Originally posted by Wesker
Ah, excellent. Repeat for the class what I was getting at then, Shak!
You are assuming a knowable truth. The first step in knowledge beyond that of instinct cannot be discerned from instinct. The need to remember were food is or how to avoid a prettier would have been the beginning. So, how is that different from instinct? Logic is a game with instinctual rules.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are assuming a knowable truth. The first step in knowledge beyond that of instinct cannot be discerned from instinct. The need to remember were food is or how to avoid a prettier would have been the beginning. So, how is that different from instinct? Logic is a game with instinctual rules.
Erm... No. No, you dropped the ball on this one.
Firstly, I did not assume a "knowable truth"; I've pointed out that Atlantis' stance on intuition leading to reason isn't able to be determined, since the idea of having intuition BEFORE knowledge and experience that allows one to know reason is contradictory. That is, intuition itself is a slippery term for what is very likely subconscious forms of decision making that may not appear to have roots in reason, but actually does.
Secondly, instinct doesn't even come into the picture here. Most psychologists will argue that human beings have very little instinct, and that which we have is geared towards the most basic of physiological needs, such as sucking and grasping things, which babies are capable of. Instinct is not knowledge; it's imprinted behavior. Likewise, instinct does not bring knowledge. It's not a tool for such a purpose.
Third, saying logic is a game with instinctual rules is an interesting choice of words. Instinct is by definition "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli." While you could have a semantic spiel with this and argue that reason IS humankind's own kind of instinctual behavior, that's just a kind of thing I don't want to argue at 1:34 AM. Suffice to say that instincts are characterized by behavior and not so much by internal rationalizing. Instincts seem rooted in genetic material and makeup, but the idea of why people use reason to acquire knowledge would probably be best explained by the complexity of the brain. This wouldn't make it a behavior so much as a natural way of operating. Behaviors are observable too, but internal thinking and abstracting isn't. You can't see the process taking place, so it would not be behavior in the strictest sense, even if behaviors come as consequence of said reasoning.
And when push comes to shove, why are we arguing what the start of reason truly is? It is pretty self-evident that the only way we can use our minds to come to feasible conclusions is through reason, which is as much a part of ourselves as are the five senses. I don't see the point of pinning "instinct" or "intuition" as the foundations for why we accept and use rationalizing when both of those terms don't fit in there. You can't make a square go into a circular peghole, and intuition and instinct don't fit in before reason on the path to knowledge.
Originally posted by Wesker
Erm... No. No, you dropped the ball on this one.Firstly, I did not assume a "knowable truth"; I've pointed out that Atlantis' stance on intuition leading to reason isn't able to be determined, since the idea of having intuition BEFORE knowledge and experience that allows one to know reason is contradictory. That is, intuition itself is a slippery term for what is very likely subconscious forms of decision making that may not appear to have roots in reason, but actually does.
Secondly, instinct doesn't even come into the picture here. Most psychologists will argue that human beings have very little instinct, and that which we have is geared towards the most basic of physiological needs, such as sucking and grasping things, which babies are capable of. Instinct is not knowledge; it's imprinted behavior. Likewise, instinct does not bring knowledge. It's not a tool for such a purpose.
Third, saying logic is a game with instinctual rules is an interesting choice of words. Instinct is by definition "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli." While you could have a semantic spiel with this and argue that reason IS humankind's own kind of instinctual behavior, that's just a kind of thing I don't want to argue at 1:34 AM. Suffice to say that instincts are characterized by behavior and not so much by internal rationalizing. Instincts seem rooted in genetic material and makeup, but the idea of why people use reason to acquire knowledge would probably be best explained by the complexity of the brain. This wouldn't make it a behavior so much as a natural way of operating. Behaviors are observable too, but internal thinking and abstracting isn't. You can't see the process taking place, so it would not be behavior in the strictest sense, even if behaviors come as consequence of said reasoning.
And when push comes to shove, why are we arguing what the start of reason truly is? It is pretty self-evident that the only way we can use our minds to come to feasible conclusions is through reason, which is as much a part of ourselves as are the five senses. I don't see the point of pinning "instinct" or "intuition" as the foundations for why we accept and use rationalizing when both of those terms don't fit in there. You can't make a square go into a circular peghole, and intuition and instinct don't fit in before reason on the path to knowledge.
Sorry, I just don't agree.
Originally posted by Wesker
I know, but when you can provide a convincing argument I'll consider taking your stance a bit more seriously. I mean, you did counter my last argument with the aspect of karma and balance.
Most of your argument is really good, I just have one problem. I think that one of your root assumptions is incorrect, but I am not sure which one.
Do you believe in a knowable absolute truth?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most of your argument is really good, I just have one problem. I think that one of your root assumptions is incorrect, but I am not sure which one.Do you believe in a knowable absolute truth?
It's possible that one of my root assumptions is indeed correct, but I'm presenting what I have. On the idea of a knowable, absolute truth I've already made my remarks on that- knowable absolute truth is like perfection; it's a worthy goal, perhaps unattainable, but we must try for it anyways. The alternative would be to what...? Pretend like there is no truth?
Originally posted by Wesker
It's possible that one of my root assumptions is indeed correct, but I'm presenting what I have. On the idea of a knowable, absolute truth I've already made my remarks on that- knowable absolute truth is like perfection; it's a worthy goal, perhaps unattainable, but we must try for it anyways. The alternative would be to what...? Pretend like there is no truth?
I believe we can never know absolute truth because our world is governed by relativity.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Wesker
Except in order to understand an idea, you have to provide the logic behind it. You cannot have "A is A" and understand it outside of logic. And since that IS an axiom, I fail to see how you think we can intuitively come to that. It's the concept of identity. To recognize A as A, you must adhere to logic. You cannot intuit A is A, you have to rationalize it. You have to contrast A from everything else. And you cannot do that just by pure intuition, since the concept of identity is the very first thing a newborn human must realize in order to know. Now, is the idea of realizing identity somehow just this magical version of intuition/common sense as you claim?
A = A is an axiom and cannot be proved, it is a priori knowledge. That is a fact. It is impossible to prove that, and any mathematician will agree.
A priori = For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.
Come out from reflection alone means witnout using reason. This what I am talking about is no news, it is common knowledge in philosophy.
You say that A = A derive from logic, that is the same as saying that it is a posteriori knowledge. If you say that it comes from logic, then its possible to prove it. Prove it.
I think you missed the point- if intuition precedes logic, babies would use intuition to arrive at reasonable assumptions.
Who said that they don´t use it ?
But how can you examine logic and reason to give it merit without thinking it in the first place? The moment it pops into your brain, you are using reason. There is no moment of "spark" and suddenly the human being uses intuition to arrive at an answer of knowledge. Knowledge begs for reason and understanding. Intuition requires previous knowledge, emotions, and experience. Therefore, you cannot use intuition to find or perceive knowledge OF reason.
Good thought, how does logic pops up in your brain ? If you didn´t know logic before, you can´t use it to justify itself. Do you realize what you want to do ? You want to infer logic, logic is not infered, inferences exist inside logic, but logic cannot be infered. You cannot infer that A = A.
Correction: it is impossible to examine and find or perceive knowledge of reason without using reason. So the idea of this step of intuition is moot. By definition, intuition requires a foundation of previous experiences, that must be sorted out. How? By reason.
Intuition does not depend on experiences, and previous knowledge.
Intuition = Quick and ready insight seemingly independent of previous experiences or empirical knowledge
If you want to justify reason by reason itself, you are doing like religious people that justify God by itself. Nothing can be justified by itself. You must always have some external basis, you cannot say that something is true, because it is.
Gödel fails to realize something: even when he tries to discredit reason, he is using reason. How can he invalidate the very concept of learning and knowledge by using it? He is in contradiction himself. Reason IS how we perceive knowledge. It is. It is irreducible. You cannot stuff a term in before reason and claim it to be fact, like you are trying to do. You cannot argue semantics with the definitions that benefit your stance. If you say "A is A", you have embraced logic. And only the completely irrational cannot grasp the concept of A is A. Therefore, logic DOES exist, and intuitionism is bullshit.
Gödel imcompleteness theorem is proved, and used in science, it does not contradic itself. Unless you are saying that the scientific community is wrong, because they do not see contradictions in that.
How can he invalidate the very concept of learning and knowledge by using it? There is absolutely no contradictions in that, he just saw that logic always has contradictions, so it is inconsistent. Or if you don´t want to say it is contradictory, you must say that it is imcomplete, and therefore you are agreeing that logic does not have all the answers. Like for example, the answer to the question : Is logic valid ? That is commom knowledge for mathematicians and physicists.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
How can he invalidate the very concept of learning and knowledge by using it?
I hope you realize what you just said.
"Logic is bullshit! So I'm going to use logic to prove that logic is bullshit!"
"..."
"Ok, my analysis is complete and I think all my logic was done correctly. The result is that my logic is bullshit and worth nothing because all logic is bullshit and I just proved that with (bullshit)logic. Therefore anything I say, using logic, is crap and incorrect...NO WAI! I just falsified my own argument! DAMNIT!"
"Haha pwnd."
Originally posted by Atlantis001
A = A is an axiom and cannot be proved, it is a priori knowledge. That is a fact. It is impossible to prove that, and any mathematician will agree.A priori = For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.
Come out from reflection alone means witnout using reason. This what I am talking about is no news, it is common knowledge in philosophy.
Are you for real? The term reflection is "Mental concentration; careful consideration.
or
A thought or an opinion resulting from such consideration."
How can you mentally concentrate on something other than a rational thought and derive a priori knowledge? Your brain is ALWAYS functioning to absorb and determine data it receives from the senses, FACT. Your brain normally goes through thoughts all the time, FACT. I ask you: demonstate or elaborate for us HOW exactly someone can just sit there and NOT think in rational terms and come up with axioms? Hell, just to go over axioms and realize them for what they really are takes rational consideration. Apparently, in your world, people sit there and go Bugabugabugabugabuga while thinking of nothing (Reflecting) and achieve the intuitive divine knowledge that A is A. Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.
You say that A = A derive from logic, that is the same as saying that it is a posteriori knowledge. If you say that it comes from logic, then its possible to prove it. Prove it.
What the hell? You're asking me to prove an axiom? I said an axiom is a logical idea. A is A is a logical form. Axioms are the foundation for logic. You cannot use empiricism to define an axiom. I hate to break it to you. Empricism is projecting rational thought on external data and evidence to achieve truths about the real world. Axioms are a priori constructs. And me saying A is A derives from logic means it's a rational product. To KNOW A is A I had to first know A. This does not mean A was external; I can hear my own thoughts and realize my own desires... Therefore, I can conclude that I am unique and I have identity. A is A.
Who said that they don´t use it ?
They don't. Babies would first need to use reason to identify basic concepts in order to draw on them subconsciously to form intuitive decisions. You keep using some cocked up definition, but the in-depth encyclopedia and everything else I've ever read notes intuition as being a shoe-in for the troublesome term "common sense", and considering the idea of "random knowledge acquired outside of reason" is mystical psychological bullshit. There's nothing to insinuate that this slippery term "intuition" precedes reason itself. Nothing. Instead of accepting that reason is how we as rational beings naturally think, you lot are trying to make it subjective with this concept of intuition. Ridiculous.
But I suppose two can play at that game... "Right before you wake up, a cat shits in your mouth. Hence, nasty morning breath. Now, disprove."
Seriously. You have not proven that intuition exists as what it supposively is. You cannot prove to me that there IS an instance where one acquires knowledge that is apparently "without using reason", that does NOT come under fire from being subconsciously suggested by prior experiences, emotions, and knowledge. After all, how could you have intuition as to what was the right card to get grandma without having previous knowledge of what a card is and who grandma is. So please, before you try and assert that intuition exists independant of and precedes reason, prove that it can be used after the "discovery and acceptance" of reason, or you're essentially singing in a windstorm.
Good thought, how does logic pops up in your brain ? If you didn´t know logic before, you can´t use it to justify itself. Do you realize what you want to do ? You want to infer logic, logic is not infered, inferences exist inside logic, but logic cannot be infered. You cannot infer that A = A.
I think you're again failing to see the point. You can't even show me when and where a human being is "reasonless" and suddenly uses intuition to use reason. You claim there is a first step, but you cannot place it on the time line, nor can you bring me anything to prove to me that I should consider it as true and evident. From where I'm standing, logic does not need to be accepted or justified any more than air needs to justify why it's occupying space. I mean really, the first time a human child realizes that she's different from the rest of creation she is rationalizing her sensory data. Really, can we as human beings have inner thoughts without first realizing the most basic of logical truths? Could a human child,deprived of all sensory data, have a mind to rationalize things with? I'd say not.
Intuition does not depend on experiences, and previous knowledge.Intuition = Quick and ready insight seemingly independent of previous experiences or empirical knowledge
That's ONE definition from an online dictionary. The same source's encyclopedia says intuition is founded in emotions, experiences, and knowledge. Am I to just believe your definition over the encyclopedia's further look? Really, you, who argues semantics all the time?
Also, note the keyword... I'll bold it for you... seemingly.
Do you hear that? It's the sound of one hand clapping me on the back. Or is it one hand clapping? Either way, your intuition definition is assinine.
If you want to justify reason by reason itself, you are doing like religious people that justify God by itself. Nothing can be justified by itself. You must always have some external basis, you cannot say that something is true, because it is.
So logic and reason MUST be justified by this mystical intuition concept, but axioms don't have to be? Reason can't be self evident either?
Did you REALLY take philosophy in college?
You cannot discredit reason unless you use reason, so why would reason need be justified if it's the only tool of thought we possess?
Gödel imcompleteness theorem is proved, and used in science, it does not contradic itself. Unless you are saying that the scientific community is wrong, because they do not see contradictions in that.
Yeah, I'm sure mathematicians love this concept, but they're naturally full of themselves. However, for someone who doesn't take semantics as givens, I'm showing you that Gödel is off his rocker. He attempts to say that reason NEEDS justification, and then goes on to shoe in some answer that is not even identifiable, let alone provable, while USING reason. He's in self contradiction. Case closed.
How can he invalidate the very concept of learning and knowledge by using it?
He can't. That was my point. And he is trying to invalidate reason as the first step in knowledge and knowing, and in doing so, he must apply reason and this bullshit intuition term which holds no weight. Your initial point was saying that reason was preceded by intuition. I've pointed out that intuition as a term isn't concrete enough to shoe in there. Also, I've pointed out that in order to use intuition, you must already possess rational tools. So the idea of needing intuition to use reason in the first place is assinine. And there's nothing to suggest that extra step. Humans who think rationally use reason. Those who don't, we can't understand. Period.
There is absolutely no contradictions in that, he just saw that logic always has contradictions, so it is inconsistent. Or if you don´t want to say it is contradictory, you must say that it is imcomplete, and therefore you are agreeing that logic does not have all the answers. Like for example, the answer to the question : Is logic valid ? That is commom knowledge for mathematicians and physicists.
The question "Is logic valid" is in itself a ridiculous question. How do you validate the very form of validation you use? You can't. Does this neccessitate something else to come into the picture and validate logic? Nope. Knowledge outside of reason can't be examined. Therefore, you cannot pin down any pre-logic source. Most certainly not the concept of intuition, as demonstrated here. Again, the assumption here is that logic NEEDS validation.
Let me ask you this: If knowledge is needed to validate logic, and all knowledge most be processed via reason, how can you have the knowledge to validate logic without it? Point is, you can't. Knowledge and reason are linked together in human understanding. Without reason, there is no knowledge. Intuition is a fairy tale. It does not exist before knowledge. So you're probably wondering... what's my answer then?
Firstly, I would not suppose that there is a satisfactory answer. It may be insolvable, like trying to find the first cause of all effects.
Second, I would point out that again, the human mind first realizes concepts and identity because it realizes sensory data. Extensive tests have proven that a mind without sensory data cannot exist, but decays into nothing. This proves that the internal mind is dependant on external data to constantly be processing in order to arrive at concepts and ideas. Without such things, the concepts and ideas become meaningless. First comes sensory data, and the human mind tries to process this data. Obviously, it's hardwired to realize certain concepts: identity, existance, etc. Using these innate concepts, it then uses reason to sort the data. This is how the human mind operates.
Wesker intricately explained what I had just put into like 5 sentences.
"Logic is bullshit! So I'm going to use logic to prove that logic is bullshit!"
"..."
"Ok, my analysis is complete and I think all my logic was done correctly. The result is that my logic is bullshit and worth nothing because all logic is bullshit and I just proved that with (bullshit)logic. Therefore anything I say, using logic, is crap and incorrect...NO WAI! I just falsified my own argument! DAMNIT!"
"Haha pwnd."
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Wesker intricately explained what I had just put into like 5 sentences."Logic is bullshit! So I'm going to use logic to prove that logic is bullshit!"
"..."
"Ok, my analysis is complete and I think all my logic was done correctly. The result is that my logic is bullshit and worth nothing because all logic is bullshit and I just proved that with (bullshit)logic. Therefore anything I say, using logic, is crap and incorrect...NO WAI! I just falsified my own argument! DAMNIT!"
"Haha pwnd."
But he did it in such a way as to keep everyone from reading it. 😱 😆