do not see "universal values" as being synonymous with "truth".

I asked and you gave me this:
Quote:truth (a philosophical technical term).

OK. I'll go with that even though this gets me no closer to understanding what you mean by "universal values".

I'm still learning but wrt definitions, here are some that I like ... I do not know if they are "philosophical technical" terms:

Faith: A belief held without or in spite of the evidence.
Belief: A proposition that is accepted to be true, even though it may not actually be true.
Knowledge: Justified TRUE belief.
Certainty: Confidence in the truth of a proposition; probability.
Absolute: Universal; binding on all people across all time and space, including linguistic and cultural barriers.

Please note that by TRUE, I am not equating this to REALITY.
Reality: The sum of all 'real' things; the entirety of existence
Internal reality: Subjective perceptions (memory, vision, emotional states etc.)
External reality: Everything beyond my immediate sensory perceptions.
True: A label given to propositions in accordance with an epistemology.
You acknowledge the possibility of an absolute? Good!
Truth is an absolute within a very limited scope.
Knowledge is truths interconnected in a logical way.

My position (flawed though it my be) is that truth and reality are not the same. If truth was simply reality, then truth cannot be known as I think (as yet) there is no way of knowing what is objectively true.

So... by asking you to give a definition of "universal values" I was trying to get an understanding of whether you might be referring to 'absolutes' because that (or they) is what I am not yet convinced exist.

And I'm not talking about 'facts'. I'm OK with, for example, the label of 'absolute zero'.

In other words, I'm OK with 'is' truths but not yet convinced about 'ought' truths.
[/quote] Well, that's what I want to change.
The 'ought' truths are real and nothing in the 'is' truths can possibly disqualify them.
They are more real than the 'is' truths, in terms of permanence.
Universe is primarily not empirical or material, it is energy obeying rational, logical formulas. There is no break in the universe, no exceptions from logic.
Matter and empiricism are picking the scraps through reverse-engineering, but they're not how the universe came to be as it is. Science is deceptive, because it gives us details about how things work in very limited area, but it is not a compass of how things work generally.

The universe is philosophical, or rational. In rational method, we can propose a statement and then we test it, and if it holds, it's true. If you can formulate a theory about reality, and it's internally consistent and consistent with what we know about the universe, then it's true. If done right, whatever other such theory you encounter, it will be more general or more specific version of what you formulated, but it will not be actually wrong, in contradiction. That's the amazing human ability to understand the universe and gain orientation in it.

The science would have us believe that the real starts with a blank slate of controlled laboratory circumstances. Science is a very sophisticated cherry-picking of reality. Scientists would never admit that, but they claim that with their work and public status. If we gave the same attention to philosophers who study general properties of the real, unfiltered world, our civilization would be on par with our technical development. Of course, most philosophers are wrong, they made mistakes even though they should have known better. It is not true that there is no consensus in philosophy, so only science can science guide us. Just as science needs a sterile laboratory, philosophy needs a non-indoctrinated, non-violent, materially secure life with leisure time and basic instruments of logic.

If you can check things logically, that's good.
If you can contact the (seemingly trivial) first principles, that would be great. Because then you can check the things you see by disregarding social norms and going back to the first principles. It's a difficult thing, but extremely useful. Best philosophers are here.

And if you can distinguish more abstract and more concrete formulations of the absolutes (first principles), that's a whole new level. I'm not good at moral philosophy, but this is what I actually do. The philosophers who are here aren't considered the best, because almost nobody understands them.


(04-06-2014 11:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  ... yeah, dumbarse ... no problem with that. That's all about 'is'.

Please (I mean this honestly) correct me if I am incorrect but aren't "universal values" about 'ought'?

I'm wondering whether I have misunderstood the word 'value' i.e. I'm reading it as 'worth' which is subjective where perhaps you meant it as 'quantity' which is objective Consider
I think you have a great understanding of value. You approve of Maslow's hierarchy of values and that is a great, awesome start. Maslow presents the golden thread of truth and now all we have to do is to follow it towards greater abstraction through empirical obstacles.
Empirical obstacles, such as - you know that not all people have the same values or in the same order, right? Does it mean that the hierarchy of values is false? That was one of the big obstacles.

(04-06-2014 11:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Perhaps it's too subtle but Kim and I seem to on the same page. Maybe one day we'll get to be on the same sheet Dodgy Heart
(04-06-2014 04:44 PM)kim Wrote:  Living is the meaning of life.
Ah! That's what irritated the shit out of me! I see it now. It's a fallacy. You can't define things by saying the same word again. That is not a definition. That's like me asking what is a snarfwidget. If you say "a snarfwidget is a snarfwidget", that doesn't tell me actually anything new, because I don't know what is a snarfwidget to begin with. Even my spell check doesn't know that. I got pissed and assumed this is your level of knowledge.
Well, it's not, I'm sorry I assume that.

As for what is life, that is another level of definition. If we say "life is a chemical reaction", the statement is not false, but very limited. It conveys only as much information as the concept of "chemical reaction", which is very little. That's like saying the nature of human being is old world monkey clade, chordata. Again, not false, but pretty fuckin' useless. My inner demons hate useless.

To make something useful, a statement must connect to as many aspects of reality as it possibly can. What makes money useful? You can exchange them for great many kinds of things.
Such a statement must be very general, very abstract. The more general statements are, the more true they are. The absolutes are the most general statements about reality. Or their English early 21st century equivalents.

Part II is coming in time...


(05-06-2014 11:02 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(04-06-2014 08:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - Can two mutually exclusive claims be true simultaneously? Yahweh is the one true god, Allah is the one true god. I don't think so.


Two mutually exclusive claims:
  • Two mutually exclusive claims cannot be true simultaneously by definition otherwise they would not be mutually exclusive - True
  • Two mutually exclusive claims can be true simultaneously - Also True


Contrived artificial example of two mutually exclusive claims that are simultaneously true:
  • The word "heterological" is heterological - True
  • The word "heterological" is autological. - Also True

Autological (also known as homological) = a word that describes itself (e.g., the word "short" is short, "noun" is a noun, "English" is English, "pentasyllabic" has five syllables, "word" is a word, "sesquipedalian" is a long word)

Heterological = a word that does not describe itself.


"Heterological" is not a word that describes itself, therefore is heterological, but this means that it is autological, but if "heterological" is autological that means it's heterological and is therefore not a word that describes itself and therefore is autological ... ad infinitum.

Conclusion: Logic is an artificial system that is a useful tool but is not a universal truth.
It's a good example how laymen misunderstand philosophy and consequently dissuade people from trusting logic.
The answer is the semantic triangle. Concepts do not have some magical essence that could contradict itself. They are a connection of three things, a sound, an idea and a real phenomenon.

The English word "heterological" is not the same as the phenomenon of heterology. It is an arbitrary vocal sound that is associated with an idea of heterology and consequently with a phenomenon of heterology.

Conclusion: Logic is a basic property of nature. Nature never contradicts itself. It is English that is illogical, can contradict itself. English must be doubted, not logic!!! Evil_monster English or any language is a useful tool, but not universal truth. Logic is the universal truth, the problem is, we can only contact it through language. This is a common objection among people who aren't philosophers of language and equate language with the real thing. There is a gap between language and reality and not even all philosophers get it.

If I wanted to say what is ACTUALLY philosophy or logic, I would say, logic is the way how energy spreads through space-time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Consider

I'm OK with most of that but I got a little lost in the middle.

It seemed to me that your saying that science is to reductionism as philosophy is to holism.
I'm fine with that.

It strikes me that philosophy's gift is to define the question for science to find the answers.

And talking of definitions, if you were thinking that my signature contained definitions I can see why you were irritated... 'cause definitions, they ain't. They are intended to be catalysts. Angel

Quote:I have mistaken you for one of the vague, relativistic politically correct folks mortally scared of an absolute statement or a moral obligation.

Actually, you are not entirely mistaken.

If you were one of my students you'd be immediately be aware (within the first 10mins) that political and religio-correctness is not my style. Evil_monster I have no fear of mortality or moral obligations but also I see no absolutes and I do think that all things are relative (small 'r') i.e. relative to a given framework or axiology.
For example, the Maslow layers are relative to each other.

Again for clarity, I need to ask the same question again but I'll rephrase...
When you referred to "universal values" are you equating these to your "first principles and universal truths"?

They don't sound the same to me.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
06-06-2014, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 09:19 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(05-06-2014 10:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I would appreciate an explanation as to your irritation.
How did you get from my sig's little idioms to a justification for rape and murder?

I'm an ape. Darwin taught me that.
Fucking and killing is what I do.
The former is dealt with personally and the latter is out-sourced.

I am identifying this, accepting it and then moving on, in the next two lines (separated, not "mixed"), to highlight that this is not the only driver anymore.
My bald-headed angry Buddha taught me, that the 'oughts' can not possibly be derived from what 'is'. Just because there was slavery for a long time, didn't mean that slavery is good and moral.

Similarly, facts have no meaning whatsoever besides themselves. I am an ape. That means nothing but that I am an ape. It means nothing more than that. No meaning whatsoever, no other connections to reality. No moral obligations can be derived from that fact. It can not possibly mean that you are obligated to fuck and kill.
So what the hell are the odd, unconnected facts good for? Certainly not for telling us what we are in our entirety and what to do.

The angry Buddha also says, there is no such thing as unchosen positive obligations. Just because a scientist comes by and classifies you taxonomically, does not mean you are obligated to start marking your territory with urine and bang heads with stones.

We are moving in the realm of logic and there is no middle ground, no excuses. If A means B, then it fuckin' means B. If the statement "you are an ape" means that "you absolutely must bang heads with stones" then you would be very immoral if you did not spend 24 hours a day, 7 times a week fulfilling this obligation of banging heads with stones. No half-hour naps permitted.
This is why facts (or anything else) can not logically justify unchosen positive obligations. And this is why we shouldn't give facts any moral merit.
It may mean that the outsourced killing not moral, it may even be positively immoral. Killing can not be a moral obligation, or nothing but continuous killing would make you immoral.

(05-06-2014 10:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Agreed. Civilisation is all about capitalising on our ability to climb up Maslow's ladder.

Also, agreed that "we don't know success criteria in human society"... only hindsight can tell us that. And I mean ultimate hindsight... we don't even know that humanity is actually a 'good thing' for the universe at large.

"we don't have any specific answers"... exactly my position regarding "universal values".
I guess that means we agree and the discussion is over.

Are these the same answers that we don't have?
Wait. There is one more possibility. We don't know success criteria in human society. But not because no such criteria exist, but because human society itself is bullshit. It can be logically contradictory, just like our language sometimes contradicts itself.
Society is based on the great fallacy of "do as I say, not as I do". Might makes right. There are superior people who are smarter than us and we elect them by popular vote based on our non-smart opinion.

We don't have answers, because we ask bullshit questions. We can have universal values, but that means we have to reject society and law as we know them, because our society is bullshit, not universal values. This is where philosophy stops boring people and starts frightening them and making them angry Big Grin Expect angry mobs with torches and pitchforks and cups of hemlock. Expect angry families.

(btw, I hesitate to call the universal values or first principles "absolutes", because I want to emphasize how general or abstract they are. Most absolute claims are bullshit, unless they're very, very general. Just for educational purposes. Also, we had a member called "absols" on this forum.)


(05-06-2014 10:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I also think I am quite good at disassociating myself from my inherited traditions (one of the disadvantages and advantages of autism, in my view) but I doubt I'll be able to do this completely. The more I travel and the more I learn, the better I get.

I am curious as to your criteria for this knowledge i.e. knowing the answers when you see them.
That would make a fascinating side topic.
'An' answer is one thing but 'the' answers... that's a whole new kettle of ball-games.
Knowing how to dissociate yourself from social norms is a good start. But if you do only that, you get insane. You need to associate yourself with universals. And you get to see the universals by learning multiple worldviews, multiple languages or paradigms and comparing them and see what they have in common.

Universals are never wrong. They are naturally arranged in a hierarchy, from the most abstract unlimited truths, to the most practical, yet limited truths - or even facts. It is a hierarchy of generality, abstraction, potential variability and complexity - and we humans are pretty high in this hierarchy, though not the highest. The values that are superior to us, are called virtues. Obedience to virtues allows humanity and all world that we can affect a greater variability of voluntary (self-initiated) expression. Virtues are the expressions of principles that extend our possibilities, instead of restricting them.

(05-06-2014 10:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yes, yes and no.
This does not allow for continual improvement. Answers will change as the questions are refined.
I'm glad you understand that, few people do. However, I must add that that the "refined" questions actually mean more abstract question, more general, true in a broader range of circumstances. The answers will change to their more generalized versions if they were true to begin with. It's like driving the car on the road.

Limited rule systems like cultures change too, only more bloody and messy. It's like blind "driving" by bumping back and forth from the road sides, picking up the speed with better technology. That is our civilization.
If it's based on illogical bullshit, there will always be a cycle of boom and bust. Like in money-printing government currency, or militaristic Roman empire. People can do a great job keeping it together, they keep it working for decades or centuries, but if the basic premise is flawed -might makes right- then there is a downfall instead of peaceful and productive broadening of definitions.

(05-06-2014 10:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  How's that theory holding up?

And a definition of 'universal values' would be useful to get the conversation started.

Cheers
The theory? I'm still not sure. Maybe I say too much. I hope you will find the philosophy useful. Your desire for meaning, virtue and truth in society should only grow if I prove to you that there are the absolutes and that we can derive moral obligations from them, which have a much stronger logical claim than any government law, patriotism or family loyalty. Morality derived from the first principles is a fuckin' powerful thing. It's terrifying because religions and ideologies try to bullshit us in a similar (yet illogical) way. But it if's true and you can follow the logic, then it's powerful.

The 'universal values' or 'first principles' are the principles that make everything else possible. The basic premises behind all thinking. You can not doubt thinking, because doubting is already thinking. You can not say "I don't exist", because to say that, you must exist.
You can not say "we can't know anything for sure", because that's saying you know that for sure.

This is a principle of non-contradiction, or identity or something. A thing can not be itself and its opposite at the same time. It can only be itself. If you think otherwise, then each one of the words you say to deny that will also have the opposite meaning and the sentence will be nonsense. You can not say Identity is False, or the result would sound Identity is Identity, False is False. The very act of saying anything would become impossible!
We can know the truth about reality. If you disagree, you can only disagree on the grounds of reality.
Principle of identity is based on the law of energy preservation. I am a philosophical monist, all in the universe is energy or derived from energy, yet there is no pure energy in this universe. Everything is explainable by energy, energy is explainable only by itself in its entirety of all universe(s). Energy is synonymous with existence, reality and causality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Luminon's post
06-06-2014, 09:13 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 06:42 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If I wanted to say what is ACTUALLY philosophy or logic, I would say, logic is the way how energy spreads through space-time.

How does this relate to the fields of both classical and non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Can I power a steam engine using logic? Can logic self organise?

What real world work can I perform using logic? Or are you saying that I can use pure energy to perform logical calculations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 09:13 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does this relate to the fields of both classical and non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Can I power a steam engine using logic? Can logic self organise?

What real world work can I perform using logic? Or are you saying that I can use pure energy to perform logical calculations?
Logic or pure energy is a principle. Instances are imperfectly derived from principles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 09:31 AM by kim.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 06:42 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(04-06-2014 04:44 PM)kim Wrote:  Living is the meaning of life.
Drinking Beverage
Ah! That's what irritated the shit out of me! I see it now. It's a fallacy. You can't define things by saying the same word again. That is not a definition.
Consider Huh?
You did not request definition you asked for the meaning of life ... in fact ...
(04-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Defining life is not the meaning of life.
You rejected defining life outright... and I agree. However, experience defines or describes meaning and living is the experience one might extract from life.

If you need proof for that...well... try not living for a while and see if you find some meaning. Wink

***
Ha - to know I am able to inadvertently irritate the shit out of someone... I feel somehow anointed. Angel

Mmmyes, I feel smeared or rubbed with oil but I will try to slide through my day as usual. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
06-06-2014, 09:34 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 09:13 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  How does this relate to the fields of both classical and non-equilibrium thermodynamics?

Can I power a steam engine using logic? Can logic self organise?

What real world work can I perform using logic? Or are you saying that I can use pure energy to perform logical calculations?
Logic or pure energy is a principle. Instances are imperfectly derived from principles.


How can pure energy be a principle? What do you mean by principle?

So if I shone a light in your eyes then this is an imperfect derivative of a principle?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: