Lessons on Causality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:36 am

So if you want to know what, for example, a "circle" is, then you have to refer to (a) the meaning and definition of the word "circle" and to (b) the history of its meaning and definition, which means that they can change over time. But the result of this change (caused e.g. by an experiment) is always either a new or a renewed kind of meaning and definition.


It is a fact that most of us already know what the word "circle" means i.e. what phenomenon it refers to. And if someone does not then we can help them understand what we mean by the word "circle" by using non-verbal communication. Remember that non-verbal communication precedes -- it is more fundamental than -- verbal communication. All you need is a finger with which you can point at things that are associated with the word and things that are NOT associated with the word. This is one of the simplest ways to learn the meaning of words. There are even simpler approaches than that and they involve the use of some kind of force. Violence is a form of communication. You can also use verbal communication in order to explain what your words mean but this involves describing what you mean by your words using some other words -- those that are familiar to the other side. This helps you get your point across quicker but the risk that you will be misunderstood is higher.

I am pretty sure that all participants in this threads share the same exact understanding of what circles are. There is thus no need to explain what they are. The disagreement is regarding MATHEMATICAL or LOGICAL MODELS of circles. For example, James models circles in terms of radius whereas UrWrong models them in terms of sides. What they are doing is they are taking one object (circles) and bringing them into relation with another object (radius, sides.) James says that UrWrong's approach is wrong because it is not how Google describes circles. If that's not autistic then I don't know what is.

I think that people who place too much emphasis on language are people who are too socially dependent.
Very feminine.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:26 am

Google's definition is thousands of years old, not in dispute, and taught throughout the world. The version that involves sides, is, as far as I know, taught no where. It is Urwrong's fallacious invention.

Such words are not up for you or he to redefine and expect to be respected for it.

Magnus Anderson wrote:It is a fact that most of us already know what the word "circle" means

Yes, but "most of us", obviously doesn't include you or Urwrong.


Magnus Anderson wrote:I think ...

You over credit yourself.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:17 pm

JSS wrote:Google's definition is thousands of years old, not in dispute, and taught throughout the world. The version that involves sides, is, as far as I know, taught no where. It is Urwrong's fallacious invention.


You pay too much attention to irrelevant things and make too much fuss about nothing.
That's the problem I have with you.
In other words, you suffer from autism.

When someone says something like "circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides" they are not "redefining" circles but merely providing an alternative logical model of them.
Most importantly, they are NOT rejecting -- or at least it is nowhere implied that they are rejecting -- the standard model of circles (which involves the concept of equidistance.)

You're too rigid.
Of course you are too rigid, you are autistic.

And this is not the first I come across such a way of conceptualizing circles.
Maybe it's not taught in schools, I don't know, but so what?
What exactly is your point?
Oh right, you have no point, you're simply autistic.

You ruined this discussion -- you reduced it to petty arguments -- thanks to your pedantry.
There's absolutely NOTHING that you are adding to the discussion (whether it is that concerning causality or the tangential discussion concerning circles.)
If you were at least telling us that UrWrong's model of circles is less precise than the standard model, then at least there would be some substance to what you're saying.
But as it is, your posts are without any substance.
Waste of fucking time.

"Fallacious invention".
Holy fucking shit.
You think that people who described circles the first OWN these circles?
Is that the severity of your retardation?

JSS wrote:
Magnus wrote:It is a fact that most of us already know what the word "circle" means.
Yes, but "most of us", obviously doesn't include you or Urwrong.


See how stupid you are?
You don't even UNDERSTAND what I said.

Moron, people understood what circles are long before there was anyone to describe them in terms of equidistance.
Not all life is verbal.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:27 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
JSS wrote:Google's definition is thousands of years old, not in dispute, and taught throughout the world. The version that involves sides, is, as far as I know, taught no where. It is Urwrong's fallacious invention.


You pay too much attention to irrelevant things and make too much fuss about nothing.

Language and what makes it work is hardly "nothing" when communicating over the Internet is all you have.

Your attempts to corrupt and destroy the only language you have is more than a little self defeating, naive, and stupid - a child starting a fire in his own bed.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:42 pm

Noone is destroying language, moron.
When you say something like "circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides" you are not corrupting language but merely using it to express your logical model of circles.
The problem is you are AUTISTIC which means you take words TOO LITERALLY.
And when you cannot understand them literally you scream LANGUAGE GAMES.
You are embarassing yourself, James.
I am serious.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:00 pm

And there I was thinking that at least you had looked up what "autism" means.
But then for people who invent their own definition of words, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised by anything they state.
=;
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:04 pm

We both know that autists have a problem with colloquial language.
They take words too literally.
Don't play dumb.
You are textbook autistic.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:15 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:We both know that autists have a problem with colloquial language.
They take words too literally.
Don't play dumb.
You are textbook autistic.

They don't "take words too literally" in the sense that you are thinking (using the word loosely). They miscomprehended. Their lack of ability to attend to their surroundings causes them to not pickup on common social behaviors and implications. As a result, they find themselves desperately trying to communicate and making excuses for their misuse of words. One of their primary excuses is "But it is all relative. It could be true. Words can mean different things to different people. What is true for one isn't true for everyone. Everyone has their own reality...."

And you really shouldn't reference textbooks until you bother to actually read and comprehend one. Of course the problem is that you will never know whether you comprehended it or not. You will just desperately try to make sense out of the words, come up with some guess, and then insist that you have perfectly understood the true meaning (all of which will be BS).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:48 pm

The point is that you focus on insignificant details.
Your criticisms are pointless. They are utterly moronic. There is nothing anyone can possibly learn from them. They merely irritate.
You said absolutely nothing of value in this thread.
You merely spam.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:05 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:The point is that you focus on insignificant details.
Your criticisms are pointless. They are utterly moronic. There is nothing anyone can possibly learn from them. They merely irritate.
You said absolutely nothing of value in this thread.
You merely spam.

First, you really should refrain from typing while looking in the mirror.

But more importantly, the issue of what "a circle" means was an argument going on long before I interjected. I quoted a dictionary. From that You and UrWrong chose to argue endlessly, ignoring the very definition of the word, later excusing yourselves by claiming that definitions are irrelevant. :icon-rolleyes:

Of course, if you were capable of thinking before declaring truth, you might have noticed that before focusing on your last ad hom, irrelevant, and "moronic", derailing diatribe.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:19 pm

Your pedantry is omnipresent. It's not merely this thread that suffers from it. It's the entire forum that does so.
And almost noone shares your autistic sentiment, just to remind you.

We knew what circles are LONG BEFORE there was language.
You don't need to be able to describe circles using words in order to know what circles are.
So when someone argues against the idea that "circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides" what they are doing is they are comparing this statement, not against reality, but against other words.
The statement matches PRETTY WELL against reality.
So only pedants -- autistic people, people with no ability to think laterally or holistically -- find it problematic.
Basically, people who are too conservative -- rigid, inflexible, unadaptable, unwelcoming of change -- find it problematic.
You know, the ones who think everyone who disagrees with them is a liberal nihilist.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:25 pm

You are merely proving my last post.

And if you don't like to be reminded of definitions, perhaps you should learn them before getting into arguments that concern them.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:29 pm

And in addition, another point that your "autism" characteristic didn't notice, is that you and UrWrong were telling Arc that she was "wrong". Yet, by your own argument, and even if you were right, she was still NOT wrong.

You and UrWrong falsely accused. And that is what happens when people ignore the details (the Devil's pride and joy).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:31 pm

You don't get it, don't you?
People understand what the word "circle" means and they do so independently from dictionary definitions.
We all know intuitively what circles are.
We knew that LONG BEFORE there was any language.
There is no need for dictionaries.
So when somene clings onto dictionary definitions this indicates there is some kind of problem with them.
That their intuition is weak.
That they are . . . autistic.
You are the protector of autism.
Very proud of being autistic.
I am happy for you.
It must be very good to be autistic.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:33 pm

There was no mistake. You and Arc both claimed that circles do not have sides, have "zero sides". Therefore you are saying this is not a circle:

Image
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:52 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:There was no mistake. You and Arc both claimed that circles do not have sides, have "zero sides". Therefore you are saying this is not a circle:

Image

As I explained before. That picture is CIRCULAR.

As Magnus pointed out, those who pay too little attention while growing up, assume too much about their misunderstandings concerning language as well as many other issues.

In common English, anything vaguely similar to a circle is often called a "circle" by those having no need to be particularly precise. When young people are not educated, they begin to think that the word "circle" means anything vaguely circular. Quite the opposite of Magnus' programming, learning language from common guttural usage is NOT the best way unless one never intends to understand or accomplish any more than guttural status. "Ignorant and foolish people talk like this. Thus this is the way to talk." Only ignorant and foolish people think like that.

The more to-the-point concern is that it is a false accusation to declare someone to be wrong when they say that circles have no sides. Even if you want to claim that anything circular is "a circle" (foolish for several reasons), that still doesn't make Arc wrong. And mathematics does NOT claim that a circle has infinite sides.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:07 pm

So you admit that you say it's not a circle. As expected.

You are in the minority. Because shapes are approximations. Nobody really cares about 'perfect' exactitude. A carpenter working on a house has to deal with bends in what people call "straight" planks of wood.

Nuance is lost on you James. You seem to have trouble understanding the gray areas, the bends in a piece of wood.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:19 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:So you admit that you say it's not a circle. As expected.

You are in the minority. Because shapes are approximations.

Actually, you just admitted that you are wrong.

You just stated that "shapes" are "approximations".

A circular shape is an approximations to what? - To an actual, un-approximated circle - one that has no sides at all.

You are the one who just shot himself in the foot (shame it was in your mouth at the time :wink: ).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:56 pm

All shapes have sides.

Again this is Elementary school knowledge. You and Arc are still wrong.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:31 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:All shapes have sides.

Again this is Elementary school knowledge. You and Arc are still wrong.

According to your reasoning, a square has infinite sides.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25426
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby gib » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:23 am

Sorry I'm late to the discussion (I know you were all waiting for me), but I'm very intrigued by this question of whether circles have sides or not. I think I'm partial to the infinite sides faction of the debate. A circle has infinite sides. Yet at the same time, I see how this is equivalent to the notion of a circle having no sides. It makes me wonder if this is a sign that infinity = zero (or everythingness = nothingness). Though paradoxical sounding, it makes sense when you think about this mathematically: as you approach infinity, the elements which you are counting (those that tend towards infinity in their quantity) tend towards zero (like the sides of a polygon--the more numerous, the smaller they must appear in order to apprehend the whole polygon, tending towards zero size and the polygon towards a circle).

So is saying that a circle has infinite sides the same as saying it has no sides? I think these are two "sides" of the same coin. To say that a circle has infinite sides is to focus on the sides themselves, recognizing not only their existence but their numerousness, so numerous that the whole (the infinite) must be said to stand beyond the scope of your focus. But to say that a circle has no sides is to focus on the whole (the circle itself) and to say that any sides that exist can only be said to exist beyond the scope of your focus (but this time in the opposite direction--too small to see, to small to be said to exist). So I think we can say two things, but neither simultaneously: we either have the whole (the infinite) without the elements that amount to the whole (zero sides), or we have the elements (the sides) but without the whole that an impossible amount of them make up (the infinite).
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8421
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:15 am

JSS wrote:As I explained before. That picture is CIRCULAR.


Notice how autistic James is? He's focusing too much on differences and too little on similarities. That's autism.

What's happening here is that UrWrong is telling us that our intuition interprets this shape as being a form of circle. Most people will tell you, independently from any dictionary definitions, that this shape is a circle. That would be intuition at work. And let us not forget that inuition precedes dictionary definitions. James, on the other hand, is telling us that our dictionaries do not allow us to interpret such a shape as being a form of circle.

James is, of course, wrong. What he's doing here is he's HIDING the work of his own intuition. In other words, he's removing himself -- his own intuition -- from the equation in an attempt to pretend to be purely "objective", or more precisely, to be a blind follower of instructions. This is evident from the fact that our dictionary definitions of the word "circle" contain certain ambiguities. For example, Google definition that a circle is "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre)" has a problem in that the number of points that the boundary of a circle consists of is not specified. This makes it difficult for us to take a ruler and test any given shape simply by following instructions i.e. without doing any thinking on our own. We simply do not know many measurements we have to take . . . because we do not know how many points there are on the boundary of a circle. Thus, we need to use our own judgment. We need to decide for ourselves how many points there are. And depending on how many points we choose, the above shape can be tested positive. The fact is that James does not see the above shape as a circle, not because of any dictionary definitions, but because of his method of judgment.

That's what happens if you focus too much on differences and too little on similarities. You become preoccupied with nuances and unable to see "the big picture". Which is exactly what autism is about.

The hatred of ambiguities, the idea that ambiguities necessarily confuse, is the hallmark of autism.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:28 am

JSS wrote:In common English, anything vaguely similar to a circle is often called a "circle" by those having no need to be particularly precise. When young people are not educated, they begin to think that the word "circle" means anything vaguely circular. Quite the opposite of Magnus' programming, learning language from common guttural usage is NOT the best way unless one never intends to understand or accomplish any more than guttural status. "Ignorant and foolish people talk like this. Thus this is the way to talk." Only ignorant and foolish people think like that.


That's called intuition. Intuition is not a product of a lack of education. It is a product of evolution. In other words, intuition is far older than any dictionary definition. It is people like you who are attempting to REPLACE this intuition with another mechanism. And the reason is because you have a pathological obsession with precision.

Note that noone here denies the fact that the above circle is not a perfect circle. We know that. What we're denying is your attempt to make us unnecessarily rigid, formal, precise, etc.
Stop pretending people don't know how mathematicians define circles.
And stop defending autistic people.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:21 am

Gib wrote:I think I'm partial to the infinite sides faction of the debate. A circle has infinite sides. Yet at the same time, I see how this is equivalent to the notion of a circle having no sides.


Circles are first and foremost objects of our experience. They are shapes that we can SEE in our everyday life. That's what they are. And we know what they are thanks to our intuition. We need no dictionary definitions.
When you say something like "circles are a set of points equidistant from some fixed point" you are providing an alterantive way of judging whether any given shape is a circle or not.
This method of judgment involves a ruler that is anchored in the center of the shape. It also involves choosing a number of points on the boundary of the shape you are measuring. And it involves rotating the ruler so that one of its ends passes through one of the selected points on the boundary. What you have to do is to measure the distance between the center and each one of the selected points. If all of the distances are equal you declare that the shape is a circle.
The other approach is polygon approximation but this approach has a weakness in that it involves the redundant concept of side. Sides cannot help us to determine any given shape is a circle or not. They are quite simply useless in this regard. Where they are useful is in measuring the circumference of a circle. That is when describing circles in terms of polygons is useful.
The polygon approximation approach gives us a more complete view of circles.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:07 pm

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philoso ... -essay.php

Firstly, we need to look at what perception and reality mean, the definition of perception is the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. This means that perception is what we sense in our environment from what our senses and mind tells us. The definition of reality is the state or quality of being real (dictionary.com) but if we know what is real because of our perceptions and senses, how do we know our senses can be trusted to tell us the truth, and thus how do we know what is real? Every philosopher has searched within themselves for the answer to what is reality, and how we know what is real, but every philosopher has their own views on reality, to begin idealist Renee Descartes argued that sensations and experience can be doubted, so it is pure reason, not the senses, that must form the basis of Truth and what reality is. Next, an Idealist, Plato who claimed that the world of ideas, for example the ideal nature or essence of a tree or a circle or a color, was more fundamental, more "real," than physical reality, and that physical reality, a tree for instance, comes into being as an imperfect instance of the ideal. John Locke an empiricist said that the mind starts out without any knowledge and everything one knows is built up from experience through the senses. So who is right? Is there any one way to know what reality really is?

In Descartes his first and second meditations he claims that all our beliefs can be doubted because our senses could simply be just an illusion, he goes on to say that although all our beliefs cannot be certain, because we think and experience, our minds must exist. Descartes argued that our ordinary experiences and views of the world cannot give us the kind of affirmed foundation on which all other knowledge and beliefs can be based. We are often dismayed to acknowledge that what we have learned is simply detriment, or that what our senses tell us is not certain. That should make us wonder about whether all the other things we believe might also be uncertain. So is there anything that we can know for certain without a doubt? We can doubt whether there is a physical world and whether we have a physical body. We can doubt whether our own reasoning can be trusted, so then what can we absolutely know for certain? Descartes gives an example that even if a higher power deceives us about all our other beliefs, there is one belief that we can be certain about, which is that we are thinking. Even to doubt this belief is proving that we are thinking. And since thinking cannot occur without there being something that does the thinking, this proves that we exist. When we think, it proves we have a mind, regardless of whether we have bodies. The body we experience as our own is not an essential part of our self because we can doubt its existence in a way that we cannot doubt the existence of our mind.

Plato believed that reality was in the form of two separate worlds, he believed that something was an individual object, but could be put together into a larger group. For example there are multiple breeds of cats, but they all fall under a larger group, which is cats, or felines.

Another analogy that Plato came up with was the allegory of the cave. Here the physical world is in the form of a cave, in which the humans are trapped from the beginnings of our life, where we are stationary and cannot move our heads, so we perceive only shadows and sounds. Without reason, one of us is released and is encouraged to travel upward to the entrance of the cave. This revelation is very confusing to the person. Then he is pulled to the entrance of the cave, where the light is hurting his eyes that are accustomed to the dark, which threatens the only security his life has known. The world of daylight represents the realm of Ideas. His eyes grow accustomed to the light and he can look up to the sun, and understand what the ultimate source of light and life is. This is symbolic of the Idea of the Good in the Realm. This gradual process is a metaphor of education, and enlightenment. Yet the real lesson of Plato is that the enlightened person now has a moral responsibility to the unfortunate people, still in the cave, to rescue them and bring them into the light. This lesson brings about Socrates' famous quote, "As for the man who tried to free them and lead them upward, if they could somehow lay their hands on him and kill him, they would do so." This is ironic in nature. The fact that this man is trying to help these people and they are so uneducated masses will resent him and threaten his life.

Lastly, John Locke stated that we define objects by primary and secondary properties; primary properties being undeniably objective features such as size and shape, and secondary properties being subjective such as colour and taste. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dQpDNtsIAE) Locke's theory on reality is called Representative Realism, it is the view that sense data (an immediate object of perception, which is not a material object; a sense impression) somehow represents the objects and that these objects are causally involved in our production of the sense data. Our perception of objects is thus indirect; hence, representative realism is a kind of indirect realism. (An Introduction to Epistemology, second edition, 277) This view argues that we experience reality indirectly by perceptions that represent the real world. So, if we see a brown table, what we are actually seeing is not the table itself but a representation of it. In this way, differences of perception which occur due to changes in light conditions, position of viewer, etc., can be easily explained: it is not the object which is changing, only the perception of it. As an example, a man is standing on the corner of a busy road and witnesses two cars collide. Neither driver is hurt, but both step out of their cars to inspect the damage. Driver A is a young mother with a young child in the back of the car; driver B is a business executive in a hurry; the witness is an old man wearing glasses. As the two drivers argue about whose fault it was, the man approaches them and offers to confirm what he saw happening. What does each of them see? Whose is the correct view?

It is evident that the mind knows not things immediately, but only by the intervention of the ideas it has of them. Our knowledge therefore, is real, only so far as there is conformity between our ideas and the reality of things. But what shall be here the criterion? How shall the mind, when it perceives nothing but its own ideas, know they agree with things themselves? (John Locke, 452)

So who is right? These are just three different views on reality out of hundreds, and possibly even thousands from other philosophers, but is there any one way to know if one philosopher's theory is right over another? One thing most of these theories have in common is that our perceptions of reality, how we view things through our senses and the different objects we see, may not be what is certainly real, they suggest that what our perceptions of reality are, are not really what reality is. What this means is that for the average person living, their reality is based upon ignorance towards other truths.

As humans we struggle to know why we exist and what reality is, but many of us are too afraid to give up the comfort of believing what we see to be true to discover the answers to what reality is, because of this there are select few individuals who question their life and what it means, these individuals give insight to others and are able to teach other individuals about what it means to question our existence and perceptions. Although for many of us the theories of philosophers such as Descartes, Plato, and Locke may seem wildly unlikely, the more we question what reality is, the more we ourselves create new theories about reality, and they themselves may seem far-fetched to other individuals. We may look at what other philosophers have theorized in the past, but for us, as individuals, to discover what reality means to us personally, we must think deeply ourselves, we must theorize and question ourselves until we are so confused by our questions we no longer know what it means to exist. We cannot rely on other theories of reality because everyone perceives reality differently, what one person may perceive is different than what another person may perceive, and because of this not everyone can have the same views and theories on what reality and existence means. Some of us may see God as an important part and influence in our reality, while others may not. Some people may say nothing truly exists, and that we are just an illusion and others may say everything they see is real. No one is wrong; our individual views on reality are personal, our perceptions are not the same as other individual's perceptions, and that does not mean one is wrong or right. What it means is that we as humans have the responsibly to question ourselves, to question what it means to live. In order for any of us to achieve true happiness we must question reality, existence, and our perceptions. If we live in ignorance, we are not truly being happy; we are letting ourselves be satisfied with not understanding the world. Thinking deeply about reality inspires growth, it inspires us to realize there is more to the world then what we can see, the world is a limitless place of our desires.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14848
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]