Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
Well that explains a lot. And here I thought I was debating a logical scientific type person. We wobble around believing whatever enters our head at the time. DOH!
I missed this. The world according to our Garp.
"The rest of you are Heathens!!!"
Thanks. It started much earlier than 700, and carried on past 1000. That's alot, but I hope to read the entire thread.
It is this kind of thing why I am finished with you. It wasn't 'silly' and I'm tired of this kind of rude characterization of my statements. What follows this comment is just a 'no it isn't' denial with no content what-so-ever. You may think you are putting something over, but your not. Just revealing how tiresome you are. This isn't debate, this is childish squabbling.
Yes, the concepts are reified. All such concepts must be reified in order to hold the position. No matter how many times I have pointed this out it is ignored. The distinction between reality, and the concepts that represent that reality is utterly dismissed, ignored or overlooked. You are engaged in a hopeless task.
The definitions of words, unlike anything on the list you've enumerated, have, by comparison of ordinary use, fuzzy, inexact parameters, which is a good measure of why they are such flexible building blocks for us. Go back and look at the dictionary definition you offered me. Notice that it has two meanings, even in the extremely terse abridged Heritage. Now how could that be?
You remind me of LogicWings in your fervid maintenance of absurd contentions you imperviously continue to support in the face of massive contradiction, which you handle by pretending it away. Very amusing.
My bad. I got the impression you and donh had wandered into that subject at 1338.
On the 60's remark, I got a kick out of the way he put it, grumble, grumble!
Yes, it is ignored, because it doesn't mean butkus, except in your private reveries about the exacting nature of the universe, or our perceptions about it. I am quite capable of thinking about things, and proffering claims about things, even if I only accept them on a conditional, tentative basis, as are most people. This argument, and it's reflexive relatives you've endulged in, such as the theory that pointing out a paradox is a paradox, are out of the ballpark. Like the professor said to the student who barged into his physics class to expound on the flat earth theory: "It's not that you're right, it's not the you're wrong, it's that you aren't even in the game".
The distinction between reality, and the concepts that represent that reality is utterly dismissed, ignored or overlooked.
That is an incorrect characterization of what has gone before. And on more than one count. Real things that provide examples of type violation abound, and I have given you several examples, none of which you have responded to meaningfully. The set of all phrases is a real thing, and contains itself. The set of programs that pathologically endlessly recurse, but must be shipped and maintained are real things people pay real money for.
Real things that are continuous and entangled in nature are things we, for example, measure temperature in hot ovens and do astronomy with. If a thing is continuous and entangled, it is not amenable to being broken into sets and evaluated sensibly with a discrete logical engine. I have asked and asked how a logical engine rides a bicycle, or chooses the Parallel axiom in geometry, and all you ever seem to do is caugh up are these vague insults in response.
Did you publish that non-tautologic proof that A=A? I thought not.
Definitions to date:
Tabula rasa: a mind without sensations or concepts
Sensorious mind: a mind with sensations but no concepts
Conceiving mind: a mind with both sensations and concepts
The knife edge demarcations come from your explanations:
The mental process was identifying the symbol as representing the concrete experience. The ’tabula rasa’ is at the point of birth, maybe a little earlier. You, as Robbins, misunderstand here. Understanding the first concept gave her the ability to associate other experiences with concepts. The world ceased to be a chaotic flow and became understandable. -LogicWings post 1091
That is also carved upon the blank slate. So far we have pain, necessity (of breathing) and pleasure (for reward of right action). By the time your first hour has passed your meager brain is overflowing with the wonder of it all, and you fall fast asleep so your burgeoning mind can try to make 'sense' of it all. It will take 500 days and ten times as many hours of experience and sleep before you will begin to accumulate enough experience to approach forming a concept. -LogicWings post 1146
I formed the definitions based on your explanation of the process of going from a tabula rasa mind to a conceiving mind. It seems to me that you are asserting a stage (sensations, but no concepts) between tabula rasa and the conceiving mind. I want to give it a name and a definition.
I'll believe it when I see it.
It wasn't 'silly' and I'm tired of this kind of rude characterization of my statements.
Make a brief survey of how you have characterized me and my comments here, and in the previous thread, oh, mr. Pot.
What follows this comment is just a 'no it isn't' denial with no content what-so-ever. You may think you are putting something over, but your not. Just revealing how tiresome you are. This isn't debate, this is childish squabbling.
I rest my case. We had a phrase for this in rhetoric class--we called it "proof by shouting".
Well that explains a lot. And here I thought I was debating a logical scientific type person. We wobble around believing whatever enters our head at the time. DOH
I advise you to Back off of this one, until you develop a better sense of appropriate boundaries. Plenty of useful scientists and mathematicians, and even logicians, have been catholics, and lapsed catholics. I don't intend to make disparaging remarks about your personal religeous demons, and I'd appreciate the same in return.
I missed this. The world according to our Garp.
OK, lets play your tune again. Poor, innocent, sweet, beset mr. LogicWings, assailed left and right by personally insulting rhetoric from Donh.
Or my fascination with the notion that 1+1=2 somehow means the new testement bible is innocent of harm to the jews. Or at least the we don't need to think about that question any more. Metaphorically speaking.
The question is not can a logical engine ride a bike, the question is can a person's thought process violate the laws of logic and still accurately represent reality (reality in this case being that which is not dependent upon our thoughts).
hmmm. How many times am I going to have to repeat this? The wave nature of matter is not the question at issue here. It is called the problem of entanglement, and it is problem for anyone who claims the universality of the law of identity, which you have done nothing to dispel by getting other people to vote with you. My experiment is very straightforward, and you have not explained in any sensible way, what is wrong with it. Why can't I draw a venn diagram on a plate? Why can't buckyballs be elements of sets? Would you find a reason to object if I just fired the buckyballs at the wall with an intersected venn diagram, and claimed x many buckyballs belong to the set A, y many belonged to set B, and the set (A AND B) was non-empty?
As I have said before, if the law of identity always works, then it always works, Nes Pas?
Well, that's just way wrong. It is famous that commutivity was dropped in sub-nuke, first pig outta the gate. It is also, by the way, way wrong that I am the only person who thinks identity is violated sub-nuke. Einstein wouldn't have fought it out with Bohr if he had not been affronted by the notion of non-locality.
Very well, lets strike closer to home with some venerable examples:
How can I think best about how to comfort my wife's periods of desolation using logic? Do you not think I should draw upon my continuous, entangled movie-like memories of what has worked or not worked before, using analogical pattern matching to provide a solution? Think you yea or nay? In what thoroughgoing manner did logic enter into this thought process?
To what logical symbol in the predicate calculus does the word "like" correspond, as in "how like a winter's day in June". Please break down into it's logical components the analogy "oh, that's just like your father!".
Do you claim we don't have thoughts of this nature? Do you claim we don't act usefully on them? Bullfeathers.
I'm going to point out that in no way, shape or means was Nazism a Christian movement. It was specifically -- and objectively verifiably -- an anti-Christian movement. The goal of its leaders was to destroy Christianity.
I quite explicitly make no such ontological claim; I merely claim that where the law of identity was working properly before, in quite similar and familiar mathematical circumstances, it failed for the 2-slit.
However, quantum physics does not say that a 2nd bucky ball is created
Well, yes, not the the point, is it? Quantum physics is notorious for shrugging it's shoulders when asked what it means. You imply an invalid solution to the dilemma in saying "2nd buckyball". No such inference can be made on the evidence. It was the exact and only bucky ball in 2 visibly separated places at once, which was why the law of identity went belly up on this problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.