Yet another post on "Free Will"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2015, 11:16 PM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
Right. Why? Surely whoever came up with the axiom was familiar with thermometers. So I assume I'm misinterpreting the axiom?

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2015, 11:22 PM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(07-12-2015 11:16 PM)wallym Wrote:  Right. Why? Surely whoever came up with the axiom was familiar with thermometers. So I assume I'm misinterpreting the axiom?

You are assigning it axiomatic status and I don't concur.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 07:31 AM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(07-12-2015 11:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 11:16 PM)wallym Wrote:  Right. Why? Surely whoever came up with the axiom was familiar with thermometers. So I assume I'm misinterpreting the axiom?

You are assigning it axiomatic status and I don't concur.

I'm just calling it the axiom of consciousness, because it's known as the axiom of consciousness.

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2015 10:52 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(07-12-2015 09:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 08:48 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yes Girly, I do. Consciousness is axiomatic and so is the validity of the mind.

Validity applies to arguments, not premises. Soundness applies to self-evident incontrovertible premises. I do not find the premise that I exist in the ordinary sense of the word incontrovertible. It is not axiomatic.

Validity also applies to knowledge and knowledge is conceptual in nature. If the concepts that make up our knowledge are not valid, i.e., do not correctly identify and integrate the facts of reality, then what we have is not knowledge of reality. Invalid concepts do not have any reference to reality, e.g., "God", "gremlins", "the supernatural". And it is not only the self evident that is incontrovertible. all principles and concepts which correspond to reality are incontrovertible. But higher level concepts need to be proven as they are not perceptually self evident. That is what proof is, the process of showing the logical connection between that which is not perceptually self evident and that which is. A true axiom can not be proven and does not need to be since it is conceptually irreducible, there are no concepts antecedent to it. The axioms of "consciousness"(consciousness is awareness of something as opposed to nothing), "existence" (existence exists or there is a reality) and "Identity" (to exist is to be something specific, to posses a specific nature, A is A) are all implicit in any proof. They would have to be true before any proof could be undertaken and would even have to be true in order to attempt to deny them. In order to deny them you would first have to exist and be conscious of something and you would need to be able to identify what it is you were denying. Axioms are inescapable.

"I do not find the premise that I exist in the ordinary sense of the word incontrovertible. It is not axiomatic." The concept "existence" is axiomatic though. How could you find the premise that you don't exist not incontrovertible if you don't exist? You see this statement commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. The stolen concept fallacy occurs when one uses a concept while denying the validity of another concept which is in its genetic hierarchy such as using a concept of consciousness such as "knowledge" while denying the axiom of consciousness. That's just an example.

(07-12-2015 09:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 08:48 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It names a truth which is perceptually self evident. It is truly fundamental and universal.

Been looking for one for decades. I'm not sure there is such a thing. I'm starting to think there can't be such a thing.

Well look no further. The axioms existence, Identity and consciousness are self evident. Their truth is inescapable. Consider the concept "existence". There is truly no more fundamental and universal concept. It denotes everything that exists. Its scope is universal. If something exists, it is subsumed by the concept existence. Even things we have yet to discover are included. We can subsume an unlimited number of concretes under this concept. The only think not included is the non-existent. There is literally no action you can take nor any statement you can make that does not rest upon the truth of these axioms. Don't take my word for it. Just try to deny their truth without assuming it. It can't be done. If that's not the definition of incontestable Then I don't know what is. I know this might seem alien to you. It was to me when I first learned of it. We're simply not taught to think in terms of essentials. But once you have the axioms you are invulnerable to any philosophic fraud. They are the most effective razor there is. Just reduce an idea to its basic premises and if one of them contradicts one of the axioms it can not be true. It slashes off whole systems of thought at the root, such as theism.

I wish I could discuss this more right now, I've got a lot more to say on the subject, but my chemicals are compelling me to get to work.

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
08-12-2015, 11:48 AM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
I feel like we escaped the truth with a thermometer like 3 posts ago.

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 01:17 PM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(08-12-2015 07:31 AM)wallym Wrote:  
(07-12-2015 11:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You are assigning it axiomatic status and I don't concur.

I'm just calling it the axiom of consciousness, because it's known as the axiom of consciousness.

Wrong. The axiom of consciousness is an axiom because it is:

Conceptually irreducible.

It identifies a fact which is perceptually self evident.

It is incontestably true.

It is implicit in any act of cognition.

It is a fundamental concept, it does not rest on any antecedent concepts.

It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it.

Theists call the claim that God exists an axiom, but that does not make it axiomatic. It fails on all of the points listed above.

It is not conceptually irreducible.

It is not incontestably true.

It does not name a fact which is perceptually self evident. The very fact that theists seek to prove the existence of their various gods is a tacit admission of this. Proof is the process of logically connecting that which is not perceptually self evident to that which is.

It is not implicit in any act of cognition.

It would not have to be true in order to deny it. I can deny it without any contradiction of any known facts.

Just calling a concept axiomatic does not make it so.

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
08-12-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(08-12-2015 01:17 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 07:31 AM)wallym Wrote:  I'm just calling it the axiom of consciousness, because it's known as the axiom of consciousness.

Wrong. The axiom of consciousness is an axiom because it is:

Conceptually irreducible.

It identifies a fact which is perceptually self evident.

It is incontestably true.

It is implicit in any act of cognition.

It is a fundamental concept, it does not rest on any antecedent concepts.

It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it.

"the assertion, "The sun is shining," implies the existence of a conscious entity that is claiming that the sun is shining, thus showing that consciousness exists. (This implication remains valid whether or not the assertion is true or false--in this case, whether or not the sun is actually shining.)" - wikipedia on axiom of consciousness

Girlyman and I both said (paraphrasing) "A weather app on my phone can make the assertion the sun is shining" and the weather app doesn't have consciousness.

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(08-12-2015 01:52 PM)wallym Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 01:17 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Wrong. The axiom of consciousness is an axiom because it is:

Conceptually irreducible.

It identifies a fact which is perceptually self evident.

It is incontestably true.

It is implicit in any act of cognition.

It is a fundamental concept, it does not rest on any antecedent concepts.

It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it.

"the assertion, "The sun is shining," implies the existence of a conscious entity that is claiming that the sun is shining, thus showing that consciousness exists. (This implication remains valid whether or not the assertion is true or false--in this case, whether or not the sun is actually shining.)" - wikipedia on axiom of consciousness

Girlyman and I both said (paraphrasing) "A weather app on my phone can make the assertion the sun is shining" and the weather app doesn't have consciousness. The assertion that the sun is shining also implies the other two axioms as well as one other. The statement it is also does this.

Yes but the weather APP gets its info ultimately from a Human consciousness. Its not making an assertion. It is doing what it was programmed to do by a Human. Just as a book does not make assertions, it merely records what some Human being wrote down. The assertion that the sun is shining also implies the other two axioms of existence and identity as well as one other. The statement "it is" also does this. The point I was making above is that it is not any assertion that makes a principle axiomatic but the hierarchical nature of knowledge.

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
08-12-2015, 07:23 PM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(08-12-2015 02:26 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 01:52 PM)wallym Wrote:  "the assertion, "The sun is shining," implies the existence of a conscious entity that is claiming that the sun is shining, thus showing that consciousness exists. (This implication remains valid whether or not the assertion is true or false--in this case, whether or not the sun is actually shining.)" - wikipedia on axiom of consciousness

Girlyman and I both said (paraphrasing) "A weather app on my phone can make the assertion the sun is shining" and the weather app doesn't have consciousness. The assertion that the sun is shining also implies the other two axioms as well as one other. The statement it is also does this.

Yes but the weather APP gets its info ultimately from a Human consciousness. Its not making an assertion. It is doing what it was programmed to do by a Human. Just as a book does not make assertions, it merely records what some Human being wrote down. The assertion that the sun is shining also implies the other two axioms of existence and identity as well as one other. The statement "it is" also does this. The point I was making above is that it is not any assertion that makes a principle axiomatic but the hierarchical nature of knowledge.

Let's pretend the phone has a sensor or two, and a thermometer built in. Now it gets info from observing the actual weather.

Blog: http://141min.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 07:59 PM
RE: Yet another post on "Free Will"
(08-12-2015 07:23 PM)wallym Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 02:26 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yes but the weather APP gets its info ultimately from a Human consciousness. Its not making an assertion. It is doing what it was programmed to do by a Human. Just as a book does not make assertions, it merely records what some Human being wrote down. The assertion that the sun is shining also implies the other two axioms of existence and identity as well as one other. The statement "it is" also does this. The point I was making above is that it is not any assertion that makes a principle axiomatic but the hierarchical nature of knowledge.

Let's pretend the phone has a sensor or two, and a thermometer built in. Now it gets info from observing the actual weather.

This does not change anything. The phone is still not making an assertion any more than my speedometer is making an assertion when it reports how fast my car is going. The fact that the phone exists does imply consciousness because phones don't occur in nature. We know that they are the product of man's mind.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: