weird philosophy stuff (elijah, come here!)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
I do believe there are certain provable objective truths, but I don't believe that an objective universe (like with particles and stuff ) is provable. Mathematics and stuff is objective because you can prove false all alternatives.

But is that a result of some facts about the external world, or is it merely a feature of our conceptual apparatus. I mean this, are mathematical truths just forced on us by the way our brains are constructed, or by a conceptual scheme?

[Whaleboy]

Or both?

Like you said a while back, "intellectual masturbation".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Or both?

Like you said a while back, "intellectual masturbation".

Actually, I believe the whole question is ill-formed. I don't believe that there are such things as conceptual schemes. There isn't anything we could point to that makes mathematics special other than the fundamental role that it and logic plays in our reasoning.

The reason I believe this is that I don't think we can separate off the factual and linguistic contributions to the truth value of any proposition in such a way that we can distinguish logical and mathematical statements as somehow being different in kind from ordinary empirical judgements. The difference is in what we do with them, rather than what they are of themselves.

In the early 20th century most philosophers believed that for any statement to be true, two things had to be the case: (1) it consisted of signs that made it mean something (i.e made it capable of being true or false); and, (2) it bore a relation to the world that made it (actually) true or false.

After Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism was published in the 50s this view came under suspicion. This is the seminal paper of 20th century philosophy and it attacks the notion that we can neatly parcel out the linguistic and factual contributions to the truth value of individual propositions by attacking the notion of analyticity (the idea that statements can be true, purely by virtue of the meanings of their terms). If analyticity cannot be defended and Duhem's thesis is true (all theories are underdetermined by the evidence) which it seems to be, then pragmatism is the only reasonable solution.

You can read this great paper, here:

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

[Kuciwalker]

I don't believe it requires universal knowledge to create a meaningful philosophy, though I will further explore that just for you , its always been my disposition that it was not required. An example of such a meaningful idea based upon my supposition is as follows:

You know nothing for certain -> You cannot be certain of your own correctness -> You have only thoughts for yourself and these are not ultimately true -> You create your own philosophy but respect that it is merely an extention of your mental condition and need not apply ultimately, or for others. I dont know about you guys but I'm perfectly fine about that, but then, I have been exposed heavily to Buddhist notions of non-permanence, and tantric notions of enjoyment of the moment vs anticipation.

What I meant was that universal knowledge has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was only talking about the rules the stuff in the universe obeys

But is that a result of some facts about the external world, or is it merely a feature of our conceptual apparatus. I mean this, are mathematical truths just forced on us by the way our brains are constructed, or by a conceptual scheme?

No, they are true no matter what you do. They do not derive their truth from the universe.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

But is that a result of some facts about the external world, or is it merely a feature of our conceptual apparatus. I mean this, are mathematical truths just forced on us by the way our brains are constructed, or by a conceptual scheme?

No, they are true no matter what you do. They do not derive their truth from the universe.

That's evading the question....


But what makes them true then?

Relations between real immaterial entities? (platonism)

The meanings of the terms themselves? (they are tautologies)

Something else? (the biology of our brains)

[Kuciwalker]

But what makes them true then?

Relations between real immaterial entities? (platonism)

The meanings of the terms themselves? (they are tautologies)

Something else? (the biology of our brains)

Yes, partially yes, no.

btw, I'm not a Platonist (or whatever you call a person who believed in all that stuff).

However, since our mathematical system is the only one that isn't internally inconsistent, it must be "true".

[Whaleboy]

Its christmas eve people. Get drunk!

I am prepared to philosophise 364 days of the year.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

But what makes them true then?

Relations between real immaterial entities? (platonism)

The meanings of the terms themselves? (they are tautologies)

Something else? (the biology of our brains)

Yes, partially yes, no.

btw, I'm not a Platonist (or whatever you call a person who believed in all that stuff).

However, since our mathematical system is the only one that isn't internally inconsistent, it must be "true".

But what makes it inconsistent? What about non-euclidean geometries, those are consistent?

Kurt Godel, one of the most respect mathematicians ever, was a Platonist.

[Kuciwalker]

But what makes it inconsistent? What about non-euclidean geometries, those are consistent?

Internally inconsistent. I hope you know what makes something that

Anyways, non-euclidean geometries aren't mathematical systems, they're geometries. And yes, they are also internally consistant (and may even be "true" wrt the real world).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

But what makes it inconsistent? What about non-euclidean geometries, those are consistent?

Internally inconsistent. I hope you know what makes something that

Anyways, non-euclidean geometries aren't mathematical systems, they're geometries. And yes, they are also internally consistant (and may even be "true" wrt the real world).

And people have developed counter-logics that are internally consistent.

And you still haven't told me what makes it inconsistent.

[Kuciwalker]

And people have developed counter-logics that are internally consistent.

People have developed internally consistent mathematical systems other than the one we use?!

And you still haven't told me what makes it inconsistent.

Gah! Internally inconsistent. That means that it invalidates on of it's conclusions, or in the case of mathematics states something like 1 = 2.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

And people have developed counter-logics that are internally consistent.

People have developed internally consistent mathematical systems other than the one we use?!

Counter-logics. I suppose if you're a logicist that allows for alternative mathematics.

And you still haven't told me what makes it inconsistent.

Gah! Internally inconsistent. That means that it invalidates on of it's conclusions, or in the case of mathematics states something like 1 = 2.

That doesn't make any difference. All I need to do is formulate a series of symbols and a set of rules. That can be quite arbitrary.

You still haven't answered the question. What makes our mathematical system consistent other than that we can't seem to conceive of breaking the rules. I can't imagine non-euclidean spaces either, but that doesn't mean there can't be such things.

What do you appeal to, to ground your belief that our mathematical system is the only consistent one?

Appealing to our intuitions isn't much of a hope, the fact that we can't imagine something is no proof of its non-existence.

[Verto]

Keep philosophising and communicating, the world needs more that do!

Funny, I would've thought we'd need useful, productive members of society, instead of more philosophers.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: weird philosophy stuff (elijah, come here!)

Originally posted by skywalker
(2) Premise: The universe obeys deterministic physical laws.

Quantum Physics is not deterministic.

Originally posted by skywalker
This is also wholly unprovable. However, without deterministic laws, the universe is random

Probabilistic is not the same as random. Even Thermodynamics are statistically based.

Originally posted by skywalker
and it again seems impossible to formulate a meaningful philosophy without causality.

So? You are just putting the cart in front of the horse.

Originally posted by skywalker
In fact, the case where the universe is not deterministic seems very similar to the case where the universe is not objective.

Huh?

Originally posted by skywalker
(3) Premise: That which is not self-aware cannot independently come up with the concept of self-awareness.

Unless you are saying that there could be a non-self-aware intelligence.

Originally posted by skywalker
(4) (Whatever you call a conclusion derived from other stuff, hereafter "Theorem"): Self-awareness is an "emergent property" (I think that's what it's called) of matter that arises naturally out of various forms it can take, by (2).

Well, self-awareness either came from matter alone, or it came from something else. Being a materialist, there's not something else.

[Sava]

our intelligence is a function of our biology... I doubt silicon chips with alternating switches 0 and 1 can become sentient intelligence.

but it may be possible in the future to create computers using bio-matter that functions like biological brains while maintaining or exceeding the mathematical computing power and speed of current computers.

anyways, I'm not even sure humans are self-aware. Computers have to be programmed, or else they don't function. I don't believe that an "intelligence" that has to be programmed can qualify as "self-aware". ANd since humans are pretty much programmed, who says we are self-aware? We may think we are self-aware, but perhaps our intelligence and personality is simply a reflection of our "programming" and learned experience.

For a machine to be considered "self-aware" it should be constructed in a such a way that it requires no programming. It would have to have input sensors, perhaps similar to our own senses... and then it would be "turned on" and have the ability to learn and develop a personality and consciousness based upon its experience.

Since human beings have two factors affecting our "programming": genetics and society (education and conditioning); it is quite possible we do not possess sentience. As Uber said, we are just smart apes. By comparing our genetics, we are not that different from apes. In fact, perhaps there is an advanced form of life that is much more evolved and intelligent than ourselves. Would that intelligence consider us to be "intelligent"? Or would it look down upon us as we do animals?