What is Evidence? How to Handle It Beyond Our Minds

[honestrosewater]

A game ends when no more legal moves can be made (as with all games), for whatever reason. Do you play chess? If so, think of the difference between winning by stalemate, and winning by checkmate.

Does your truth game allow draws? Or is it just win or lose? I thought truth was winning and falsity was losing. What would drawing be?

Sure, but I don't see the relevance. If the definitions of the words were not established from the beginning (though both assumed that the other was using the same set of definitions as they were) then confusion should be expected.

If the definitions are stated in words, the same problem applies. How are they to know the definitions mean the same to each of them? Even if this isn't a problem for language games, I am not a language game, and it is a problem for me when playing language games. Some of the words I use refer to objects which are themselves not words. How are two people to know the words they are using refer to the same nonword objects? The same problem arises for other means of public communication.
It seems you are suggesting that only public statements can be true. This is why I suggested that the arguer or player or whatever be the same person- so that language games can be played privately, and private statements can be true. There's surely a better way of explaining this, but I'll have to try again later.

They simply hadn't cleared up all the rules of their language-game yet. Think of trying to play chess with someone who thought that rooks, in addition to their actual legal moves, could also move in space in the forward diagonal directions. They just aren't playing by the same rules as you are, so you are technically not even playing the same game (though there are versions of Shogi (Japanese chess) in which the aforementioned rook moves are indeed legal).

So you think you can infer "X knows Y" from "X does Z"?

 

[Iacchus32]

This may be a small point, but do you ask, "What entails my experience?" or, "What does my experience entail?"

I place full emphasis on the fact that I'm cognizant if this is what you're asking, in the sense that cognizance is elemental, regardless of all the bits and pieces that constitutes cognizance as a whole. Similarly, why place any emphasis on the Hubble telescope as opposed to taking an inventory of all its parts? If you look at it in that sense, what do you need a telescope for? Doesn't it seem like Science is somehow trying to "by-pass" the human mind here?

 

[honestrosewater]

I place full emphasis on the fact that I'm cognizant if this is what you're asking, in the sense that cognizance is elemental, regardless of all the bits and pieces that constitutes cognizance as a whole. Similarly, why place any emphasis on the Hubble telescope as opposed to taking an inventory of all its parts? If you look at it in that sense, what do you need a telescope for? Doesn't it seem like Science is somehow trying to "by-pass" the human mind here?

Well, parts and wholes do fit with what I'm asking, in a way. If X implies Y and Y implies X, X and Y are equivalent. Maybe your question is about whether we are only looking at half of an equivalence? That is, we can try to prove that X imples Y or that Y implies X, but we cannot do both at once, in the same framework. "X" and "Y" might be something like "private" and "public" or "subjective" and "objective". Maybe I'm just spacing out.

 

[Mentat]

Does your truth game allow draws? Or is it just win or lose? I thought truth was winning and falsity was losing. What would drawing be?

Perhaps "stalemate" isn't a good analogy. Think instead of when all the other players give up. That happens in chess, and in most other types of game. So, for all to end up agreeing would be like a "forfeit" on the part of all the other players.

If the definitions are stated in words, the same problem applies. How are they to know the definitions mean the same to each of them? Even if this isn't a problem for language games, I am not a language game, and it is a problem for me when playing language games. Some of the words I use refer to objects which are themselves not words. How are two people to know the words they are using refer to the same nonword objects? The same problem arises for other means of public communication.
It seems you are suggesting that only public statements can be true. This is why I suggested that the arguer or player or whatever be the same person- so that language games can be played privately, and private statements can be true. There's surely a better way of explaining this, but I'll have to try again later.

First off, it is well known (held by Wittgenstein himself, as a matter of fact) that his (Wittgenstein's) language-game framework doesn't allow for a "first truth"...in order to understand one thing, you must understand many things. But there is nothing logically wrong with this. Thus, in order to understand how one word is used, you must understand many other words. This is never a problem in board games. For example, no one wonders whether the rule book is a piece in the game. Also, if someone were to tell you "this is the king, and it moves only one space, but in any direction (provided it's not walking into "check"). Well, you have to understand what "check" is, and you have to understand that when I hold up the king and say "this is the king", I'm naming it (not, for example, demonstrating a legal move). And when I say that it can only move "one space", you must understand what counts for a space (it could mean, as it does in certain other games, "from the space it's on, to a space of the same color").

As to only public statements being true; so? A chess move is only legal if played on a board. Granted, you can play chess by yourself, but in that case, no matter what happens, you win (as my little sister puts it). So, as to finding truth, you could do what you think another player would do -- were he to participate in you language-game, instead of leaving you to play on your own -- but there is no confirmation...you win, no matter what!

So you think you can infer "X knows Y" from "X does Z"?

Not any more than you can infer that I believe what I'm arguing from the fact that I'm arguing toward it (ask Fliption, Royce, Zantra, or any of the older PF veterans...advocatus diaboli).

 

[honestrosewater]

Perhaps "stalemate" isn't a good analogy. Think instead of when all the other players give up. That happens in chess, and in most other types of game. So, for all to end up agreeing would be like a "forfeit" on the part of all the other players.

You move, I counter your move, you forfeit, I forfeit. If a forfeit counts as a move, my last move was not countered. If a forfeit doesn't count as a move, my first move was not countered. I swear I didn't intend to make such a big deal about this, but it's just not going away.

First off, it is well known (held by Wittgenstein himself, as a matter of fact) that his (Wittgenstein's) language-game framework doesn't allow for a "first truth"...in order to understand one thing, you must understand many things. But there is nothing logically wrong with this. Thus, in order to understand how one word is used, you must understand many other words. This is never a problem in board games. For example, no one wonders whether the rule book is a piece in the game. Also, if someone were to tell you "this is the king, and it moves only one space, but in any direction (provided it's not walking into "check"). Well, you have to understand what "check" is, and you have to understand that when I hold up the king and say "this is the king", I'm naming it (not, for example, demonstrating a legal move). And when I say that it can only move "one space", you must understand what counts for a space (it could mean, as it does in certain other games, "from the space it's on, to a space of the same color").

My problem isn't with the rules or strucutre of language-games, it's with the players' knowledge about each other. I'll try a different way below.

As to only public statements being true; so? A chess move is only legal if played on a board. Granted, you can play chess by yourself, but in that case, no matter what happens, you win (as my little sister puts it). So, as to finding truth, you could do what you think another player would do -- were he to participate in you language-game, instead of leaving you to play on your own -- but there is no confirmation...you win, no matter what!

But if someone wins, someone else loses. You are playing both roles: winner and loser. Have you never argued with yourself about something? Solved a problem by yourself after having failed at least once?

Not any more than you can infer that I believe what I'm arguing from the fact that I'm arguing toward it (ask Fliption, Royce, Zantra, or any of the older PF veterans...advocatus diaboli).

I don't have to infer anything. I find some fools to play with, make the claim, "Mentat believes what he is arguing", and, if no one counters my claim, the claim is true. BTW, I'm not going to make this claim in a game with you. I don't have to- others can decide your beliefs for you.

 

[Mentat]

You move, I counter your move, you forfeit, I forfeit. If a forfeit counts as a move, my last move was not countered. If a forfeit doesn't count as a move, my first move was not countered. I swear I didn't intend to make such a big deal about this, but it's just not going away.

A forfeit is (by every definition I've ever heard/read) something one does that ends the game without their having been a "final move" (in the sense that there could be no move made after the "final move").

In debate, there really aren't any final moves, merely moves that persuade the other person to forfeit. However, the game is no less real, and the proposition that was not forfeited is the "winner".

I don't mind your pursuing the point, I just don't see how analyzing only the language-game of debate is going to facillitate understanding of language-games in general.

But if someone wins, someone else loses. You are playing both roles: winner and loser. Have you never argued with yourself about something? Solved a problem by yourself after having failed at least once?

Sure, but I could never have done so if I'd not first played (or at least seen examples of other playing) competitively (against someone else).

So, as to the establishing of something as "true" (i.e. the winning of debate about what is "true"): I have indeed argued with myself (played the "debate" language-game with myself) and decided on the winner of my own accord, but the game itself is of a clearly multi-player nature. I would thus not be able to play it if I had not first seen it played by others; aside from which, my conclusion (victory, forfeiture) will mean nothing unless I can duplicate the result in an actual game (versus someone else).

I don't have to infer anything. I find some fools to play with, make the claim, "Mentat believes what he is arguing", and, if no one counters my claim, the claim is true.

But the fact that it is about me would give me extra weight in the argument. However, if belief (the holding of an idea or proposition strongly) could be observed as (for example) a neural event (as William Calvin may have already discovered, with his "basins of attraction" in the selectionist "game" of synchronously-firing neurons), then even I could lose the debate, and truth would be established by the one that made the best move (and by the forfeiture of all other propositions).

I find it interesting that you are debating with me now, but don't realize that you are hoping to establish truth by the very means that you contend is not sufficient for establishing truth. I guess you probably just want to win this game, but don't think that it has anything to do with actual truth. If that is the case, then I ask you: what more will it require (your proposition) to become current "truth" (or "truth 'till proven otherwise")?

BTW, I'm not going to make this claim in a game with you. I don't have to- others can decide your beliefs for you.

Did you mean "others cannot decide your beliefs for you"?

 

[Mentat]

One point I don't think I made perfectly clear was that the end of a particular debate does not establish universal truth, but that's not for the reason you might think. I'm just holding a more relativist concept of truth, which is what we typically hold anyway (unless we're philosophers, in which case we run into ugly and completely unnecessary dead-ends, trying to define universal truth, and then trying to prove that our definition is universally true...). So, to find "truth" isn't really the point of the language-game. The point is simply to win the language-game.

IOW, I'm not suggesting debate as an alternative way to find universal, absolute truth. I'm suggesting the abandoning of the concept that philosophy can ever discover such a thing, abandoning the search for the geisestwissenschaft for which philosophers have been searching since Kant (or, perhaps since Descartes...after all, he was looking for that which could not be doubted in order to establish a basis for the rigorous understanding of every other phenomenon). In it's place should (I think) stand something more like the Sophist use of debate to establish "current truth".

This is not a revolutionary or off-the-top-of-my-head idea. It's actually a paraphrasing of an aspect of Richard Rorty's philosophy. His philosophy is, in turn, based on the language-games of Wittgenstein, the historic look at epistemology (in the way of Heidegger and Dewey), and the eliminativist approaches of Sellars and Quine.

Just consider the possibility that, in light of the relativistic nature of almost every other area of inquiry (or, at least, of every scientific area of inquiry), we may have taken a bad turn (or a series thereof) in the past that have lead us to the (wrong) idea that philosophy can (or should) establish absolute truths from which all else can be deduced and by which all else can be tested. Maybe philosophy is supposed to be what it was before Plato and Aristotle introduced the concept of incorrigibility by virtue of impression from nature. Maybe it's just supposed to be something very akin to common sense: just another language-game that happens to have a very broad subject matter.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't mind your pursuing the point, I just don't see how analyzing only the language-game of debate is going to facillitate understanding of language-games in general.

Well, I was especially interested in the debate game.

Sure, but I could never have done so if I'd not first played (or at least seen examples of other playing) competitively (against someone else).

How did the first language-games come about then?

So, as to the establishing of something as "true" (i.e. the winning of debate about what is "true"): I have indeed argued with myself (played the "debate" language-game with myself) and decided on the winner of my own accord,

Don't the rules decide the winner? I mean, I can see how the players and rules are interdependent. But it is still the rules which decide on the winner, yes?

but the game itself is of a clearly multi-player nature. I would thus not be able to play it if I had not first seen it played by others;

I have never heard anyone else talking to themselves internally, yet I am able to do so. I don't happen to remember, but it's certainly possible that I started talking to myself before anyone had told me it was possible or exlained how to do so. I think it's also possible that a person could invent a debate game on their own, without prior knowledge of debate games or help from another person.

aside from which, my conclusion (victory, forfeiture) will mean nothing unless I can duplicate the result in an actual game (versus someone else).

If you are playing by the same rules, what's the difference? One person can't genuinely challenge themselves? That may actually be a good point- I'll have to think about it. In games of stategy, like chess, if you actually play with a strategy or plan, that does present a problem. Perhaps it can be solved by choosing one player's moves randomly by, say, flipping a coin or rolling a die? In games of chance, I see no problem. The debate game isn't so easy to analyze, especially since I don't know the rules.

There is still a problem with relying on other people, if you have access to knowledge or evidence which is inaccessible to others.

But the fact that it is about me would give me extra weight in the argument. However, if belief (the holding of an idea or proposition strongly) could be observed as (for example) a neural event (as William Calvin may have already discovered, with his "basins of attraction" in the selectionist "game" of synchronously-firing neurons), then even I could lose the debate, and truth would be established by the one that made the best move (and by the forfeiture of all other propositions).

Depending on the outcome of the argument over whether or not William Calvin has actually discovered what he claims to have discovered.

I find it interesting that you are debating with me now, but don't realize that you are hoping to establish truth by the very means that you contend is not sufficient for establishing truth. I guess you probably just want to win this game, but don't think that it has anything to do with actual truth.

I don't hope to establish truth solely by debating with you, though it is fun and helpful. I hope to establish truth (or at least get closer to some truth) by following some set of rules. And the truth I establish, if any, is still only true relative to some set of rules. I'm not hoping to establish any absolute truths.

If that is the case, then I ask you: what more will it require (your proposition) to become current "truth" (or "truth 'till proven otherwise")?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't have a problem with the debate game or any other game per se, since wins and loses are relative. I have a problem with your suggestion that the debate game should replace other "games" like logic, science, and introspection. If that wasn't what you were suggesting, sorry. My main problem with the debate game is its inconsistent results: According to the same rules, Socrates is a man and is not a man. Earth was at one time the center of the universe, but it isn't anymore. I can't know whether or not I am thinking about the color green unless I can successfully defend that claim in a debate game. ??
That last example brings me to my second problem: I'm not convinced that all knowledge and evidence is universally accessible. IOW, there may be an impassable epistemic gap.

Did you mean "others cannot decide your beliefs for you"?

No, I meant others can decide your beliefs for you, for that is what your debate game seems to imply.

IOW, I'm not suggesting debate as an alternative way to find universal, absolute truth. I'm suggesting the abandoning of the concept that philosophy can ever discover such a thing, abandoning the search for the geisestwissenschaft for which philosophers have been searching since Kant (or, perhaps since Descartes...after all, he was looking for that which could not be doubted in order to establish a basis for the rigorous understanding of every other phenomenon). In it's place should (I think) stand something more like the Sophist use of debate to establish "current truth".

This is not a revolutionary or off-the-top-of-my-head idea. It's actually a paraphrasing of an aspect of Richard Rorty's philosophy. His philosophy is, in turn, based on the language-games of Wittgenstein, the historic look at epistemology (in the way of Heidegger and Dewey), and the eliminativist approaches of Sellars and Quine.

Just consider the possibility that, in light of the relativistic nature of almost every other area of inquiry (or, at least, of every scientific area of inquiry), we may have taken a bad turn (or a series thereof) in the past that have lead us to the (wrong) idea that philosophy can (or should) establish absolute truths from which all else can be deduced and by which all else can be tested. Maybe philosophy is supposed to be what it was before Plato and Aristotle introduced the concept of incorrigibility by virtue of impression from nature. Maybe it's just supposed to be something very akin to common sense: just another language-game that happens to have a very broad subject matter.

Okay. I'm not looking for absolute truth. I'm looking for consistency and completeness.

 

[Doctordick]

A note to honestrosewater!

For those who are interested in what I have to say, I apologize for this delayed response but I have been busy with other things. For those who are not interested, there is certainly no requirement that you read anything I say!

If you would stop insulting people, I would like to discuss your solution.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone. Nothing I said was intended to be an insult. My only purpose was to get them to stop and think for a moment. I simply can not believe they are serious about most of what they say. I am afraid the world is full of erroneous ideas that have been presumed true without any real thought. It also appears to be no one here with any real interest in thinking about any of it. Maybe you are an exception; it would be wonderful to find someone interested in thinking about some of the things I think about.

Since it would be very difficult for you follow me unless you understood where I was coming from, suppose we begin by looking carefully at some of my previous posts and see if you can understand why I posted them. In particular, I posted my view of the "scientific method" at

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=429253#post429253

The response was minuscule. It appeared to me that no one saw the significance of the four simple steps. I will try and expand on the issue of understanding it here. A "Super Mentor" complained that he needed help and wanted to know how to perform the procedure on the question, "what is the color, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?" With that question he made it quite clear that he, either had not read what I said; the four steps as a whole exceeded his attention span; or his real purpose was to avoid thinking about it at all. I found his remark both childish and insulting. I gave that reference here because, if you can't comprehend the essence of that simple presentation then we are pretty well wasting our time.

One of the most important points in that list is the fact that a correct analysis should include all possible answers to the question, a realization ignored by almost every supposed scientist. They generally think of one answer and then chase after it as if no other is possible. And, the second most important point occurs in step four where I point out the existence of meaningless questions. Now, anyone who spent even a moment thinking about the issue would comprehend that meaningless questions are the most prevalent of all and drop right through to step four without much thought. If the "Super Mentor" thought about it at all, he saw where his question had to lead: ergo, he either didn't think about it or thought I was so stupid as to believe it was a question worth considering. And, just as an aside, it wasn't a question; it was three ridiculous questions. I only mention that as it is another common error of pseudo thinkers. Asking multiple questions as if they are just clarification of a single question is a quick and dirty way to thoroughly muddy the waters.

If you want to answer a question, pose it well so that the issue is defined and then do your best to include all possible answers in your analysis. Now, we all know that failure is the most probable outcome of that first step; in most cases, we are lucky if we can think of one answer. Nonetheless, one should do their best and then recognize the real shortcoming in their reasoning and keep it in mind always. What we believe to be "truth" is, for the most part a super structure built on a foundation of inadequately defended "truths"; a fact ignored by most everybody. It seems to me that you of all people should be aware of that given your comment about the dog lovers:

My question about meaning... Say two people meet on a dog lovers discussion forum. After completely describing their dogs to each other, they realize their descriptions are identical: Big floppy ears, brown, furry coat, long, purple tongue, 42 teeth, and so on. So they decide to send pictures of their dogs to each other. Surprisingly, the pictures are not identical; one is a picture of a dog, the other is a picture of a lizard. Do the pictures provide evidence that the words they were using meant different things to each of them? Could their words ever have provided evidence that the words they were using meant different things to each of them?

I am sure that, as a child, you heard that question, "how do you know that someone else is seeing the same thing you see when you both call a color green?" As adults, we laugh at such things; but should we? How does one know that others see the world the same way they do? That's actually a pretty big assumption. Now I am not suggesting we argue the point (that would be a total waste of time); rather I argue that one should keep it in mind (it goes to the issue of "all possible answers").

More on the irrationality of some of the posts here and why that irrationality should be obvious to all. Let us examine the general confusion enhanced by the division of philosophy into "ontology" and "epistemology". By dictionary definition, ontology is "a division of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being or reality". That's what's real and what isn't guys! And it should be clear to all that there is no way to answer that question without defining "real": i.e., the essence of ontology is to define reality! So they should define what they mean and then we can talk about it; so long as they don't, it's pretty evident they don't know what they are talking about.

Epistemology is defined to be "the study or theory of the origins, nature, methods and limits of knowledge". Again, without a definition of "knowledge", there is nothing much here to talk about either. Clearly, if we are to be rational, we must accept that we "know" nothing. Philosophers have come to call this "solipsism"; confidently pointing out that, if everything is illusion then nothing is real and the order we see in the universe cannot be defended. Ok, let's look at that rather facile conclusion which seems to be accepted by all.

Many of you are probably reading this off a monitor screen. From your understanding of the meaning of "real" is that image on the screen real or not? (I will presume you think it is real as none of you seem to want to join the "solipsist" camp.) Then ask yourself if your perception of that image is a direct perception or an illusion. If you believe in the modern analysis of what is going on, you should believe that image is sensed via excitations of rods and cones in the retina of your eyes. And that these excitations give rise to nerve impulses on the optic nerve which lead directly to the perception of that screen in your brain. Does anyone out there hold that they are consciously aware of what rods and cones are being excited or which nerve cells are firing? So, even under the common explanation of reality, no one can directly perceive any aspects of reality; everything we perceive is via an illusion created by our brains. Does it logically follow that nothing is real? Well of course not! We are all quite confident we are interacting with a real universe in spite of the fact that we "know" our mental picture of the universe is an illusion created by our brain!

So, what was wrong with the facile "solipsist" categorization above? It's very simple: complete failure to examine all possible answers to the question, "what is real?" Somehow we all have a well developed idea of what reality is and we all managed to figure it out on our own.

And the first thing to be done is exactly state what the problem is. Somehow every one of us has managed to create a workable explanation of a body of totally undefined information (reality) which has been transformed by a totally undefined process (our senses). As a fetus, you were certainly not cognizant of any definitions. It follows (as the night the day ) that the problem is a solvable problem! So why don't we just sit down and solve it: come up with a procedure for solving such a problem? Create an explanation of a body of totally undefined information transformed by a totally undefined process! If you cannot do that, how can you ever hope to understand the human mind?

A simple statement of a solvable problem which ought to be looked at; and what was Philocrat's brilliant response?

Grind the world to a hault. Stop everyone from having sex or reproducing in anyway possible, and see what happens. If the soul or mind or consciousness is so independent and unigue, let us all stop having sex and let us see if it can single-handedly reproduce itself without any intervention of matter! The fact that is apparent to me is this:

The LIFE-AND-DEATH CYCLE is a natural mechanism for 'NUMERICAL' preservation of the whole human race...

Where is this man's mind? Personally, I think the sole purpose of his post was to deflect interest from the question I pointed out! And I think he would agree with that!

Keep your solution to yourself for now. I have seen enought that invites me to wait until further notice.

And Iacchus32 too seems to spend very little time thinking about what he is saying.

I try to stick with those things that I do understand, and from there, extrapolate (through the process of reduction) anything which is universal or fundamental.

Right here he makes the express assertion that he understands something. Not only that, he also apparently thinks that it provides a starting place to deduce "anything which is universal or fundamental". He is going to deduce the rest; there is no opening here to allow for the possibility that his understanding is erroneous. Again, he is stepping off with a presumed answer without examination of the question or the range of possible answers. So Mentat then draws the conversation off into the issue of "certainty". I really don't want to insult anyone but, as a simple fact, this thread is truly on the intellectual level of a box of puppies. My comments are solely meant to encourage them to think a little.

Let me take what is essentially exactly the same starting place and show where a little thought leads me. To paraphrase Iacchus32: "of course I stick with those things that I think I understand, and from there, try and deduce what is universal or fundamental"; but first, I need to have some kind of explanation as to why I think I understand these things and from whence this knowledge came. It seems to me that "intuition" is as good a label as any to place on the process. Now I am not expressing any knowledge of how that process works (I merely label it) but I do know it is quite different from logical deduction. If you have any interest in understanding me on this issue, you should carefully think about a post I made last summer:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

If you understand that post, you should absolutely understand that there is no conclusion out there on any subject which is not based on intuition. That's not a bad thing as there is every evidence that, however it comes into existence, decisions based on intuition are the most dependable which can be achieved. However, it must always be remembered that there can exist no proof that they are correct.

Ok, all this was to bring you back to that original problem posed back at the beginning of this post: "create an explanation of a body of totally undefined information transformed by a totally undefined process!" This is a finite mechanical problem which we all know is solvable (we have all solved it via intuition); so why is no one interested in solving it via logic? Most tell me that's because it can't be solved and I am a crackpot for thinking it can be.

What we have here is a communication problem. That's why I am approaching the issues so carefully. If you can understand this post and the references I give, I will proceed. If not, I will do my best to clarify anything you find confusing.

Okay. I'm not looking for absolute truth. I'm looking for consistency and completeness.

And so am I!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Iacchus32]

And Iacchus32 too seems to spend very little time thinking about what he is saying.

I try to stick with those things that I do understand, and from there, extrapolate (through the process of reduction) anything which is universal or fundamental.

Right here he makes the express assertion that he understands something. Not only that, he also apparently thinks that it provides a starting place to deduce "anything which is universal or fundamental". He is going to deduce the rest; there is no opening here to allow for the possibility that his understanding is erroneous. Again, he is stepping off with a presumed answer without examination of the question or the range of possible answers. So Mentat then draws the conversation off into the issue of "certainty". I really don't want to insult anyone but, as a simple fact, this thread is truly on the intellectual level of a box of puppies. My comments are solely meant to encourage them to think a little.

And which thread are you referring to here by the way? While I noticed you didn't bother to post the follow-up replies ...

So, to return to the question of Certainty, how can you be "certain" that one's reductions of processes will yeild any greater "certainty" about the phenomenon in question?

What phenomenon is that? Any phenomenon? What if it was a phenomenon you understood intimately, and yet others didn't, and your reason for developing your theories was as a means to try and explain it to others? Would reductionism be helpful here? After all, I'm just trying to make sense out of something. Certainty can only exist with intimate knowledge of something by the way. For example when I say, "I know that I don't know." That is intimate knowledge. So in that sense you know it's at least possible to know something of a certainty which, is the beginning of knowing. This is also the Socratic method I'm referring to here I believe.

If anyone would like to know, the posts Doctordick is referring to here are on the What is Certainty? thread. And please note, I'm not the one who claims to fully understand what reductionist theory is. Mentat is the one who brought it up and I was merely asking for clarification on the matter.

So my advice to you, Doctordick, would be try and keep things in context, unless of course you're really not "serious."

 

[Iacchus32]

One point I don't think I made perfectly clear was that the end of a particular debate does not establish universal truth, but that's not for the reason you might think. I'm just holding a more relativist concept of truth, which is what we typically hold anyway (unless we're philosophers, in which case we run into ugly and completely unnecessary dead-ends, trying to define universal truth, and then trying to prove that our definition is universally true...). So, to find "truth" isn't really the point of the language-game. The point is simply to win the language-game.

The universal truth is very easily defined, at least to where we can acknowledge that it exists.

 

[honestrosewater]

Any conceivable question can be answered via the following procedure:
1. List out all the possible answers! (Now this is the really difficult part as most of us are not bright enough to think of "all" of them. So, the scientists first error is to only work with a few possibilities. Well, that's life; perfection is hard to come by.)

2. For each answer, work out all the logical consequences of that answer being correct. (Now this step is a real bear too. Mainly because working out those consequences requires belief that we know the correct answers to other relevant questions. Oh well, life is tough all over; I guess the best they can do is presume they know the right answer to most questions and truck on. Creed and science seems to be getting mixed here doesn't it.)

3. Now we have "all possible answers" (that we can think of anyway) and the "consequences" relevant to each answer (presuming we know a lot already) and we can just look down those lists of consequences until we find a difference. When we find a difference, all we have to do is look at reality and see which consequence actually occurs. Low and behold, we have eliminated a possible answer (the consequences are not what happens)!

4. As we continue this process, we either eliminate a possible answer or something else happens: two or more answers yield exactly the same consequences. In that second case, it clearly makes no difference at all as to which answer is correct and, if it makes utterly no difference what the answer is, are you really asking a question worth answering?
...
If you want to answer a question, pose it well so that the issue is defined

How does your method handle
Q: Is "no" the answer to this question?
Step 0. By my standards, the question is well-defined. (But I'm not sure what your standards are.)
Step 1. "No" is a possible answer, and all other possible answers are not "no".
Step 2. If the answer to the question is "no", then the answer to the question is not "no". If the answer to the question is not "no", then the answer to the question is "no".
Step 3. There are two different consequences: 1) the answer to the question is "no" and 2) the answer to the question is not "no". I am not sure about the next part: "When we find a difference, all we have to do is look at reality and see which consequence actually occurs." I'll go out on a limb ( ) and say that both consequences occur; Neither can be eliminated.
Step 4. So am I really asking a question worth answering?
Of course, if I had said, in step 3, that neither consequence occurs, step 4 would have yielded the same result (which is actually a question ).
Did I do that correctly? What is your answer to the question in step 4?

Let us examine the general confusion enhanced by the division of philosophy into "ontology" and "epistemology". By dictionary definition, ontology is "a division of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being or reality". That's what's real and what isn't guys! And it should be clear to all that there is no way to answer that question without defining "real": i.e., the essence of ontology is to define reality! So they should define what they mean and then we can talk about it; so long as they don't, it's pretty evident they don't know what they are talking about.

Epistemology is defined to be "the study or theory of the origins, nature, methods and limits of knowledge". Again, without a definition of "knowledge", there is nothing much here to talk about either. Clearly, if we are to be rational, we must accept that we "know" nothing.

I thought you said you were only looking for consistency and completeness. It sounds like you want an absolute (read: nonrelative) definition of something. BTW, did you consider all the possible answers to the questions of what ontology and epistemology are the study of? I'm sure most philosophers will find faults with the dictionary definitions.

Ok, all this was to bring you back to that original problem posed back at the beginning of this post: "create an explanation of a body of totally undefined information transformed by a totally undefined process!" This is a finite mechanical problem which we all know is solvable (we have all solved it via intuition); so why is no one interested in solving it via logic? Most tell me that's because it can't be solved and I am a crackpot for thinking it can be.

I'm not sure what "undefined" means here. Do you just mean undefined by humans?

What we have here is a communication problem. That's why I am approaching the issues so carefully. If you can understand this post and the references I give, I will proceed. If not, I will do my best to clarify anything you find confusing.

I have some problems, but they're probably minor, semantical stuff- IOW, they're not worth arguing about now, but I'll keep them in mind.

 

[Mentat]

How did the first language-games come about then?

In a social setting, of course.

Don't the rules decide the winner? I mean, I can see how the players and rules are interdependent. But it is still the rules which decide on the winner, yes?

Forgive me, but I don't really like the wording of that question. Do you mean that the rules presuppose certain conditions wherein one player could declared (and recognized by the other player(s) as) "winner"?

I have never heard anyone else talking to themselves internally, yet I am able to do so. I don't happen to remember, but it's certainly possible that I started talking to myself before anyone had told me it was possible or exlained how to do so. I think it's also possible that a person could invent a debate game on their own, without prior knowledge of debate games or help from another person.

The very concept of debate is a social one. Surely humans have a pre-disposition for language-games, but that would come to nothing if they'd never had someone show them how to play.

Think of this: Could you have ever even spoken if you'd not been taught the letters, their sounds, the formation of sentences, and the like? Even the teaching of those bare syntactic essentials is done by language-games. For example, the language-game of pointing to a picture of a letter, and then making a sound (e.g. pointing to an "A" and making the complementary sound). It has rules (e.g. one must understand that the letters are "pieces" in the game, and that the sound you make is both a name of the piece and an indication of (at least one of) its possible "moves"), and it is not the only language-game (which is why I don't just refer to it as "learning language"), but it is a rather essential one, if you are ever to play any of the other language-games.

If you are playing by the same rules, what's the difference? One person can't genuinely challenge themselves? That may actually be a good point- I'll have to think about it.

Cute. Seriously, though, you must be able to see (by now) that the games themselves evolved as a multi-player games (evolved for social situations). Playing them on your own is like pretending that there are two people involved, which is just further indication that the game is intended for two people.

In games of stategy, like chess, if you actually play with a strategy or plan, that does present a problem. Perhaps it can be solved by choosing one player's moves randomly by, say, flipping a coin or rolling a die?

But that is not a part of the actual game of chess. I can conceive of someone independently inventing a game exactly like chess, but that was intended to be played alone, and thus requires a die or a coin or some other such way of deciding how the opposing army should behave.

In games of chance, I see no problem. The debate game isn't so easy to analyze, especially since I don't know the rules.

Some games of chance are designed to be played alone...I don't see the relevance.

As to the "debate game", well it's clearly multi-player in origin and nature, but one can do their best to play both sides, so to speak. That doesn't change the nature or origin of the game.

There is still a problem with relying on other people, if you have access to knowledge or evidence which is inaccessible to others.

Do I have access to such knowledge or evidence? If I do, how do you know I do, since it is inaccesible to others?

Besides, is it really so strange a concept that someone win a game because they knew a particular trick/strategy/rule of which the other is unaware? I, myself, have won more than one game of chess against a player who was unaware that pawn-en-passant was a legal move.

As to, specifically the language-game of debate, and the winning thereof by having greater knowledge or a greater amount of evidence on your side...well, how do you know that that's not part of the game? What if it is expected that one win by virtue of having greater knowledge?

Depending on the outcome of the argument over whether or not William Calvin has actually discovered what he claims to have discovered.

Sure. As I've said before, it is an obvious result of the Wittgensteinian framework (from which I get the idea for Sprachspiel ("language-game")) that, in order for one to learn something new, s/he must first know many other (requisite) things.

I don't hope to establish truth solely by debating with you, though it is fun and helpful. I hope to establish truth (or at least get closer to some truth) by following some set of rules. And the truth I establish, if any, is still only true relative to some set of rules. I'm not hoping to establish any absolute truths.

Is that a fact?

Seriously, though, I understand that; it's part of my point. We, in (safe to say) any endeavor other than pure "philosophy" (post-Kantian, theory-of-knowledge, accurate-representation philosophy, that is) don't worry about absolute truth, or the "actual" accuracy of a statement, etc. We just worry about playing the game at hand.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't have a problem with the debate game or any other game per se, since wins and loses are relative. I have a problem with your suggestion that the debate game should replace other "games" like logic, science, and introspection. If that wasn't what you were suggesting, sorry.

Well, I certainly don't want it to replace logic or science. Nor introspection, for that matter. All I'm really saying is that the concept of "philosophical problems" (viz, the "hard problem of consciousness" vs. the "easy problem") could be dissolved if we'd just stop trying to "polish our internal mirrors of nature" (so to speak), and start speaking in much more relative terms ("current truth" etc). If we'd stop trying to "ground" the accuracy of a statement in something absolute (which is what we've been trying to by introspection since Descartes), then (I think) philosophy would find a much more comfortable place for itself, sans "intractable problems".

Science and logic aren't really language-games. They're games, but not entirely based on linguistics. Philosophy of mind, OTOH, so often falls back on the pure semantics of the thing that it's not hard to imagine it being nothing more than those "pure semantics".

My main problem with the debate game is its inconsistent results: According to the same rules, Socrates is a man and is not a man. Earth was at one time the center of the universe, but it isn't anymore.

I don't know about that first one, but the second example is actually a very good one. For a while, the Earth was considered the center of the Universe. It still is, in some theories (doesn't the idea of a Big Bang that occurred everywhere at once indicate an expansion that's still occurring "everywhere at once", in which case any point in the Universe could be intelligently spoken of as "the center"). Thomas Kuhn explained the paradigm-shifts that take us (as a society) away from one method of explanation and toward another, but they are nothing more than that: methods of explaining phenomena.

I can't know whether or not I am thinking about the color green unless I can successfully defend that claim in a debate game. ??

A commonly accepted rule is that you know more about what you are thinking than anyone else. However, if neurology or neurophysiology develop to the point where one can directly read your cortical patterns, you may lose a bit of that privileged status.

That last example brings me to my second problem: I'm not convinced that all knowledge and evidence is universally accessible. IOW, there may be an impassable epistemic gap.

And yet, this assumption is (almost surely) based on the idea that there are some things about which you are completely incorrigible (your own thoughts, for example), and others about which you are somewhat more doubtful, right?

No, I meant others can decide your beliefs for you, for that is what your debate game seems to imply.

Not really. Belief is a disposition to strongly hold a certain side. In any game that has any competitive aspect of any kind, one must choose a side. Therefore, "belief" is pre-game

Okay. I'm not looking for absolute truth. I'm looking for consistency and completeness.

In whose reference frame?

 

[Mentat]

The universal truth is very easily defined, at least to where we can acknowledge that it exists.

Why would you say that?

 

[Iacchus32]

Why would you say that?

A Universal reference to all things? Well, it all originates from the same place. Therefore the whole of the Universe, and every single last detail therein, must remain consistent with that. I don't see how it can be any less absolute than that, do you?

 

[Doctordick]

All I am trying to do is to get you to think.

Well, since you essentially finish by indicating you have some interest in what I have to say, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment. However, I find your response considerably lacking in intelligent analysis. I don't know whether this is intentional or merely lack of thought on your part. If you were to present your question, [Is "no" the answer to this question?] at random to a typical human being, would you really have the gall to claim it as, by your standards, a "well-defined question worthy of a serious search for a correct answer"? I personally do not know anyone who would even be tempted to take you seriously. Please, put a little thought into your analysis.

I do not find your example as reasonable evidence you understood what I said! In my mind, it is about as intelligent a question as, "what is the color, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?" The question is meaningless on the face of it. Now I admit that I am a very opinionated old man; many years ago, I went carefully through the incompleteness theorem and came to the conclusion that what it said was that there existed no logic formalism which guaranteed one could not construct the statement, "this statement is false"; that's nice and it may very well be true but it's not very useful to understanding anything. I am very tempted to take your response as an indicator that you don't want to think about the implications of the procedure I lay out and would prefer to marginalize the idea so you can ignore it.

I thought you said you were only looking for consistency and completeness. It sounds like you want an absolute (read: nonrelative) definition of something.

I don't think I ask for any more than would be asked by any rational human being! The only difference between me and the average man on the street is, I'm just not quite as confused as he is.

BTW, did you consider all the possible answers to the questions of what ontology and epistemology are the study of? I'm sure most philosophers will find faults with the dictionary definitions.

You seem to have missed the point entirely; I wasn't looking to answer a question, I was merely pointing out the source of the confusion engendered by sloppy thinking.

I'm not sure what "undefined" means here. Do you just mean undefined by humans?

Well, you would have to tell me what else you think defines things. I am at a loss for what you have in mind. You do bring up an interesting point though. We communicate via a language which consists of a collection of symbols which we intuitively presume mean what we think they mean. Suppose we are wrong and there exists an interpretation far different than what we think we are hearing. How would you propose to take that possibility into account in your thinking? Now you haven't thought about that have you? I don't want to strain your brain but how about thinking about that for a while; can you come up with a way of accommodating that issue in your thinking? If you are going to define things, you have to start somewhere; where do you think one should begin?

At the moment, all I am trying to do is to get you to think about the real issues behind the problem of understanding reality. Nothing I have so far presented provides any answers to anything; all I am doing at the moment is putting forth some of the problems facing any rational attack designed to achieve defend-able answers.

With regard to my statement of the problem, "create an explanation of a body of totally undefined information transformed by a totally undefined process", it is really a very simple problem solved every day by hundreds of millions of newborn human brains. Put yourself in the position of a typical ignorant brain. All you have to go on are billions of nerves delivering impulses. To begin with, you have no idea of what causes these impulses. Mission Impossible (should you choose to accept it): your problem is to create a mental model of reality given nothing but that set of billions of nerve impulses. You are the one who must figure out what each of them signify an why they are there. And your only source of information is those nerve impulses themselves.

Look at the problem from another perspective. You are in a locked room and your only contact with the outside world is a wall with billions of flashing lights (one little light for each nerve in the problem above). Now come up with a way of assigning meanings to the lights so that you can explain reality (the reason the lights are flashing). That problem is virtually equivalent to the one just stated above. It is a very simple logic problem solved via intuition (squirrel decisions) every day by millions of newborn brains. If one wants to understand the universe as we perceive it, they had better understand the nature of the problem the "mind" has solved. All I am trying to do at the moment is to get you to recognize the existence of that problem. There is certainly no way to discuss the details of a solution if you aren't even aware such a problem exists. I am reminded of the old adage, "know thyself": just exactly how did you come to have such an excellent understanding of so much? How can you assert your personal solution (your mental model of reality) is valid if you have no idea how it came to you? Where would you suggest one look if one were interested is digging out the possible errors in that solution? Don't you think recognizing the problem itself is the first step?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Iacchus32]

And yet if I were only certain of the fact that I don't know, I can be assured that certainty does exist. So what does that say, except that certainty can only be experienced on an intimate level ... via an "experiential mind." And what does that suggest about the assessment of truth, except that it can only be "induced" through its relationship with the mind. Don't our thoughts in fact speak to us about the truth? And yet the truth and our thoughts are not one and the same. So, how does the truth (which is purely abstract) induce itself into our thoughts? Can we be all that certaint that we don't in fact receive the truth from some "remote" source?

 

[Doctordick]

All thought can be divided into two parts!

And yet if I were only certain of the fact that I don't know, I can be assured that certainty does exist. So what does that say, except that certainty can only be experienced on an intimate level ... via an "experiential mind." And what does that suggest about the assessment of truth, except that it can only be "induced" through its relationship with the mind. Don't our thoughts in fact speak to us about the truth? And yet the truth and our thoughts are not one and the same.

You are confused; that is quite evident from the way you pose your questions. If you are serious about wanting to understand the issues you speak of, you need a clear perspective which will separate the issues into those which can be rationally analyzed and those which cannot.

You are trying to understand your own certainty by logically analyzing it when that certainty did not arise via an analyzable sequence. You are failing to recognize the existence of the holistic mode of coming to conclusions often referred to as "intuition". The intimate experience of "knowing" (your personal assessment of truth itself) is an emotional response engendered by that holistic mode; a mode I have come to call "squirrel" thinking (because of some very significant connotations). There is a post I made last summer where I tried to clarify the issue:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

So, how does the truth (which is purely abstract) induce itself into our thoughts? Can we be all that [certain] that we don't in fact receive the truth from some "remote" source?

Clearly, what you refer to here by "our thoughts" is the process of logical analysis (your personal conscious awareness) where all logical decisions are performed. How do you decide what is true? That is a consequence of the intuitive holistic background thoughts which are beyond analyzing. And, yes, we obviously receive that "truth" from a "remote" source! The source is remote from logical analysis. What is more significant is that there can be no proof that it is a "valid" representation of the truth and that issue can be analyzed once you understand how to hold the two modes of thought separate from one another.

You need to think this out seriously -- Dick

 

[Mentat]

A Universal reference to all things? Well, it all originates from the same place. Therefore the whole of the Universe, and every single last detail therein, must remain consistent with that. I don't see how it can be any less absolute than that, do you?

But what if it didn't all originate from the same place? What if there is more than one Universe? Perhaps more than one ontology? Even if there is only one Universe, what if the very nature of that Universe were relative and probabilistic (as current theory seems to indicate)?

 

[Iacchus32]

You are confused; that is quite evident from the way you pose your questions. If you are serious about wanting to understand the issues you speak of, you need a clear perspective which will separate the issues into those which can be rationally analyzed and those which cannot.

No, I am not confused ... at least to the extent that I don't know, I would admit it.

You are trying to understand your own certainty by logically analyzing it when that certainty did not arise via an analyzable sequence. You are failing to recognize the existence of the holistic mode of coming to conclusions often referred to as "intuition". The intimate experience of "knowing" (your personal assessment of truth itself) is an emotional response engendered by that holistic mode; a mode I have come to call "squirrel" thinking (because of some very significant connotations). There is a post I made last summer where I tried to clarify the issue:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=222763#post222763

Are you saying you are capable of understanding something outside of what your mind tells you? How so? And even if you "think" you could, "who" is it that's stepping up to the plate to acknowledge it? Hey, I don't doubt that there is other knowledge and truths out there, but how will I ever know unless it is "filtered" through my mind first?

Clearly, what you refer to here by "our thoughts" is the process of logical analysis (your personal conscious awareness) where all logical decisions are performed. How do you decide what is true? That is a consequence of the intuitive holistic background thoughts which are beyond analyzing. And, yes, we obviously receive that "truth" from a "remote" source! The source is remote from logical analysis. What is more significant is that there can be no proof that it is a "valid" representation of the truth and that issue can be analyzed once you understand how to hold the two modes of thought separate from one another.

You need to think this out seriously -- Dick

And yet of a certainty I can assure you when I say "I don't know." So yes, the truth is both remote and present, and "is" a valid reperesentation ... within the context of the mind that "experiences" it that is.

 

[Iacchus32]

But what if it didn't all originate from the same place? What if there is more than one Universe? Perhaps more than one ontology? Even if there is only one Universe, what if the very nature of that Universe were relative and probabilistic (as current theory seems to indicate)?

And what if our Universe were but a "subset" of the notion of total complexity? Wouldn't this allow for the possiblity of any and all things, while at the same time maintaining everything originates from the same source? What is "chance" (hence probability) but our inability to understand the full complexity of things? If everything (physical) has its own coordinates within time and space, how could anything occur as a result of chance? If everything is interconnected that is to say, how is it possible (by chance) for anything to occur outside of this?

 

[Doctordick]

Why do you bother responding?

No, I am not confused ... at least to the extent that I don't know, I would admit it.


Are you saying you are capable of understanding something outside of what your mind tells you? How so? And even if you "think" you could, "who" is it that's stepping up to the plate to acknowledge it? Hey, I don't doubt that there is other knowledge and truths out there, but how will I ever know unless it is "filtered" through my mind first?


And yet of a certainty I can assure you when I say "I don't know." So yes, the truth is both remote and present, and "is" a valid reperesentation ... within the context of the mind that "experiences" it that is.

You don't pay any attention at all to anything I say do you! Do you even read it?

And I am supposed to regard you as intelligent?

Have fun

 

[Mentat]

And what if our Universe were but a "subset" of the notion of total complexity? Wouldn't this allow for the possiblity of any and all things, while at the same time maintaining everything originates from the same source? What is "chance" (hence probability) but our inability to understand the full complexity of things? If everything (physical) has its own coordinates within time and space, how could anything occur as a result of chance? If everything is interconnected that is to say, how is it possible (by chance) for anything to occur outside of this?

Interesting concept. It is quite Classical, though... Consider that Relativity has shown time and space to also be dynamic entities, relative to anyone observer's inertial reference frame.

 

[Iacchus32]

You don't pay any attention at all to anything I say do you! Do you even read it?

And I am supposed to regard you as intelligent?

Have fun

I have a mind which has been given to me expressly for the purpose of knowing. How about yourself?

 

[honestrosewater]

Forgive me, but I don't really like the wording of that question. Do you mean that the rules presuppose certain conditions wherein one player could declared (and recognized by the other player(s) as) "winner"?

I wasn't anthropomorphizing the rules. If you want to know if someone has won, read the rules.

The very concept of debate is a social one. Surely humans have a pre-disposition for language-games, but that would come to nothing if they'd never had someone show them how to play.

Think of this: Could you have ever even spoken if you'd not been taught the letters, their sounds, the formation of sentences, and the like? Even the teaching of those bare syntactic essentials is done by language-games. For example, the language-game of pointing to a picture of a letter, and then making a sound (e.g. pointing to an "A" and making the complementary sound). It has rules (e.g. one must understand that the letters are "pieces" in the game, and that the sound you make is both a name of the piece and an indication of (at least one of) its possible "moves"), and it is not the only language-game (which is why I don't just refer to it as "learning language"), but it is a rather essential one, if you are ever to play any of the other language-games.

It's still possible for a person to invent and play a debate game all by themselves.

Cute. Seriously, though, you must be able to see (by now) that the games themselves evolved as a multi-player games (evolved for social situations). Playing them on your own is like pretending that there are two people involved, which is just further indication that the game is intended for two people.

No, multi-player doesn't mean multi-person. One person can play multiple roles.

There is still a problem with relying on other people, if you have access to knowledge or evidence which is inaccessible to others.

Do I have access to such knowledge or evidence? If I do, how do you know I do, since it is inaccesible to others?

I can't come to know by playing a debate game- that's the whole point. If you want to be unable to know anything until you succeed in defending it in a debate game, go right ahead. I can come to know things all on my own.

Besides, is it really so strange a concept that someone win a game because they knew a particular trick/strategy/rule of which the other is unaware? I, myself, have won more than one game of chess against a player who was unaware that pawn-en-passant was a legal move.

Not what I'm talking about.

As to, specifically the language-game of debate, and the winning thereof by having greater knowledge or a greater amount of evidence on your side...well, how do you know that that's not part of the game? What if it is expected that one win by virtue of having greater knowledge?

Not what I'm talking about. Do you know what I was thinking about a minute ago? I do.

Seriously, though, I understand that; it's part of my point. We, in (safe to say) any endeavor other than pure "philosophy" (post-Kantian, theory-of-knowledge, accurate-representation philosophy, that is) don't worry about absolute truth, or the "actual" accuracy of a statement, etc. We just worry about playing the game at hand.

I don't just worry about playing the game at hand. I worry about making sense of all the evidence I have. Playing debate games creates more problems than it solves.

All I'm really saying is that the concept of "philosophical problems" (viz, the "hard problem of consciousness" vs. the "easy problem") could be dissolved if we'd just stop trying to "polish our internal mirrors of nature" (so to speak), and start speaking in much more relative terms ("current truth" etc). If we'd stop trying to "ground" the accuracy of a statement in something absolute (which is what we've been trying to by introspection since Descartes), then (I think) philosophy would find a much more comfortable place for itself, sans "intractable problems".

How would that work?

I don't know about that first one, but the second example is actually a very good one. For a while, the Earth was considered the center of the Universe. It still is, in some theories (doesn't the idea of a Big Bang that occurred everywhere at once indicate an expansion that's still occurring "everywhere at once", in which case any point in the Universe could be intelligently spoken of as "the center").

No. The geocentric model is not consistent with the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model agrees with observation, the geocentric model does not. And they aren't even about expansion; They're about orbits.

Thomas Kuhn explained the paradigm-shifts that take us (as a society) away from one method of explanation and toward another, but they are nothing more than that: methods of explaining phenomena.

And the results of debate games are inconsistent in themselves and irrelevant otherwise.

A commonly accepted rule is that you know more about what you are thinking than anyone else. However, if neurology or neurophysiology develop to the point where one can directly read your cortical patterns, you may lose a bit of that privileged status.

The point is that debate games are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining what I am thinking.

That last example brings me to my second problem: I'm not convinced that all knowledge and evidence is universally accessible. IOW, there may be an impassable epistemic gap.

And yet, this assumption is (almost surely) based on the idea that there are some things about which you are completely incorrigible (your own thoughts, for example), and others about which you are somewhat more doubtful, right?

No, it's based on evidence that I am the best at reading my mind.

Not really. Belief is a disposition to strongly hold a certain side. In any game that has any competitive aspect of any kind, one must choose a side. Therefore, "belief" is pre-game

So people can't lie?

Okay. I'm not looking for absolute truth. I'm looking for consistency and completeness.

In whose reference frame?

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

 

[honestrosewater]

If you were to present your question, [Is "no" the answer to this question?] at random to a typical human being, would you really have the gall to claim it as, by your standards, a "well-defined question worthy of a serious search for a correct answer"? I personally do not know anyone who would even be tempted to take you seriously. Please, put a little thought into your analysis.

I wasn't asking a typical human being nor did I claim it was worthy of a serious search for a correct answer. I didn't even claim it had a correct answer. I was applying your method to the question, and I all I got was another another question.

I do not find your example as reasonable evidence you understood what I said! In my mind, it is about as intelligent a question as, "what is the color, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?"

Your method doesn't require "intelligent" questions, it requires well-defined, conceivable questions. If you want people to pose only intelligent questions, then make it a requirement.

The question is meaningless on the face of it. Now I admit that I am a very opinionated old man; many years ago, I went carefully through the incompleteness theorem and came to the conclusion that what it said was that there existed no logic formalism which guaranteed one could not construct the statement, "this statement is false";

Then you came to the wrong conclusion.

that's nice and it may very well be true but it's not very useful to understanding anything.

Wrong. It is very useful for understanding formal systems.

I am very tempted to take your response as an indicator that you don't want to think about the implications of the procedure I lay out and would prefer to marginalize the idea so you can ignore it.

I used that question because it is very useful for understanding formal systems, and I wanted to understand your system.

I don't think I ask for any more than would be asked by any rational human being! The only difference between me and the average man on the street is, I'm just not quite as confused as he is.

You came to the conclusion that they don't know what they're talking about. I presumed by "they" you meant ontologists and epistemologists. Yet you never asked either group what they think they are doing. You began with a dictionary definition. Perhaps by "they" you meant the people who wrote the dictionary.

You seem to have missed the point entirely; I wasn't looking to answer a question, I was merely pointing out the source of the confusion engendered by sloppy thinking.

As was I.

Well, you would have to tell me what else you think defines things. I am at a loss for what you have in mind.

A system of words, for example, can define other words. That's precisely what dictionaries do.

You do bring up an interesting point though. We communicate via a language which consists of a collection of symbols which we intuitively presume mean what we think they mean. Suppose we are wrong and there exists an interpretation far different than what we think we are hearing. How would you propose to take that possibility into account in your thinking?

You try to reveal the different interpretations by looking for inconsistencies.

Now you haven't thought about that have you?

Of course I have. What do you think my dog lovers example was about?

I don't want to strain your brain but how about thinking about that for a while; can you come up with a way of accommodating that issue in your thinking? If you are going to define things, you have to start somewhere; where do you think one should begin?

With a relation between two undefined terms.

All I am trying to do at the moment is to get you to recognize the existence of that problem.

Great, I recognize the existence of the problem you've stated.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

This concept can be very complex, but as I see it, it is very simple. "If it works, go with it."

_____________________________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[Iacchus32]

I have a mind. That mind is aware. Through that awareness I interact. The truth is bound up inside of all of that. What is else is there to know? Without a mind? ... Not much.

I know it sounds awfully simplistic, but how do we know the truth except through our experience of it? Why should it have to be more complicated than that? I'm not saying we should implicitly trust what our minds tell us but, unless we understand that this is how how it works, how will we know anything?

 

[Doctordick]

To honestrosewater, exactly what is Evidence?

First, let me say that I found your latest response to be quite rational. It is entirely possible that we might be able to understand one another (believe me I don't blame you; I know I am not easy to understand as my mode of thinking is quite outside the norm). Maybe I can clear things up a little bit.

I was applying your method to the question, and I all I got was another question.

It isn't "my method"; it is nothing more than a different perspective on what is the standard method; a perspective which puts emphasis on different aspects than does the common representation. My perspective puts major emphasis on existence of alternate answers and the existence of meaningless questions, two issues not seriously considered in the standard perspective.

Let me put [forth the] following diagram of "the scientific method" in an objective attack.

(I guess I was sloppy when I typed the original; sorry.) Notice that I called it my "diagram" not my method. Take a look at a common presentation of the scientific method obtained by googling "scientific method" (those are my comments in parenthesis):

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. (Observation is trying to understand: i.e., asking a question; and the description corresponds to those answers to relevant questions we believe are true: i.e., brought up in my step 2.)

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. (All this says is "come up with a possible answer". The only difference in my presentation is that I ask for all possible answers. And as I said, this is the difficult part! In most cases, just coming up with one answer is so difficult that most people can't do it; that's why I say, "well, that's life; perfection is hard to come by". My point is simply that one should keep in mind the fact that other answers are possible. Most people tend to forget that.)

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. (Now isn't this just, "work out all the logical consequences of that answer being correct"?)

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. (The only difference between my presentation and this is that I explicitly specify the requirement that you should look at places where the predictions are different,)

Both you and Nereid both chose to use questions (which were obviously meaningless) for the purpose of understanding my supposed method. By doing so, you explicitly displayed your failure to relate what I said to the common presentation of the "scientific method" (the relationship I have just diagramed above). I took that to indicate that you both had totally failed to comprehend why I had written what I wrote.

I will not comment about "formal systems" as that subject is far too vast to discuss here and now, and understanding "understanding" must come first anyway.

I don't think I ask for any more than would be asked by any rational human being! The only difference between me and the average man on the street is, I'm just not quite as confused as he is

I also know that most everything I know is there by intuition and that logic and analysis is about as close to worthless as one can get (something life has convinced him of). However, I am not confused by the apparent singular successes of logic and analysis (as the common man actually is) because I understand what it is and why and where it works.

A system of words, for example, can define other words. That's precisely what dictionaries do.

No, that is precisely what dictionaries do not do!

When I was in the third grade, the teacher told us that it was against the rules for the dictionary to use the word to be defined in its definition as then you would have to know what the word meant in order to find out what it meant and that would be stupid. (Not her words exactly; but in essence what she said). Well, the first thing that popped into my head was, "what happens if the definition contains a word whose meaning I don't know?" Well, it was obvious you would have to look that word up too. As soon as one heads down that road, it's clear the dictionary has to be circular in the final analysis.

Now I wasn't but ten years old and not a very sophisticated thinker so the consequences of that fact weren’t obvious to me. But I was curious as to how many words you would have to look up before you got back to the word you started with (it was just a question which popped into my head, and I had no comprehension of the possible lengths of such a string). Being dumb, I went to the dictionary (on a podium on the side of the room) to see what the answer was.

Since, in my head, it made no difference what word I started with, I started at the beginning. I was absolutely astounded to see the definition of "a"! Right there in black and white, the authority of the world, the official dictionary said, "a: the first letter of the alphabet; a pronoun ...". I closed the dictionary and went back to my seat convinced that the teacher had just given us a gullibility test. Why else would she have told us something so easy to disprove? I was a strange kid. I never said anything to anyone else because I thought it was a secret between adults and I wanted to be an adult. (I had a very strong aversion to being gullible when I was a child.) I know now that the error was not intentional but I have looked in a lot of dictionaries in my life and don't remember seeing one without that error somewhere in the definition of "a".

At any rate, it was then when I began to wonder just how we came to know what words meant. Dictionaries certainly were not the source and neither could language in general between people provide the source for exactly the same reason. Somehow we manage to achieve understanding of language from undefined information. Once you think about it for a while, it becomes pretty obvious that the answer to that question is fundamental to understanding anything and/or everything.

From that day forward, whenever anyone told me anything, the first question that appeared in my mind was, "how do I know that is true". In most cases the answer was, "I don't! They expect me to believe an authority!" That is the phenomena which lead me into physics. The answers in physics seemed to be better than anywhere else; until I got into graduate school when physics began to resemble the other fields (it became very dependent on authority).

You try to reveal the different interpretations by looking for inconsistencies.

That presumes there are inconsistencies; i.e., that there is but one valid solution. That is one of the specific reasons I stated the "scientific method" the way I did.

Yes, you did touch upon the issue with your "dog lovers" example and I had hoped you might understand what I was talking about but I have been disappointed so many times in the past that I really don't like to jump to conclusions.

With a relation between two undefined terms.

That is exactly the answer proposed by everyone I have ever heard of and it cannot possibly be the proper starting point as "two undefined terms" are "two undefined terms" and nothing more. That approach is exactly equivalent to picking at the threads of the Gordian knot; it simply can't be untied that way! You need to cut through the whole thing in one swift cut. (And you can't do that without creating a sword first. )

That's why I brought up the other post I referred to you. "Logical thought" cannot solve the problem because "logical thought" is far too limited to encompass the totality of relationships involved. And "squirrel thought" cannot solve the problem because there exists no way to validate "squirrel thought". The solution can only be achieved through intimate cooperation between the two modes and that has to be done with full knowledge of the range of errors possible in each and a way of handling those errors such that the consequences are minimized (hopefully eliminated).

To make a long story short, one must expose the proper logical question to the powers of squirrel thought. You've heard that old adage, the "whole problem is asking the right question". At the same time you must take full advantage of logical thought.

So I will begin with definition. Definition is quite clearly a problem which can only be solved by squirrel thought. The difficulty here is that we have no way of knowing our interpretations are the same. As you said, inconsistencies are the only clew available. But that attack will fail in their absence. Again, as you pointed out, it is the relationships which are important. If there are no inconsistencies, the interpretations are equivalent to one another; that is, a consistent mapping may be constructed. The whole thing becomes equivalent to code breaking.

By the way, in your dog example, the picture is actually no more than another communicative entity and thus becomes the inconsistency looked for. You should realize that even that inconsistency might not exist. In regard to this question, there is a waiter at our local Red Lobster restaurant who is the spitting image of Eddie Murphy; so long as you see him face on. As soon as he turns his head the illusion totally vanishes.

What all this implies is that the shear unexamined volume of vocabulary is the real source of difficulties. The size of the information source is so large that "logical thought" cannot eliminate the existence of inconsistencies. We are lucky in this regard as, for thousands of years, a certain number of logically facile people (called mathematicians) have been working very diligently on a language which, to the best of their ability, lacks inconsistencies. I have often defined mathematics to be the invention and study of self consistent systems (which I think is considerably better than what you will find in a dictionary). What is important to me is that there is considerably less room for confusion if something can be expressed in mathematics. Of course, it isn't a very powerful language for expressing complex squirrel ideas. That's why this post is being written in English. So long as I and my reader remember that communications via English are fundamentally vague and inexact we can make good use of it.

All of this was to get down to one very simple statement: the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics". I leave your understanding and facility in that area entirely to your personal "squirrel thought" capabilities. That is, I am essentially assuming that statements I make in mathematics are communicable; the procedures and relationships so expressed are "equivalent" in your world view and mine in spite of the fact that there might actually exist an alternate interpretation of that collective set of concepts and relationships. (And, if there are inconsistencies, people much more qualified than I am are already working hard to straighten it out.)

If you can understand what I have just said and why I said it, we are perhaps beginning to communicate. The issue here is to keep the possibility of alternate interpretation always open in spite of the fact that I can not think of one. You should be able to comprehend that the fact that you cannot think of a totally consistent alternate interpretation of something is no evidence that such a thing does not exist.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Mentat]

I wasn't anthropomorphizing the rules. If you want to know if someone has won, read the rules.

I suppose.

It's still possible for a person to invent and play a debate game all by themselves.

I've never argued against that. What I argue against is the concept that s/he could have come up with the game without having been exposed to society at any point in his/her life.

No, multi-player doesn't mean multi-person. One person can play multiple roles.

What is a "role" in a multi-player game, if not the "role" of another person?

I can't come to know by playing a debate game- that's the whole point. If you want to be unable to know anything until you succeed in defending it in a debate game, go right ahead. I can come to know things all on my own.

But what you mean by the word "know" is what this entire debate hinges on. If you are talking about something absolute, indubitable, about which you are allowed (by whomever) to be incorrigible, then you're wasting your time. The only things you are allowed (by whomever) to be incorrigible about are those things about which you can convince someone else that you have privileged access.

As to incorrigibility when nobody else is involved: that's just ridiculous. Of course your going to be incorrigible in a game you play which yourself (like "introspection"). It's as I've already said: when you play on your own, you win, no matter what.

Not what I'm talking about.

Then what are you talking about?

Not what I'm talking about. Do you know what I was thinking about a minute ago? I do.

Then it is what you were talking about, since that's exactly what I was saying: you have greater knowledge (or, at least, are expected to) about what you were thinking about a minute ago.

I don't just worry about playing the game at hand. I worry about making sense of all the evidence I have. Playing debate games creates more problems than it solves.

It's not just about "debate" games. It's about all games. (That's why I asked if you really wanted to specialize, and only talk about the "debate" variety...there are so many others).

Establishing relative truth in argument is obviously a matter of winning debate. But, playing other games can be quite different. For example, you mentioned making sense of all the evidence you have. That's a game, too. It works differently than the debate game, but it's still just a "game" with family resemblances to the other "games". Because of this, you will never find an "absolute grounding" of "indubitable truth", and it is the pursuit of such a thing that I say has mis-guided philosophy for the past centuries.

How would that work?

What do you mean?

No. The geocentric model is not consistent with the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model agrees with observation, the geocentric model does not.

I didn't say the models were consistent with one another. I didn't say they were both "true". (You'd really have less difficult understanding me if you'd just drop this "truth" problem you seem to have. I don't mean that to be offensive, but it's getting in the way.)

The geocentric model was what was held at one time, the heliocentric model was held at another time. Now, neither is really held. The current concept is relative to inertial reference frames (pace Einstein).

And they aren't even about expansion; They're about orbits.

I know they're about orbits, but that doesn't change the fact that the (currently held...by some) concept of a Universe wherein every point is "expanding" away from every other point allows for us to place the "center" arbitrarily.

And the results of debate games are inconsistent in themselves and irrelevant otherwise.

Language-games, my dear honestrosewater, debate games are just one language-game.

And what do you mean by "irrelevant otherwise"? What is "otherwise"? Is there something that can be discussed without discussion (discussion=language=language-games)?

BTW, the results are not incosistent "in themselves", they are inconsistent with one another, which is why there are paradigm-shifts.

The point is that debate games are neither necessary nor sufficient for determining what I am thinking.

Well, you can form an opinion about what you are thinking completely on your own. You can believe it with all your heart. But it won't mean anything at all to us (the rest of humanity) unless you tell us about it (telling us is positing something in the language-game). And it will only hold privileged status if we hold that it is the case that people have privileged status to what's going on in their cortical patterns. As I said, this will not be a very strong rule if neurology discovers an algorithmic (or, at least, heuristic) model of cortical patterns and their interactions.

No, it's based on evidence that I am the best at reading my mind.

You "read" your mind? I know it's just a metaphor, but I don't think it's a very good one. There is nothing "written" on your brain, in any meaningful sense. Your brain is not a tabula on which to have something "written". It is, instead, a dynamic organ, with dynamic patterns that change with time and use. You can't read your brain. Neither can anyone else. There's nothing to read.

Now, if you mean that you have privileged access to your cerebral patterns and their behavior, then I would say that's highly unlikely.

So people can't lie?

What does lying have to do with belief?

 

[honestrosewater]

Sorry, I've been busy. I haven't forgotten about this thread and will respond ASAP.
BTW, Mentat, I think we agree on just about everything.

 

[Mentat]

Sorry, I've been busy. I haven't forgotten about this thread and will respond ASAP.
BTW, Mentat, I think we agree on just about everything.

Really? Then I anxiously await your next post .

 

[honestrosewater]

I wasn't anthropomorphizing the rules. If you want to know if someone has won, read the rules.

I suppose.

Has someone won this game yet?

 

[honestrosewater]

All of this was to get down to one very simple statement: the first thing I want to define is, "the field of mathematics". I leave your understanding and facility in that area entirely to your personal "squirrel thought" capabilities. That is, I am essentially assuming that statements I make in mathematics are communicable; the procedures and relationships so expressed are "equivalent" in your world view and mine in spite of the fact that there might actually exist an alternate interpretation of that collective set of concepts and relationships. (And, if there are inconsistencies, people much more qualified than I am are already working hard to straighten it out.)

Okay, great. Define "the field of mathematics".

 

[Chronos]

Let's be rigorous about this and stop playing games with rose. Verbosity is not the same as validity. What is evidence? It's your trap, so show me the bait. I see what I see, hear what I hear, and smell what I smell - and it smacks of undigested hay. That is the observational evidence. Other forms of evidence are irrelevant. I will be more forgiving when your tea leaves make testable and experimentally validated predictions.